1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project

Quote: DRich

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

I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean there's not a place for commentary, but that should be called an, "Opinion show," as opposed to news. That way you know what you're getting.

(Some paragraphs have been removed from the below series of quotes due to my not having anything to add to them)

Quote: odiousgambit

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. 

That's a pedantic point for him to make for a few reasons:

1.) It was when the first Colonial indentured servants arrived, but it's not like they (the servants) had a choice in the matter. A rose by any other name, and all of that. I would say that they were slaves, but temporarily.

2.) It was still the event that would ultimately lead to slavery, such as it was, starting in year 1xxx and continuing throughout the Civil War. It would be like saying that we shouldn't reference Jamestown as the first colony, since we weren't a country yet. The formation of colonies would lead to us eventually becoming a country, so it's a reasonable starting point for the history of The United States.***

***As opposed to the History of the land known as The United States, which obviously starts way earlier.

Quote:

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.

Absolutely. I think that one thing that gets lost when we talk about Black History (and, of course, I'm a white guy as a disclaimer) is that it's not like Caucasians were not in anyway involved in black liberation and eventual suffrage. Granted, some white people were the oppressors...perhaps even a majority at one point, but then some came around and decided that's not the country that we wanted. Many Caucasians stood with the former slaves, is my point.

Why would you want to spin it in a way that creates racial resentment from one side to any other side? Why spin it in a way that would perhaps cause an impressionable mind to regret their own race? I certainly never enslaved anyone. Hell, our @$$3$ were still in Germany and Ireland when this was going on...my ancestors didn't even have anything to do with it.

1619 posits that some of this was a practical matter of The Union needing the former slaves to join their ranks and fight against their former slaveowners, but I don't know that it was a matter of absolute necessity.

Even if so, as you have pointed out, one of the causes of the Civil War is that there was a difference of opinion between what became the two countries as it relates to whether or not slavery should be permitted to expand to newly acquired territories.

Anyway, yeah, I definitely think that we should teach who was on the right side of history and who was on the wrong side of history...but we shouldn't teach it as if there weren't any white people on the right side of history, or put an intentional spin on it that minimizes their contributions to liberation and suffrage. The only venue to do that would be a historical discussion and commentary class, arguably a Civics class, but not a straight up history class.

HISTORY CLASS:

DATE---LOCATION---PEOPLE---WHAT HAPPENED?

And, that's all a history class should be.

Quote:

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

I agree with that 100%. We should definitely teach how there was a bit of a transition from ending the expansion of slavery being the goal to how it eventually became about ending slavery. I think it would also be fair to point out (even in History class) that slavery would almost have certainly persisted longer in this country if The South hadn't been so keen on their position that it should be expanded to the new territories---as there would not have been a war---and slavery would have to come to an end by some other means or a war down the line.

I might even argue that it's fair to say that it's possible (without commenting on likelihood) that we'd still have slavery (though not in the expanded territories) had it not been for The Civil War, but I'm not so sure, because now you're getting into alternative revisionist history. Maybe an ever so brief mention that there was no HUGE push to outright end slavery prior to The Civil War starting.

Obviously, that goes back to that it's not for History classes to speculate on what might have happened had something been different---only to teach what did, in fact, happen.

Quote:

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.

I definitely noted that and that's absolutely correct. We both fundamentally agree: History = What Happened? And, with as little slant as possible.

I know next to nothing about her and don't care who the NYT fires. I'd generally never read the NYT, but the project came up in an in-person conversation once and reading it was recommended to me by someone who would likely know what I would or would not---if not majorly agree with---then at least appreciate---regardless of the source. I'm honestly glad I read it because I did learn a few things that I didn't already know, which I then validated to my own satisfaction using other sources, so that was useful.

The only parts that I did not read were the poems...it's either supposed to be a historical commentary or creative writing---Pick one. Besides, in general, I don't like poems.

I agree with the last paragraph. I think that there's no question in my mind that we should have learned about MORE influential black people in American History than we did, but once again, date-place-people-what happened? Like anything else. As little slant as possible.

What I will say is that there might be room in the curriculum for a class called something like, "Historical Discussion and Perspectives," which I think would be absolutely perfect for something like this and could be an Elective for those interested.

I guess Sociology could arguably have that covered, but Sociology doesn't focus on actual historical events that much---we also didn't have Sociology in High School. Civics could be argued to cover it, but I don't think that's the appropriate thing for a Civics class to be doing---Civics class should only teach how Government functions.

If you want me to name a class that I think Historical Discussions and Perspectives would have more value than, I could probably name ten.

