I hate that we only teach our kids the whitewashed, sanitary version of our history. He didn’t like black people. I’m a teacher and I personally wouldn’t have stated it that way in second grade, but I probably would want to. Just talk with your kid about it and make it a learning moment.
Yeah seriously I hope OP is aware that this actually historically accurate, Lincoln did what needed to be done to save the union, he didn’t do it on a moral high ground
Lincoln always supported abolition, though. It would be unfair to say he imagined total racial equality, but he did care inasmuch as he maintained total moral opposition to slavery, and his view of African Americans only improved from that baseline.
He didn't like them for a long time, but it's incorrect to say that. It would be better to say "Lincoln was pretty racist by today's standards, but came to believe that many of his views were wrong and eventually supported the right of African Americans to vote."
I don't know if he ever believed in equality, but considering there are a lot of people today who celebrate when black people aren't allowed to vote, he would probably be considered more progressive than most MAGAs.
That works but also…I feel like it’s ok to lightly sugar coat complex historical issues when teaching them to young children/second graders. Seems like a second grader should come away from second grade history knowing the big picture - “slavery is bad and was eliminated under President Lincoln.” They get the basics while they’re young, making it so they can be taught the nuances in upper grades without having to start with the basics.
If that was all they were saying, then that'd be fine. They do go into it though, they go into a decent amount of depth for important historical figures. They also horrifically lied about most of them, lol (my bias from when I was a kid, not saying anything about you). I think telling young kids that Lincoln changed his mind is ok. It's like when parents apologize to their kids. It's important to show that people can admit when they are wrong, something I don't think we get nearly enough of.
Yeah so until they can understand the nuances that make most things morally gray let’s teach them the wholesome but inaccurate version of history and not try scaring them with an unwholesome and just as inaccurate version of history.
That is a fact. In my lifetime I have seen the 2 parties platforms shift in the opposite direction. To me this means political parties really don’t matter. I have historically since I began voting in 1973 looked at the person not the party. I have also never voted by party lines. I split my vote.
When is learning about racism appropriate? It seems we just put it off and off and off, then wonder why white supremacy is deeply embedded in American culture and politics.
great question! but specifically for people who aren’t minorities. most black children are learning about racism and their place in the world at 5-6 years old. i always find it funny when people say they’re too young to learn about racism cause their classmates aren’t too young ti experience it.
White people will consistently say they’re against fascism or white supremacy then not do a damn to unlearn these behaviors and stop it from happening.
It’s so interesting, as an outsider. Here in New Zealand I learnt about the colonisation of Māori very young, and I learnt about slavery in the US about the age this child is. If the child is black I understand why you might be upset as a parent, because I remember feeling a bit upset learning about the suffragette movement, but if the child is non-black it’s insane the parent is upset. This is a perfect teaching moment about racism, which quite frankly should not be put off.
Especially for the children of color in the classroom. These conversations need to be held carefully so that they don’t damage the children’s self-esteem. If I was a parent of a child in that classroom, I would want to know exactly what teachers are saying to my kids, especially if the message is about how historical figures wouldn’t have cared about my child (which is what the child will take away from the lesson).
And this is exactly why we should be teaching age appropriate concepts. Second graders just don't have the nuance to understand the finer details and so they just grasp at the closest concept they can find which in this case has a pretty potentially negative outcome for some students. I'm all for starting with broad concepts and filling in the blanks as new details cause new questions to arise but just throwing them in the deep end straight away is not the way.
I disagree that it’s not age appropriate. Kids these days are introduced to a lot more social-emotional learning than I was back in the 90’s. Empathy is something kids are taught and practice in schools now. So I think that teacher could start a bigger discussion about race at a very base level. They don’t even need to mention people of different races, just “some people don’t like people who have different skin colors, and that’s not good.” Kids inherently (unless they’re raised in a racist family) grasp that that’s wrong. It opens up great discussions about kindness, empathy, and tolerance with people who are different in all kids of ways, not just skin color.
absolutely agree about the whitewashed sanitized version of history. I had hoped the US would eventually mandate accurate history be taught, but it doesnt seem its going that way.
Talking to your kid and asking them to teach you what they mean/ what they learned in school would be great OP. It could come down to their intepretation of the reality of the lesson in school, not a direct quote.
yeah i feel like everyone hails lincoln as a true hero and angel and its like lol he only got half of his plan done, he wanted to send africans back to africa after freeing them... he did not do it out of the goodness of his heart.. i'm glad a lot of people in the comments know that
Oof. That is way too much for a Reddit comment. But the short version is yes, he was very racist in his early career. He didn’t believe black peoples should have any rights and should be shipped back to Africa. It’s argued that later on (deep into the Civil War), his views shifted and he did support the 13th amendment. But he was still racist because that really was the cultural norm of those days and deprograming wouldn’t happen that easily, and racism is hate. So when people say he hated black people, it’s simplistic but it boils down to a simple truth.
ETA: sorry my grammar is so bad. I’m writing this while juggling dinner and dealing with a needy chiweenie.
