Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    "In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.”

    So... they are saying that slavery was a good thing then, since it made America exceptional?




    This is what happens when people are so invested in racism that they see it in everything and view all of history through racist lenses.
    No, they're saying that America doesn't deserve its success because it was (supposedly) built on the institution of slavery. It's basically the same attitude that Obama brought to the White House when one of his first acts as president was to travel around the world and grovel before foreign leaders while begging the forgiveness.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      No, they're saying that America doesn't deserve its success because it was (supposedly) built on the institution of slavery. It's basically the same attitude that Obama brought to the White House when one of his first acts as president was to travel around the world and grovel before foreign leaders while begging the forgiveness.
      I know that

      I was just doing the same thing they were and reframing history.

      Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

      Comment


      • #18
        I need to read up on this. Katelyn Beaty (recent editor of Christianity Today) has been glowing about it.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          I need to read up on this. Katelyn Beaty (recent editor of Christianity Today) has been glowing about it.
          Please do, and tell us what we're missing.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            Is this another thing y'all haven't even read yet?
            I skimmed through a few essays. It's HEAVILY anachronistic. Absolutely brimming with "correlation proves causation" fallacy. And makes a number of unprovable or debatable assertions. Most of the essays I skimmed were essentially racist and unfounded diatribes against white Americans. What's unfortunate is that it does touch on some fascinating history that Americans should be aware of and sensitive to, but it's absolutely spoiled by its presentation. Material like this will result in zero net positive effect on the American public. Its only purpose is to create further division along racial lines.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I skimmed through a few essays. It's HEAVILY anachronistic. Absolutely brimming with "correlation proves causation" fallacy. And makes a number of unprovable or debatable assertions. Most of the essays I skimmed were essentially racist and unfounded diatribes against white Americans. What's unfortunate is that it does touch on some fascinating history that Americans should be aware of and sensitive to, but it's absolutely spoiled by its presentation. Material like this will result in zero net positive effect on the American public. Its only purpose is to create further division along racial lines.
              I've seen several commentators observe that it's unintentionally a Trump Reelection Strategy.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I've seen several commentators observe that it's unintentionally a Trump Reelection Strategy.
                The general premise seems to be "The US has been racist since its inception, and it's Trump's fault."
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I skimmed through a few essays. It's HEAVILY anachronistic. Absolutely brimming with "correlation proves causation" fallacy. And makes a number of unprovable or debatable assertions. Most of the essays I skimmed were essentially racist and unfounded diatribes against white Americans. What's unfortunate is that it does touch on some fascinating history that Americans should be aware of and sensitive to, but it's absolutely spoiled by its presentation. Material like this will result in zero net positive effect on the American public. Its only purpose is to create further division along racial lines.
                  Sooo... pretty much what we've come to expect from the paper that hired an unapologetic racist for an editor last year.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    I skimmed through a few essays. It's HEAVILY anachronistic. Absolutely brimming with "correlation proves causation" fallacy. And makes a number of unprovable or debatable assertions. Most of the essays I skimmed were essentially racist and unfounded diatribes against white Americans. What's unfortunate is that it does touch on some fascinating history that Americans should be aware of and sensitive to, but it's absolutely spoiled by its presentation. Material like this will result in zero net positive effect on the American public. Its only purpose is to create further division along racial lines.
                    I'm skeptical that a person can discern the sole purpose of a project by skimming a few of its essays, myself.

                    What, exactly, is anachronistic?

                    -Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      I need to read up on this. Katelyn Beaty (recent editor of Christianity Today) has been glowing about it.
                      The opening essay, I'd say, is one of the most powerful and positive pieces of the past year, if not the past five.
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        The opening essay, I'd say, is one of the most powerful and positive pieces of the past year, if not the past five.
                        Can you please give a summary of why you say that? Examples, perhaps?
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Can you please give a summary of why you say that? Examples, perhaps?
                          I'm disappointed in how few people actually read anything at all from the project before deciding what it was so I'll just encourage people to read the articles and give one broad example of the first essay, which is the only one I've read deliberately and slowly so far.

