Why We Need to Discuss How We Teach Kids About Racism in United States History

In the second part of my two-part blog post on Critical Race Theory (CRT), I said that it seems like the theory has gotten mixed in there with larger, yet important, discussions on how classrooms should navigate through topics of race and racism. I even conveyed in my post that such discussions are needed. This is an opinion I feel strongly about as someone who was a history major in college and is still a self-professed American history nerd.

However, what I didn’t go into in said post was why those discussions are needed.

So, why are these discussions necessary? Why can’t we just go on with history lesson plans that teach about America’s greatness, without even so much as questioning it?

Simply put, not teaching about the parts of America’s past and present that involve racism is not a complete teaching of American history.

How can you have a truthful teaching of American history without talking about how there were slaves for nearly the first 80 years of the history of the United States, and how those slaves counted as 3/5 of a person?[1] Or how it took a bloody civil war to end slavery?[2] Or how it took nearly a century beyond that for legalized racial segregation to become a thing of the past? Or how the “War on Drugs” in more recent times has jailed millions of African Americans, thereby taking away millions of African Americans’ right to vote?[3] All these things are a part of our history.

If we start talking about Native Americans, we run into a whole other element of American history that is inconvenient for some to teach about, yet would leave us with an incomplete picture of American history if we don’t teach it. This includes the killing of so many Native Americans, one of the most infamous examples being the Trail of Tears during the period in which Andrew Jackson was president.[4] It includes the largest mass execution in American history—38 Dakota warriors were hanged during the Sioux Uprising in 1862.[5] Policies were so brutal against many Native Americans that the idea of “kill the Indian and save the man” (an ideology which relates to Native Americans being taught at white boarding schools) was considered humanitarian reform.[6]

And then there is our history when it comes to many other groups of people not considered white during their times. Internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II,[7] the Chinese Exclusion Act (which specifically prohibited a group of people; in this case, Chinese people, from immigrating to the United States),[8] and the despise many Americans felt towards Irish escaping strife during the mid-19th century[9] are but a few notable examples of dark elements of America’s history when it comes to the treatment of people who aren’t or weren’t viewed as white. The treatment of people coming from Ireland in the mid-18th century, in particular, gives me a lot of pause, given the parallels I’ve seen between how those from Ireland were treated and the treatment of certain groups of refugees today (particularly refugees coming from places that are majority-Muslim).

All of these things need to be taught in American history, even though such parts of American history are unsavory, and even if such parts of American history may challenge certain beliefs some of us may hold about this country. In particular, teaching such parts of American history may challenge the idea that America is and always has been morally superior to other nations—an idea often associated with American exceptionalism. But sometimes, a truthful looking back at any history, whether it be with the United States or with one’s one family, contains some difficult aspects that we wish didn’t exist.

As to how to teach these elements of American history, I will not comment on that. I am not a teacher or professor, and therefore I do not have the sort of knowledge about teaching methods that are needed for me to give an intelligent opinion on how these things should be taught. However, what I do know is that these are things that should be taught if we are to give the students of today and tomorrow a more complete picture of American history than what some teachings of American history currently provide.


[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise

[2] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xv

[3] https://apnews.com/article/war-on-drugs-75e61c224de3a394235df80de7d70b70

[4] https://www.britannica.com/event/Trail-of-Tears

[5] https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-frontier/How-the-West-was-won#ref1262439

[6] https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3505#:~:text=Pratt’s%20motto%20was%20%22kill%20the%20Indian%20and%20save%20the%20man.%22&text=During%20the%20late%2019th%20century,reservations%2C%20and%20eradicate%20tribal%20organizations.

[7] https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation

[8] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Exclusion-Act

[9] It is also worth noting that the notion of whiteness has since expanded to include the Irish. The subject of what whiteness means is its own topic though, and beyond the purview of this blog post. https://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis

Advancing the Cause of Missing Black and Indigenous People

One of the things noted by some Black and Indigenous activists again and again in the case of the missing (now dead) young woman, Gabby Petito, was that there doesn’t seem to be the same attention on missing Black and Indigenous people that there was on Petito, a young white woman. And, while I don’t have any hard statistics in terms of the attention on missing people by race, I am hard-pressed to think of a time that a missing Black or Indigenous person got the sort of national attention for their cause that Petito got for hers (though if my memory is failing me, please let me know in the comments section).

Given the attention on this issue, I want to use this Indigenous Peoples’ Day to introduce my readers to organizations I came across that focus on helping Black and Indigenous people and their families. I’m going to highlight a few of these organizations, as well as links to their websites, below:

One organization that has received a large following for their focus on missing Indigenous people is Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women USA (MMIW USA). The organization’s focus is twofold: trying to play their role in bringing Indigenous people home while also providing support to the families of the missing and murdered. https://mmiwusa.org/

Some of the experts on the issue of missing Indigenous women link violence against them to a disproportionate number of them going missing.[1] Therefore, organizations dedicated to addressing violence against Indigenous women and girls, such as the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center (https://www.niwrc.org/) and the Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women (https://www.csvanw.org/) are worth people’s support. Speaking of the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, they have a page listing various regional coalitions also involved in the work of addressing violence against Indigenous women in their regions and/or tribes, for those interested in seeing this work also get supported at a more regional or even tribal level.

