panem-et-circenses
In the garden
- Joined
- May 26, 2021
- Messages
- 6,056
- Reaction score
- 9,314
"The paper’s [NYT] next major foray into US history, “The 1619 Project,” could not have been more different. Extravagant claims of long-suppressed truth displaced the Times’ earlier, more modest recognition that each generation revises the past and different scholars argue over it. Collaboration was discarded by journalists who arrogantly dismissed any historians who raised substantive objections. The “multiplicity of perspectives” was gone, supplanted by an ideologically driven narrative."
"The 1619 Project is, to begin with, written from a black nationalist perspective that systemically erases all evidence that white Americans were ever important allies of the black freedom struggle. Second, it is written with an eye toward justifying reparations, leading to the dubious proposition that all white people are and have always been the beneficiaries of slavery and racism. This second proposition is based in turn on a third, that slavery “fueled” America’s exceptional economic development."
"Black nationalism — understood not as a protest movement but as the dominant ideology of the black professional-managerial class — is a variation on the theme. It views US history almost exclusively through the lens of race. It defines racism as America’s original sin, a sin that has been all but universal among whites and is passed down from generation to generation, like DNA. The metaphors of “original sin” and “DNA” are designed to freeze history, to emphasize continuity rather than change. Nikole Hannah-Jones refers in passing to the “progress” black people have made, but readers will be hard-pressed to find evidence of it — and in any case, whatever progress there has been was achieved by blacks alone, thanks to the racist gene embedded in white America’s DNA."
"None of which is to say that there are no continuities in history. . . The content of racial ideology, as an intellectual construct, has changed over time, as has the intensity and significance of racism. Frederick Douglass imagined — naively, in retrospect — that because racism was the product of slavery, the abolition of slavery would undermine the salience of racial ideology. But, of course, that didn’t happen, and there is still good reason to think of the period from 1890 to 1920 as the peak years of racism’s influence in American life. But racism has never had a life of its own. It exists in particular social and political contexts, and as those contexts change over time, so does the specificity and significance of racism."
"The abolition of slavery in the Northern states set the stage for generations of intense sectional conflict. In the early twentieth century, “progressive” historians systematically erased that conflict from American history. Readers of Beard’s influential account of the Constitutional Convention would have been left scratching their heads over James Madison’s observation that the major conflict at the Philadelphia gathering resulted from the division between Northern and Southern delegates. It took Staughton Lynd to expose Beard’s suppression of the slavery issue at the Constitutional Convention, and now the New York Times wants it suppressed again. Conflict over slavery? Among the founders? Among whites? How can this be?"
"And what about the claim, endlessly repeated among antislavery politicians, that slavery was a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that it deprived slaves of their natural right to freedom? This is taken to show what hypocrites they were, because — the claim is made — deep down, Lincoln and the Republicans were ordinary white supremacists. That’s why, even when politicians like Lincoln denounced slavery as a “social, political, and moral evil,” the 1619 Project ignores them, because such convictions are incompatible with the project’s all-explanatory principle."
"On the subject of slavery, the distortions of the 1619 Project are numerous, and they are significant. It conflates the wealth of the slaveholders with the wealth of the United States. It asserts without evidence that slavery “fueled” the growth of the Northern economy. It betrays a stunning lack of familiarity with the basic facts of cotton cultivation. It stresses the expansion of the cotton economy but ignores the South’s relative decline in the national economy. Slavery consigned generations of Southerners, black and white, to poverty and economic backwardness. Its legacy is hardship and misery, not widespread wealth."
Jacobin
Although I posted a lot of quotes, there is a bunch left out, mainly focused on the economics of slavery, that might be of interest to you.
The truth is, I think there has been an ideological squashing on both 'sides', leaving an inaccurate telling of history. Our Civil War threads aren't typical WR bubble-talk, either; the retelling, or revisionism, is pretty apparent within our country. "Actually, it's state rights," is not uncommon, and has been building up for some time, culminating in 'what caused the civil war' becoming a perplexing question for those on the right.
