Press "Enter" to skip to content

Historical Thinking: The Necessity of an Unnatural Act | Luke Walker | TEDxYouth@IBSH


I want to start with st. Helena Island

some of you may have heard that some of

you maybe that’s the first time st.

Helena Island has a specific location in

the world it’s in the Atlantic Ocean

about halfway across it it’s right in

the middle between Rio de Janeiro and

the Divya in southwestern Africa he

might go its historical significance in

that it’s the place where Napoleon was

exiled after his final defeat in Europe

the supporters spent the remainder of

his life and a few days ago I realized

the importance of this place to me in my

life even though I’ve never been there

before and it has a lot to do with what

happened while Napoleon lived there you

see Napoleon late in his life had

visitors on this island

and once that visitor wrote down their

conversations

after Napoleon died he published it into

a best-seller in France what an

opportunistic guy but when you think

about what he wrote there was one

particular idea that was infamous and

this was the idea that Napoleon had

about history the exchange goes

something like this at the time of the

events during the heat of conflicting

passions history cannot exist at a later

period all parties are agreed respecting

it so then what is the truth of history

that it is a fable agreed upon I’ve

heard this lesson before in fact when I

was young younger than you I spent my

summers in southeastern Kansas which is

also kind of like being on the edge of

the world there’s nothing out there

that’s where my family came from

originally and I heard Napoleon through

the lens of my great aunt julia fiercely

independent fiery one with a mind like

of Dimond ferocious reader she always

said Luke history isn’t agreed upon Pact

allies that’s what the poll and said I

didn’t really get that until later sure

and it becomes my life and that’s the

thing the notion of agreement is what

stood out in my mind connected to this

agreement implies in detention agreement

implies distortion so we were truly

studying history it occurred to be

pretty quick that it didn’t matter what

history I was studying it didn’t really

matter why I was studying history either

what mattered was how I thought about

history and so that’s gonna be the

subject of my talk today its historical

thinking I’m gonna talk about it as a

necessary but unnatural act and I’ll

unpack what I mean by that so I’m not in

a history classroom I’m a psychology

teacher too when we seek to understand

we always start with what we know

and that’s ourselves the basic

principles of psychology tell us that to

an extent when we want to claim what it

is that we know what knowledge we have

our understanding of the world we look

inside of ourselves we look to our

memories we consider what emotions we

have at that time we consider what sort

of beliefs and traditions have been

ingrained in our mind and then we speak

with the authority of what we know well

the intriguing thing about what we know

is it’s a bit problematic because unless

you take the active step to critically

assess and think about what it is that

you know I’m talking about metacognition

you might end up in a pattern

the world just revolves around you and

your thoughts history can help us

understand this so here’s how I would

define history history is not the past

spoiler alert history is in fact that

debate about the past and it’s that last

word in there that sets me apart from

napoleon whereas he said it’s an

agreement

I’m in total disagreement with that but

what is the importance of this debate

why do I bring it up are we meant to

learn history to debate its contents for

the sake of writing really stellar

essays are we meant to learn and debate

history from the standpoint of if I’m

assigned the affirmative position I can

crush the dissent I don’t think so in

the pursuit of historical truth we

happen upon a path that leads us outward

historical truth teaches us to grow

early on in my college career I happen

across the definition offered up by

Latin actually the original word for

history it’s Latin derivation remains to

lead outward it’s kind of a novel

concept when you think about it you were

asked as students and all of us have

been asked at some point in our life

with learning to consider many different

fields but the fact that there’s one

entirely devoted to moving away from the

confines of what you know what’s inside

and instead trying to apply yourself to

thinking that goes beyond the confines

of your mind what I’m talking about here

is history is in effect a process of

empathy so let’s think about empathy for

a second there’s an age-old tradition to

teach the notion of empathy

that means oh you should think about

things you should understand things from

the shoes of another person

it’s an approachable thing to illustrate

empathy that way it’s a rather ambitious

prospect if the nature of your knowledge

is everything inside of you than to

suggest that you need to remove yourself

entirely from what you believe and think

and almost quite literally stand in the

shoes of another person and try and

attempt their understanding that’s

really unnatural that’s really difficult

