Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart welcomed liberal historians David Blight and Annette Gordon-Reed to Wednesday’s The Weekly Show podcast to look at competing visions of the country’s history ahead of America 250. According to all involved, conservatives are trying to erase complications and nuances from the country’s efforts, which Stewart wondered is just a way to amass power. Turning to Gordon-Reed, Stewart wondered: And that is that what you've seen that over time, you know, the fact that you're dealing with tricky issues of slavery and race and those kinds of issues. Is the dividing point here that the effort is to create an origin story of the country that's more singular and more reflective of maybe a Christian origin story or a nationalist origin story that's more homogenous, and that because you're dealing in the complexities of race or, as David said, gender, things that don't fit as easily, that's where the pushback comes, and have you felt that pushback grow?   Ahead of America 250, Jon Stewart wonders, "Is the dividing point here that the effort is to create an origin story of the country that's more singular and more reflective of maybe a Christian origin story or a nationalist origin story that's more homogenous and that because… pic.twitter.com/eqlNi5qfJe — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) June 18, 2026   Gordon-Reed replied that the current efforts are part of a history of reactionaries who are upset at desegregation, “I mean, the last from the Revolution in the historiography of slavery in particular in the 40s and the 50s and ever since then that goes along with the Civil Rights Movement. I mean, history, we asked different questions of the past depending upon what's going on. And once we started changing laws and getting rid of segregation, all those kinds of things that make transforming America, you go back and people start looking at history in a different way, asking different questions. And I think as David is suggesting, this is a reaction to all of that.” What made the entire episode, and Gordon-Reed’s comments in particular, so distressing is that she was one of the prominent black liberal historians who condemned The 1619 Project’s efforts to reduce American history to slavery and racism. That is the central debate: whether or not America was founded as a racist country and is therefore systemically and irredeemably racist. Not whether America has had a sinless history. Nevertheless, Gordon-Reed continued, “There are people who want to put the genie back in the bottle and want to rewind the tape and say, no, let's go back to a more comforting narrative mainly because perhaps they want to go back to a more comforting country, you know, a country that, a sort of 1950s, 1940s country and everybody idolizes it, but that's the time when people went to separate bathrooms, people, women couldn't get credit cards.” Gordo-Reed also claimed, “And so that's what's really frightening about it. It's not just about a complaint about history. It's the complaint about where we are now, the kind of country we have become in the past 50 or 60 years.” Stewart then wondered, “Is the idea and — that if they feel like they can control the narrative of the past, they can control the future?” That is not exactly a profound insight. The 1619 Project believers also want to control the narrative so they can control the future to push left-wing agenda items. The problem is that Stewart seems to think conservative control means racism. Still, Gordon-Reed answered, “Exactly. I mean, the thing is, this is who we are in this, the push for originalism, the idea we have to go back essentially to— it's always the 1789 Constitution, 1787, 1789 Constitution. It's not the post-Civil War one it gives us the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. Let's go back to the original.” Stewart thought that was deeply profound as he interjected with “That’s interesting.” It really wasn’t. Originalists believe in the post-war amendments. They’re simply originalists on their interpretation of them and therefore don’t believe the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection Clause mandates that every liberal cause be enshrined as a Constitutional right. However, Gordon-Reed claimed, “That is back in a time when, you know, black, there was a strict racial hierarchy, a gender hierarchy, and we can't do anything past what those people thought at the time. And that's, you know, that's, that's a complaint about history, but it's also a complaint about the new society that Americans tried to make in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.” Almost nobody has a problem with talking about the history of racism in the country. The problem comes when it is claimed to be the country’s only defining characteristic and that it explains all of today’s problems. Here is a transcript for the June 17 show: Comedy Central The Weekly Show 6/17/2026 JON STEWART: And that is that what you've seen that over time, you know, the fact that you're dealing with tricky issues of slavery and race and those kinds of issues. Is the dividing point here that the effort is to create an origin story of the country that's more singular and more reflective of maybe a Christian origin story or a nationalist origin story that's more homogenous, and that because you're dealing in the complexities of race, or as David said, gender, things that don't fit as easily, that's where the pushback comes, and have you felt that pushback grow? ANNETTE GORDON-REED: Oh, yes, definitely. STEWART: Right. GORDON-REED: I mean, the last from the Revolution in the historiography of slavery in particular in the 40s and the 50s and ever since then that goes along with the Civil Rights Movement. I mean, history, we asked different questions of the past depending upon what's going on. And once we started changing laws and getting rid of segregation, all those kinds of things that make transforming America, you go back and people start looking at history in a different way, asking different questions. And I think as David is suggesting, this is a reaction to all of that. There are people who want to put the genie back in the bottle and want to rewind the tape and say, no, let's go back to a more comforting narrative mainly because perhaps they want to go back to a more comforting country, you know, a country that, a sort of 1950s, 1940s country and everybody idolizes it, but that's the time when people went to separate bathrooms, people, women couldn't get credit cards. I mean, there are all these things that there's a lot that goes along with this nostalgic vision of history— STEWART: Right. GORDON-REED: —and that is a nostalgic vision of the present. And so that's what's really frightening about it. It's not just about a complaint about history. It's the complaint about where we are now, the kind of country we have become in the past 50 or 60 years. STEWART: Is the idea and — that if they feel like they can control the narrative of the past, they can control the future? GORDON-REED: Exactly. I mean, the thing is, this is who we are in this, the push for originalism, the idea we have to go back essentially to— it's always the 1789 Constitution, 1787, 1789 Constitution. It's not the post-Civil War one it gives us the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. Let's go back to the original. STEWART: That’s interesting. GORDON-REED: And that is back in a time when, you know, black, there was a strict racial hierarchy, a gender hierarchy, and we can't do anything past what those people thought at the time. And that's, you know, that's, that's a complaint about history, but it's also a complaint about the new society that Americans tried to make in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.