To the Editor  12 October, 2020  The New York Times

Dear Madame/Sir:
Re The 1619 Chronicles, Bret Stephens (11 Oct editorial) suggests that journalists are mostly writing “first drafts of history”, not having the “last word”.

He worries about premature introduction of the 1619 founding concept into our schools (and into Trumpian rhetoric!). But surely schools (and the general public) should be learning history from questioning more than from concluding. 

Moreover, after centuries of embedded thinking, it will no doubt take a metaphorical bomb to unearth better understanding. 

The 1619 Project reminds me of that WW II story about the mule trainer lecturing new recruits: The trainer went on for about an hour about mules’ finer sensibilities, and how their proverbial stubbornness, once understood, could be overcome without violence. 

One recruit asked for a practical demonstration. The instructor said “OK” and, pulling out a large mallet, hit the mule hard on its head. 

The recruit raised his hand: “But Sir, what about gentle persuasion?”

The instructor replied;” Everything I told you applies here… but first you must get the mule’s attention.”

A more pedagogical understanding comes from the Hegelian view of history: “Thesis —> Antithesis —> Synthesis (which then become a new thesis).

Should not our schools, like our journalism, be dealing more with salient questions than “final answers”?

Respectfully,
Nicholas Cunningham MD Dr P.H.