Liberal Media Cannot Grasp That Smithsonian Flap Is Not About Right-Wing Bigotry

Michie · Aug 22, 2025

Y’all get a second edition today, because I have an hour to kill in the DC airport, and something has irritated me! Imagine that: Your Working Boy is irritated. Whee!

So, driving my rental car to the airport this morning, I didn’t want to get back into my audiobook, so I listened to NPR’s Morning Edition. I caught an interview segment having to do with Donald Trump’s recent complaints about exhibits at the Smithsonian — specifically, about the way slavery is depicted.

Well, I would like to know more specifically about Trump’s criticism, and whether or not it’s valid. I know a fair bit about the wokeness at museums, but I also don’t know what, in particular, Trump is criticizing. Maybe he’s missed the mark. It wouldn’t be the first time. The best you can say about the phrase in his social media post (see below), in which he complained that the Smithsonian is wrong to focus on “how bad Slavery [sic] was,” was sloppy.

So, iin this morning’s broadcast, host Michel Martin interviewed — guess who! — Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project. Here’s the audio link. I guess Ibram X. Kendi wasn’t available.

Naturally there was no discussion about the merit of Trump’s complaints, or the more substantive (I guess) complaints that conservatives have made of the way museums have embraced a highly politicized narrative in the Woke Era. It was simply assumed that Trump Is Wrong And Racist.

Second, of all the critics of Trump you could have on to talk about it, you choose Nikole Hannah-Jones?! She is an entirely ideological figure. Not once did Martin question her about the serious criticism some leading historians have leveled at the 1619 Project for distorting history to serve an ideological narrative. Why not interview a professional historian, instead of an ideological journalist? It seems pretty clear to me that as a matter of journalistic professionalism, Martin ought to have pointed out that Hannah-Jones herself has been credibly accused of doing the same thing she criticizes Trump for doing.

Again, though, none of this seems to have occurred to NPR at all. And they wonder why they were defunded!

Washington journalist Dave Weigel, no conservative he, nailed it here:

Continued below.

NPR: 'What's Water?'

roddreher.substack.com

Chrystal-J · Aug 22, 2025

My take away from Trump's statement was that we should focus on the positive history of the U.S., not that slavery wasn't bad.

RileyG · Aug 23, 2025

Chrystal-J said:
My take away from Trump's statement was that we should focus on the positive history of the U.S., not that slavery wasn't bad.

Bingo!

The Barbarian · Sep 6, 2025

One practical function of history is to remind us of the things that went wrong, so we might avoid them. There are those who think we should gloss over the bad parts of American history so it doesn't upset people.

This is not an unusual response by political leaders. You won't see much about the Cultural Revolution in Chinese schools, and there wasn't much about the great purges in Soviet schools. And in Texas, the law prohibits history classes from teaching facts that might upset students or their parents.

When the state wants docile subjects, that's one of the first things we see.

ralliann · Sep 10, 2025

Chrystal-J said:
My take away from Trump's statement was that we should focus on the positive history of the U.S., not that slavery wasn't bad.

As to include that America is not alone in the practice as well? Why would slavery be a subject of just America? That is biased, that has a purpose which slavery is not the real concern at all, rather a goal to another end.

rambot · Sep 13, 2025

Chrystal-J said:
My take away from Trump's statement was that we should focus on the positive history of the U.S., not that slavery wasn't bad.

Why?

Is it because you are too frightened to deal with it, or because you believe that those who were unjustly treated make you feel bad and you don't wanna feel bad?

Cause that seems like a really, really immature stance to take.

Wolseley · Sep 13, 2025

rambot said:
Why?

Is it because you are too frightened to deal with it, or because you believe that those who were unjustly treated make you feel bad and you don't wanna feel bad?

Cause that seems like a really, really immature stance to take.

Maybe it means that she's mature enough to recognize that continuing to perpetually pout, throw temper tantrums about, and continually keep demanding flagellation over something that ended over 150 years ago is pointless and counterproductive.

Nobody needs to be "frightened to deal with" history. History is what it is. It is there to be examined, to learn from, and to do better next time, not to be used as a cudgel to continually beat people over the head with. There is absolutely nothing that you, me, or anybody else can do about slavery in the antebellum South. Neither the slaves, the plantation owners, or the institutions exist any more. What you could do is try to put a stop to modern slavery, which is endemic in today's world, in the form of abductions, human trafficking, and sexual slavery; young women are snatched out of parking lots and convenience stores every day in this country, drugged, transported, and sold to rich, criminal scumbags to abuse them until they're ruined, then they're killed and dumped into unmarked graves so the scumbag can make way for the next 16-year old schoolgirl walking home from class and will disappear, never to be heard from by her family again. Something about that could be done, but nobody ever talks about that, oh no---it's easier to keep beating the topic of slaves who were all free by 1865.

