Thoughts on the fable posing as history
The 1619 Project may be many things, but one thing it is not is history. It's more like a cheap melodrama for the juvenile mind. On one side are the awful white males who are the "opressors" and on the other side is all others characterized as "victims." The purpose of this fiction has nothing to do with teaching or recounting history. The purpose is constructing the future. As with the teaching of Mao, the American left is dedicated to telling this simplistic parable, which in this case is immoral.
The inconvienient truth:
The part of history the left hates the most is the Civil War which took approximately 700,000 lives. Let's pause for a moment to consider the idea of Americans in the northern states, many of whom never saw a slave or a Black man or woman, serving in the Union Army and fighting and dying to end slavery. That fact is never even acknowledged in these conversations we have with our resident lefties. American history is rich with stories of redemption. The Civil War is a great one. The was itself is seldom taught at the university level and is seldom given the solem tribute it deserves.
The 1619 Project has been called out by historians for it's many myths such as:
The American Revolution was fought to uphold slavery.
All White Americans benefited equally from slavery.
Slavery was somehow uniquely an American sin.
African Americans fought racism single handedly.
Systemic racism is what holds Black Americans back.
All of it is untrue and here we are in 2021 fighting against an evil ideology, which we couldn't even contemplate existing in this country 60 years ago.
The true objective:
It was never just about removing Confederate statues or teaching children about slavery. We can now see what the real goals were. It was about wiping the entire slate clean. The Founders must go. American traditions must go. Religion must go. Law & order must go. The Constitution must go. The nuclear family is also in the crosshairs. Most importantly, American history must go, to be replaced with a morality tale in which only radical leftists are the heros.
Damage already done:
Despite the 1619 project’s myriad of erroneous claims, they have been widely accepted. To the young, who may not know much but are eager to learn and are spoon fed all this propaganda there can only be one result. Another generation of bitter activist, who only know US history via a boring Marxist morality tale. Do we need any more? The left is in complete control of the federal government, the msm and many of our institutions. A systematic cultural revolution is underway.
Mao gave them a blueprint. The question is are we strong enough to stop them?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
415 visitors
"The New York Times magazine said in an Aug. 2019 newsletter , “The 1619 Project ... aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”
Let's say this has been going on for 20 years. So what?
When I went to grammar school a long time ago we learned about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere and Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett and of course the Pilgrims and Jamestown. and on and on.
To the best of my memory 1619 was not mentioned. Nat Turner was not mentioned. Denmark Vesey most certainly was not mentioned. And it was like this for a couple hundred years. By that time the myth was ingrained.
It was the colonial period. The story btw isn't even true.
Nat Turner was not mentioned.
Nor was the story of how Coca Cola was created. You can find all those less significant historical facts if you want. The question is how much can we put into a textbook in order of importance. Above all, unproven stories don't belong.
Vic, from the beginning America was a racist nation. Jamestown was founded in 1607 and 12 years later the first African slaves came here. Over the course of the 17th century racism became ingrained in much of America.
To claim that racism and the people effected by it over centuries is a "minor" part of American history is objectively ridiculous, although I do agree that many white people feel that way.
The best thing we could do right now is have a national acceptance that the past was very bad in terms of race but we vow to make things better now and in the future. If 90% of Americans made that pledge, not only internally, but also out loud, we could put the past behind us. But too many white Americans want to pretend that they are victims. ("Waaa waaa, they want to take down our statues and take away our history")
What story isnt true?
Shall I repost the article?
No, I'm sleepy enough already.
You could just answer the question . What is untrue about slavery coming to America in 1619 ?
It is not so much as to how Coke was created but as to why. What have you heard or read about it so I can compare it to what I have.
It's beginning was not in 1619. The Declaration of Independence describes what America was.
Jamestown was founded in 1607 and 12 years later the first African slaves came here.
Jamestown was an anti-slavery colony. All slaves brought there were eventually freed. You better tell Nicole Hannah-Jones. (New York Times staffer and devout racist)
To claim that racism and the people effected by it over centuries is a "minor" part of American history is objectively ridiculous
Nobody claimed that. We do however demand truth.
The best thing we could do right now is have a national acceptance that the past was very bad in terms of race but we vow to make things better now and in the future.
You're a little late John, we did that long long ago. I don't think that is what the left is advocating. It's quite a bit more than that John. I wouldn't try to keep normalizing it if I were you.
On the day they signed the Declaration of Independence the majority of those signees owned dark skinned human beings as property. But beyond that, the notion that Africans and the native Americans were inferior human beings had already set in across the width and breadth of the land. That is racism , and it was extremely widespread, and never abated much for hundreds of years.
The Declaration set forth what the nation would be. The nation that was created fullfilled that promise in dramatic fashion.
I would say the only racists I see today are white progressives & bitter individuals like Eric Holder. I'm sure that there is still some racism & always will be, but the millions of non-whites (along with whites) who have crossed the border in the last 6 months contradict your pronouncement about racism.
That comment is insanely ridiculous.
Just out of curiosity, how many white progressives and "bitter individuals" did you see objecting to Confederate statues coming down?
And I was hoping you'd think it profound.
Just out of curiosity, how many white progressives and "bitter individuals" did you see objecting to Confederate statues coming down?
Did you read the article?
Prove those claims Vic. Post links.
In Conclusion:
In seed after seed you fail to support the claims you post.
Ya, EXACTLY!
Actually. From the beginning this was a racist world.
Seems to me the only real racists left in the USA are the white liberals who constantly do everything they can to set race relations back 200 yrs.
Trying to convict people alive today for the sins of those long dead is not only divisive and counter productive but completely asinine as well. Which is why the left engages in such tactics.
Every actual historian I ever heard of maintains that slavery, the Civil War and its aftermath are defining facts of our national identity and of our foundings!
And all of those things have been prominently taught in US history courses.
[deleted]
No, it doesn't Greg.
Like you saying the majority of anti-vaxxers are 'left' and that's just one . . .
I'm not sure the Civil War is a defining fact of our foundings.
I'm also not sure any of that can lead a reasonable person to conclude that the United States was actually founded in 1619.
Our history did not begin in 1776 either. Any true history of North and South America has to start at the beginning which was tens of thousands of years before the Vikings or Columbus or white men with African slaves. We can quibble about semantics but I actually graduated high school and university and paid attention in class.
Slavery, sanctioned human bondage, defined our nation's early history more than any other factor. It was our nation's original sin. A great and furious Civil War was the consequences and we are still suffering the repercussions!
Was this the only thing worth learning about our shared history? If course not! The Confederate slavers were defeated and generational human bondage was outlawed. Through wars and depressions The United States of America has always striven and struggled to become a more perfect union.
The current bugaboo about CRT is a tempest in a teapot. A manufactured controversy that really isn't a problem. The idea that history of The United States could be taught without an honest account of race in America is ludicrous!
I went to a major university and passed about a dozen history courses. Historians are not all that uncommon. You probably never met any.
The point in question is when we were "founded".
Excellent. Then the term "founding" should not present any problems for you.
That's a valid point of debate and discussion. The founding date is not.
Again...not a part of the founding.
The point here being that assertions like that are primary contributors to the single biggest crisis in our country today: our ever-decreasing ability to have sane, rational, intelligent discussions about the problems we face and potential solutions.
We can't have a discussion about the role of slavery in the formation of the USA without somebody going completely off the deep-end with bullshit like "our true founding was in 1619 when the first slaves arrived". Oh FFS.
Frankly, if they teach CRT as badly as they teach everything else, it isn't going to matter one way or another.
But if we're actually honest, CRT in schools doesn't actually accomplish anything. It's simply another in the long line of meaningless ideas that do nothing more than temporarily assuage white liberal guilt. It's like renaming an all black high school after Rosa Parks instead of Stonewall Jackson. If the school still sucks and the kids don't learn anything...the only people you helped are the white liberals on the other side of town.
Too many white people in America have to add "but" when they are asked to express regret or misgivings or sympathy or whatever you would like to call it over the way people of color have been historically treated in America. from "but it wasnt as bad as they say " to "but I wasnt born yet" to "but blacks are criminals", there is always a "but" attached with some people.
The multicultural future is going to unfold whether all whites get on board or not, but the country could have more friendly interaction between the races if we would just all admit the past.
The problem is you're trying to require them to validate and share your "feelings", and people rightly resent it. Your feelings are under your sole control and are your sole problem. I'm not going to feel guilty or apologize for something I have never had any control over simply because it makes white liberals "feel better".
Now, if you have an idea about how we actually improve the prospects of black people in America, let's get that on the table and talk about it.
But the majority of what we get is stupidity targeted solely at making white liberals feel better. We're going to remove some statues, rename some schools, paint Black Lives Matter in big yellow letters on the street, and of course we're going to wander around shouting at the sky while so we can all feel better and then virtue signal to our co-workers on Monday. We're going to "kayak for equality" (like we weren't planning on kayaking that day anyway), we're going to binge watch Hidden Figures, Tuskeegee Airmen and 42, and we're going to change our profile pics.
None of that actually helps anything but white feelings, but that's all that matters anyway.
One of the more disturbing aspects of some whites stance toward racial issues is that they believe their sense of being put upon to feel guilty about the past is more important than what happened in the past.
So you believe obsessing about the past is more important than what’s happening to people who are actually alive?
Past discrimination doesn’t justify present discrimination, no matter how you try to rationalize it.
I dont necessarily think there should be reparations, although that probably would be justice it would be way too difficult to determine who was eligible.
But "I wasnt born when all that happened" is not an answer either.
Dont people benefit from things that happened or actions that were taken before they were born? We wouldnt have an oligarchic class of wealth if that were not the case. There wouldnt be legacy admissions to universities.
Do people live in the ghetto based entirely on their own faults and inadequacies, or were they put in that position largely by historical developments that often times occurred "before they were born"?
One side wants to be free of all care for what happened "before they were born" while others are trapped by it.
Housing segregation and other segregation created much of what happened to the contemporary black underclass. Surely you dont blame the victims.
How convenient.
Saw a statement the other day to this way of thinking. It was a guy in a car. In a nutshell and paraphrased a bit, "Even though there are days I wish I could change some things that happened in the past, there is a reason the rearview mirror is small and the windshield is so big. Where you're headed is much more important than what you left behind".
"Sense of being". "Feel guilty". So you're doubling down on your demands that we all feel like you do, because that will validate you and make you feel better.
And you apparently have no ideas beyond that. No solutions to propose. No ideas to implement. Nothing.
It would seem that if you were really concerned about racial inequality, you would have put some thought into how it might be realistically addressed.
Ok. here is a concrete proposal for you to chew on.
There are approximately 40 million blacks in America based a 12% black population and 320 million Americans.
Give each of those 40 million people $50,000, which is probably a minimum figure that could actually change someone's life. With 50 thousand dollars someone could pay for school or vocational training, or move to another location and start a new life with a new job.