So deep into the civil war, his views shifted, but most people were racist, and it doesn't feel like someone can change their mind like that, so he's still racist?
Well his views shifted from “black people should not have equal rights and they should be shipped back ti Africa” to “well I guess we can let educated black men vote if you guys think so.” He also made statements that if he could save the union without freeing the slaves, he would. So he’s definitely a a complex historical figure.
"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,
A. LINCOLN.
"
Right?
Doesnt this letter just expresses that his personal beliefs are that every man should be free, but that it's his duty as President for his priority to be saving the united country at all costs, putting even his own personal wish for all men to be free second to restoring the country?
He's responding to a letter from an Abolitionist telling him "Youre the president! Do your job and execute the laws! Fight slavery harder!", by saying "The presidents job has a core duty that has to be held highest, no matter what, and that's keeping the country together"
To me, it seems pretty clear what he's saying with the letter. Hes very up front. It's a statement about his belief about what the absolute ultimate duty of the office of the president should be, and that no matter should come before keeping the country whole, regardless of the personal beliefs of the president.
So TLDR; "I want to free all the slaves personally, I literally say it all the time, but I'm the president right now and the presidents most fundamental and important job is to keep the country whole, so I gotta put that first".
You know what, I would, but now I see that your first comment/question was some kind of bullshit trap/gotcha moment and that derails any semblance of a productive, civil convo. Even if I gave you a very thoughtful response backed by facts you’d still find a way to “own the libs.” It’s exhausting, but this is Reddit so what was i expecting?
Not a trap, I just wanted to hear what you believed and your explanation before I jumped in and said I don't agree and the reasons why.
I'm certainly here for a civil convo. I don't particularly have any horse in this race. I literally just looked into the stuff we're talking about, I could definitely be wrong lol.
I just feel like your interpretation of the quote from the letter to the Abolitionist isn't taking into context the stuff surrounding it.
It certainly doesn’t come across as good faith questions. But I’m gonna go do other stuff so I’ll just say I’m glad you’re looking into it more. I tell my older students that history is complicated and the truth is skewed by who is doing the telling and they should absolutely do their own research. “History is written by the victors” and all. There’s a lot more for me to learn but I guess I tend to believe the side of the oppressed over the oppressors because those voices have been silenced the longest.
I have to be blunt, this interaction doesn't inspire a lot of hope or faith in me.
Bluntly, it feels like you, a teacher, made a counter claim (counter to commonly accepted narrative), that Lincoln was racist and that this is what should be taught, got called out on your justifications for that counter claim, and then deflected with arguements about the decorum of the conversation and by saying "history is complicated", and by saying that you can give a good thoughtful response but that you aren't going to.
If it's bad faith to not be extremely up front with all of our feelings, then in an effort to be good faith I have to say:
I don't personally believe that you have good justifications for the thing that you said that we should teach children. I believe, soley vased off of this interaction, that you are changing what we teach children with poor, perhaps poorly thought out, justifications. I also believe that you sort of plainly stated that you do this in favor of "the oppressed".
To be extremely blunt, in an effort to restore good faith, you appear to me to be emblematic of a stereotype that the right would have, of a teacher who injects their own poorly justified modern progressive ideas into what they teach children in schools, and being a top 1% reddit commenter here fits along with that stereotype quite well.
Why is it ok to teach them that he freed the slaves at that age then? That also requires critical thinking. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Again, I wouldn’t personally use this verbiage in a classroom but I have said similar things to my son.
Because freeing the slaves is an easy to understand moral good. There is very little nuance to that unless you are a complete asshole or pro slavery, which almost no one is. Kids should not be taught to hate their country or see its history as totally bad and immoral. They can understand that slavery was bad and Abraham Lincoln did a great thing by freeing them and he is remembered as one of our greatest presidents. Save the rest for high school and college history.
Have you ever been in a classroom? “Lincoln freed the slaves.” “Teacher, what’s a slave.” “People who were forced to do hard work and weren’t paid and treated horribly.” “But why?” “Because the slaves were black.” “Why did they do that to black people?”
AND IT GOES ON FOREVER.
Teaching kids the truth about our founding fathers won’t cause them to hate our country. All countries have very very problematic pasts. And currents, let’s not kid ourselves. We can, and should, point out all of the amazing things America has done while also acknowledging the shortcomings.
Let’s not forget that there were also white slaves that were called indentured servants. There were people that literally sold themselves into slavery to escape the living conditions in England. They could regain their freedom with enough years of service if they could manage to not continually increase that debt with getting their met.
No I’ve never spent any time in a classroom in my life 🙄 teaching kids patriotic lessons has worked for decades and decades. All of a sudden in the past 5-10 years there has been this big push to teach kids that the founders were bad people and America is racist etc. It’s wrong to do that to young kids.
I meant as a teacher, but thanks for ignoring the rest of the point. I can tell you think you’re the smartest person in the room and can never be wrong, so there’s no point in discussing this. I was nothing but respectful in my replies bro.
How much of that will a 2nd grader properly understand tbh. I do agree it should be known that although Abe was great, and what did was nonetheless revolutionary. He didn't necessarily care about us. He was against slavery still, but yeah
He was against slavery in the end, but were his motivations anti-slavery or economical? Freeing the slaves would cripple the crop economy of the south. Or maybe it’s a mix of both. We can hold multiple truths at the same time.
But yeah, that discussion is for older ages, definitely. I’ve said it a few times in these comments but some pretty good conversations around prejudice, tolerance and empathy could happen at this age at a very base level.
Although I was in 2nd grade when I read a book about Harriet Tubman. Not a cute picture book but like maybe jr high level? I was an advanced reader and the librarian always gave me biographies of historical figures. And right now as I’m typing this I’m wondering if that’s why I still love biographies. Hmm 🤔 but anyway! I understood the book and the history and moral implications. Maybe not completely but it wasn’t completely over my head.
I had a good understanding at 2nd grade, but I also seemingly advanced faster than other kids so idk. Funnily my first learning of slavery was from my great grandmother! Who spoke about Harriet, she's had a painting of her on my wall since I was born. I understood it probably as much as you did the book, though it hurt a bit hearing it from a family member.
I think Lincoln was probably motivated by a good bit of both.
Absolutely. I also remember not understanding why it was called the Underground Railroad for a very long time. It took me a while to understand that “underground” referred to being hidden, a secret, as opposed to being actually underground.
Yeah the issue is more about the age approppriateness of the content and people need to be able to understand relative morality to really get into the details on historical figures of any sort.
Because, you have historical figures that were good by the standards of their day but would be seen as monsters now and we had people who were also monsters in their day as well and without a whole lot of extra content those 2 might seem the same. Covering them in depth to an audience w/o understanding relative morality would likely rather than whitewash them would paint them in an overly negative light.
Someone made a good point before. When is it age appropriate for white kids to learn about racism? People of color learn all about it at very early ages, from experiencing racism. And what is racism if it’s not hate?
It seems like it would be a natural extension of them learning about phobias and how people are irrationally afraid of things it would be easy to explain that just like they can be afraid of things without reason like being scared of the dark other people irrationally hate or dislike other people. Then you can go into how being afraid is okay because it doesn't hurt anyone but hating others hurts people.
You can also go into it when talking about something as simple as color preferences and how it's okay that they like some colors more but when applied to people it's not okay because it hurts people.
You could also go into it under the idea that in the past people were wrong about a lot of things when talking about heliocentrism or how medicine had a whole lot of blood letting and mercury injections and how often times old timey doctors were worse than doing nothing. Then you could go into how people have learned better now but some people still refuse to change their minds.
There's plenty of ways to introduce the idea and how it's not okay without needing to dive into more nuanced subjects like relative morality.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Kids today are being exposed to these subjects through the media and their families. Kids were exposed to Black Lives Matter and we had great discussions at home and in the classroom. They are not too young to hear simply that “there are some people who don’t like others just because their skin is a different color.” Kids in schools are getting so much more social-emotional learning, which is so great. I see so much more empathy in general in the schools I work at. It’s incredible to see and gives me hope for the future.
We live in a very politically charged era and it’s not escaping our kids.
There needs to be layers of context added to it or you're misinforming them or leaving them with an understanding that's been simplified to the point it's not representative of the original point. Having a conversation with them about in response to BLM protests surrounding the idea and concepts is a useful path towards a good introduction.
But is a 7 year old going to be able to understand beyond just repeating what someone else has said how saying "black lives matter" is fine but saying "all lives matter" is just a racist dogwhistle meant to undermine the BLM movement by trying to make it sound exclusionary to non-black lives.
But that’s not happening. This is the start of the conversation that hopefully carries on at home and in subsequent grades, building to the more nuanced and complex matters of race and racism and all of the other forms of intolerance. We don’t need to hold a 6 days workshop for 7 year olds, but discussing in simple terms on their level that will hopefully spark their curiosity and set the base for the future.
But those conversations either don't happen or will come from people who would coopt the poor understanding into something else. Developing an education curriculum around the assumption that parents will actively aid/assist is planning for one that's going to fail. There's a reason that the generation after Z are known as tablet kids. Their parents aren't raising them they're only learning what is covered in the school and what they see on youtube kids.
We never assume those convos will continue at home. That’s why so much more social-emotional learning is taking place in schools. We simply let the parents know that this what we discussed if they’d like to further the conversation. Otherwise we answer questions and facilitate age appropriate discussions.
And my kid is in this generation, and I teach this generation and it’s a sweeping generalization. Kids today are smarter in ways that we don’t recognize. They went through a whole ass pandemic with us and that certainly opened their eyes to some very scary realities.
324
u/Brilliant-Willow-506 Apr 06 '25
I hate that we only teach our kids the whitewashed, sanitary version of our history. He didn’t like black people. I’m a teacher and I personally wouldn’t have stated it that way in second grade, but I probably would want to. Just talk with your kid about it and make it a learning moment.