Another organization that has received a large following for their work with missing people of color in general is the Black and Missing Foundation, Inc. (BAMFI). Their work is particularly focused on trying to help find missing persons of color, bring awareness to the issue, and provide resources for families of said missing persons. https://blackandmissinginc.com/

There is a site called Our Black Girls that highlights the stories of mistreated, missing, and murdered Black women in the United States. While this seems to be more of a personal passion project for the person running the site than an organization per se, donations help keep this site (and its mission) going strong. https://ourblackgirls.com/

These are a few organizations and entities I found that are involved in the advocacy of missing Black and Indigenous people in the United States. I’m hoping that this post will at least introduce readers to some places pushing for causes that are worth greater attention and support.[2]

One other note I should make before ending this post was that I struggled to find that many entities focused on issues related to missing Black and Indigenous people (perhaps reflecting the relative lack of attention on this issue), so if you’re aware of any additional organizations involved in that work, please mention that in the comments section below.


[1] https://apnews.com/article/missing-in-indian-country-north-america-mountains-mo-state-wire-sd-state-wire-cb6efc4ec93e4e92900ec99ccbcb7e05

[2] If you’re wondering where to donate and where not to donate, not just here but in general, feel free to consult the blog post I wrote on this subject: https://blindinjusticeblog.com/2017/08/29/where-to-donate-and-where-not-to-donate/

Access to Clean, Safe Drinking Water: A Racial Justice Issue

An image of water. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

When some of us (particularly those of us of means) in the United States think of places that lack access to clean drinking water, we think of certain countries on the African continent. And, it is true that parts of Africa struggle to access even the most basic of water services—nine of the ten worst countries in the world in terms of access to clean water are located on that continent.[1]

However, I am concerned that many of us may be blind to issues of water access at home, in the United States of America. Furthermore, I am concerned that many of us may be blind about how this access to water is a racial justice issue.

Sure, a major report on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, a few years ago cited systemic racism as being at the core of the problems with the crisis (Flint is a majority-Black city),[2] but the situation in Flint is only a microcosm of widespread problems when it comes to water issues and racial justice. Consider these facts:

  • 2 million Americans lack access to running water and basic indoor plumbing as of November 2019. Native Americans are 19 times more likely than their white counterparts to be without indoor plumbing, while African American and Latinx people have no indoor plumbing at almost twice the rate of white people.[3]
  • Tap water that violates legal water safety standards in the United States is 40% more likely to serve people of color.[4]
  • Rising water bills, which in turn makes it difficult for households to afford their own water, has disproportionately affected Black communities.[5]

Without meaning to belittle the importance of making sure that people in different countries all around the world have access to clean and safe drinking water, maybe we should also look at the issues with water access and safety in our own backyard, too. And we should look at these issues through a racial justice lens because it is clear that there is a connection between race and water access/safety. To that end, water access is not just a human rights issue (because every human on this planet should have the right to clean, safe, affordable drinking water), but also a racial justice issue.

While water may not get the sort of attention issues-wise that certain other elements of racial justice advocacy may be getting right now, it is no less important. After all, if we are given water that leaves us unwell in some way, then we end up unable to advocate for the other racial justice issues at hand. As such, water access and cleanliness, while not getting the attention it often deserves, should get attention in the push for racial justice, and particularly racial justice for Black and Indigenous communities.


[1] https://www.worldvision.org/clean-water-news-stories/10-worst-countries-access-clean-water

[2] https://apnews.com/article/us-news-race-and-ethnicity-mi-state-wire-flint-michigan-df42de2ec4424193866467a2981ccb51

[3] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/2-million-americans-dont-have-access-to-running-water-and-basic-plumbing-2019-11-20

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/daphneewingchow/2021/02/28/a-recent-survey-casts-new-light-on-americas-racial-and-water-divide/?sh=16840f221a6e

[5] https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Water_Report_FULL_5_31_19_FINAL_OPT.pdf

What Is…BIPOC?

Some terms are criticized as social justice jargon. However, many of these terms are important to know about and understand.

Over the past couple of years, one term that has increased in usage is BIPOC. This term has seen a particularly significant increase in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.[1]

But what is BIPOC, and why is that term significant?