This would cost the government 2 trillion dollars , which is not out of line with current social spending proposals.
There are the monetary reparations everyone talks about.
You up for it?
Outstanding.
Absolutely not. I don't think that's how we go about it at all. But I completely respect your view and appreciate your putting it forward. I am critical of the plan, but I am absolutely not critical of you as its presenter.
I am not opposed to spending the money, BTW, even in that quantity. But I think just handing out cash is the equivalent of handing out M16 rifles to some group of rebels and then pretending to be surprised when they still get massacred by a trained army.
You and I actually agree that racism in America has been systemic for hundreds of years. It's ingrained into our way of life, embedded into our institutions, and oozes from every pore of our cultural being. We can't fix that by simply writing a check and making it go away. We'd like it to be that way because most of us are lazy, but unfortunately, it's not that simple.
The power imbalance in this country is related to money, but somewhat indirectly. The real power of the individual in a capitalist society is the power to earn, more so than the money itself. It's a seemingly small but very important distinction. Kinda like how land is more important than the crops growing on it. If your land is good, it will continue to yield more crops. If your land is crappy you will always struggle, and somebody handing you a year's supply of food is only temporary help. Similarly, if your earning power is good, you can always make more money. If your earning power is good, you make enough money to set some of it aside and accumulate wealth.
Black people in America have ridiculously low earning power compared to every other ethnic group. That's the root of the problem. Failing to address that is simply pruning the racism tree so it can come back stronger.
I agree that blacks, and everyone else, should be trained for better ways to earn a living.
Or it could turn out like this...
It may behoove you to review the concept of satire bugsy.
Revisionist liberal bs taught in today's major universities is not all that uncommon either.
Actually. At this point it is long running joke.
Where ya been XMDM9mm?
I know who you think it is but you have the moniker wrong it is simply XDM9mm as in the pistol. No second M.
You're welcome again.
That's the way it is with us non-racists.
UM, that's why I posted it.Dave Chapell is a comedian,,,,,and not a woke leftist comedian. He's not afraid to tell leftists to go and fuck themselves.
It may behoove you to understand what was responded to.
Chapell wasn't telling leftists to go and fuck themselves bugsy.
It's SATIRE.
He was mocking the preconceived notions of you and yours.
I understand what was responded to bugsy.
Reading comprehension obviously escapes you.
I KNOW it is satire. Chapelle Is a COMEDIAN!!!
When leftists tried to cancel him a few months ago, THAT is when he told those same leftists to fuck themselves.
It's obvious you don't know what was responded to, Dulay.
You do not know what you are talking about!
Chapelle comprehension obviously escapes YOU.
Rinsing and repeating the same BS doesn't make it less BS.
Meh,
The irony is obviously lost on you.
Go ahead and get the last word you so crave.
You must be mistaking me for your buddy from Texas.
IMO 1619 project and CRT are two of the most flawed concepts in American history!
Why, do you not believe that a country where the vast majority of people were racist qualified as a racist country?
No John, actually I do not. I grew up exposed to racism on a personal level that I doubt you have. I am of Mexican/American and Native American heritage on my mother's side, with Scotch, English, and Irish on my father's side. I never was exposed to or got meet any relatives on my father's side. I grew up in a small town on the AZ/Mexico border where the majority of the town was Hispanic but the town was run by a minority Anglo population of a particular religious denomination that at that time was notoriously known as being prejudiced against Hispanics and African Americans. As a child growing up, I was regularly beaten up by the Mexicans for being half non Mexican and beat up by the white guys for being part Mexican! After I grew up, it took many years but I learned to embrace all facets of my heritage. I firmly believe racism is largely a personal choice not a institutional one. Many of those on both sides that beat me up as a child later apologized to me for their treatment of me and are friends to this day. Others not so much.
Sorry, but its not about you, or me. Its about everyone and there is no question at all that for much of the history of this country the majority of Americans were racist. Thats just history.
and, for the record I grew up almost entirely in racially changing neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago. Some people would probably call it the inner city although we thought of it as a working class neighborhood. When I was a teenager I was in racial gang fights. In one of them two of my friends were shot (not fatally) by a black guy.
I have been around racists pretty much all my life, having some in my own extended family.
Believe me, I know all about it.
You asked me a question and I gave you a answer so I guess that's it. Not my fault if you did not like or agree with the answer. Have a good day.
I also believe that a country where the vast majority of people were farmers qualified as an "agrarian country". We're not that anymore, either.
Has nothing to do with today.
Which Tribe was/is your Mother's side from?
Chiricahua Apache.
Thank you Ed. They are a great Tribe. They have a very distinguished history in the Southwest.
Yep. They certainly gave the US Cavalry more than a run for things until being defeated.
Their Chief Cochise was a remarkable leader. He did a lot of good things for his people during his tenure that are still highly regarded even today.
And yes, they did not cower from defending their homeland and their way of life.
Thank you.
I had the pleasure of meeting Nino Cochise, the grandson of Cochise when I was a teenager. He truly was a larger than life character who lived to be over a hundred years old. He resided in Tombstone, AZ for many years and was patient at the Cochise County Hospital where my mother worked as a LPN and was his nurse on several occasions. She took me out to the hospital one afternoon to meet him. Spent hours listening to him talk about Cochise and his life. It was a unforgettable experience!
Ohh.. how wonderful! I would have loved to be a gnat on the wall during your visit. I am so very glad that you had that unforgettable experience. Many of my Cherokee ancestors died on the Trail of Tears from starvation, disease and other causes. Only 4 out of the 83 family members who were force marched to the Indian Territory, which is now Oklahoma, alive. They were from both of my Parent's homelands.
Bot, out of the 4 who managed to make it to the end alive, they carried the history, culture and traditions of their Tribes in order to pass it on to the next generation, and on from there.
I am so very glad that you had such a wonderful opportunity to learn more of your heritage direct from one of your immediate family members.
nv-wa-do-hi-ya-dv (Peace)
I vote for 'Manifest Destiny' but to each his own...
While points made are generally validity, you manage as usual to trivialize an important subject and compare it to ‘a cheap melodrama for the juvenile mind’ – a remark which itself inclines to melodrama.
Postulating 1619 as the date of the United States’ founding does trivialize the foundational events of the Revolutionary War [1775-1783], and the Civil War [1861 – 1865]. What you don’t say is that this shoddy, reckless and dishonest presentation was a contrived and politically driven narrative to forge an electoral coalition based not on class but on personal identity. That – not vanquishing tradition, religion, constitutional law and order, family and history – is the true objective of the project. Likewise, your intent in conjuring this piece is not to protect tradition, religion, constitutional law and order, family and history – but to support a counter-coalition on the basis of an equally reactionary narrative.
In addition to exposing the attempt to forge an election coalition based on racial politics, a thorough job on your part would demonstrate that the 1619 Project assists the Democratic Party’s decades-long efforts to disassociate itself from the era of social welfare liberalism, from the New Deal to the Great Society. But then, you’re the last person we'd expect to cavil that class conflict is being eliminated as a substantial factor in political history.
You could have vindicated the Revolutionary War as freedom’s beacon against tyranny and fanaticism, and as a rebuke to governance by men rather than laws. You could have said that between them, the American and French Revolutions left their mark in many countries. You could also have quoted Denis Diderot who stated:
‘May these brave Americans who would rather see their wives raped, their children murdered, their dwellings destroyed, their fields ravaged, their villages burned, and rather shed their blood and die than lose the slightest portion of their freedom, prevent the enormous accumulation and unequal distribution of wealth, luxury, effeminacy and corruption of manners, and may they provide for the maintenance of their freedom and the survival of their government!’ Cited in Peter Gay, ‘The Enlightenment: The Science of Freedom’ [New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1996] pp. 556-57.
But who is going to indict the excesses which indolent wealth bestows on society on this board – you? Not likely!
You poke at a racial explanation of US history. Fine! But the US formed and grew as part of an international economic and political process which gave rise to capitalism. Slavery existed in that process. It stretched from Africa [where it was practiced for centuries] to the shipyards of Britain, to Amsterdam banking houses, to plantations in South Carolina, Brazil and the Caribbean. The Dutch operated slave trading posts in West Africa, and the Portuguese imported millions of slaves to Brazil. There is guilt aplenty. And by no means is it all white guilt. 15 – 20 million Africans were sent to the Americas. Yet slave labor was not only black; it was brown, white, yellow, Catholic, Protestant and pagan. You mention none of this.
18 th c. commercial capitalism developed Europe’s wealth by slavery and by monopoly. But that helped create 19 th c. industrial capitalism which in turn destroyed the power of commercial capitalism, slavery, and all its foul deeds. Slavery could not end until the conditions necessary for its abolition had sufficiently matured.
The growth of the industrialized North and the Southern cotton-based plantation system [a result of 1793 – the cotton gin] produced two, increasingly incompatible economic systems, one based on slavery, and one on wage labor. Efforts to resolve their contradictions [as the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1856] failed uniformly. US economic development made inevitable the clash of two, competing economic systems called the US Civil War.
1776 put in motion a crisis which resulted in the Civil War, which is really the Second American Revolution. Hundreds of thousands of whites died to put an end of slavery. This was no accident. Nor was it an unconscious outcome of the Civil War. This was required to vindicate Jefferson's Declaration. Yet the end of that war resulted also in the greatest expropriation of private property in world history, until the Russian Revolution of 1917.
It is well and good to fault Hannah-Jones for disregarding the works of Eric Foner, James McPherson, Allen Guelzo, David Donald, Ronald C. White, Stephen Oates, Richard Carwardine, etc. which show Lincoln as a revolutionary leader who was committed fully to the eradication of slavery. She is also to be faulted for redacting white abolitionists – Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Elijah Lovejoy, John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens and Harriet Beecher Stowe. But you have no more to say of political economy as I outline than she of the interracial nature of the abolitionism.
Why?
As soon as Kapital as political economy is admitted to the discussion, it brings with it a host of other struggles against slave labor which transformed into a struggle against wage slavery in which countless workers of varied races died. As soon as the labor class and wage slavery is admitted into discussion, that brings with it the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 [which only federal troops dispersed]. It brings the fight for the 8-hour day and the Haymarket Massacre, the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892, the Pullman strike of 1894, the formation of the AFL, the founding of the Socialist Party and the IWW, the Ludlow Massacre, the Great Steel Strike of 1919 and more.
You and Hannah-Jones seem entirely agreed that there is no class struggle. And if disagreeing on race as the key to the American Story, neither of you affirm that African-Americans formed a critical part of the US working class in the past 150 years. Blacks herded into the steel mills as strikebreakers in 1919 became transformed by one generation of abuse into one of the most militant parts of the great steel strike of 1946. Tens and hundreds of thousands of hillbilly rednecks were taken from the South and used as a barrier against unionism in Detroit, Akron and elsewhere. Sweated, shamed and exploited, they traded the KKK for the CIO union button. But neither you nor Hannah-Jones can mention this, or the Great Migration [1916 to 1970] as millions of rural South blacks and whites relocated to take jobs in the industrialized North.