to do it’s easier said than done so it

comes that debate again the debate means

you have to think about things not just

from your vantage point but others as

well but here’s the thing about the

debate it’s an ongoing thing that’s

really lacking in participation despite

how important it is I would argue that

taking part in this debate is something

that encourages you to grow to think

about how you might approach the world

differently so let’s enter into a

particular debate shall we I’m going to

share with you a quote from history and

the quote that I’m gonna share projected

up on the board

we’ll talk about who its author is and

needs behind it in a moment but as I

read it I want you to think about it who

could potentially have said this I have

no purpose to introduce political and

social equality between the white and

black races there is a physical

difference between the two which is my

judgment will probably forever forbid

they’re living together in perfect

equality powerful statement we’re

talking about race we’re talking about

social justice we’re talking about

equality and we’re talking about

somebody who has a very strict opinion

on prejudice let me give you a few

minutes see if you can figure it out

first the speaker is male the speaker is

American and the speaker is president

Abraham Lincoln hang on a second

Abraham Lincoln we’re talking about the

guy known as the great Emancipator the

guy known for ending slavery clearly we

have some kind of conflict going on here

if you stop and think about what’s going

on in your head you might leave to do a

series of questions what do I know about

Abraham Lincoln what do I know about its

life what do I know about the time that

he came from and by extension well what

do I know about race what do I know

about racism prejudice what do I think

where my opinions on that when you seek

to understand you look inward first well

in order to truly give this the best

possible information and the best

credence that we can to these words to

try and understand how they happened we

have to ask a really difficult question

was Abraham Lincoln a racist so to

answer that question let’s dig in

so got a lot going on up here let’s talk

about it across the top of my slide

represents actions thoughts writings

moments from Lincoln’s life if we’re

truly going to understand the thoughts

and deeds of someone we have to look at

what they did they historical

documentation of all these things in the

far corner we have letters written from

early on in his life before he got into

politics in 1858 we have a discussion

that happened on a political trail which

is where a quote originally comes from

but five years removed from the quote

Lincoln’s president and Lincoln with

stroke of the pen is changing the lives

of millions of non-white Americans

granting them freedom for the first time

in their lives across the bottom the

context of Lincoln’s world if we’re

going to talk about standing in the

shoes of another person and truly

understand

empathy we have to understand where

those shoes were located so first of all

1858 well as I stated before he’s on the

campaign trail this happened during a

series of senatorial debate that

happened in the state of Illinois before

Lincoln was president he attempted to

become a senator he ultimately didn’t

win that election but while he was on

the campaign trail his opponent a guy

named Stephen Douglas he didn’t Lincoln

entered him to what are now famous a

famous series of debates known as the

Lincoln Douglas debate during this time

Stephen Douglas was a fierce speaker

absolutely Titan of speaking and when he

was out there talking to you primarily

talking about white superiority and how

folks who weren’t white didn’t really

have many rights and didn’t deserve gun

and he often characterized Lincoln as

the polar opposite of him suggesting

that Lincoln cared too much perhaps

about black people and yet think back to

her quote Lincoln and his response would

say no it’s the political and social

equality for people who are not white he

would say that there’s a physical

difference between them and that

equality is a dream that would never

happen did you say that because he’s out

on the campaign trail speaking to a

large white audience of voters trying to

win the vote well let’s add on to that

quote you have to think about other

things he said to further on in that

speech Lincoln’s remarks suggested that

a black man was not his equal in terms

of morality and intellect so not only is

there a physical disparity but he’s

never gonna be as smart as me and he’ll

never be as good as me powerful words

coming from Lincoln but we take this

with a grain of salt because by the end

of his

he does say however that blacks and

whites deserve equal entitlement to

things like life liberty and the pursuit

of happiness

so these comments are cryptic is he

racist or not thinking about what he

said it it’s hard to say but what is

only one moment in time let’s go back to

1841 Lincoln’s a younger man he’s

travelling through his home state of

Kentucky and while he’s traveling he’s

riding on a boat and why he’s on this

boat he’s writing a letter to one of his

best friends a woman named Mary speed