In short, BIPOC is an acronym that stands for Black, Indigenous, and people of color. However, it is more than “just” an acronym—it is an acronym that is meant to “highlight the unique relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black (African Americans) people have, which shapes the experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all people of color within a U.S. context.”[2]

In reading many of the sentiments of those who like the term BIPOC, one common theme seems to be how the term reinforces the connections between Black and Indigenous people in experiencing racism in an America. In a way, BIPOC is an acronym of solidarity. While there may be certain experiences of Black people that differ from certain experiences of Indigenous people (for example, how some Black families still grapple with the legacy of slavery and segregation while some Indigenous families grapple with the legacies of Indian boarding schools), there is also that commonality in experiencing that relationship to whiteness that links Black and Indigenous people.

It is worth noting that there is another acronym different from BIPOC, yet also related: POC. POC stands for people of color. Before the events of the past year and a few months, I seldom saw BIPOC but commonly saw POC on social media and elsewhere.

My mention of POC, of course, provokes another question: Does this mean that we should use BIPOC instead of POC from now on? If a 2020 National Public Radio piece which asks the same question is an indicator of anything, opinions are divided on the question.[3] There are strong opinions on this question, but also differing ones. I personally do not feel it is in my place to be involved in the debate over whether to use BIPOC or POC, as I don’t fall under the POC/BIPOC umbrella.

What I do feel, though, is that for those of us who aren’t POC/BIPOC, we should understand both acronyms and their significance. Yet, at the same time, we should be ready to understand what is being talked about when we hear or see others talk about POC or BIPOC, and be ready to use either acronym depending on what our POC/BIPOC neighbors, friends, and colleagues prefer. Hopefully, those who have read this post will now have a greater understanding of both terms when they are used.


[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bipoc-meaning-where-does-it-come-from-2020-04-02/

[2] https://www.thebipocproject.org/

[3] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918418825/is-it-time-to-say-r-i-p-to-p-o-c

Native Americans and Land Rights

In a blog post a few weeks ago, I discussed the Amazon rainforest fires in terms of how the Brazilian government was doing away with or disregarding rights for the natives of that land.

That post got me thinking about Native American rights, and particularly Native American land rights. The result of that thinking was this blog post, purposefully published on Columbus Day.[1]

That thinking also led me to a United States Supreme Court case from nearly 200 years ago, back to when John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In this case, which is known as Johnson v. M’Intosh, the court had a case before them where they had to determine whose land rights were superior: those of plaintiffs whose land claims came from Native Americans or those of defendants whose land claims came from a United States land grant.[2] The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the defendants’ claims to the lands were superior. Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision, put into legal writing what is called the “Doctrine of Discovery,” a doctrine which said that European “discoverers” of land inhabited by non-Europeans have rights to the land.[3] This doctrine has existed for centuries, going back to Pope Nicholas V’s papal bull Romanus Pontifex,[4] but Chief Justice Marshall’s decision made this doctrine a part of the legal fabric of this country.

The consequences of this doctrine have been significant. Since European discoverers had rights to the land, not Native Americans who already had the land, it has allowed for the pushing of Native Americans off their former lands and for the killing of Native Americans in the process. And, when this doctrine hasn’t killed Native Americans, it has at the very least disenfranchised many of them.

To make matters worse, the Doctrine of Discovery remains a major part of the American legal system. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the very Doctrine of Discovery that has caused so much harm when she wrote a majority opinion for a Supreme Court decision in 2005.[5] And, to my knowledge, there has been nothing to undo that Doctrine of Discovery being part of America’s legal framework.

This is not to say that there is no hope in terms of acknowledging the wrongs of the doctrine, let alone doing anything about it. Many prominent entities, ranging from the United Nations in its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[6] to the World Council of Churches (a fellowship of churches that includes the United Methodist Church, Episcopal churches from several regions, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, to name a few),[7] have repudiated this doctrine either explicitly or implicitly (as the UN did so without specifically mentioning the words “Doctrine of Discovery”). If these efforts show anything, it’s that more people are realizing the damage of this doctrine, and that maybe such a realization will eventually make its way to the American legal system. And hopefully more people and groups will come to this realization, because acknowledging the damage of the Doctrine of Discovery is one step, albeit a significant step, towards addressing the historical lack of land rights for Native Americans.


[1] For more on my feelings about Christopher Columbus and Columbus Day in general (which, as my readers can tell, are not positive feelings), I encourage you to read my post about the person and the holiday that I wrote two years ago: https://blindinjusticeblog.com/2017/10/10/why-i-blogged-today-even-though-columbus-day-was-yesterday/

[2] Lexis-Nexis probably does a much better job of describing the case than I could, so I encourage all to read the Lexis-Nexis summary of Johnson v. M’Intosh: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-johnson-v-m-intosh

[3] Chief Justice Marshall goes into this doctrine when writing about the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh.

[4] http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html

[5] I am a fan of Ruth Bader Ginsburg overall, but, as sad as it is for me to say this, she invoked the Doctrine of Discovery when she wrote the majority opinion of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-855.ZO.html

[6] Page 3 of this declaration affirms “further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.” https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

[7] https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/executive-committee/2012-02/statement-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery-and-its-enduring-impact-on-indigenous-peoples