Everyone does realize that the first slaves in in North America were not brought from Africa by Europeans. Many of the native tribes had been practicing slavery for thousands of years before we 'discovered' North America.

Quote: Mission146

I think it would also be fair to point out (even in History class) that slavery would almost have certainly persisted longer in this country if The South hadn't been so keen on their position that it should be expanded to the new territories---as there would not have been a war---and slavery would have to come to an end by some other means or a war down the line.

I might even argue that it's fair to say that it's possible (without commenting on likelihood) that we'd still have slavery (though not in the expanded territories) had it not been for The Civil War, but I'm not so sure, because now you're getting into alternative revisionist history. Maybe an ever so brief mention that there was no HUGE push to outright end slavery prior to The Civil War starting.

A good 'what if' is what if Napoleon never wanted to sell the Louisiana Territory, after all that went up to roughly the [now] Canadian border. This could definitely have kept the United States of the time out of much interaction with Mexico, and we wouldn't have wanted to violate French territory and have a war with France, I don't think. The expansion of slavery wouldn't have been an issue, and probably there wouldn't have been a war over other issues such as the Fugitive Slave Act. No question slavery would have gone on for decades. I have to think it would have ended, but when?

Quote: kenarman

Everyone does realize that the first slaves in in North America were not brought from Africa by Europeans. Many of the native tribes had been practicing slavery for thousands of years before we 'discovered' North America.

Yes, but how does that relate to slavery in the history of the United States, as an entity? I don't imagine that anyone is denying the history of slavery on the lands that would become the United States prior to colonization by the Europeans, or elsewhere in the world, but we're discussing it in the context of the United States right now.

Quote: odiousgambit

A good 'what if' is what if Napoleon never wanted to sell the Louisiana Territory, after all that went up to roughly the [now] Canadian border. This could definitely have kept the United States of the time out of much interaction with Mexico, and we wouldn't have wanted to violate French territory and have a war with France, I don't think. The expansion of slavery wouldn't have been an issue, and probably there wouldn't have been a war over other issues such as the Fugitive Slave Act. No question slavery would have gone on for decades. I have to think it would have ended, but when?

It's an interesting discussion, but I think the inevitable conclusion would be that it's difficult to even speculate and there's little in the way of evidence that would point to a definitive conclusion. We can obviously agree that it would have lasted longer. I don't know...maybe the French (and others) would have tariffed the hell out of our exports until we agreed to end, or phase out, slavery?

I want to illustrate again that my class (grade) makeup in Middle School was 100% white. The only reason that I point this out is that I think it's important for people to know that many schools taught about slavery in every painstaking detail. For a kid of that age, it was borderline disturbing. Of course, a few parents complained (mostly about the illustrations), but they were told, "Here's a list of private schools in the area if you don't like the way we're teaching it," which, I think, is as it should be.

In Middle School, pretty much the North were the ultimate good guys and the goal was always to end slavery. We lacked the critical thinking, of course, to ask how did slavery come to exist in the Southern States to begin with---we just learned what it was and the atrocities it entailed. The reasons for The Civil War would become more nuanced and detailed in High School, of course. As far as an introductory lesson, Middle School was fine enough...history is told by the victors and the school was in Ohio.

As far as revisionist history goes and the after-effects that we have on racial inequalities today, it's obvious that the North didn't do the right thing after the Civil War. The Civil War should not have officially ended until every Confederate soldier, white landowner (in the South) and their families were all summarily executed. No surrender should have been accepted until such time. The churches and public buildings of the South should have all been burnt to the ground. Want to commit treason? Here's what happens.

Certainly no members of the Confederacy would be glorified (by some) to this day. They'd all be blamed for the ultimate destruction that would have been rained down upon the Confederate States.

Of course, it's easy to be a Monday Morning quarterback.

Quote: Mission146

As far as revisionist history goes and the after-effects that we have on racial inequalities today, it's obvious that the North didn't do the right thing after the Civil War. The Civil War should not have officially ended until every Confederate soldier, white landowner (in the South) and their families were all summarily executed. No surrender should have been accepted until such time. The churches and public buildings of the South should have all been burnt to the ground. Want to commit treason? Here's what happens.

I think it'd be fair to let former slaves decide their master's fate where possible. From sleeping in unheated barns in the winter to backbreaking work in the sun for 16 hours.

Quote: rxwine

I think it'd be fair to let former slaves decide their master's fate where possible. From sleeping in unheated barns in the winter to backbreaking work in the sun for 16 hours.

More fair, but not as efficient.