Descendant of slaves shames Smithsonian’s woke ‘indoctrination’ against the ‘greatest nation on earth’
By Bram de Vries ·
The persistent attempt by cultural institutions to treat history not as a ledger of facts but as an instrument of social engineering is precisely the kind of bureaucratic…
History as a Tool for Social Control, Not Commerce
The persistent attempt by cultural institutions to treat history not as a ledger of facts but as an instrument of social engineering is precisely the kind of bureaucratic overreach I find most galling. The spectacle surrounding the Smithsonian National Museum of American History (NMAH) and its director, Anthea Hartig, confirms this suspicion. As reported across multiple platforms—including foxnews.com and noticias.foxnews.com—Hartig’s assertion that "the United States’ long and violent racial history continues to be present in our reckoning" reads less like academic inquiry and more like a directive for perpetual grievance. This is not the spirit of enterprise or exchange; it is the language of mandated guilt, designed to make citizens feel perpetually indebted to an imagined redress.
The Illusion of Mandatory Reckoning
The central conflict, laid out by Bishop Earl Walker Jackson Sr., is clear: history should be facts, and the public must draw their own conclusions about what those facts mean. Jackson argues forcefully that Hartig’s approach—which he calls "indoctrination"—is designed to generate a specific emotional response: one of being "angry and bitter and resentful" toward the country itself. This ideological capture is allegedly fueled by sources like Howard Zinn, whose work Jackson describes as nothing more than a polemic against America.
Jackson’s critique extends beyond mere museum displays; it targets the very definition of American opportunity. He counters the narrative that one must view America through a lens of systemic fault by stating, "I think loving America is easy because... my life has just been wonderfully blessed." This personal testament—a product of a broken home who thrives in this nation—is perhaps the most potent argument against the academic cynicism being peddled. It suggests that opportunity and human flourishing are not gifts to be grudgingly granted by an ever-critical state, but rather earned through market participation and individual grit.
The Peril of Redefining Citizenship Through Narrative
The struggle over how American history is interpreted echoes profound systemic upheavals. Consider the period known as Reconstruction—a time when the legal and social definition of citizenship rights was fiercely contested following a massive upheaval. In both instances, attempts to define who belongs, and under what terms, often devolve into mandated narratives that prioritize punitive definitions over practical reality.
The current push at the NMAH is nothing less than an attempt to regulate the intellectual space—to place tariffs on free thought itself. It suggests that because of a past wrong (the slave trade, the eugenicist views of Margaret Sanger, or Zinn's critique), all subsequent action must be defined by perpetual correction and state intervention. This mindset is fundamentally anti-capitalist; it assumes that the solution to historical failure lies in more bureaucracy, more regulation, and less robust exchange.
The market does not pause its transactions because a history book changes chapter. The global flow of goods—the lifeblood of any functioning society—does not wait for an academic consensus on guilt before moving through Rotterdam or Singapore. To suggest that the engine of prosperity can be stalled by endless self-flagellation is to mistake cultural critique for economic policy.
***
The true measure of a nation's strength is not found in its ability to police memory, but in its capacity to facilitate exchange and growth. When state-funded institutions—be they museums or academic departments—begin treating history as a tool for emotional regulation rather than an objective record, they are doing more damage to the national character than any historical wrong ever could. The American spirit thrives on audacity, risk, and the belief that tomorrow can be better than today through sheer effort. That foundational belief requires intellectual freedom, not ideological capture.