Secondly, why should Crystal "feel bad"? She's never owned any slaves. Neither have you. Neither have I. Instead of beating one's breast and weeping about what people did almost two centuries ago, it seems to me that it would make a lot more sense to examine the topic and take steps to determine that such a thing will never happen again, and thus improve things for everybody in the future. Take positive steps, and you eliminate the negative ones. Of course, if you're constantly flogging the negative aspects, it's most likely because you don't want things to improve---you have an agenda, an axe to grind, a hatred of a society or a culture and its history, and you want to make sure that everybody knows that they should hate it too, because you feel offended by it. Talk about immaturity---most of us learn by about age seven or so that stamping one's feet and yelling doesn't accomplish much, but today's young people think they can wipe out 100,000 years of injustice by whining. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 13, 2025

rambot said:
Why?

Is it because you are too frightened to deal with it, or because you believe that those who were unjustly treated make you feel bad and you don't wanna feel bad?

Cause that seems like a really, really immature stance to take.

Bingo.

Claiming we should only focus on the "good" of history and downplay or simply ignore the "bad" is like saying we should only include the statistics that back what we want to believe in a scientific survey.

The bottom line is 19th century was not a good time to be an American if you were black or Native or, even Catholic really. Certainly not if you were Irish or German.

But that's hardly the point, is it ? The point is we got better, we tended toward greatness and equality and did way better in the 20th century.

Oh, we still have our problems but we tried to improve.

That's America. And we should celebrate our history, good points and bad or we will never improve.

Of course, there are those who don't want us to improve who want to stay in power at all costs to anyone else. These people what our history sanitized.

And they claim it's "the liberals" that are the problem.

rambot · Sep 13, 2025

Wolseley said:
Maybe it means that she's mature enough to recognize that continuing to perpetually pout, throw temper tantrums about, and continually keep demanding flagellation over something that ended over 150 years ago is pointless and counterproductive.

Nobody needs to be "frightened to deal with" history. History is what it is. It is there to be examined, to learn from, and to do better next time, not to be used as a cudgel to continually beat people over the head with. There is absolutely nothing that you, me, or anybody else can do about slavery in the antebellum South. Neither the slaves, the plantation owners, or the institutions exist any more. What you could do is try to put a stop to modern slavery, which is endemic in today's world, in the form of abductions, human trafficking, and sexual slavery; young women are snatched out of parking lots and convenience stores every day in this country, drugged, transported, and sold to rich, criminal scumbags to abuse them until they're ruined, then they're killed and dumped into unmarked graves so the scumbag can make way for the next 16-year old schoolgirl walking home from class and will disappear, never to be heard from by her family again. Something about that could be done, but nobody ever talks about that, oh no---it's easier to keep beating the topic of slaves who were all free by 1865.

Secondly, why should Crystal "feel bad"? She's never owned any slaves. Neither have you. Neither have I. Instead of beating one's breast and weeping about people did almost two centuries ago, it seems to me that it would make a lot more sense to examine the topic and take steps to determine that such a thing will never happen again, and thus improve things for everybody in the future. Take positive steps, and you eliminate the negative ones. Of course, if you're constantly flogging the negative aspects, it's most likely because you don't want things to improve---you have an agenda, an axe to grind, a hatred of a society or a culture and its history, and you want to make sure that everybody knows that they should hate it too, because you feel offended by it. Talk about immaturity---most of us learn by about age seven or so that stamping one's feet and yelling doesn't accomplish much, but today's young people think they can wipe out 100,000 years of injustice by whining. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

I don't really disagree with most of this but then the question remains.

If you are brave enough to face it, why complain that it is in a museum?

Seriously? because thats all this thread is about

It's not about dei or blm. It's not about "all these colored people bellyaching".

It's about stating historical facts IN A MUSEUM.

Why is that bad?

Chrystal-J · Sep 13, 2025

rambot said:
Why?

Is it because you are too frightened to deal with it, or because you believe that those who were unjustly treated make you feel bad and you don't wanna feel bad?

Cause that seems like a really, really immature stance to take.

