Jessica Grosh | Which ‘Honest’ History?

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor

Response to Diane Zimmerman’s letter, “An Intentional Misreading?” Sept. 5: 

My apologies for not being clearer in my Aug. 24 letter. 

I spent time discussing ethnic studies because that was the phrase used during the College of the Canyons board meeting, and because I believe that what you deem to be critical race theory is actually ethnic studies. I think a good way to clear this up is for you to explain in a few bullet points what you believe CRT is. Yes, I have heard about CRT on television and online, but until you clarify what specifically is so damaging about students exploring the complexity of race — and racial bias and discrimination in this country — I can’t elaborate further. 

A final comment, though. In your opinion, there’s nothing wrong with ethnic studies but “it would seem that a good old honest and proven United States history class would be enough on the issue.” 

What is a good old honest U.S. history class? Is it the one I was given, where we were told a fairy tale about Thanksgiving and we never learned that many Native Americans were slaughtered just for being on land we wanted? 

Is it the history where slavery is mentioned but its lasting effects aren’t? 

I believe it’s valuable and heartbreaking to know that Black World War II veterans had to fight for freedom and equality once at home while their white counterparts were seen as heroes, but I didn’t learn that in high school history classes. 

An honest history class is one that acknowledges the good and the horrible so that we can take responsibility for the past and use that knowledge to make the present better than it is. 

Jessica Grosh 

Canyon Country 

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS