The 1619 Project

[Aurora]

Peter Wood is part of the Heartland Institute which worked with tobacco companies to prevent the banning if smoking and are climate change deniers.

What's that got to do with this topic? Do we need to take a deep dive into Hannah Jones beliefs?

 

[Aurora]

That is exactly what we are trying to avoid. The propaganda that was taught to you

You probably believe BLM.

 

[Aurora]

Peter Wood is part of the Heartland Institute which worked with tobacco companies to prevent the banning if smoking and are climate change deniers.

National Association of Scholars.

 

[Citizen]

You probably believe BLM.

Black lives don’t matter to you?

 

[Aurora]

Kevin Kruse worked on it. He's a historian. Don't kid yourself, all historians have an agenda, or at the very least, biases.

History stands on it's own.

start 11min in. 1619 is full of errors. Now this filth will be pushed into the school system as well as BLM dogma and Critical Race Theory.

 

[Aurora]

Black lives don’t matter to you?

Black lives are your idol.

 

[Aurora]

Black lives don’t matter to you?

All lives.

 

[j brown's body]

All lives.

All legal lives?

 

[diz]

Doesn't seem like you know very much.

So, in a 28 page thread in which I’ve read/watched most every post and link I haven’t learned anything about the wondrous content of the 1619 Project?

I feel like I’ve got a good handle on criticism of it. Are its supporters just too stupid and illiterate to defend it?

 

[j brown's body]

History stands on it's own.

start 11min in. 1619 is full of errors. Now this filth will be pushed into the school system as well as BLM dogma and Critical Race Theory.

That is absurd. Let's not be naive. I was taught the Lost Cause Myth, the Dunning School's version of Reconstruction and the Manifest Destiny Myth on westward expansion. They are all biased and steeped in white supremacy.

"There are truths that are not for all men, nor for all times." - Voltaire

 

[j brown's body]

So, in a 28 page thread in which I’ve read/watched most every post and link I haven’t learned anything about the wondrous content of the 1619 Project?

I feel like I’ve got a good handle on criticism of it. Are its supporters just too stupid and illiterate to defend it?

Why not read it? You might be the second one here to have done so.

 

[Aurora]

NYT Quietly Revises 1619 Project and Abandons Central Claim, Nikole Hannah-Jones DELETES ALL TWEETS​

The truth caught up to this fraud.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

he race presumptions already taught or trying to be taught by the CRT and its related radical left flock that I object to is (as a very brief summary):

- The assumption that racism is the primary or exclusive foundation of the American Political and Cultural structure.
- That the liberal order of rationalism, constitutional law, and legal reasoning are all founded upon racism.
- That economic outcomes, inequity, is racist.
- That there is systemic racism.
- The focus on identity politics.
- That there is a presumption of racism and implicit bias in all race interactions with whites.
- That history should be primarily or exclusively taught as one of contemporary identity group conflict.

None of this is accurate. You don’t appear to be very familiar with CRT.

 

[Citizen]

All lives.

Appears that you want to exclude black lives

 

[Citizen]

Black lives are your idol.

That’s silly

 

[reflechissez]

I'm not saying everything about the 1619 project is wrong, but they don't have a single historian working on it.

It seems that if you are doing a history project, you should have a historian or two.

The authors also have an agenda. That's going to bias everything.

From Wiki: The project employed a panel of historians and had support from the Smithsonian, for fact-checking, research and development.[24]

 

[reflechissez]

What argument are you talking about?

I was talking about the fallacious "have you stopped beating your wife" line of argument.

You keep saying this, but the analogy doesn't really fit.

It's certainly true that facts are important to a sound argument. That's why implicit assumptions about the facts are fallacious.

Do you have any examples of facts that you disagree with?

 

[reflechissez]

So, in a 28 page thread in which I’ve read/watched most every post and link I haven’t learned anything about the wondrous content of the 1619 Project?

I feel like I’ve got a good handle on criticism of it. Are its supporters just too stupid and illiterate to defend it?

You could try reading it rather than expecting to be spoon fed on an anonymous political forum.

 

[j brown's body]

All-in-all, I think it is tempting for historians to settle on a view of history that conforms to their own research. After a while, they see their view as etched in stone. That gives us comfort because it provides an authoritative narrative that we can all live with. And anything that challenges it is apt to be resisted and condemned.

But studying history is not so exact. Material is hidden, material is ignored, different views come to light. Studying history isn't studying truth, it is a search for the truth, a search that never really ends.WEB Dubois wrote a brilliant book about Reconstruction and the danger of accepting history as settled. The book was ignored for years and the dominant culture settled on myths as history of Reconstruction, of slavery, of the Civil War, of westward expansion and more for generations.

The creators of the 1619 Project, and its supporters, recognize this and acknowledge that their own work has flaws. But its critics are unable to acknowledge that such flaws exist in all historical surveys and cannot recognize them in their own work. This probably has a lot to do with being part of the dominate, white culture which has no interest in questioning its own beliefs. Indeed, it threatens their position of dominance. And it also has to do with human nature. We are more inclined to find fault in others than within ourselves. But the result of this does not advance what they love the most - the pursuit of an understanding our past.

 

[diz]

You could try reading it rather than expecting to be spoon fed on an anonymous political forum.

There seems to be almost unanimous agreement about its flaws. 1) Cherrypicking of history/ignoring events to advance narrative; 2) Highly indefensible assertions about history to advance narrative. No one here seems to be able to refute the specific examples that keep getting brought up. 1) the 1619 voyages (portrayed as the “true founding of America” was a relatively insignificant event that was cherrypicked while ignoring the historical context that shows it to be insignificant to advance a narrative; 2) despite all the writings of the founding fathers debating the revolution, there is scant evidence that preserving slavery was a major driver of the revolution,

If you can’t defend these two things or demonstrate the 1619 Project did not make these claims, which apparently you can’t because you keep attempting to shift the argument from them, you have lost the debate. Given the near unanimous chorus of consistent criticism from historians across the political spectrum these points, the manner in which the masters of the 1619 project themselves have backed away from their own claims, and 28 pages of flailing here I’m reasonably confident you can’t muster defenses against these points.

All the defense of this mess seems to boil down to “you must effing agree with this narrative you effing racists”. Yet no one can explain what is so non-racist about ignoring huge swaths of the history of slavery that don’t advance the narrative.

 

[diz]

But studying history is not so exact. Material is hidden, material is ignored, different views come to light. Studying history isn't studying truth, it is a search for the truth, a search that never really ends.WEB Dubois wrote a brilliant book about Reconstruction and the danger of accepting history as settled. The book was ignored for years and the dominant culture settled on myths as history of Reconstruction, of slavery, of the Civil War, of westward expansion and more for generations.

I don’t disagree with this sentiment but the 1619 Project does not seem to be advancing or remedying any of this. It seems to actively be ignoring areas of history that have been previously well researched and documented. If you want to make a claim about history that falls outside the typical historical narratives it falls on you to 1) provide evidence in support of the new narrative; 2) address the non-confirming evidence that seems to support the other more widely accepted narrative. The 1619 Project seems to make a habit cherrypicking the one or two insignificant nits that might support its claim while ignoring #2 entirely.

This is more how conspiracy theorists operate than historians.

 

[j brown's body]

I don’t disagree with this sentiment but the 1619 Project does not seem to be advancing or remedying any of this. It seems to actively be ignoring areas of history that have been previously well researched and documented. If you want to make a claim about history that falls outside the typical historical narratives it falls on you to 1) provide evidence in support of the new narrative; 2) address the non-confirming evidence that seems to support the other more widely accepted narrative. The 1619 Project seems to make a habit cherrypicking the one or two insignificant nits that might support its claim while ignoring #2 entirely.

This is more how conspiracy theorists operate than historians.

The project is a supplemental resource. It is not intended to be the exclusive view of history.

Considering that people associated with the 1619 Project are making changes, while Republican legislatures are banning the teaching of racism altogether, i ask you to evaluate whether or not your concerns are, if not misplaced, maybe too narrowly focused.

 

[Aurora]

This view will now be the propaganda fed to young schoolchildren. Just as BLM dogma and CRT.

 

[j brown's body]

This view will now be the propaganda fed to young schoolchildren. Just as BLM dogma and CRT.

Relax. Its simply a resource. There is no requirement that anyone use it.

Some good news for you though. Republican politicians are determining that what is taught meets the priorities of white leaders and dictates what educators can and cannot teach.

 

[vanceen]

You keep saying this, but the analogy doesn't really fit.

Do you have any examples of facts that you disagree with?

1. I've explained why the analogy fits (three times I believe). Can you explain why it doesn't?

2. My post was a criticism of the loaded question "so teaching the facts is bullshit?". It wasn't even about the 1619 Project. Do you see that?