OK, Boomer: Peggy Noonan needs to hear the rest of the story

I am 62 years old, but even I am tempted to tell Peggy Noonan, “OK, Boomer.”

That is because she recently published a column titled “Teach Children to Love America,” and although she did not use the word “woke” in her complaint about the current state of grade-school education, I suspect her words were shaped by the political sentiment that justice, fairness, and compassion are somehow bad.

Noonan believes that the nation is not teaching its children to love their country. She says they are “instructed in 100 different ways through 100 different portals that America is and always was a dark and scheming place.” She offers no details about these different ways or portals, she says, because “we all know it” to be true.

She did not win many debate team contests with that strategy: assuming that everyone agrees with you. If they did, there would be no reason to make your claims.

When Noonan and other people voice similar complaints about how and what young people are taught about U.S. history, I believe they are listening to only half of the lesson. When the state of Florida, for instance, makes books about Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson difficult for young people to access, it seems to be hearing only the parts about oppression or racial prejudice; but those stories are told because Rosa Parks and Jackie Robinson prevailed. They encountered an unjust situation, they fought against it, and they won – and America is a better place because of them.

However, Noonan and others do not hear the whole story. She complains in her editorial that children are taught America’s story is “the history of pushing people around, often in an amoral quest for wealth but also because we aren’t very nice.” The stories children learn do not end there; the stories end with American society being changed, moved, if only a little, toward a wider scope of justice. America’s story is a history people fighting against being pushed around, fighting against being economically exploited by others, and trying to change the behavior of mean or selfish people.

Not long after her column appeared, the iconic baseball player Reggie Jackson attended a game that recognized the Negro Leagues. Speaking on Fox, he remarked on the racism he faced as a Black player in a predominantly White sport in the late 1960s and 1970s. He said, "The racism when I played here, the difficulty of going through different places where we traveled — fortunately I had a manager and I had players on the team that helped me get through it. But I wouldn't wish it on anybody.”

Someone like Noonan may only hear the negative, the description of the nation's recent history of racism. If she did, she is missing the inspiring part of the story: Jackson persevered, and he did so with the help of his manager (white) and fellow players (mostly white). Jackson’s story, like so many stories, is about the hard work of making a nation a better place.

She ends her brief review of the bad stuff by stating another supposed lesson for today’s young people: “And we never meant it about the Declaration.”

Noonan does not state what “we” never meant; she makes her reader assume this. I would venture the guess she is referring to the passage about “all men are created equal.” I assume this because so many people who complain about “wokeness” are really complaining about other Americans fighting for equal rights; those Americans are fighting to have their “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” recognized. The people doing the oppressing – or at least objecting to the extension of rights to others  – treat this request as somehow a denial of their own liberties.

Her mention of the Declaration of Independence reminded me of its famous reference to American Indians; they are described as “merciless Indian savages.” Noonan’s column appeared around the same time as the anniversary of the American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. One hundred years ago, the United States finally recognized the citizenship of Native people born within its borders. Until then, being born within the U.S. borders to families that had lived here before those borders existed did not automatically bestow citizenship – despite that being the case for everyone else.

Again, a story of progress. Although some American Indians have differing opinions about the Citizenship Act, from the perspective of the expanding civil rights, this is a story of change that Noonan might overlook. The United States still makes life difficult for American Indian communities, but the transition from “merciless Indian savages” to U.S. citizenship illustrates positive change.

Noonan says her Memorial Day sermon was inspired by her recent reading of an old book: A Manual of Patriotism, for use in the public schools of New York, written by Charles Rufus Skinner and published in 1900.

More pressing than the lessons of social justice, according to Noonan, are anodyne lessons about patriotism, including the legends of Betsy Ross and Paul Revere. I write “legends,” because the stories she wants students to learn are generally accepted as fabrications or embellishments. Regardless of whether Betsy Ross sewed the flag used in the American Revolution or whether Paul Revere’s ride happened as described in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, I doubt anyone will be offended by their stories. Also, I would not be surprised to learn these stories are repeated in today’s classrooms, or at least these stories are available to students in their school libraries. That is, the stories favored by Noonan are not being censored.

I looked at the book Noonan likes. It includes some aspirational words from George Washington (surely Noonan would approve!). In describing elements that are required for the success of the new country he led, he wrote the nation needed:

“The prevalence of that pacific and friendly disposition among the people of the United States which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and politics; to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity; and, in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community” (359).

Those opposed to “wokeness” seem to believe recognizing civil rights of people different from themselves somehow diminishes their own rights. Many of them resent being told they enjoy “white privilege” (a phrase the Heritage Foundation wants banished from all school texts), despite its obvious existence and influence – like Noonan says, “We all know it is true.” Washington’s words, if applied today, would be asking some people to “sacrifice their individual advantages,” such as white privilege, to benefit other people.

Washington has another interesting statement in Skinner’s book, another aspect he believed was essential to the nation’s existence and prosperity:

“A sacred regard to public justice” (359).

A scholar of Washington’s writings can correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret “public justice” to be something like “civil rights.” I assume a public justice is a right available to all members of the nation. That is definitely a worthy cause and something that young students should be taught to honor.

If it is sacred, we should treat it that way. Many sacred lessons, including those in the Bible, the importance of which Noonan professes early in her column, tell stories about an important value being violated and the consequences of that transgression; those lessons often are paired with examples of the value being honored and the benefits that follow. If we tell only the feel-good version of the story, we do not get the full lesson.

For instance, we should not ignore the fact that Washington wrote these compelling words while at the same time owning slaves. In his mind, some people did not deserve the public justice he claimed was sacred.

That does not mean we “cancel” Washington, but it gives us the opportunity to recognize our nation’s growth. We can separate the man from his words; we can see that the ideals he espoused were bigger than his own understanding of them.

A deep irony may be lost on those who oppose “wokeness” in the way Noonan and others do while espousing Christian values and traditions. Many times, they do not want any negative stories about American history to be taught, especially stories about injustices or suffering caused by white people. What would happen if they treated their sacred text in the same way? What if we eliminated from the Bible those stories that made humans look bad? What if we eliminated stories of misbehavior and transgression? What if people in church said those stories about human sinfulness made them feel bad about being human? There might not be much left of the Bible.

I grew up attending a Southern Baptist church, and we understood the Old Testament as being the story of God’s chosen people moving in and out of His favor, based on their behavior. I see this as analogous to the United States. Its history is one of forward and backward movement in the nation’s understanding of freedom and responsibility, of extending rights and recognition to an ever-widening circle of humanity. This expansion has been achieved with great difficulty and often with violent backlash. Yet we keep trying.