Scholars concerned over how history will portray Jan. 6

Jan. 5 (UPI) -- Three years after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, a prevalent divide remains over what people believe happened and who bears responsibility. This split has scholars concerned about how this chapter of history will be written and how the tears in civil discourse can be mended to strengthen American democracy.

"We are still almost 250 years into an experiment in democracy. There is no guarantee this would work," Lindsay Hoffman, associate professor of communications and political science at the University of Delaware, told UPI. "For a democracy to work, we have to learn how to listen to each other better and not to listen to create a better argument."

President Joe Biden is set to cast the presidential election as a test for the fate of democracy in his first major campaign speech in Valley Forge, Pa., on Friday, with the 2024 election potentially bringing a repeat of the 2020 matchup if Donald Trump again wins the Republican nomination.

'Powder keg'

The events leading up to the riot are still being disputed in court. A Colorado judge ruled last month that Trump incited the riot with his rhetoric in the weeks following the 2020 election.

"It felt to many that were engaged politically that it was the culmination of that powder keg," Hoffman said. "It was an outlet for pent up anger and frustration."

More than 1,200 people have been charged with crimes related to the attack and they have come from nearly all 50 states, according to the U.S. Justice Department. More than 400 have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or Capitol employees.

About 120 have been charged with using deadly or dangerous weapons or causing bodily injury to an officer.

Five deaths were directly connected to the attack, including that of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

Trump has also been charged with attempts to interfere with the certification of the election, as well as other efforts to change the outcome.

While many decisions relating to Jan. 6 and the events preceding it are being decided in court, those rulings are not the paramount concern of historians.

Fritz Fischer, professor of history and director of history education at the University of Northern Colorado, told UPI he is concerned about how younger generations will think and learn about the insurrection.

"They're a part of history, but any legal conclusion is not necessarily the same kind of conclusion that a historian is going to come to," Fischer said. "It was an insurrection. And whether or not that has legal or political implications is a different question."

Fischer was quoted in his university's newspaper days after the riot wondering if it was an attempted coup. As more details have emerged over the past three years, he said many of his fears have been confirmed.

The challenge the 30-year educator and others in academia face is finding a way to teach students about such a divisive event. It becomes especially challenging in the face of numerous conspiracy theories.

A new study by the University of Maryland reports that about 25% of Americans believe the FBI was involved in orchestrating the attack.

Fischer notes that conspiracy theories follow many historically significant events. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, some conspiracy theorists blamed Franklin D. Roosevelt. Fischer said these theories largely came from FDR's political opponents and critics.

"It's really important that we give students the opportunity to find the facts and not be swayed by various conspiracy theories that are out there," Fischer said. "That's going to be a challenge, and again with some of the other things that are happening as far as politicians trying to dictate what is being taught in schools. It worries me that future students might not be able to find the facts."

Political violence 'can silence'

The Capitol riot highlighted the American divisions that many educators and researchers had already observed. But more Americans than ever -- 49% -- identified as politically independent, according to a poll by Gallup last year.

The issue with highly polarized partisanship is that the people who fall somewhere in the middle of political extremes -- or who are not generally engaged -- are overlooked. Events like Jan. 6., chill some people's willingness to engage in civil discourse, Hoffman said.

"Political violence like that is dangerous for the populous. It can silence some voices," she said. "The people on the margins or in the middle, it puts them in more of a defensive position and not wanting to engage out of fear of ruffling feathers, out of fear of getting taunted or attacked."

"It's dangerous for our democracy for people to sense danger and not engage with each other and feel isolated," Hoffman said.

She has been researching civil discourse and dialogue interventions in recent years. She has found that engaging in conversations about otherwise divisive topics, with some guidelines in place, can increase "intellectual humility and curiosity." It can also "tone down polarization and animosity."

"There are ways that we can combat this but we have to come at it in good faith," she said. "Let's come together with a promise to each other to engage in civil dialogue around difficult issues."

Dannagal Young, professor of communications and political science at the University of Delaware, told UPI that events like Jan. 6, are an example of what many people hate about politics.

In her book Media and January 6th, she discusses how the people who went to the Capitol and those who have or continue to deny the results of the election do so to meet some basic motivations. They sought to comprehend the election loss, feel a sense of control over the world around them and find community.

Social media's role in the festering divisions in society is also a prominent factor, she said.

"The machinery of social media is really tailor-made to prime divisive identities," Young said. "It's an unfortunate synergy for citizens and democracy."

Young suggests pulling back from engaging with social media posts that elicit strong emotional reactions can be a path to positive change.

"If we decide to stop rewarding emotional content or change the way we perform our mega identities in public spaces -- because we know performing them is harmful democratically -- we could change the calculus of all these entities that are making profits off our backs," she said.

Both Young and Hoffman describe themselves as optimistic and hopeful that the conversations about divisive topics like Jan. 6, can change in a positive way. But it will require self-reflection and curiosity about opposing views.

"The caveat is if we can all take a step back and say we saw the same thing but interpreted it differently based on affiliation and identity, let's be curious about that," Hoffman said. "Ask, 'why do you see it that way?'"