1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project

well we've got some good stuff going here at DT these days, I have to say

maybe I should have waited for a lull, but decided to start this thread now too

1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project is a book by Peter W. Wood on a self-explanatory topic

Book TV did this little program on it. Go to 23:50 for sure, for a *great rant*

You have to get it started before you can pick your spot

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508563-1/1620-critical-response-1619-project

Quote: odiousgambit

well we've got some good stuff going here at DT these days, I have to say

maybe I should have waited for a lull, but decided to start this thread now too

1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project is a book by Peter W. Wood on a self-explanatory topic

Book TV did this little program on it. Go to 23:50 for sure, for a *great rant*

You have to get it started before you can pick your spot

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508563-1/1620-critical-response-1619-project

I listened to some of it at 23:50
Yawn
Dont like what the NYT writes, oh well
Write a book that you think as historically accurate
Everybody has their own opinions on history
What I love about history is we now have different perspectives on major events
Take the Viet Nam war
It can be viewed from the US side
But
It's a more fascinating story told from the perspective of Viet Nam itself

OdiousGambit,

Where do we even start with this? It's honestly quite a bit. I would say that I've read the better part of the The 1619 Project.

For those not inclined to watch the video, there's an unedited transcript that appears below. Many of the words in the transcript are obviously quite wrong, but you can use context to determine what word was meant---and in those rare instances that you can not---the overall passage does not lose its meaning.

The 1619 Project

The first thing that I will say is that The 1619 Project (hereafter '1619' for the purposes of this post) isn't bad if it was left as what it should be---which is just a historical retrospective from a particular point of view.

If one reads the introduction to 1619, then the first impression that one gets is that this aspect of American history has been completely neglected which, in my experience, could not be further from the truth. I don't know what other schools are teaching, but we most certainly learnt about the institution of slavery leading up to and including The Civil War, the Jim Crow laws that came thereafter, the fight for the suffrage granted to African-Americans pursuant to the Fifteenth Amendment...and all of the roadblocks to voting that were put in place to subvert the Fifteenth Amendment thereafter. School and building segregation then integration, etc.

While we might not have learned the specific date that the first American, or more properly, Colonial-owned slave set foot in Virginia, we were certainly made aware that the institution of slavery in this land predated our existence as a country.

Perhaps one important edit that was made in 1619 related to the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, there had to be an edit to indicate that July 4th, 1776 was the date that the Declaration of Independence was APPROVED by Congress on that date, but it was not signed until the following month. Granted, for a high school or college entry level history class research paper, such an omission would be trivial, but when you produce a work that purports to tell us the true history, as 1619 claims to want to do...that's a little more than a minor fact that you would want to get right.

In any event, should the date that the first Colonial-owned slaves (as there were other slaves even prior to the Europeans getting here) landed in this country be something that is taught in schools? Of course, assuming it isn't already. The authors of 1619 are undoubtedly correct in stating that is a very important day when it comes to Black History taught in this country and is also an important day in history overall.

We learn what we already knew that the Declaration of Independence leads with, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed..." and it is explained to us that this only strictly applied to white men. Once again, where I went to Middle and High School, we were absolutely taught that this only applied to white men and it was pointed out to us that the majority of the Founding Fathers were also slaveowners. The irony that Thomas Jefferson was himself a slaveowner was also pointed out to us.

For the record, the student makeup of that particular history class was 100% white.

Therefore, I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the history of slavery in this country is being glossed over in our schools...but again, I only attended the schools that I attended and it would not shock me for it to be glossed over in Southern schools.

And, what did we learn about slavery in school? Did we learn that it was basically indentured servitude? Hell no!!! What we learned was that human beings, including children, were often bought, sold and leased like plow cattle might be at an auction. We learned that it was illegal for them to learn how to read or write, though some slaveowners did take the risk of teaching them. We learned that many slaves were beaten mercilessly for trivial offenses and non-offenses alike. That many slaves were raped by their slaveowners. Hell, one illustration that I specifically recall in our history book was that of a slave with his hands tied and suspended over his head with all sorts of lash marks bleeding on his back.

The point being that my school at least did NOT gloss over slavery.

Furthermore, we were also taught that the Civil War was almost exclusively about slavery, if not totally exclusively about slavery. It turns out that is not actually true, but certainly some aspects of the division between North and South had to do with slavery. We will note that the Confederate Constitution specifically stipulated that slavery was not to be abolished in new lands acquired by The Confederacy...so you can't tell me slavery had nothing to do with it.

In summary, 1619 is a commentary on history from the African-American point of view, which is perfectly fine. Anyone can comment on history. The only thing that I would perhaps avoid is looking back on history and trying to judge it by today's standards, which are obviously a lot better than they were then.

I've learned a few black names and events of significance in my reading of 1619 and appreciate it for that. I would obviously have never assumed that the fight for the African right to vote was exclusively carried out by Caucasians, but I certainly learned a few names that I wouldn't have known prior to my reading of the work. I obviously knew who Frederick Douglass was, but there are many others. One thing I did know that some others might not is that Lincoln himself even bandied about the possibility of sending black people back to Africa.

I guess when we talk about slavery, the right to vote and the continued fight for other equalities, there should be perhaps more of a focus on the actual African-Americans involved in those various movements. There are a lot of, 'Blanks,' to fill in between Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, that's for sure. And, I will admit, I don't recall learning anything about what any black people did during the interim between those two people. That's nearly a century of Black History that I missed there.

On the Video

However, if we are going to tell these stories---which we should---then they need to be told without any political spin. Before it is anything else, 1619 is a work of political commentary rather than historical, it just cites historical people and events in making its political point. What is the point? The point is essentially that the Institutions of Slavery and its aftermath have led us to where we are now.

Just like one o'clock leads to two o'clock, history leads to the present. That's pretty self-explanatory.

Of course, African-Americans weren't the only ones to struggle for suffrage. Is it politically incorrect to point out that black men had the legal right to vote before white women?

Anyway, I don't object to anything that was said in the video because it seems that the historians and other commentators went to great lengths to point out that these historical stories, in and of themselves, are certainly worth telling and exist as an indelible aspect of the history of this country.

Why is it that some people would deny the more egregious tragedies that took place during this country's history? I have absolutely no idea. Do the few people who decry some of the histories taught to us in school as, "Greatly exaggerated," actually believe what they are saying? I would hope not. Do the people who believe that the Civil War either had nothing or everything to do with slavery believe what they are saying? Again, I would hope not.

Are these events and lessons taught to us by history things that some people have forgotten since their middle and high school days? Of course! Some people are not only stupid, but also have difficulty recognizing when they are actually learning about something important that, as we can see, is stilla. relevant topic if nothing else.

As far as Current Events are concerned, such as the notion that our history has nothing to do with the wealth gap that exists between races, 1619 makes some extremely valid points, highlighted well in the section named, appropriately enough, The Wealth Gap. Once again, I don't know who you're going to find that would outright deny this fact in its entirety, but it's hard to believe that they believe their outright denials...unless of course they are a total moron. It's a pretty simple matter of cause-and-effect, in my opinion.

Now we get into the questions of, "Free Market Capitalism," as it was put and we decry its evils as the commentators explain that 1619 posits that our free market capitalist system could not exist as it does without slavery AND that its continued existence propagates racism.

Of course, that is complete nonsense. For one thing, we don't even have true Free Market Capitalism to begin with, so they're decrying the evils of something that simply does not exist in this country. I would say that the most appropriate vernacular that could be used to describe the economic affairs of this country would be, "Regulated Capitalism."

If you have a minimum wage, for example, then that is an artificially introduced restriction on both sides of the labor equation: An employer cannot legally pay less than that minimum wage and, strictly speaking, a worker technically could not accept or propose less than that wage. I guess he could propose it, but it would be an offer than the employer could not accept.

We have industries that are regulated in other ways by the Government, as well. Having to pass annual health and safety (as well as fire) inspections carried out by states and localities is a regulation. Without that, if a business wanted to run the risk of having its property be extremely dangerous and flammable, then they could do that.

I do not need to point out more example, but suffice it to say that, "Free Market Capitalism," does not exist in the truest sense in this country, so what is being decried is an abstract notion that's not even applicable.

Conclusion

What I conclude from 1619 is that it is my opinion that the black history makers should play a greater role in how history is taught in our schools.

Beyond that, I'll say that it uses historical events to make occasionally valid (but not always) observations on the way that society is today. Whether or not 1619 should be taught in schools is something that I would be fine with as a historical reference point for a black history class specifically, but not really so much for a general history class. The goal of history class should be to report and teach what happened as neutrally as possible, perhaps open historical events up for discussion, but to ultimately leave the meaning of those events up to the student. History classes in public schools, other than classes meant to cover Civics or specific historical topics, should exist to simply teach as many facts as are known with as little slant (from any side) as possible.

As a companion reading to the text of a Black History class specifically, sure, because such a class would leave a little bit more room for something like this. Maybe you could even advocate for it as a companion reading in a general history class, but I'm not so sure, because it doesn't seem like we really covered very much after 1950, or so. I'd rather a history class teach a greater number of pure and objective facts and events than to worry about teaching everything from different perspectives. That said, we could use more purely historical facts and events involving Black Americans than I learned in my history classes.

I listened to some of it at 23:50
Yawn
Dont like what the NYT writes, oh well
Write a book that you think as historically accurate
Everybody has their own opinions on history
What I love about history is we now have different perspectives on major events
Take the Viet Nam war
It can be viewed from the US side
But
It's a more fascinating story told from the perspective of Viet Nam itself

Well, yeah, I guess, except the NYT is offering grants to actually teach The 1619 Project in public schools...in History class rather than Civics.

Quote: terapined

None of my business
Let the Principal, school board, teachers, parents, PTA ect hash it out.

I guess I would say that the immediate problem is that historically-based opinion&perspective pieces are not themselves history. History classes should just state facts, events and dates and include as little opinion as possible.

Quote: Mission146

The first thing that I will say is that The 1619 Project (hereafter '1619' for the purposes of this post) isn't bad if it was left as what it should be---which is just a historical retrospective from a particular point of view. 

I don't disagree with that.  It's hard for Revisionists to not come up with at least a few good points. 

Quote:

In any event, should the date that the first Colonial-owned slaves (as there were other slaves even prior to the Europeans getting here) landed in this country be something that is taught in schools?  Of course, assuming it isn't already.  The authors of 1619 are undoubtedly correct in stating that is a very important day when it comes to Black History taught in this country and is also an important day in history overall.

A point one guy makes in the video is that it wasn't the greatest example to use. He says as far as we know these particular Africans were turned into indentured servants instead of lifetime slaves. After the appropriate period they were freed. If so it's as if the concept of slavery as it later became was just not something they were ready to go with yet. However, for school kids, if they haven't been taught yet that slavery began in this country way back when, I'd be OK with teaching them this 1619 date; but not this curriculum generally with its agenda. 

Quote:

We learn what we already knew that the Declaration of Independence leads with, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed..." and it is explained to us that this only strictly applied to white men.

True, but it was the foundation for changing that attitude. Lincoln started using it right and left, starting at least with the Gettysburg Address. These things should also be taught.

Quote:

Furthermore, we were also taught that the Civil War was almost exclusively about slavery, if not totally exclusively about slavery.  It turns out that is not actually true, but certainly some aspects of the division between North and South had to do with slavery.

This is an aside, but I believe the following statement is accurate and important. The disagreement between the sections over slavery was complex overall, but the essential unsolvable matter was over the *expansion* of slavery. After developments, the war, the actual start of the fighting, was fought in the beginning over Secession. As the war went on, one of the war aims of the Union was the freeing of slaves to hurt the enemy, then for the outright ending of slavery. So in these ways, the war was about slavery. Slavery in fact was the essential ingredient, without it the war would not have been fought. But so many people like to simplify this down to "the war was fought to end slavery" which it certainly was not in the beginning and is just too simplistic. As far as the way you were taught, I'm OK with that

Quote:

What I conclude from 1619 is that it is my opinion that the black history makers should play a greater role in how history is taught in our schools. 

That's inevitable now. However, someone should hold their feet to the fire and make sure they are not teaching inaccuracies and omissions of their own. This Nicole Hannah-Jones is resisting this fiercely, and it's got these guys riled up in the video. 

I don't really know that much about Hannah-Jones, but I get the feeling she could stand in for that lady who defended the idea that 'math is racist', if needed. For one thing I believe she has been one person behind getting some not-woke-enough people fired rather unjustly recently at the NYT. 

So we have a growing group of Revisionist Historians with this Black-originated viewpoint. That they are indeed getting support from the Pulitzer Center and others to create curricula to be taught in schools now is concerning.  It doesn't have to be disastrous, some good things could come of it, but the people with the curricula need to be held accountable to what they teach.

Quote: Mission146

I guess I would say that the immediate problem is that historically-based opinion&perspective pieces are not themselves history. History classes should just state facts, events and dates and include as little opinion as possible.

That is exactly how I think all news should be. Just give me bullet point facts and nothing else.

Sgt. Joe Friday, "just the facts mam".

Quote: petroglyph

Sgt. Joe Friday, "just the facts mam".

I'm not sure news should have ever had ratings in the first place. Or maybe they should have figured out how to avoid measuring it for entertainment value.