                          Contrary to the general perception of the 1619 Project expressed here, the opening essay (by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the driving force behind the project) does not seek to destroy American democracy or reduce America's greatness or anything like that. Hannah-Jones begins with an account of her veteran father proudly flying the American flag and her bewilderment that black Americans -- who had built the very foundation and power of the country while slaves and still, as freemen, saw themselves forced outside of its protections and privileges -- could have such patriotism. Her essay is about finding that patriotism and finding it in the work and suffering of black Americans throughout the nation's long history (yes, longer than the 1776 date suggests). And, in finding that patriotism expressed by her father, grandmother and countless other black Americans who loved their country even as it was enslaving or persecuting them, Hannah-Jones writes that black Americans made American democracy true and no longer universal claims on paper that were selectively applied to white men.

                          It's an essay about the perfection of American democracy, not its destruction.

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            I'm disappointed in how few people actually read anything at all from the project before deciding what it was so I'll just encourage people to read the articles and give one broad example of the first essay, which is the only one I've read deliberately and slowly so far.

                            Contrary to the general perception of the 1619 Project expressed here, the opening essay (by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the driving force behind the project) does not seek to destroy American democracy or reduce America's greatness or anything like that. Hannah-Jones begins with an account of her veteran father proudly flying the American flag and her bewilderment that black Americans -- who had built the very foundation and power of the country while slaves and still, as freemen, saw themselves forced outside of its protections and privileges -- could have such patriotism. Her essay is about finding that patriotism and finding it in the work and suffering of black Americans throughout the nation's long history (yes, longer than the 1776 date suggests). And, in finding that patriotism expressed by her father, grandmother and countless other black Americans who loved their country even as it was enslaving or persecuting them, Hannah-Jones writes that black Americans made American democracy true and no longer universal claims on paper that were selectively applied to white men.

                            It's an essay about the perfection of American democracy, not its destruction.

                            --Sam
                            Thanks, Sam -- in a meeting for the next couple hours, then I'll give this a better read.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              The opening essay, I'd say, is one of the most powerful and positive pieces of the past year, if not the past five.
                              Uh, how exactly, is her Dad in the 30's-40's seeing numerous lynchings? Most lynching had ended in the 1920's and while there were isolated incidents, they were not the rule. Even more impressive since she states her father was 17 in 1962 - giving him a probable birth year of 1945.



                              The black migration north occurred in the 20's so her Mom wasn't part of that. What migration is she talking about? By the '40's black migration was to the South - both migrations spurred by economics - they were following work.



                              Northern segregation isn't as well documented and I only know it was probably more severe than Southern segregation, but not usually codified as in the South.



                              Integration of the Armed Forces began in 1948 and was complete by 1954. Now, her Dad could have gotten a raw deal - or he could have simply blamed his own shortcomings on his superiors (happens) - but this is anecdotal evidence, even assuming the former, as I'd be inclined to do, if it weren't for the 'murky circumstances' of his discharge. By '62 there shouldn't have been a lot of shenanigans with discharges - over 17000 blacks had served as Marines in the Korean War. Could be he was unlucky enough to get a bad superior - could be him. No way to know. Anecdotal.



                              Iowa must have had the weirdest school system in the country. Her Dad was 17 in 1962 - so she was probably born in the 1960's, probably a few years younger than me. She got all that from osmosis in a Northern school at a time when black kids were being integrated into Southern schools and didn't seem to get the same message - at least not from my contemporaries I've talked to. Anecdotal both ways, of course.



                              Er, slaves weren't used to build railroads in most of the South - cotton was grown predominately in the Black Belt which is a relatively small area. I'm sure some slaves were rented out during slow times of the year but most of the labor would have been poor whites from closer by, excepting those tracks in tobacco country, of course.



                              Blacks contributed immensely - but it's in tobacco and cotton more than anything else. And slaves were used almost exclusively in agriculture. There were slaves taught trades and even rented out as tradesmen - but that was the exception, not the rule.



                              'Perfecters of democracy'? Oh please...



                              Actually, many of the Founding Fathers DID believe that liberty applied to all men. And that included Washington and Jefferson - what she fails to realize is that there were laws that prevented manumission. That being the reason Washington freed his slaves at his death - that was what the law allowed.



                              Women were fighting for suffrage before the Civil War - that would be an anachronism. Heck, there were suffrage movements after the Revolutionary War.



                              Source: Wiki

                              Crispus Attucks (c.1723 – March 5, 1770) was an American stevedore of African and Native American descent, widely regarded as the first person killed in the Boston Massacre and thus the first American killed in the American Revolution. Historians disagree on whether he was a free man or an escaped slave, but most agree that he was of Wampanoag and African descent.[2]
                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Mixed race longshoreman - that argues against being a slave but there is evidence he may have been born into slavery. First line in Wikipedia - I notice her source isn't cited. Also, historians can't decide if he was even of African descent. She states as fact what is at best supposition. It's not even an unreasonable supposition - but it is not an established fact. He clearly was not a slave at the time of his death.



                              1619 is a footnote in American history - it's not even the most significant date regarding slavery of Africans and it's not the introduction of slavery to either Europeans or Native Americans. Nor the first time Europeans held slaves in the Americas - Native Americans ended up with that dubious honor. Heck, it's not even the beginning of African slavery. The Arabs get that dubious distinction and African slaves had already been introduced to Europe.

                              What happened in 1776 is far more significant than an isolated incident in 1619 - 127 years after the first Europeans enslaved anyone on the American Continent. Untold thousands of years before the introduction of slavery in the America's - the 'institution' was already practiced by Native Americans when Europeans arrived.



                              And again, manumission laws were a thing - evidently she doesn't know that.
                              Source: Wiki

                              Regulation of manumission began in 1692, when Virginia established that to manumit a slave, a person must pay the cost for them to be transported out of the colony. A 1723 law stated that slaves may not "be set free upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council."[34] In some cases, a master who was drafted into the army would send a slave instead, with a promise of freedom if he survived the war.[35] The new government of Virginia repealed the laws in 1782 and declared freedom for slaves who had fought for the colonies during the American Revolutionary War. The 1782 laws also permitted masters to free their slaves on their own accord; previously, a manumission had required obtaining consent from the state legislature, which was arduous and rarely granted.[36]However, as population of free Negroes increased, the state passed laws forbidding them from moving into the state (1778)[37] and requiring newly-freed slaves to leave within one year unless they had special permission (1806).[38]

                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source




                              Slaves WERE recognized as human beings - even as 'persons' (see the Attucks article cited above). And yes, they were also property and chattel slavery was inherited.


                              While it is true that laws were not enforced as they should have been, it's false that an owner could murder a slave legally. One of New Orleans most notorious serial killers was charged on the basis of slaves she had tortured and killed. And they couldn't legally rape, either - although that usually did go without prosecution both due to the lack of will to enforce and the incredible difficulty in prosecuting the cases.

                              England didn't end slavery until 1833 - so Samuel Johnson was being rather selective in his criticism. Not surprising, being a Tory.

                              There were abolitionists in the US before the Revolution - during and after as well. The chances of England declaring an end to slavery or the slave trade at that time were nil - and the American's knew it. This is nonsense. There's a reason England doesn't end slavery until 1833.



                              I'm not critiquing the rest of this thing - I got tired of reading it half way through. Overstated and under researched - not impressive at all.

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                I'm disappointed in how few people actually read anything at all from the project before deciding what it was so I'll just encourage people to read the articles and give one broad example of the first essay, which is the only one I've read deliberately and slowly so far.

                                Contrary to the general perception of the 1619 Project expressed here, the opening essay (by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the driving force behind the project) does not seek to destroy American democracy or reduce America's greatness or anything like that. Hannah-Jones begins with an account of her veteran father proudly flying the American flag and her bewilderment that black Americans -- who had built the very foundation and power of the country while slaves and still, as freemen, saw themselves forced outside of its protections and privileges -- could have such patriotism. Her essay is about finding that patriotism and finding it in the work and suffering of black Americans throughout the nation's long history (yes, longer than the 1776 date suggests). And, in finding that patriotism expressed by her father, grandmother and countless other black Americans who loved their country even as it was enslaving or persecuting them, Hannah-Jones writes that black Americans made American democracy true and no longer universal claims on paper that were selectively applied to white men.

                                It's an essay about the perfection of American democracy, not its destruction.

                                --Sam
                                I read the article, it recounts our sins, and it paints our country in a very negative light. And except for the personal stories like that of her father, there wasn't much that wasn't common knowledge. So what is the end game here? The New York times has a goal here, fits right in with this:

                                New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism

                                https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...o-trump-racism
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X