Yet you purport to be defending history.
Hannah-Jones doesn’t speak for working class African-Americans; she speaks for a very thin layer of upper-middle class black Americans who want a bigger piece of economic pie. As for struggling, working-class African-Americans, her antics will not pay one, solitary bill on their behalf.
As for you, Democrats and Republicans alike must be petrified by the prospects of social revolution. No less than Hannah-Jones, you appear to need these diversionary ‘projects’ in order to bury class issues well beneath literary fluff and ‘man-bites-dog’ stories/issues.
Lastly, know that Marx and Engels affirmed the progressive character of the Revolution. In 1865, Marx wrote to Lincoln saying that in the Revolutionary War, ‘the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century.’
We’ve got Marx’ letter and the US government’s reply to him. So we can stop pretending now that the reactionary 1619 Project is somehow related to Marxism.
No one would be more surprised to learn that than Marx himself.
Thank you.
What you don’t say is that this shoddy, reckless and dishonest presentation was a contrived and politically driven narrative to forge an electoral coalition based not on class but on personal identity. That – not vanquishing tradition, religion, constitutional law and order, family and history – is the true objective of the project.
Yes Sir. I almost wish I had!
Likewise, your intent in conjuring this piece is not to protect tradition, religion, constitutional law and order, family and history – but to support a counter-coalition on the basis of an equally reactionary narrative.
Let me see, am I a reactionary? That's another great question.
You could have vindicated the Revolutionary War as freedom’s beacon against tyranny and fanaticism, and as a rebuke to governance by men rather than laws. You could have said that between them, the American and French Revolutions left their mark in many countries. You could also have quoted Denis Diderot who stated:
‘May these brave Americans who would rather see their wives raped, their children murdered, their dwellings destroyed, their fields ravaged, their villages burned, and rather shed their blood and die than lose the slightest portion of their freedom, prevent the enormous accumulation and unequal distribution of wealth, luxury, effeminacy and corruption of manners, and may they provide for the maintenance of their freedom and the survival of their government!’ Cited in Peter Gay, ‘The Enlightenment: The Science of Freedom’ [New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1996] pp. 556-57.
But who is going to indict the excesses which indolent wealth bestows on society on this board – you? Not likely!
No, not likely at all.
You poke at a racial explanation of US history. Fine! But the US formed and grew as part of an international economic and political process which gave rise to capitalism. Slavery existed in that process. It stretched from Africa [where it was practiced for centuries] to the shipyards of Britain, to Amsterdam banking houses, to plantations in South Carolina, Brazil and the Caribbean. The Dutch operated slave trading posts in West Africa, and the Portuguese imported millions of slaves to Brazil. There is guilt aplenty. And by no means is it all white guilt. 15 – 20 million Africans were sent to the Americas. Yet slave labor was not only black; it was brown, white, yellow, Catholic, Protestant and pagan. You mention none of this.
I wish I had. Very good Sir.
18 th c. commercial capitalism developed Europe’s wealth by slavery and by monopoly. But that helped create 19 th c. industrial capitalism which in turn destroyed the power of commercial capitalism, slavery, and all its foul deeds. Slavery could not end until the conditions necessary for its abolition had sufficiently matured.
The growth of the industrialized North and the Southern cotton-based plantation system [a result of 1793 – the cotton gin] produced two, increasingly incompatible economic systems, one based on slavery, and one on wage labor. Efforts to resolve their contradictions [as the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1856] failed uniformly. US economic development made inevitable the clash of two, competing economic systems called the US Civil War.
1776 put in motion a crisis which resulted in the Civil War, which is really the Second American Revolution. Hundreds of thousands of whites died to put an end of slavery. This was no accident. Nor was it an unconscious outcome of the Civil War. This was required to vindicate Jefferson's Declaration. Yet the end of that war resulted also in the greatest expropriation of private property in world history, until the Russian Revolution of 1917.
It is well and good to fault Hannah-Jones for disregarding the works of Eric Foner, James McPherson, Allen Guelzo, David Donald, Ronald C. White, Stephen Oates, Richard Carwardine, etc. which show Lincoln as a revolutionary leader who was committed fully to the eradication of slavery. She is also to be faulted for redacting white abolitionists – Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Elijah Lovejoy, John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens and Harriet Beecher Stowe. But you have no more to say of political economy as I outline than she of the interracial nature of the abolitionism.
Why?
As soon as Kapital as political economy is admitted to the discussion, it brings with it a host of other struggles against slave labor which transformed into a struggle against wage slavery in which countless workers of varied races died. As soon as the labor class and wage slavery is admitted into discussion, that brings with it the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 [which only federal troops dispersed]. It brings the fight for the 8-hour day and the Haymarket Massacre, the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892, the Pullman strike of 1894, the formation of the AFL, the founding of the Socialist Party and the IWW, the Ludlow Massacre, the Great Steel Strike of 1919 and more.
You and Hannah-Jones seem entirely agreed that there is no class struggle. And if disagreeing on race as the key to the American Story, neither of you affirm that African-Americans formed a critical part of the US working class in the past 150 years. Blacks herded into the steel mills as strikebreakers in 1919 became transformed by one generation of abuse into one of the most militant parts of the great steel strike of 1946. Tens and hundreds of thousands of hillbilly rednecks were taken from the South and used as a barrier against unionism in Detroit, Akron and elsewhere. Sweated, shamed and exploited, they traded the KKK for the CIO union button. But neither you nor Hannah-Jones can mention this, or the Great Migration [1916 to 1970] as millions of rural South blacks and whites relocated to take jobs in the industrialized North.
Yet you purport to be defending history.
I did. I didn't attempt to do it from a Marxist perspective.
Hannah-Jones doesn’t speak for working class African-Americans; she speaks for a very thin layer of upper-middle class black Americans who want a bigger piece of economic pie. As for struggling, working-class African-Americans, her antics will not pay one, solitary bill on their behalf.
As for you, Democrats and Republicans alike must be petrified by the prospects of social revolution. No less than Hannah-Jones, you appear to need these diversionary ‘projects’ in order to bury class issues well beneath literary fluff and ‘man-bites-dog’ stories/issues.
Lastly, know that Marx and Engels affirmed the progressive character of the Revolution. In 1865, Marx wrote to Lincoln saying that in the Revolutionary War, ‘the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century.’
We’ve got Marx’ letter and the US government’s reply to him. So we can stop pretending now that the reactionary 1619 Project is somehow related to Marxism.
No one would be more surprised to learn that than Marx himself.
Aside from the defense of Marxism, I'd have to say, without a doubt, that is the finest critique I've ever read on NT or even the old Newsvine.
Well done.
Great article. 1619 project is pure propaganda and nothing more. It is a defamatory libel against the United States of America.
What you and certain others here post is pure propaganda and nothing more.
The right kind of propaganda perhaps.
Do you think it would get banned from Twitter as disinformation?
Twitter would be more likely to to ban the Declaration of Independence as disinformation based on their mentally defective thinking.
I wonder if they care to go back and remove the now obvious lie that protestors were removed from a few feet of the White House for a photo-op.
They never questioned that one!
[removed]
Because it's not an 'obvious lie'.
The Turd Reich had them clear the area of the great unwashed. . . for his photo op.
Nope. Obvious lie it is.
"A government report concludes that federal police did not clear protesters from Lafayette Park near the White House last summer so then-President Donald Trump could walk to a nearby church for a photo op.
The report, released Wednesday by Interior Department Inspector General Mark Lee Greenblatt, says U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service determined it was necessary to remove protesters from the area in and around the park last June 1, so contractors could install security fencing.
Federal police didn't learn of Trump's plans to walk through the park and examine damage from a fire at St. John's Episcopal Church until mid- to late afternoon – hours after they had begun planning for the security fencing and the contractor had arrived in the park, the report says."
Come on Jim. We all know that when CNN and MSDNC tells you something, no matter how utter BS it is, their leftist cult followers bend over backwards to believe it, even if they themselves know deep down what they are being fed is BS.
What about the Secret Service teams who deployed early and used harsher tactics? Oh, yeah. That's right, we can not know or learn of what they were doing because of the Trump official who banned inquiry into just that aspect by the IG. So, yes, the action was planned to erect barriers, but that is all that we can ascertain. Certainly, the Park Police were trained in less aggressive means to clear the area and were ostensibly in control of the operation, but the operation did not go "as planned". It is totally in character for the disgrace of humanity that was the 45th POtuS to orchestrate just that type of action and obfuscation. Did he. My money is on he did. He certainly took advantage of the optics of the moment to look "strong", just like his dictator friends.
But the injuring of all those secret service agents and other law enforcement pressed up against the White House fence and the forced evacuation of the First Family to the bunker and setting fire to a national landmark church wasn’t an insurrection at all! Lol!
I wonder how many were hoping the mob would breach the fence?
Maybe that was when Pelosi decided not to secure the capitol?
One of the problems with the "project" is that is doesn't acknowledge that there were more than just blacks held as slaves nor does it acknowledge that there were more than whites that held slaves. It's an incomplete history at best.
Incomplete as well as incorrect. Not fit to be labeled as history.
Vic, did you read the 1619 Project material in the New York Times? and I dont mean a short summary.
Have you read the book "Stamped From The Beginning, The Definitive History Of Racist Ideas In America" by Ibram X. Kendi.
After you read all of that material you can think about commenting on what is "incorrect" or "incomplete".
Most of what I've read comes from an article in the Wall Street Journal plus various historian critiques.
It's not hard to understand John. There is no mystery to it.
Unfortunately you dont have the factual knowledge to back up your opinions. The history of widespread racism in America is vast and undeniable.
Did you come up with that all by yourself? To quote one of NT's most beloved, "no shit Sherlock". No one is denying that fact that I know of.
Since you want to make it personal, I could say the same about you. What I will say is that you are obsessed with race as is the author of that fiction.
Hmmmm, I wonder who JJ is referring to?
I would rather not have to talk about racism so much, but that is not the world we live in.
We could, probably within a few years, put an end to it all , but too many whites insist on saying "it all happened before I was born" and "its not my fault" , and especially "white people are the real victims of racism" , and so this will all drag on forever.
By the way Vic, I have read a lot more than a Wall St Journal article.
That's not the impression I get.
We could, probably within a few years, put an end to it all , but too many whites insist on saying "it all happened before I was born" and "its not my fault" , and especially "white people are the real victims of racism" , and so this will all drag on forever.
You mean some deny "guilt?" Put me at the top of that list.
I know a lot of people have your attitude.
It guarantees racial discord will be around for the rest of your life.
If you had been careful about reading my comment, you would have known that I have as well.
You get no credit for trying to turn a fiction into history.
As long as people with your attitude try and divide us over race it will. I gladly take up that fight.
No peace? You'll get more than you can handle
You got all the bluster but not much of the facts.
The evidence that America has been, for centuries, a largely racist nation is overwhelming.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 57 years ago, less than three generations, and that is not even close to the amount of time it would take to make America "post-racial'. There are people alive today who prevented blacks from sitting at lunch counters and simply eating a meal with everyone else.
Oooooh, so scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How is it that YOU will take up that fight?
John, for your own sake - you need to let it go. In the year 2008 the US elected a Black president. Just over 12% of the nation is Black. A racist nation would never allow that to happen.
Some people might say that claiming racism is over because a black president was elected is a racist trope, but I wont.
If half of white America is racist and the other half of them would have then voted for Obama because they are not racist, he would have won by more than he did.
People dont entirely vote for or against someone for president because of race.
Saying "but we had a black president" is a simplistic excuse.
That's up to you.
You kinda just did.
If half of white America is racist and the other half of them would have then voted for Obama because they are not racist, he would have won by more than he did.
He had no chance without the white vote.
People dont entirely vote for or against someone for president because of race.
Let us hope not. The democrat party has depended on just that.
Saying "but we had a black president" is a simplistic excuse.
It does not stand alone, but is a leading indicator of the American spirit.
So, no answer.
Got it.
I don't think you do.
I know I do.
Why don't you start talking about solutions instead of hand-wringing over how terrible everything was in 1820.
What's your plan?
Conservative self awareness.
America is not a white nation anymore.
A lot of people fairly constantly bemoan the loss of "tradition" . Well, it cant be helped.
So we're back to "other people need to change their feelings to align with John's".
Let's use our imaginations and pretend that's already happened. What then?
One of the problems is that most of those decrying the 'project' have never actually READ any more of it that the truncated blurbs posted by naysayers. Your comment proves that unequivocally.
e of the problems is that most of those decrying the 'project' have never actually REA
Lol.. You are the last person on this site who can play that card, Mr. "The essay was not edited because I refuse to read the admission by the Times that it did so".
It would be nice if the backers of this travesty could at least pretend to be intellectually honest. Then a debate could be had.
I didn't refuse to read a fucking thing Sean. It's behind a pay wall. I asked both you and Vic to quote the NYT statement that they edited the essay, BOTH of YOU refused to do so.
So your comment is utter bullshit.
Intellectual honesty would require YOU to admit that you haven't actually READ any of it Sean.
Oh and BTFW, John posted a blurb from one of the essays in THIS seed that CLEARLY states that Native Americans were enslaved. So your statement that:
PROVES that you not only failed to READ the 'project'.
Hell, you even failed to READ the comments in this seed.
Or did you READ John's post and just knowingly posted bullshit?
If I remember correctly, Hannah-Jones edited her own essay to remove the sentence about all the founding fathers being for revolution in order to protect slavery , because she says she never intended to say ALL of them felt that way.
One thing that I find interesting about all this is when the anti 1619 Project people talk about all the historians who objected to the conclusions drawn by the Project essayists. There were five historians who signed that letter objecting to the 1619 Project. What the anti-1619 Project people dont tell us is that many more historians than 5 were asked to sign that letter but refused. In fact more refused to sign it than signed it. Almost all of the ones that refused said it was because they agreed in principle with what the 1619 Project was doing.
The point being there is widespread agreement that more in depth history about slavery and racism is a good thing.
The paranoia is strong in many on the right.
I wouldn't call it paranoia. If I said what it actually was, my comment would be removed.
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
― Mao Tse-tung
Almost every day, if not multiple times on most days, we get articles proclaiming how great America is, but not only that we get articles about how wonderful it is to live in a country with our great history of individual freedom and achievement and of the impressive business acumen of the generations of entrepreneurs and "dreamers" who continuously created our state of the art lifestyle. More often than not in these articles we hear about the founders, and the Declaration of Independence. Who would have thought that 250 years later there would be a need to hear about the Declaration Of Independence every couple of days? And yet we do, either on Newstalkers here, or in some bastion of conservative media.
The "1619 Project" does not destroy those other "patriotic" inclinations , it augments them. There has been, both consciously by some and unconsciously by others, a centuries long myth of America that has been absorbed into the national bloodstream. The "1619 Project" says "let's add some corrective information to this story".
There is no logical reason to be afraid of this, but logic is not in charge anymore.
No, it's fiction.
Some are good at trying to propagandize a far right political view. They are not that good at understanding or articulating a history of people.
And some are spreading bitterness and hate.
[deleted]
America is not perfect, it never has been, but its ability to overcome the bad things is one of its greatest strengths.
America is constantly growing, changing and striving forward, and that is also something that makes it great.
Not with radical left wingers in charge.
Those feeling they're being left behind are the loudest whiners out there - constant whining and bitching and pissing and moaning
Yeah, those whiney racists.
You are correct, however the speed of that advancement is seriously impacted by who is elected to local, state and federal government positions. i.e. Trump's attempts to dismantle solar and wind power, by claiming "clean" coal, and affecting US investments in actual clean/renewable power.
I think that's true if the election trends extend for much longer periods of time.
And I'm not sure Trump is much more than a tangential factor when we're talking about local and state positions.
Trends like investment in renewable energy are multi-decade kinds of things. Investment in renewables never really slowed under Trump. Texas, supposedly the heart of Trump Country, generates more wind power by itself than almost every nation in the world. Almost every car maker is rolling out fully electric vehicles, and many are already setting end dates on combustion engines.
Those developments are decades in the making from an engineering standpoint.
Time just effects the degree, 4 years is long enough for the slow down to commence.
It is impacted on both the local and federal level. Local is more specific on what it effects, federal is more general.
Investments are multi-decade in their lengths of investment, but it only takes one man, one minute to sign a paper eliminating those multi-decade investments.
The Trump Administration Is Stifling Renewable Energy on Public Lands and Waters
Trump’s Impact on Clean-Energy Businesses
Trump’s War on Solar
What is the Trump administration’s track record on the environment?
Maybe. I'm not sure we actually saw that, though.
I never underestimate the power of big businesses with big bucks at stake. Trump was never going to stand in their way, no matter what he did.
OK, so you have an MIT article from 2016 predicting things will go badly under Trump for renewables. You then have a Rolling Stone article from 2020 with states clearly that they didn't go badly at all until Covid. The Brookings article talks about how coal power generation fell 22% under Trump, despite his promises to bring it back.
Renewables are a now a juggernaut that no president could stop. Too many massive corporations have the opportunity to make too much money.
Please see the links I provided for specific examples.
When compared to oil and coal, renewable energy is like a mom and pop store trying to take down a Walmart and Koger's, at the same time.
Juggernaut? I don't think so, but they are inevitable.
And too many more are unwilling to give up their current cash cows of oil, gas, and coal.
That's not true dennis.
I referred to them in my earlier comments.
Tesla is actually now bigger than Exxon, Royal Dutch/Shell and Chevron combined.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Help me out.
I think that may have been true a few years ago, but I think numbers may tell a different story today. Over 100,000 people have already put down deposits on electric Ford F150s alone. It's the most popular truck....yes TRUCK...in America, and they could easily see 35% of sales be electric in the very first year.
As a side note, I don't know if you invest at all, but if you do, the electrification of the US automobile industry could possibly be one of the biggest investment booms since railroads. The number of charging stations alone will be staggering, not to mention replacement batteries, battery disposal and recycle, next-gen batteries with hydrogen or vanadium, and solar generation to extend range and recharge while parked.
So you are stating that before Biden, America had energy independence? Is that actually what you are trying to claim???
Tesla is a car manufacturer, not an energy company.
A juggernaut, as the name implies, would be pushing gas, oil and coal out of their way to become dominant. They are not doing that, but since gas, oil, and coal are not renewable energy sources, the renewables are inevitably going to win, but only after non-renewables have been exhausted to the point they will be too expensive to use. That is why so many car manufacturers are inching into electric vehicles.
They're just becoming more desperate. Willing to destroy the environment for more drilling/fracking.
So what? Car manufacturers have nothing to do with what we've been talking about. Just ask yourself, why they have waited so long when the technology has existed for decades.
You are correct, but again, only because we are running out of non-renewables. Renewable energy is inevitable, but only because we are running out of non-renewables.
All part of the infrastructure bill which republicans are trying to block. And again, yes all that will happen, but much much slower than it should be.
What we need is another "Cash for Clunkers", but this time aimed at trading in for electric cars.
Cost. Did you buy a VCR or a flat screen TV when they first came out? VCR's were like $400-500 in 80's dollars. Flat screen TV's like $3,500.00. Finally it seems that EV's are getting less expensive to build and buy as time goes on and without GovCo subsidies.........or at least lesser subsidies.
And
Independent and independence are pretty much the wrong word(s). It's more like "self sufficient" which we are/were.
Demand. They're not going to spend billions of dollars developing something they don't think people want.
That's why this is so significant.
Two of the biggest drivers of the US economy for the past 100 years have been the home building industry and the auto industry. Both of those are now headed full speed into mainstream eco/green integration.
The only reason that's happening is because of the massive demand, and it far exceeds anything they expected.
It's even more significant because the market that was least expected to show demand for electric vehicles (pickup buyers) has exploded almost instantly upon opening.
People have been proclaiming that loudly since I was a child in the 1970s. We're not running out of oil any time soon. It certainly won't happen in my lifetime.
You're imagining this as a political event. It's not. This is driven by something vastly more powerful....money. It's going to move much faster and more powerfully than government ever can.
The people who build the McLaren Speedtail would disagree with you.
Correct, but think of how quicker and lower those costs would be, if lobbyists for coal, oil, and gas didn't cause government officials to block those subsidies.
He is stuck with the words he used, and saying that America was energy "self sufficient" before Biden took over would be just as false.
I also noticed that Dennis disappeared rather than try to support his own claim.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with President Biden.
So under the Turd Reich we were energy independent???????????????????????????
Did you also notice Dennis didn't get an answer to his question?
I'm not sure EVs do a lot of good if only a few dozen people buy them. Cost has always been a huge factor in mass adoption.
It's an interesting point. I honestly don't know how much faster the technology could have progressed, no matter how much money was involved. Some degree faster, for sure, but I'm not sure we save more than a few years.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between "energy independence" and "energy self-sufficiency". Aren't we pretty much talking about making more or less than we use?
In any case, the official data does, in fact, state that in 2019 we produced more than we consumed and exported more than we imported. It was the first time since 1957 for either. We did it again in 2020.
Why should I answer one of his, when he still hasn't answered my first one???
You're wrong. Having a market for any product, causes that product to be constantly improved to increase the market for it.
Few years? 5? 10? 20?
That's the trick he was trying to get away with. WHAT did we produce more of than we exported? I know the answer, and it is why the specific were not listed in your statement.
Was that you he was addressing in 3.2.13?
I think pretty much every economist in the world agrees on the basics about the cost and demand.
If only a hundred people buy EVs, it has zero impact on the environment.
Maybe 5? I don't think 10 and there's no way 20.
As the link indicates...the EIA numbers are in BTUs.
You "think"? Unless you would like to provide documentation showing your expertise in this area, what you "think" is not worth the time it took you to type it.
Which has nothing to do with energy independence.
We exported more oil than we imported, but the catch is that the oil we exported, was of a quality we did not use. We use 1 quality of oil, which we have to largely import, but we export a different quality of oil that we do not use.
That is why we were not energy independent. Our "energy" came from a different product from what we produced and exported.
It's all a bunch lies, there are no facts to support the inane allegations
I have to see a single word that indicates you are familiar with the history of race and racism in America.
I can say say the same of you.
You make unsupported statements all day long.
I do know from personal experience that racism in America is not what you falsely claim it to be.
So your personal experience is the same as EVERYONE ELSE?
As far as I can tell, I know far far more about the history of racism in this country than you do.
Would you like a list of about 20 books you could read ?
All I have seen over the past few decades are democrats are pissed that republicans let their slaves go.
Now, they have been trying to get them back in the mantra of the welfare state.
Most libs hate it when a black person escapes from THAT plantation.
Speaking of 'mantras', you just posted one.
I dont talk with people who dont understand the two parties reversed ideologies about race 70 or 80 years ago.
There is no reversed ideology.
Democrats bought and sold slaves from the birth of this nation from, BTW, 1776, not 1619, were pissed in 1865 when a republican president freed those slaves, and 150 years later, are still pissed, so they decided to form a new plantation, the plantation of government reliance and the welfare state.
No, you don't talk to people who refuse to fall to their knees and worship the warped ideology of John Russel
You;re right
The mantra of the left.
Thanks for acknowledging that.
Since the Democratic party wasn't founded until 1828, your comment is utter bullshit.
Are any Klan members, white supremacists, Skin Heads or Aryan Nations Democrats now?
Just like everything else.
I remember I went to type 'shithead' in a certain comment to someone and it popped up as 'skinhead'. Same thing really.
How many times have we heard that falsehood?
Just accept it, the Republican party appealed to disaffected Southern Dixiecrats after a Democratic majority congress and a Democratic majority Senate authored and passed the 1964 civil rights act which was then signed into law by a Democrat President.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970
So you'll likely keep hearing it because it's not a falsehood, it's pure unadulterated fact that no matter how much the whiny conservative bigots try to wriggle and writhe out of it and hide behind their new party name, they know who they are. Republicans protect confederate monuments, fly confederate flags, and have the support of white supremacist groups, the KKK and neo-Nazi's. Anyone who refuses to accept these facts has their head buried in the sand and is severe denial or perhaps has some form of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).
[deleted]
Meh, so what.
Democrats in the name of the ideology of slave owning, 1776, 1828, 1962, 2021...doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
Way to plant your feet and stand behind what your posit bugsy.
All of your facts fall on deaf, dumb, and blind 'ears'
Like you?
Woof!
The widespread adoption of this fake narrative will have long lasting repercussions.
Who would ever risk their live for what we teach our kids to be the worst country in the history of the world?
The 1619 project is doing the work the KGB dreamed of accomplishing.
To me, this is by far the most interesting paragraph in the article. The sad truth is that the Civil War did not accomplish much of what it is presumed to have done. I have seen numerous white people , today, in the 21st century, say that the Civil War ended all the blacks problems.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Blacks, and other people of color were second class citizens for 100 years after the end of the Civil War, and faced CONSTANT debilitating prejudice. White people did not totally willingly give "civil rights" to everyone in 1964, it was the culmination of years of black people protesting and marching and pleading with politicians.
Emancipation gave the illusion of a better day. The better day was far in the future.
Are you forgetting the role the white Democrats played in perpetuating racism for those100 years
They are still at it - now it's racism against Whites.
The problem is that when people start talking about slavery, it's focused on blacks as being slaves. Rarely do you hear mention of black slave owners, black slave traders. And when those are mentioned the person that mentions them is shouted down, labeled a racist and disregarded in the conversation. There were other ethnicities that were held as slaves. Asians have had success since the end of slavery in the US. And they were treated just as harshly. Why is that? Why did one group of slaves flourish and the other still playing victim?
Fact of the matter is, the U.S. held slaves at one point in it's history just as many other nations. More than blacks were held as slaves. There is nobody alive today responsible for slavery in the US. On the same token, there isn't anybody alive that was held as a slave in the US.
WHY is that 'the problem' Jeremy?
Perhaps that is because comparatively, black slave owners were rare.
"Black slave traders' are 'mentioned' all the time.
That may have to do with person's MOTIVE for mentioning them.
A fact which is included in the 1619 Project.
Bullshit.
What group of chattel slaves flourish Jeremy?
Fact of the matter is, it required a civil war in the US to END chattel slavery in the US.
Yes Jeremy, the Indigenous Peoples of the 'Americas' were subjugated into chattel slavery by Europeans. It is ANOTHER part of American history that has been silenced by the PTB for generations.
There are institutions and companies that exist today who have admitted that they built their wealth, in part, on the chattel slavery Jeremy.
Please explain why you think that is relevant Jeremy.
Does Jeremy know you are speaking for him Jim?
If you are doing so of your own volition, the least you can do on behalf of Jeremy is answer the questions cogently. Your obtuse meme fails on that account.
Maybe you should do the honors?
Your obtuse meme fails on that account.
Everything looks like a fail to those who refuse to accept facts.
Not speaking for Jeremy just expounding on his point. Problem?
Tough fucking shit
WHAT honors Vic?
'Our readers' should bow to your expertise on that Vic.
They're not going to accept your interpretations, that I'm sure of.
I accept Dulay's 'interpretations' AKA facts/truth completely.
Then you should have block quoted Jeremy's comment, NOT mine.
Triggered.
Which of my 'interpretations' do you think 'our readers' will take issue with Vic?
Where do I begin?
Was it your conviction that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague in 2016, which you no longer recall or your idea that the Steele Dossier was credible, which you've probably forgotten or your more recent defenses of judges being able to make election rules or today's denial that the aforementioned slaves sent to Jamestown were eventually freed?
How about it Dulay?
Here:
"It should be noted that by examining these documents it was also found that some blacks were able to hold on to their status of being indentured servants, thus, eventually gaining their freedom.
By answering my question with a concise and relevant answer.
No.
The fact that you devolve to that old canard merely illustrates that you're incapable of participating in this forum in good faith.
You're deflecting again Vic. That link and statement have NOTHING to do with your claim about 'our readers' taking issue with 'my interpretations'.
You actually trying to call me stupid? You don't think I'd see Jim's comment and understand who or what he was talking about? I'm not simpleton leftist that has to have everything explained to them. Jim's meme perfectly explains why I made the statement "On the same token, there isn't anybody alive that was held as a slave in the US."
Is that what you attempting to do? Answer cogently? Sorry dude, but you failed at it. Next time try adding some knowledge and research ability so that you don't come across looking the fool you did in 5.2.1
You ask why the problem is that when people start talking about slavery, it's focused on blacks as being slaves. Maybe if you'd read my whole comment and apply some sort of critical thinking methods you wouldn't have to ask so many ridiculous questions
Why? YOU reject whatever you don't like to hear.
The fact that you devolve to that old canard merely illustrates that you're incapable of participating in this forum in good faith.
I present more than old arguments that you took on, I included your indefensible argument on this racist story.
ou're deflecting again Vic. That link and statement have NOTHING to do with your claim about 'our readers' taking issue with 'my interpretations'.
It has everything to do with you questioning whether the Jamestown slaves/indentured servants were freed. That isn't part of the 1619 fable. As a matter of fact Jamestown was anti-slavery. Another fact that the New York Times staffer/racist left out of her story.
If I were you wouldn't have to ask Jeremy.
I have no idea what you 'see' in Jim's meme Jeremy.
Nor eloquent.
Both are obtuse.
The ONLY questions in your comment were:
I did NOT answer your questions because they lack a predicate.
Instead I ASKED a perfectly cogent and relevant question:
One would think that someone of your professed intellect would be able to answer that question off the top of their head. Alas...
Can you point out what I said in my 5.2.1 comment that lacked knowledge or research Jeremy?
I not only READ your whole comment Jeremy, I block quoted it and address each claim.
NONE of my questions are 'ridiculous', every one of them are in direct reply to YOUR assertions.
You are either unwilling or unable to answer questions about your assertions or incapable of supporting them, or BOTH. That's on you.
This is an excerpt from an article that is part of the 1619 Project
America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
No one cherishes freedom more than those who have not had it. And to this day, black Americans, more than any other group, embrace the democratic ideals of a common good. We are the most likely to support programs like universal health care and a higher minimum wage, and to oppose programs that harm the most vulnerable. For instance, black Americans suffer the most from violent crime, yet we are the most opposed to capital punishment. Our unemployment rate is nearly twice that of white Americans, yet we are still the most likely of all groups to say this nation should take in refugees.
The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of black resistance. Our founding fathers may not have actually believed in the ideals they espoused, but black people did. As one scholar, Joe R. Feagin, put it, “Enslaved African-Americans have been among the foremost freedom-fighters this country has produced.” For generations, we have believed in this country with a faith it did not deserve. Black people have seen the worst of America, yet, somehow, we still believe in its best.
They say our people were born on the water.
When it occurred, no one can say for certain. Perhaps it was in the second week, or the third, but surely by the fourth, when they had not seen their land or any land for so many days that they lost count. It was after fear had turned to despair, and despair to resignation, and resignation to an abiding understanding. The teal eternity of the Atlantic Ocean had severed them so completely from what had once been their home that it was as if nothing had ever existed before, as if everything and everyone they cherished had simply vanished from the earth. They were no longer Mbundu or Akan or Fulani. These men and women from many different nations, all shackled together in the suffocating hull of the ship, they were one people now.
Just a few months earlier, they had families, and farms, and lives and dreams. They were free. They had names, of course, but their enslavers did not bother to record them. They had been made black by those people who believed that they were white, and where they were heading, black equaled “slave,” and slavery in America required turning human beings into property by stripping them of every element that made them individuals. This process was called seasoning, in which people stolen from western and central Africa were forced, often through torture, to stop speaking their native tongues and practicing their native religions.
But as the sociologist Glenn Bracey wrote, “Out of the ashes of white denigration, we gave birth to ourselves.” For as much as white people tried to pretend, black people were not chattel. And so the process of seasoning, instead of erasing identity, served an opposite purpose: In the void, we forged a new culture all our own.
Today, our very manner of speaking recalls the Creole languages that enslaved people innovated in order to communicate both with Africans speaking various dialects and the English-speaking people who enslaved them. Our style of dress, the extra flair, stems back to the desires of enslaved people — shorn of all individuality — to exert their own identity. Enslaved people would wear their hat in a jaunty manner or knot their head scarves intricately. Today’s avant-garde nature of black hairstyles and fashion displays a vibrant reflection of enslaved people’s determination to feel fully human through self-expression. The improvisational quality of black art and music comes from a culture that because of constant disruption could not cling to convention. Black naming practices, so often impugned by mainstream society, are themselves an act of resistance. Our last names belong to the white people who once owned us. That is why the insistence of many black Americans, particularly those most marginalized, to give our children names that we create, that are neither European nor from Africa, a place we have never been, is an act of self-determination. When the world listens to quintessential American music, it is our voice they hear. The sorrow songs we sang in the fields to soothe our physical pain and find hope in a freedom we did not expect to know until we died became American gospel. Amid the devastating violence and poverty of the Mississippi Delta, we birthed jazz and blues. And it was in the deeply impoverished and segregated neighborhoods where white Americans forced the descendants of the enslaved to live that teenagers too poor to buy instruments used old records to create a new music known as hip-hop.
Our speech and fashion and the drum of our music echoes Africa but is not African. Out of our unique isolation, both from our native cultures and from white America, we forged this nation’s most significant original culture. In turn, “mainstream” society has coveted our style, our slang and our song, seeking to appropriate the one truly American culture as its own. As Langston Hughes wrote in 1926, “They’ll see how beautiful I am/And be ashamed —/I, too, am America.”
For centuries, white Americans have been trying to solve the “Negro problem.” They have dedicated thousands of pages to this endeavor. It is common, still, to point to rates of black poverty, out-of-wedlock births, crime and college attendance, as if these conditions in a country built on a racial caste system are not utterly predictable. But crucially, you cannot view those statistics while ignoring another: that black people were enslaved here longer than we have been free.
At 43, I am part of the first generation of black Americans in the history of the United States to be born into a society in which black people had full rights of citizenship. Black people suffered under slavery for 250 years; we have been legally “free” for just 50. Yet in that briefest of spans, despite continuing to face rampant discrimination, and despite there never having been a genuine effort to redress the wrongs of slavery and the century of racial apartheid that followed, black Americans have made astounding progress, not only for ourselves but also for all Americans.
What if America understood, finally, in this 400th year, that we have never been the problem but the solution?
When I was a child — I must have been in fifth or sixth grade — a teacher gave our class an assignment intended to celebrate the diversity of the great American melting pot. She instructed each of us to write a short report on our ancestral land and then draw that nation’s flag. As she turned to write the assignment on the board, the other black girl in class locked eyes with me. Slavery had erased any connection we had to an African country, and even if we tried to claim the whole continent, there was no “African” flag. It was hard enough being one of two black kids in the class, and this assignment would just be another reminder of the distance between the white kids and us. In the end, I walked over to the globe near my teacher’s desk, picked a random African country and claimed it as my own.
I wish, now, that I could go back to the younger me and tell her that her people’s ancestry started here, on these lands, and to boldly, proudly, draw the stars and those stripes of the American flag.
We were told once, by virtue of our bondage, that we could never be American. But it was by virtue of our bondage that we became the most American of all.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with or unAmerican about that material. The article by Nikole Hannah Jones that has drawn so much hatred from the right appears to be a factual recounting of American history. Is it complete in the sense that it gives every perspective and viewpoint? No it is not, it is an advocacy piece with a point of view of a black American regarding US history. It is part of the story, not the whole story, but I just reread and I see very little in there that is not factual.
Are you actually trying to claim that you don't post concise and relevant answers because I might reject them?
Wouldn't it follow that my constant rejection of your seeds would preclude your posting them?
Really Vic?
First, WTF do Judges 'being able to make election rules have to do with THIS seed?
Hint: NOT a fucking thing.
Secondly, WHERE did I make a comment about Jamestown slaves being freed? QUOTE it Vic.
Nope, it doesn't Vic.
BTFW, I asked you to prove your statements Vic. That's how this shit works. I note that you failed to do so.
Do you think that rinsing and repeating unsubstantiated claims make them true Vic? I asked you to PROVE that claim too. Again, you failed to do so.
Oh and you haven't the vaguest idea what's in her story since you have never actually READ it. I'd venture to say that almost everyone here that has opined ad nauseam on it's content has failed to do so.
Jamestown Colony - Representative democracy and slavery ...
The second far-reaching development was the arrival in the colony (in August) of the first Africans in English America. They had been carried on a Portuguese slave ship sailing from Angola to Veracruz, Mexico. While the Portuguese ship was sailing through the West Indies, it was attacked by a Dutch man-of-war and an English ship out of Jamestown. The two attacking ships captured about 50 enslaved …
===================================================
The first African slaves to arrive via the slave trade in America were brought to Jamestown.
Leaving the 1619 Project out of it entirely, this fact can be seen with a ten second internet search.
Trump said that he loves disinformation. So do some on Newstalkers.
That's not all it was. It is the pilot for a history course!
It is part of the story, not the whole story, but I just reread and I see very little in there that is not factual.
To be fair you should read this:
In a piece written shortly after the release of the “1619 Project,” then-Heritage policy analyst John York observed: “To the Times, the dates and documents that typically mark our starting point do not deserve that honor. ... Our Founders’ own statements at the Constitutional Convention, speeches, and private correspondence thereafter paint a very different picture of their views on slavery and how it shaped the Constitution.”
Heritage visiting fellow Allen Guelzo was among a group of leading historians to document the project’s many factual inaccuracies. After heavy condemnation from experts like Guelzo, The New York Times made their first of many edits to the piece.
As Heritage policy expert Jonathan Butcher noted , “In the paper’s correction, editors changed the wording of [Nikole] Hannah-Jones’ leading article in the series to say that ‘some of’ the colonists fought the American Revolution to defend slavery.”
Butcher, a senior policy analyst for Heritage’s Center for Education Policy, continued to hammer the Times on its anti-Americanism.
“The editors called this a ‘small’ clarification, and it was indeed very small, although considering that the 1619 Project’s full-throated commitment to demonstrating that American history can only be explained through the lens of slavery, this correction appears nothing short of essential,” Butcher wrote. “Left unanswered today are other needed corrections to more than one of the project’s essays.”
Even though the “1619 Project” has been repeatedly debunked by conservatives, the left is still attempting to weaponize the project to indoctrinate America’s youth.
Guelzo, for example, criticized the decision to award Nikole Hannah-Jones a Pulitzer Prize for the “1619 Project.”
“The Pulitzer will help The New York Times face down the discovery that the 1619 Project—and not just Hannah-Jones’ lead essay—is riddled with mistakes and exaggerations,” Guelzo wrote. “Among the most egregious of those errors are the claims that the American Revolution was designed to protect slavery. That no shred of evidence for this assertion exists did nothing to discourage the energy with which it was promoted in Hannah-Jones’ lead essay.”
Heritage senior fellow Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum fellow, put it this way : “The 1619 Project isn’t just a series of articles placing slavery at the center of the American story. It is also a curriculum that is sweeping the land. No sooner had the prize been announced than The Pulitzer Center—which is independent of the prizes—was using it to promote that curriculum. The center boasted that it had “connected curricula based on the work of Hannah-Jones and her collaborators to some 4,500 classrooms since August 2019.”
Heritage has created its own curriculum resource for parents as well as “ A Celebration of America ,” rebutting attempts by the left to rewrite history.
Recently, on Constitution Day, President Donald Trump weighed in. He announced the creation of a “1776 Commission” designed explicitly to counter the harmful narratives propagated by anti-American initiatives, including the “1619 Project.
I wonder why you truncated YOUR link's 1630's summary. /s
Here's it is in FULL:
Yet YOU stated that:
It must suck when your own link's prove you WRONG Vic.
The first documented arrival of Africans to Virginia was in 1619, when an English warship, White Lion, arrived at Point Comfort in present-day Hampton. The African captives had been forcibly removed from a Portuguese slave ship subsequent to being attacked by the White Lion and another English warship, Treasurer, while sailing in the Bay of Campeche. The White Lion's English captain, John Jope, carried letters of marque from the Dutch Prince Maurice making it legal for his ship to sail as a privateer and attack any Spanish or Portuguese ships it encountered. The "20 and odd" Africans on the White Lion were traded to colony officials for food. These Africans were much-needed workers to cultivate tobacco, the new cash crop of Virginia. The institution of slavery slowly crept into Virginia legislation. By 1660, slavery as we think of it today was established in Virginia. Tobacco was extremely labor-intensive, and more and more workers were needed. The sale of Africans to Virginia planters promised to be a profitable endeavor.
The Royal African Company - Supplying Slaves to Jamestown - Historic Jamestowne Part of Colonial National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
I figured out what your problem is. YOU have taken on arguments that even a Public Defender would turn away.
Look back at Post 1.1.12. You asked a question that YOU obviously didn't know the answer to. That's when you lost the argument.
As far as I can see, most of the "factual" objection to Hanah Jones essay had to do with one sentence where she said that protecting slavery was the reason the colonists wanted to break from Britain.
One sentence out of an essay that is 8000 words long does not a debunking make.
"Scholars note that the arrivals were technically sold as indentured servants. Indentured servants agreed, or in many cases were forced, to work with no pay for a set amount of time, often to pay off a debt and could legally expect to become free at the end of the contract. Many Europeans who arrived in the Americas came as indentured servants. Despite this classification—and records which indicate that some of them did eventually obtain their freedom—it is clear that the Africans arriving at Point Comfort in 1619 were forced into servitude and that they fit the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ definition of enslaved peoples."
Tell the truth!
She wants to tell history like Zinn from the bottom up. She is entitled to say whatever she wants in a New York Times essay, but it's not history and should never be taught as history.
One sentence out of an essay that is 8000 words long does not a debunking make.
It's more than a single sentence. America was not founded in 1619.
Your own article debunks you, lol.
Ho! Ho! Ho! No it doesn't. They arrived by way of the colonizers who inherited that cargo and were made into indentured servants as were many white Europeans and many were eventually freed.
Go tell the racist bitch and the lying Timers.
You constantly pick out a couple points from a rather long article. I probably dont agree with all her conclusions either but it is not an inaccurate article.
Her essay does not stand by itself. It was a pilot for a project. It is wrong to try and teach a version of history that is so inaccurate and biased. It was America led the way in abolishing slavery. As early as 1804 all of the New England states as well as Vermont, New York, and New Jersey had either completely abolished slavery or phasing it out. Four years later the Federal Congress ended the slave trade. That wave of emancipation defined the American people.
Since I don't have a problem, you've wasted your time.
Which arguments are those Vic? Be specific.
I didn't ask a fucking question Vic. I asked you to PROVE your claims with links and after 2 days you have yet to do so. In FACT, as I proved, your own link refutes your claim.
