The 1619 Project

[HangLow]

The conservatives waving Confederate flags and sobbing over statues of thugs like Robert E Lee coming down.

As usual.

​

 

[ultmd]

Youre still chasing the strawman of your own creation.

No.

But you are certainly still running, aren't you?

Next time, don't spew lies and ignorant rightwing talking points that you can't back up.

 

[dixon01767]

No.

But you are certainly still running, aren't you?

Next time, don't spew lies and ignorant rightwing talking points that you can't back up.

My talking points still stand. "1619 WAS NOT the "true founding" of our nation AND preserving slavery WAS NOT “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution”. Hannah confirmed it by her edits on both points after the criticisms.

 

[ultmd]

My talking points still stand. "1619 WAS NOT the "true founding" of our nation AND preserving slavery WAS NOT “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution”. Hannah confirmed it by her edits on both points after the criticisms.

....only in "white-grievance world", where anything is fair as long as it promotes pathetic white-grievance/victimhood.

Unfortunately, in the REAL WORLD, we (including educated people, the NYTimes, and almost all reputable historians) all know that your grievance here is about as substantive as wet tissue paper.

Slavery was ABSOLUTELY one of the primary factors in the American Revolution. That is no longer up for debate. Sorry.

 

[dixon01767]

....only in "white-grievance world", where anything is fair as long as it promotes pathetic white-grievance/victimhood.

Unfortunately, in the REAL WORLD, we (including educated people, the NYTimes, and almost all reputable historians) all know that your grievance here is about as substantive as wet tissue paper.

Slavery was ABSOLUTELY one of the primary factors in the American Revolution. That is no longer up for debate. Sorry.

Hannahs edit says otherwise.

 

[ultmd]

Hannahs edit says otherwise.

Another lie.

No, it doesn't.

But, hey.....keep clinging to your lie. It's all you have left.

 

[dixon01767]

Another lie.

No, it doesn't.

But, hey.....keep clinging to your lie. It's all you have left.

Nonsense, she, the 1619 Project and the New York Times were criticized for the historical inaccuracies and in response they edited it a year after the original publication.

 

[j brown's body]

I posted this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here because I think it fits:

There is one thing that a lot of white people don't seem to understand, or seem to care to understand, in discussions about teaching racism in school - or accounting for race in teaching. And that is, kids of color already know there is racism. They don't need to learn it from books.They understand white people better than white people do. After all, they have had to be careful observers of white people throughout history. They know what racism is all about.

So when they go to school and get this whitewashed version of history, its boring. Its boring anyway, no matter your race. And more than that, to these kids, its irrelevant. They know the world isn't like that and they resent having to sit through classes that push it. Their work suffers.

Give them a curriculum in history that includes them and helps explain our racist past helps them understand the world they live in. Its relevant. They engage. Even a flawed 1619 Project at least addresses the issues. Its errors are nothing compared the travesty of a boring, irrelevant curriculum that glosses over it all. The errors or flaws of the 1619 Project pale in comparison to the lies I was taught about the United States when I was a student, and are now pushed by Republican legislatures everywhere.

One can read plenty of testimonies and other evidence supporting a social studies curriculum that accounts for race when it comes to reaching students of color. And frankly, white kids know about racism too, and many of them appreciate learning about how it has played out throughout our history and in our world today. And for those white kids, like the one whose parent said "Well, Jesus never opposed slavery" and might feel uncomfortable about learning this stuff, their teacher can help them come to grips with it. Otherwise, put them in the class taught by the football coach who gives them worksheets to fill in.

 

[dixon01767]

I posted this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here because I think it fits:

There is one thing that a lot of white people don't seem to understand, or seem to care to understand, in discussions about teaching racism in school - or accounting for race in teaching. And that is, kids of color already know there is racism. They don't need to learn it from books.They understand white people better than white people do. After all, they have had to be careful observers of white people throughout history. They know what racism is all about.

So when they go to school and get this whitewashed version of history, its boring. Its boring anyway, no matter your race. And more than that, to these kids, its irrelevant. They know the world isn't like that and they resent having to sit through classes that push it. Their work suffers.

Give them a curriculum in history that includes them and helps explain our racist past helps them understand the world they live in. Its relevant. They engage. Even a flawed 1619 Project at least addresses the issues. Its errors are nothing compared the travesty of a boring, irrelevant curriculum that glosses over it all. The errors or flaws of the 1619 Project pale in comparison to the lies I was taught about the United States when I was a student, and are now pushed by Republican legislatures everywhere.

One can read plenty of testimonies and other evidence supporting a social studies curriculum that accounts for race when it comes to reaching students of color. And frankly, white kids know about racism too, and many of them appreciate learning about how it has played out throughout our history and in our world today. And for those white kids, like the one whose parent said "Well, Jesus never opposed slavery" and might feel uncomfortable about learning this stuff, their teacher can help them come to grips with it. Otherwise, put them in the class taught by the football coach who gives them worksheets to fill in.

The 1619 project isnt history says Hannah. Shouldnt teach it as if it was history. Like Hannah says it an "origin STORY", "not THE origin story" but an origin story. It is intended to "change the narrative". Basic neo marxist, critical theory. An attempt to tear down current society so they can replace it with one to their liking. Stories and myths having nothing to do with an examination of society and is instead an attempt to shape it. Teach the kids to hate a nation founded upon the preservation of slavery and the oppression of blacks, to bring about a revolution that dismantles capitalism. As Kendi says one cannot be anti-racist without being anti-capitalist.

 

[ultmd]

Nonsense, she, the 1619 Project and the New York Times were criticized for the historical inaccuracies and in response they edited it a year after the original publication.

Again, that's the white-grievance twist on it, I suppose.

But in reality, the 1619 Project is an award-winning compilation that has been lauded by most historians, with only mild criticisms from experts...thus, the sum-total of the "edits" have involved (literally) single-word insertions like the one in question in this thread.

But, trust me, I get it. People like you, who feel forever threatened by increasing racial/cultural/religious diversity in our society, literally NEED to create excuses to discredit emerging multi-cultural historical academia, like the 1619 Project.

It's a fight you will, of course, lose. But I get why you people do it.

If I was filled with racial/cultural resentment and hostility, I'd probably be just like you.

But, I'm not.

And that's a good thing.

 

[dixon01767]

Again, that's the white-grievance twist on it, I suppose.

No, she was criticized and they edited it a year after being published. These are facts

 

[j brown's body]

No, she was criticized and they edited it a year after being published. These are facts

You know its interesting, the whole US history curriculum devised by Texas a couple of years ago was criticized by entire history organizations. But we hear no complaints about that. Yet, by that measure, the 1619 Pripiject is an improvement.

January 2019 – AHA

www.historians.org

 

[dixon01767]

You know its interesting, the whole US history curriculum devised by Texas a couple of years ago was criticized by entire history organizations. But we hear no complaints about that. Yet, by that measure, the 1619 Pripiject is an improvement.

January 2019 – AHA

www.historians.org

She was criticized and they edited it a year after being published. These are still facts regardless of your attempt to change the subject.

 

[HangLow]

View attachment 67334167​

​