"The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself." First - she claims it's not history

"The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself." First - she claims it's not history but clearly the entire "conversation" is about history. And history as it's practiced nowadays isn't really about controlling narratives - this is how social justice views it (vague notions - that are intentionally selected to be impossible to prove, so as to evade the necessity of producing evidence - of the system, oppression, "centering", etc.). It's about rigorous academic work reviewed and debated among peers, not hashing out social justice in classrooms. > un-erasing an unpleasant past It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities elevated at the NYT and not the broader academic community. It'd be great if they could actually demonstrate that history is erased. Historians would love to hear about it and chances are they'd have already known about it. That'd be a juicy opportunity for scholarship, but again I have low hopes because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing original, creative content but waging a tweet war.