BTFW, it's impossible to lose an argument against someone who utterly fails to make one.
BOOM!
I dont think that anyone disputes that many Americans , mainly in the north hoped that slavery would end , perhaps within their lifetimes.
Unfortunately that didnt do much for the lifetimes of the slaves.
A lot of the leaders back then seemed to have been waiting for God to end it.
Let 'our readers' decide.
Talk about a 'fable posing as history'!
NOBODY 'inherited' ANYTHING Vic.
Vic, they were SLAVES that were captured by Privateers and then traded for supplies.
One cannot be 'MADE' into an indentured servant Vic. Indenture MEANS a LEGAL agreement/contract which requires consent.
I note that you've FINALLY walked back your BS about ALL of them being freed.
Why would anyone what to share your fantasies with others Vic?
You finally got it!
It only took two days!
Three times is sufficient for the normal mind.
Sorry to hear it
You keep lamenting what happened. What is it you would like to see happen?
You didn't read a goddamn thing. You went sentence by sentence either asking stupid questions or making ridiculous remarks. But that's not really surprising. That does seem to be your thing.
Neither my questions or my remarks are ridiculous and the FACT that they aren't proves that I did indeed read your entire goddamn post.
I'm sure 'our readers' aren't surprised by your deflection, it seems to be YOUR thing.
That statement is intellectually dishonest in such an overt way that I cannot give it a pass.
First you post an intellectually dishonest comment and now a dodge.
You going for a trifecta of obfuscation Vic?
You didn't read a goddamn thing.
Obtuse.
In Conclusion:
I'll leave this one to Frederick Hess and Tracey Scirra:
I think you care more about Hannah-Jones then the rest of Newstalkers combined.
Yeah, getting rid of the worst president and human being in American political history takes precedence over Hannah Jones, you got me there Tex.
It took a pandemic.
Will you ever say anything that isn't silly ?
The National Review?
[deleted]
It's utterly hypocritical for Hess and Scirra to decry 'a gross display a journalistic impropriety' when they falsely state that "Hannah-Jones and the New York Times stealthily edited away a series of claims in her introductory essay".
Hannah-Jones' introductory essay was NOT edited. Oh and her essay won the Pulitzer Prize in it's ORIGINAL form.
It was.
Oh and her essay won the Pulitzer Prize in it's ORIGINAL form.
Then you admit it was edited.
Thank you and have a good night.
Well as you have proven over and over again, asking YOU to prove the veracity of your claims is a useless endeavor.
You're WRONG Vic.
No Vic. Her introductory essay won the Pulitzer Prize in it's original form, NOT as a part of the 1619 Project Vic.
[deleted]
It was famously edited. People deny the Holocaust, people deny her essay was edited. It's the same thing.
So now you dont want to discuss what is there, you want to discuss what was removed?
I could post the article in its entirety , but I dont know if Perrie would like that.
Tell us Sean, what is in the article that exists on the NYT website that is false?
I will grant you that Hannah Jones puts her perspective on the events of US history, but I dont see much there that is factually inaccurate from the standpoint of known history.
Here is one paragraph
Dulay wants to deny it. Can you imagine?
JR wants to normalize it and force feed it to our kids.
When I was in grammar school I was never even told in class that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves that they never freed, let alone that Jefferson intended to free his slaves years before he died but then realized he needed their free labor to keep himself from financial ruin.
The 1619 Project is not a word more deceptive than that.
You just cant handle the truth.
I ssume you were taught what those men accomplished? Today the extra's are taught. So what is troubling you John?
The 1619 Project is not a word more deceptive than that.
It sounds like you are saying the 1619 Project is payback. Is that it John?
You just cant handle the truth.
You aren't assosiated with truth. You know what I fear is going to happen one day? You might just breakdown on a Chicago street and a gang of people may surround you, just like they did with that poor soul a few years ago. There will be rage in their eyes. You'll want to say "Wait I'm with you, I feel your pain!" It won't help John. To them you are just another oppressor. I hope it never happens, but if it does, I want you to think about all those that got everybody so angry & bitter.
Maybe you should read the 1619 Project instead of daydreaming about it.
The 1619 Project - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
You know what you can do with it and Hannah-Jones too!
I was wondering when you were going to work black criminality into todays comments.
Wrong again. It's not criminality. It's rage and it's festering.
Of course, it's obvious that you are trying to say something. I won't bother flagging it. I don't want to hear people pretend they don't understand what your'e trying to do.
Remember John, Karma!
Fresh meat! Can YOU prove that Sean?
Still in denial. If I prove it to you will you denouce feminism and take a week off?
Although the New York Times hasn't admitted to the major overhall it has admited to certain changes.
One open admission should qualify:
Dulay, that's right from the horse's mouth
And it's also Game, Set, Match.
We are done.
Us non-racists try and avoid that!
Since it's behind a pay wall, it adds NOTHING for your 'argument' Vic. IF that link includes a statement from NYT that THEY edited the Pulitzer Prize winning introductory essay, post a FULL QUOTE, in context.
YOU were done 2 days ago when you failed to support even ONE of your claims.
BTFW, since you do your best to pretend that my posts don't even exist, your participation in your seeds has NO bearing on mine.
Why would you ask me to for some kind of payment for YOU to merely adult Vic?
So now you dont want to discuss what is there
What are you talking about? I have no problem discussing any aspect of this project.
t I d ont see much there that is factually inaccurate from the standpoint of known history.
Here's one of the Times own hand picked left wing historians recounting how the project ignored her and ran with the false "the colonies rebelled to preserve slavery" slander.
The whole project is designed to mislead and misinform it's readers. It's propaganda with an ideological agenda masquerading as history, like Zinn. Instead of pushing a class based narrative, she pushes a racialist agenda. She's like a defense lawyer with a guilty client who cherry picks facts, emphasizes irrelevant details and ignores the evidence that sits like an elephant in the room and blows her whole narrative up. She's not trying to inform the reader what happened, she's trying to manipulate them into believing an alternate reality.
Of course. Vic already supplied the link. Yet you continue to deny the reality before your eyes. Can't say I'm surprised.
AGAIN, since it's behind a paywall, it is NOT before my eyes. Since Vic refused to, how about YOU QUOTE the NYT link stating that they edited her essay.
You don't need to go behind the paywall to read the NYT admit "Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project" and that "The passage in question states that one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution was to protect the institution of slavery."
So they said that they are making a 'clarification', NOT that they edited the essay?
How the fuck does that prove Vic's claim? Hint: It doesn't.
Lol.... How do you clarify a passage in an essay if not by editing it?
Does wasting everyone time by refusing to acknowledge what's before your eyes amuse you? Aren't you embarrassed?
You cannot clarify shit with misinformation!
Well since YOU claim the did so, YOU could QUOTE what they said. Instead, you ask ME to explain it to you...
Again, it isn't before my eyes.
Secondly, while your comments are ridiculous, they aren't amusing.
Not at all Sean. There isn't a member here that could embarrass me.
Festering rage? That sounds like the Turd Reich and his supporters/enablers.
"You aren't assosiated with truth."
That's a hilarious comment right there, along with all the other ignorance.
Were there not white male "oppressors" and victims of their oppression? Seems some dip shit bigots are more concerned with their white nationalist history being smudged with truth than any of them actually wanting an accurate portrayal of history.
Well that's a whole lot of bullshit opinion without a lick of evidence. The Union was largely made up of liberals and progressives who were steadily working towards the eradication of slavery and changing the status quo. That's why Southern conservatives attacked our nation and attempted to create their own nation that would be "founded upon exactly the opposite ideas (of our founders and constitution); its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition" according to the Vice President of the confederacy back in 1861.
Progressives and the "left" today greatly appreciate the great sacrifice made by the roughly 200,000 Union soldiers that lost their lives as they should be the only ones remembered and regarded as heroes.
More hyperbolic bullshit opinion without a lick of truth. The Union and their brave soldiers who defeated the treasonous confederates are often acknowledged and honored for their heroism. Just because most liberals and progressives don't want to honor or memorialize the confederate traitors doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the Union heroes of that war.
The facts in the 1619 project are irrefutable, the threat of Britain freeing the slaves and using them to fight against the revolutionaries and being promised their freedom was one of the things that got some reluctant Southern slave owning British loyalists to throw their backing behind the revolutionaries.
That's a ridiculous premise that isn't made in the 1619 project. The claim which is backed by reality, is that primarily white society both allowed slavery and profited off it, not that each individual white person somehow benefited equally from it.
That claim is not made either. And whether or not it's unique, it's still evil whether everyone is doing it or only one country.
Again, not a claim made in the 1619 project. Only a dipshit bigot would take that away from it simply because it focuses on much of the plight of the African American people on our shores, but there are plenty of mentions about others who were suffering as well.
Systemic racism exists, but it doesn't "hold black Americans back", it places roadblocks in their path simply making it harder to succeed, but not impossible. Much like the voting laws favored by Republicans that they know place roadblocks for poor and minority voters, it doesn't make it impossible for them to vote, it just makes it a little bit harder to jump through the hoops and Republicans hope that will be enough to discourage some of them from exercising their right to vote.
That just more bullshit opinion. The evil ideology that patriotic Americans are fighting against is the bigoted, fascist conservative white nationalist and white supremacist ideology of those who dismiss the blatant systemic inequality we see today in our justice system, who try desperately to white wash American history, who protect and defend confederate memorials and monuments, who fly confederate flags or un-American Trump flags as they stormed our capital in an attempt to stop our congress from performing their constitutional duty of certifying an election. That's what true patriotic Americans are fighting against, the weak sniveling bigotry of those losers who believe they somehow "own" this nation and have rejected diversity all to protect some worthless fantasy "white culture".
Thanks for the facts as usual DP. Something that is seriously lacking here.
Let's see how long this takes
How long what takes?
" ... fable posing as history"
Historians are by nature revisionists. Why? To erase the fables of the negationists in and of the past.
Is it racist to hate white liberals?
If so. Count me in.
Hate is toxic, period! It eats the holder from inside...
Take it to heart
Ya mean like the lefts hate for all things trump? LOL
Your feigned moral superiority fell on deaf ears.
It's not so much hate as it is disgust. It's like being served a bowl of soup in a restaurant then noticing it not only has several hairs in it, but there is a floating dog turd, a cockroach and a rat head. Conservatives served up America a shit bowl of a President and the majority of Americans were disgusted by it, it turned their stomachs, which is why the vast majority of voters kicked that shit soup to the curb in the last election.
No you got a pandemic and Jane Fonda was right - "It was God's gift to the left."
I think we should remake Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove movie. Instead of the subtitle being "How I learned to love the bomb" it should be "How I learned to love the pandemic."
You may be confusing hate for disgust.
The majority? She got millions more votes...
More than three million more votes. The electoral college fix was in (just like with Dubya).
What's up XMDM9mm? Weren't you predicting a landslide win for the Turd Reich in 2019?
