Letters to the Editor | June 1, 2023

Jonathan Zimmerman makes a valid point about sanitized history in his May 30 column. We need to teach our history, warts and all, because doing so will be of inestimable benefit in helping to create social harmony. However, he oversimplifies the task of selling the concept, failing to understand some of the motivations that drive the anti-woke crowd. We are blessed today with centuries of living together and learning about one another, as well as more than a century of anthropological research that began with the publication of Darwin’s theories in 1861 and found scientific evidence of human equality. Our ancestors were not as fortunate or as enlightened. Our history must be revealed fully, but in a manner that avoids assuming that those who created it understood what they were doing as well as we do today. Statements like “Columbus was lost” or that he was “a flawed explorer” create resentment from those who view history from a European point of view, when, seen in actual context, his accomplishments were incredibly brilliant.

John Baxter, Toano, Va.

There has been a lot of fuss about people being “woke.” Do you know what being woke means? I did not. It could mean the hiccups or appendicitis or being socially aware of racism. Guess which one it is? What is wrong with being aware of racism? Surely someone can’t think that being racist or racially insensitive is a good thing? I am proud to say that I was raised to be woke. If being fair-minded, kind to everyone, and being respectful of all people means being woke, then being woke is not something to be stamped out. If learning about each other’s backgrounds and histories qualifies a person as being woke, that person should be praised, not vilified. “Wokeness” is a term that is being thrown around seemingly by persons who have their own agenda. It is made to appear evil and dangerous and the cause of much trouble in the world. Being woke is no more troublesome than being a good human being, a good citizen, a good American. Who would object to that?

Sheryl Kalick, Philadelphia

House Republicans seem intent on targeting recent historic clean energy investments. They should know that in just eight months, those investments have led to more than 155 major new clean energy projects announced across the country, creating 60,000 new, good-paying jobs and investing nearly $80 billion in local economies. As a native Western Pennsylvanian, a veteran, and a small-business owner, I’m deeply concerned. These efforts would throw a wet blanket on an entire cleantech ecosystem, and risk future jobs and billions in new private investments. My company, Boss Controls, provides software that helps consumers securely communicate with the electricity grid. We figure out ways for folks on all sides of the equation to make money as we transition to clean energy. And that’s just the thing: Everyone can benefit from the clean economy.

We are also part of the growing workforce of clean energy professionals who are building renewable power, clean transportation and batteries, and retrofitting buildings to reduce energy waste. Pennsylvania is already home to nearly 93,000 clean energy jobs, and that number is poised to rapidly grow. Federal clean investments are expected to create nine million clean energy jobs over the next decade. Pennsylvania was where the world first discovered oil, and we helped launch nuclear power. Our congressional delegation has a choice. We can continue our legacy as a global leader in the energy sector and invest in our clean energy future, or we can fall behind.

Greg Puschnigg, Ligonier

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.