What's the point of freaking out over something I can do nothing about, had nothing to do with and no longer exists? I'm Polish by the way, so nobody in my family ever owned slaves. To lament it personally is ridiculous.

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 13, 2025

Chrystal-J said:
What's the point of freaking out over something I can do nothing about, had nothing to do with and no longer exists? I'm Polish by the way, so nobody in my family ever owned slaves. To lament it personally is ridiculous.

The only people freaking out are the people who want to sanitize history.

The rest of use just learn and try to do better.

Also, this statement, written, as it is, on a Christian bulletin board system is hilarious.

(Chucky explains the joke: Why are we worried about a Crucifixion that happened 2 Centuries ago in an Empire that no longer exists, and we can't do anything about ?)

Chrystal-J · Sep 13, 2025

Cosmic Charlie said:
(Chucky explains the joke: Why are we worried about a Crucifixion that happened 2 Centuries ago in an Empire that no longer exists, and we can't do anything about ?)

We don't worry about the crucifixion, we rejoice it. And it's not 'ancient history', Jesus is still alive today.

Michie · Sep 13, 2025

Cosmic Charlie said:
The only people freaking out are the people who want to sanitize history.

The rest of use just learn and try to do better.

Also, this statement, written, as it is, on a Christian bulletin board system is hilarious.

(Chucky explains the joke: Why are we worried about a Crucifixion that happened 2 Centuries ago in an Empire that no longer exists, and we can't do anything about ?)

Because it was the beginning of our Christian history and our gift of Salvation which is still in effect to this day. *shrug*

childeye 2 · Sep 13, 2025

Michie said:
Y’all get a second edition today, because I have an hour to kill in the DC airport, and something has irritated me! Imagine that: Your Working Boy is irritated. Whee!

So, driving my rental car to the airport this morning, I didn’t want to get back into my audiobook, so I listened to NPR’s Morning Edition. I caught an interview segment having to do with Donald Trump’s recent complaints about exhibits at the Smithsonian — specifically, about the way slavery is depicted.

Well, I would like to know more specifically about Trump’s criticism, and whether or not it’s valid. I know a fair bit about the wokeness at museums, but I also don’t know what, in particular, Trump is criticizing. Maybe he’s missed the mark. It wouldn’t be the first time. The best you can say about the phrase in his social media post (see below), in which he complained that the Smithsonian is wrong to focus on “how bad Slavery [sic] was,” was sloppy.

So, iin this morning’s broadcast, host Michel Martin interviewed — guess who! — Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project. Here’s the audio link. I guess Ibram X. Kendi wasn’t available.

Naturally there was no discussion about the merit of Trump’s complaints, or the more substantive (I guess) complaints that conservatives have made of the way museums have embraced a highly politicized narrative in the Woke Era. It was simply assumed that Trump Is Wrong And Racist.

Second, of all the critics of Trump you could have on to talk about it, you choose Nikole Hannah-Jones?! She is an entirely ideological figure. Not once did Martin question her about the serious criticism some leading historians have leveled at the 1619 Project for distorting history to serve an ideological narrative. Why not interview a professional historian, instead of an ideological journalist? It seems pretty clear to me that as a matter of journalistic professionalism, Martin ought to have pointed out that Hannah-Jones herself has been credibly accused of doing the same thing she criticizes Trump for doing.

Again, though, none of this seems to have occurred to NPR at all. And they wonder why they were defunded!

Washington journalist Dave Weigel, no conservative he, nailed it here:

Continued below.

NPR: 'What's Water?'

Liberal Media Cannot Grasp That Smithsonian Flap Is Not About Right-Wing Bigotry

roddreher.substack.com

“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”

“We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made,” he added.

This title looks like propaganda to me. -> Liberal media Cannot Grasp that Smithsonian Flap Is Not About Right-Wing Bigotry.

If an autocrat wants to change what has been preserved in a historical institution because it makes the country look bad, then it is right- wing bigotry. That is to say, in this base political dichotomy --> Democracy/autocracy, it's definitely bigotry coming from an autocrat.

A museum of history is supposed to encapsulate history for future generations. Bigotry and anti-intellectualism is on the rise. Predictably, it makes sense that in an idiocracy, people would find the stupidest people to put in charge.

Liberal Media Cannot Grasp That Smithsonian Flap Is Not About Right-Wing Bigotry

Well-Known Member

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Veteran

Crabby Old White Guy

christian

Senior Member

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Senior Member

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads