ABSTRACT
In a provocative review of Katz, Eyewitness: the Negro in American History,1
Larry Cuban makes a distinction between “Black History” and “Negro History.” In Black History, “Heroes are all black and struggle for freedom. Villains are all white and oppress for profit. . . . Ignored facts are dusted off and celebrated, while previously scorned items are converted into virtues and extolled” (p. 612). Booker T. Washington is portrayed as an Uncle Tom; Abraham Lincoln as a White supremacist. Black History “bursts with righteousness, pride and outrage” (p. 612). While Black History distorts, Negro History “corrects distortions and fills in the enormous gaps of information about people of color . . . Restraint and balance mark this approach” (p. 612). Ethnic content, Cuban argues, should offer a balanced view that “correct errors of fact . . . and accurately describe the Negro’s role in the American past” (p. 616). (All italics are mine.)
In the same issue Jean D. Grambs reviews a recent biography of Crispus Attucks and raises issues similar to those discussed by Cuban. Like a growing number of White “liberal” educators, these authors are alarmed by what they perceive as attempts by Black militants to “distort” history by glorifying the Black past in order to imbue pride in Black students. Grambs accuses Millender, the Black author of Attucks’ biography, of telling “historical lies to repair the damage” done by previous distortions of Black History (p. 606). Grambs maintains that “appropriate data” should be reported “accurately” and that textbooks should reflect “balanced versions” of Black History. She writes, “it is one thing to present authentic historic material, but it is quite another matter to twist or invent material” (p. 605). The author posits her own canons of historical objectivity and uses her standards to ascertain the “accuracy” of the treatments of Attucks given by two Black historians. She argues that Benjamin Quarles accurately portrays Attucks because he depicts him as a shadowy historical figure. “Quarles,” writes Grambs, “unlike some of his colleagues, does not let being Negro distort his historical appraisal” (p. 607). The author vehemently attacks John Hope Franklin, an eminent historian, for falling into the “chauvinistic trap” and portraying Attucks as a significant historical personality.