while he was on the boat Abraham Lincoln

encountered a collection of recently

purchased slaves they were all chained

together and hanging out on the deck

they were on route to a plantation where

they would live out the rest of their

lives and slaves Lincoln sat there and

talked about the harsh reality and its

letter talked the harsh reality of what

would face them in their lives of

slavery but then he also made sure to

note that they were sitting there

telling stories they were playing games

they were laughing and he uttered this

really infamous line he said how true is

it that God renders the worst of human

conditions tolerable worst of human

conditions clearly that slavery worst

implies some kind of negative thought

about it but tolerable we’re going to

tolerate it hmm no clear answer there

either if we think about the world in

which Lincoln lidded stopped me this

sounds familiar he’s standing in a

society that is rigidly divided on the

notion of civil rights on the notions of

race who deserves what and both sides

are fervently involved in the argument

against one another

they truly believe what they say it’s

relevant to modern times in some cases

the pro-slavery folks considering our

picture to the left they believe that

the physical

was a real thing that a person who is

white was not the same species as a

person who was not white and they also

argued that hey we can invoke religion

and use religion as a tool for saying

that we write a famous quote that was

published in the book lauding the crisis

of slavery said that God hath made us

white people to rule and the Negro to

serve they fervently believed it but as

much passion as there was for slavery on

the opposite side Frederick Douglass in

a photo campaign right around the time

of mastication 1863 published a series

of photos in which he tried to educate

the american society at that time on

what slavery was about and why it was

wrong and how good emancipation was the

photos to the bottom right are from

those picture exhibits in 1863 they’re

photos of slaves or recently emancipated

slaves I should say I’m not talking

about the two black gentlemen in those

photos the white children were the

children who appear white were also

slaves if that doesn’t jive with you if

that doesn’t make a great deal of sense

it pulls back the veil and reveals what

they meant by physical difference there

was this harsh social rule and

understanding notice the one-drop rule

the idea that if you had a non-white

relative in your immediate or extended

family that you had in theory one drop

of non-white blood in your blood and

therefore you were not white and as a

muscly can a racist it’s a heck of a

debate to enter into it we’ve looked at

all this evidence we’ve analyzed it in

was talked about context really making

an effort to think from the vantage

point of Lincoln’s life at that time and

the actions of negatives to be presented

can I say right now here in front of you

with absolute certainty that Lincoln’s

races the answer is no I can’t I don’t

know the answer but that’s the thing

about history it’s doesn’t matter what

you learn doesn’t matter why you’re

learning it what matters is how you

think about it even though I don’t have

an answer for you the idea is the

process that gothis here is what matters

that’s what’s most important think about

it for a second in the moments that

we’ve been talking about this we

challenged your preconceived notions

about what you might have understood

about this topic before we got in death

we wrestled with a lot of different

information and try to make sense of it

to answer a divisive question and in the

process it led you to a deeper

understanding not just a Lincoln but of

a lot of things that’s an important

lesson more to the point we were able to

talk about Lincoln as a human yesterday

or even 15 minutes ago if I ask you do

Lincoln was you probably would have

thought oh you know if he’s a part of

that narrative that ended greed he

didn’t like it

and his story squeaky-clean by talking

about history in this sense and really

digging in and trying to consider what’s

out there versus what we know we

humanize individuals like Lincoln we

show this hubris his flaws and as a

result it doesn’t just teach you history

it teaches you something about what you

so here’s the thing about this and I

find myself again st. Helena Island kind

of reflecting on where I have always

been when it comes to thinking about

history doesn’t matter what I learned

doesn’t matter why I learn it matters is

how I think about it

history is a debate one that demands

your participation in a world where

information is at your fingertips in a

matter of seconds you can google

anything and have an answer but what

cost does that comment easy information

raises serious concerns for me about

literacy and our ability to critically

assess what we’re seeing and what we’re

experiencing so the importance of an

unnatural act of taking on empathy and

trying to think beyond the confines of

what we know and believe that’s the

importance of thinking about history I

would say that’s something the world

needs more of and all honesty how else

can we expect to grow it’s not by looking beyond the obvious

Please follow and like us: