• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1619 Project

Ok, did you know slavery in the present day US was a very small part of the Transatlantic slave trade? What percent would you guess it was? I already said earlier in the thread so I’m sure you probably know,



Oh, if it was a big part there must be some examples of the people who were fomenting the revolution at the time citing it as a reason. Those guys talked and wrote a lot trying to enlist support. What are some examples where this was cited?
You’d know this if you had any familiarity with the topic.

But you don’t.

And I’m guessing you won’t even if I spoon feed it to you.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...n-democracy.html?referringSource=articleShare
 
First paragraph is continuing Whataburgers.

Second: Good point, but I'll present counterpoints.

I'm not a historian nor researcher, and I'm not going to look for citations. Historical researchers came to the conclusion/theory based on evidence. Considering that slavery was big business and an ethical concern, profit and power motives surely incentivized obfuscation.

People, especially politicians and such, rarely say what their intentions are in straightforward ways.

There's probably much more.

The first part is actually quite important. Well, at least it depends on what you intend to argue. If the entirety of your argument is “Slavery existed in the US and it was bad” I’m right there with you. But I certainly didn’t need the 1619 project to tell me that. If when you say “Now let’s discuss Slavery in America” you intend to argue there was something special or unique about slavery in America then the historical context of slavery in America may become quite relevant.

On the second part, lots of reputable non-agenda driven historians have done this work for you. They say there are no examples of colonists citing slavery as a reason for the Revolutionary war. They conclude from this that it wasn’t a big reason for the Revolutionary war.

If it was a big reason then the lack of mention of it seems rather remarkable. What do you think explains this? After the 1619 project called attention to it Patrick Henry and Ben Franklin went back and deleted all their “we must fight for slavery” tweets?

Maybe Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death and also we need slaves!” and they edited that last part out. (actually in the long version of that quote he does mention slavery but the fragile white privileged guy seems to be talking about the colonists being like slaves to the British crown...)
 
He, thanks OP for reminding me of something REALLY important:

Luke 16:19

probably the most "interesting" thing Jesus said ... or at least on the Top Ten list thereof

if you want to know what God thinks about wealth, read that passage...
 
That might be your topic, but the focus of the 1619 project was to trace the effect of slavery on the USA, and the US was formed out of English colonies.

What tortured logic you are forced to rely upon in order to believe what you so desperately want to believe.
 
I know nothing about the 1619 project.

And have no interest in it.

But I think that it basically says that 1619 is the pivotal year in this country's history, for that was when certain folks were brought to the colonies.

And who can dispute the fact that even in 2021, we are all suffering the consequences of that fateful year.
 
Only because you refuse to believe the truth. I can't help you with that

Neo Marxist, critical race theory propaganda meant to indoctrinate. The successfully indoctrinated are not aware. Even Hannah Jones admitted it isn't history in response to the criticisms of its historical inaccuracy.

"is not about history. It's about memory; about what parts of the nation's past we should hold in our memories going forward & about how we tell the story of the nation to our children.”

“I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory."

“I’ve said consistently that the 1619 Project is an origin story, not the origin story,”

Its an "Origin story". Fictionalized story. Much like an origin myth.
 
Neo Marxist, critical race theory propaganda meant to indoctrinate. The successfully indoctrinated are not aware. Even Hannah Jones admitted it isn't history in response to the criticisms of its historical inaccuracy.

"is not about history. It's about memory; about what parts of the nation's past we should hold in our memories going forward & about how we tell the story of the nation to our children.”

“I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory."

“I’ve said consistently that the 1619 Project is an origin story, not the origin story,”

Its an "Origin story". Fictionalized story. Much like an origin myth.
Believe what you want
 
Neo Marxist, critical race theory propaganda meant to indoctrinate. The successfully indoctrinated are not aware. Even Hannah Jones admitted it isn't history in response to the criticisms of its historical inaccuracy.

"is not about history. It's about memory; about what parts of the nation's past we should hold in our memories going forward & about how we tell the story of the nation to our children.”

“I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory."

“I’ve said consistently that the 1619 Project is an origin story, not the origin story,”

Its an "Origin story". Fictionalized story. Much like an origin myth.

So, the lead author basically says what we’ve been saying. It’s all about advancing a narrative, not history. That shouldn’t be a surprise as it’s pretty obvious that’s what’s going on with all the cherry-picking and lack of context.
 
So, the lead author basically says what we’ve been saying. It’s all about advancing a narrative, not history. That shouldn’t be a surprise as it’s pretty obvious that’s what’s going on with all the cherry-picking and lack of context.

Problem is the schools teaching it as history. Its indoctrination. Some critics were referring to all the BLM "RIOTS" as the "1619 RIOTS" She beamed with pride when asked about it by reporters. The indoctrination has been effective and riots in the streets was her intent.
 
Your backhanded defense of racism is noted.

There is literally nothing there that is defending racism. Condemning Marxist ideology isn't defending racism. Your response is a red herring and a pre-programmed response from CRT NPCs that simply cannot actually support their positions using actual reasoning and solid premises.
 
There is literally nothing there that is defending racism. Condemning Marxist ideology isn't defending racism. Your response is a red herring and a pre-programmed response from CRT NPCs that simply cannot actually support their positions using actual reasoning and solid premises.
Who said anything about marxism? Do you even know what Marxism is, because most conservatives use that word as a partisan epithet such as sh*t, f*ck, and da*n.
 
Who said anything about marxism? Do you even know what Marxism is, because most conservatives use that word as a partisan epithet such as sh*t, f*ck, and da*n.

CRT, of which the 1619 sprung out of, is based in Marxism. That you don't know that is your own ignorance.
 
CRT, of which the 1619 sprung out of, is based in Marxism. That you don't know that is your own ignorance.
How is critical race theory Marxist? CRT came from addressing systemic racism in law and government.
What are you afraid of happening if we address systemic racism in America? How will the US look in 20 or 50 years if we address the underlying racism in law and government? Do you believe that the US was supposed to be a caste system of white males at the top and then others with the descending amount of others enjoying fewer rights?

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.


The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation. However, instead of drawing theories of social organization and individual behaviour from continental European thinkers such as G.W.F. Hegel, and Sigmund Freud, as CLS and feminist jurisprudence had done, CRT was inspired by figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and Frantz Fanon. Critical race theory advanced theoretical understandings of the law, politics, and American sociology that focused on the efforts of white people (Euro-Americans) to maintain their historical advantages over people of colour.

Do you look under your bed and in the closet for the ghost of Karl Marx, Hillary, and George Soros before you t go to sleep?
 
Last edited:
How is critical race theory Marxist? CRT came from addressing systemic racism in law and government.

Do you look under your bed and in the closet for the ghost of Karl Marx, Hillary, and George Soros before you t go to sleep?

Now only if you understood Marxism you'd see how even what you posted demonstrates it. For example, the premise that different results are demonstrative of an unfair system.
 
Now only if you understood Marxism you'd see how even what you posted demonstrates it. For example, the premise that different results are demonstrative of an unfair system.
I am well versed in Marx because of my formal study of political philosophy as a minor. What is your problem with the ideas of Karl Marx?
 
I believe the three quotes from Hannah are accurate. Did you have some reason to question them?
Sure, I believe.
The Idea of America, by Nikole Hannah-Jones

Capitalism, by Matthew Desmond

A Broken Health Care System, by Jeneen Interlandi

Traffic, by Kevin M. Kruse

Undemocratic Democracy, by Jamelle Bouie

Medical Inequality, by Linda Villarosa

American Popular Music, by Wesley Morris

Sugar, by Khalil Gibran Muhammad

Mass Incarceration, by Bryan Stevenson

The Wealth Gap, by Trymaine Lee
 
I am well versed in Marx because of my formal study of political philosophy as a minor. What is your problem with the ideas of Karl Marx?

They don't work in the real world, as is evident by how shitty it is every time a country tries to implement his ideology. Marxism has oppression baked into it's very core.
 
Back
Top Bottom