Yet YOU set the standard at "the majority of America" and even YOU have to realize that the electoral college is a tiny fraction of America's population.
No...it's hate.
Strictly hate, simply because conservatives have different ideas than you and your leftist friends.
YOU said the 'majority of American' dennis.
Your sad attempt at prevarication is noted.
I accept BOTH dennis.
What I do NOT accept is your attempt to move the goal posts by pretending that your comment was somehow a deep and nuanced.
If you misspoke, why not just admit it instead? Guess you're too invested now.
It's plain and simple dennis, you said 'the majority of American'. PERIOD, full stop.
Everyone should know what this is about and what those pushing it are about. Throught the course of this thread and others JR has repeated America's experience with slavery. Anyone that obbsessed with the subject of slavery in America must have some purpose for endlessly denouncing slavery. Iv'e asked JR numerous times to tell us what he wants to do about it? He never answers that question, but I just noticed that in one of his other conversations he spells it out: Post # 1.2.18:
Ok. here is a concrete proposal for you to chew on.
There are approximately 40 million blacks in America based a 12% black population and 320 million Americans.
Give each of those 40 million people $50,000, which is probably a minimum figure that could actually change someone's life. With 50 thousand dollars someone could pay for school or vocational training, or move to another location and start a new life with a new job.
This would cost the government 2 trillion dollars , which is not out of line with current social spending proposals.
There are the monetary reparations everyone talks about.
You up for it?
So JR wants reparations and he proposes that officials who never ran on "reparations" tax the American people of today's America to give monetary reparations to today's Black Americans in the hopes that the money will be used by the recipients to change there lives. Can everyone see that there are at least three things wrong with that?
I love the part where he reasons that 2 trillion dollars is not out of line with current spending proposals. Again, spending proposals which nobody ran on and is leading to runaway inflation and require "reconciliation" in order to be passed by one side of the aisle.
At least now we know what they want to do!
Yes, reparations for slavery would be a good start...
Go ahead and pay up out of your personal bank account. Count me out.
I do not advocate monetary reparations Vic. One of your fellow conservatives here asked me what "concrete" solutions I would propose, so I gave him one possibility.
What I mainly would like to see is conservatives stop pretending that the history of the US as regarding race is a sufficiently noble one. Justice demands a reckoning, but it doesnt have to be giving all minorities cash.
I have seen many of your proclamations about American history over the past couple years here. Your conclusions are riddled with falsehoods and misconceptions.
For example?
Here's 2 for starters:
Jamestown was an anti-slavery colony.
All slaves brought there were eventually freed.
I know it is hard to find. It's the internet don't ya know. That's the usual game with you. I know I read it somewhere, but I found something close in the Britanica, of all places:
In the summer of 1619 two significant changes occurred in the colony that would have lasting influence. One was the company’s introduction of representative government to English America , which began on July 30 with the opening of the General Assembly. Voters in each of the colony’s four cities, or boroughs, elected two burgesses to represent them, as did residents of each of the seven plantations. There were limitations to the democratic aspects of the General Assembly, however. In addition to the 22 elected burgesses, the General Assembly included six men chosen by the company. Consistent with the British practice of the time, the right to vote was most likely available only to male property owners. The colony’s governor had power to veto the assembly’s enactments, as did the company itself in London. Nonetheless, the body served as a precedent for self-governance in later British colonies in North America .
The second far-reaching development was the arrival in the colony (in August) of the first Africans in English America. They had been carried on a Portuguese slave ship sailing from Angola to Veracruz, Mexico. While the Portuguese ship was sailing through the West Indies , it was attacked by a Dutch man-of-war and an English ship out of Jamestown. The two attacking ships captured about 50 enslaved Africans—men, women, and children—and brought them to outposts of Jamestown. More than 20 of the captives were purchased there.
Records concerning the lives and status of these first African Americans are very limited. It can be assumed that they were put to work on the tobacco harvest, an arduous undertaking. It is possible that they were treated at first as indentured servants (obligated to serve for a specified period of time) rather than as enslaved persons, and English law at this time did not consider their children to be born into servitude. Clear evidence of slavery in English America does not appear until the 1640s.
In addition twelve scholars sent the following letter to the New York Times:
To the Editor of The New York Times Magazine 12/30/2019
Re: The 1619 Project
We are writing to you today, in tandem with numerous others, to express our deep concern about the New York Times ’ promotion of The 1619 Project, which first appeared in the pages of the New York Times Magazine on August 14th in the form of ten essays, poems and fiction by a variety of authors. The Project’s avowed purpose is to restore the history of slavery to a central place in American memory and history, and in conjunction with the New York Times , the Project now plans to create and distribute school curriculums which will feature this re-centering of the American experience.
It is not our purpose to question the significance of slavery in the American past. None of us have any disagreement with the need for Americans, as they consider their history, to understand that the past is populated by sinners as well as saints, by horrors as well as honors, and that is particularly true of the scarred legacy of slavery.
As historians and students of the Founding and the Civil War era, our concern is that The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery, especially since slavery was not just (or even exclusively) an American malady, and grew up in a larger context of forced labor and race. Moreover, the breadth of 400 years and 300 million people cannot be compressed into single-size interpretations; yet, The 1619 Project asserts that every aspect of American life has only one lens for viewing, that of slavery and its fall-out. “America Wasn’t a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One,” insists the lead essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones; “American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation,” asserts another by Matthew Desmond. In some cases, history is reduced to metaphor: “How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam.”
We are also dismayed by the problematic treatment of major issues and personalities of the Founding and Civil War eras. For instance: The 1619 Project construes slavery as a capitalist venture, yet it fails to note how Southern slaveholders scorned capitalism as “a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, petty operators, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists.” [1] Although the Project asserts that “New Orleans boasted a denser concentration of banking capital than New York City,” the phrase “banking capital” elides the reality that on the eve of the Civil War, New York possessed more banks (294) than the entire future Confederacy (208), and that Southern “banking capital” in 1858 amounted to less than 80% of that held by New York banks alone. [2]
Again: we are presented with an image of Abraham Lincoln in 1862, informing a delegation of “five esteemed free black men” at the White House that, because black Americans were a “troublesome presence,” his solution was colonization -- “to ship black people, once freed, to another country.” No mention, however, is made that the “troublesome presence” comment is Lincoln’s description in 1852 of the views of Henry Clay, [3] or that colonization would be “sloughed off” by him (in John Hay’s diary) as a “barbarous humbug,” [4] or that Lincoln would eventually be murdered by a white supremacist in 1865 after calling for black voting rights, or that this was the man whom Frederick Douglass described as “emphatically the black man’s president.” [5]
We do not believe that the authors of The 1619 Project have considered these larger contexts with sufficient seriousness, or invited a candid review of its assertions by the larger community of historians. We are also troubled that these materials are now to become the basis of school curriculums, with the imprimatur of the New York Times . The remedy for past historical oversights is not their replacement by modern oversights. We therefore respectfully ask the New York Times to withhold any steps to publish and distribute The 1619 Project until these concerns can be addressed in a thorough and open fashion.
William B. Allen, Emeritus Dean and Professor, Michigan State University
Michael A. Burlingame, Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies, University of Illinois, Springfield
Joseph R. Fornieri, Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology
Allen C. Guelzo, Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University
Peter Kolchin, Henry Clay Reed Professor Emeritus of History, University of Delaware
Glenn W. LaFantasie, Frockt Family Professor of Civil War History and Director of the Institute for Civil War Studies, Western Kentucky University
Lucas E. Morel, Professor of Politics, Washington & Lee University
George C. Rable, Professor Emeritus, University of Alabama
Diana J. Schaub, Professor of Political Science, Loyola University
Colleen A. Sheehan, Professor of Political Science and Director, The Matthew J. Ryan Center, Villanova University
Steven B. Smith, Alfred Cowles Professor of Political Science, Yale University.
Michael P. Zuckert, N. Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
The 1619 Project has an entire section on how slavery helped make NYC and Wall St the backbone of the United States economy, rendering your whole paragraph here extraneous at best.
Slavery accounted for about 8% of GDP. The idea of "King Cotton" dominating the American economy is just as false now as it was when it was claimed by slaveowners. Remember the economy grew after slavery ended. It simply wasn't very important to the economy as a whole.
I
Correction. It was 5-6% of GDP.
Here's an actual scholarly analysis of slavery's role in the economy.
It is amazing how rapidly the northeastern part of the US developed as the south lagged behind with primarily agriculture. Climate and location have something to do with developement. Of course, a Times staffer full of resentment might not think about such things.
Thank you Sean.
The North made the money and blamed the South
WOW Vic, you posted a crap load of words, NONE of which support either of your claims.
Here they are AGAIN:
YOU have already posted a link that refutes your second claim. Now you post a load of blather that fails to cite ANYTHING about Jamestown being an 'anti-slavery colony'.
YOU also claimed that the captured slaves were 'inherited' by someone. That was pulled out of your nether regions which is PROVEN by your most recent link, put in bold by YOU, that they were enslaved when they were captured and SOLD in Jamestown. You know, the place that you insist was 'anti-slavery'.
Maybe you should have read them.
What is your POINT Sean?
Here are some 2019 numbers:
So in 2019 ALL of our AG GDP is around the SAME as cotton ALONE was pre-Civil War.
Sure sounds like cotton WAS King.
Perspective Sean...
I DID, which is why I can definitively state that NONE of them support either of your claims.
I note that you truncated my comment and failed to refute it.
You always say that and you always want the last word as well as always making it personal. Youv'e never made a single point here.
Simply saying it ain't so just won't do.
Oh, I'll give you the last word.
I would think it was obvious. John falsely claimed that slavery was the backbone of the national economy and Wall Street. As I've shown, it was anything but.
Getting your information from propaganda like the 1619 project will cause mistakes like that.
ure sounds like cotton WAS King
Agriculture made up 60% of GDP in 1860, and slavery was a small fraction of that as I've shown. You understand we live in a very different economy in 2021 than we did in 1860, right?
If you'd read the 1619 project, you'd know that Matthew Desmond relied on dishonest and sloppy studies that were obliterated in the paper I cited above that claimed slavery made up close to 50% of GDP.
Please try understand the issues before commenting so you can offer a valid perspective.
Gee Vic, that went from 'JR wants' to 'what they want' pretty fucking fast.
The 1619 project is nothing but propaganda designed to advance a current biased political point of view. There is nothing balanced or objective about it. It is nothing more that a political tool to advance an illegitimate point of view from a historical perspective.
You know nothing about it so for that fact alone your opinion is meaningless.
Here is a very small portion of the 1619 Project
American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
This must be an indirect effect? Certainly the labor of African Americans, coerced or otherwise, was present for the construction of the Erie Canal , but the way that the author of the piece writes it, it is unclear without going to the works of Quigley just why the Erie Canal affected New York's dominance of the southern cotton trade.