On the other side, emanating from our academic system, is another false telling of history and human relations, one that is ideologically driven too, pushed forth by both liberals and leftists alike (somewhat covered in the article/op): that our country is an irredeemable shithole, always exploited by the whites, with little to no progress to show.
Clearly, racism still exists, but the underlying machinery keeps generations of people under, no matter race, and addressing those aforementioned barriers would better serve our fellow countrymen than, say, focusing on 'probably never going to happen' dreams like the ones the 1619 project, and it's underlying ideology, spin.
"The 1619 Project is, to begin with, written from a black nationalist perspective that systemically erases all evidence that white Americans were ever important allies of the black freedom struggle. Second, it is written with an eye toward justifying reparations, leading to the dubious proposition that all white people are and have always been the beneficiaries of slavery and racism. This second proposition is based in turn on a third, that slavery “fueled” America’s exceptional economic development."
"Black nationalism — understood not as a protest movement but as the dominant ideology of the black professional-managerial class — is a variation on the theme. It views US history almost exclusively through the lens of race. It defines racism as America’s original sin, a sin that has been all but universal among whites and is passed down from generation to generation, like DNA. The metaphors of “original sin” and “DNA” are designed to freeze history, to emphasize continuity rather than change. Nikole Hannah-Jones refers in passing to the “progress” black people have made, but readers will be hard-pressed to find evidence of it — and in any case, whatever progress there has been was achieved by blacks alone, thanks to the racist gene embedded in white America’s DNA."
"None of which is to say that there are no continuities in history. . . The content of racial ideology, as an intellectual construct, has changed over time, as has the intensity and significance of racism. Frederick Douglass imagined — naively, in retrospect — that because racism was the product of slavery, the abolition of slavery would undermine the salience of racial ideology. But, of course, that didn’t happen, and there is still good reason to think of the period from 1890 to 1920 as the peak years of racism’s influence in American life. But racism has never had a life of its own. It exists in particular social and political contexts, and as those contexts change over time, so does the specificity and significance of racism."
"The abolition of slavery in the Northern states set the stage for generations of intense sectional conflict. In the early twentieth century, “progressive” historians systematically erased that conflict from American history. Readers of Beard’s influential account of the Constitutional Convention would have been left scratching their heads over James Madison’s observation that the major conflict at the Philadelphia gathering resulted from the division between Northern and Southern delegates. It took Staughton Lynd to expose Beard’s suppression of the slavery issue at the Constitutional Convention, and now the New York Times wants it suppressed again. Conflict over slavery? Among the founders? Among whites? How can this be?"
"And what about the claim, endlessly repeated among antislavery politicians, that slavery was a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that it deprived slaves of their natural right to freedom? This is taken to show what hypocrites they were, because — the claim is made — deep down, Lincoln and the Republicans were ordinary white supremacists. That’s why, even when politicians like Lincoln denounced slavery as a “social, political, and moral evil,” the 1619 Project ignores them, because such convictions are incompatible with the project’s all-explanatory principle."
"On the subject of slavery, the distortions of the 1619 Project are numerous, and they are significant. It conflates the wealth of the slaveholders with the wealth of the United States. It asserts without evidence that slavery “fueled” the growth of the Northern economy. It betrays a stunning lack of familiarity with the basic facts of cotton cultivation. It stresses the expansion of the cotton economy but ignores the South’s relative decline in the national economy. Slavery consigned generations of Southerners, black and white, to poverty and economic backwardness. Its legacy is hardship and misery, not widespread wealth."
Jacobin
Although I posted a lot of quotes, there is a bunch left out, mainly focused on the economics of slavery, that might be of interest to you.
The truth is, I think there has been an ideological squashing on both 'sides', leaving an inaccurate telling of history. Our Civil War threads aren't typical WR bubble-talk, either; the retelling, or revisionism, is pretty apparent within our country. "Actually, it's state rights," is not uncommon, and has been building up for some time, culminating in 'what caused the civil war' becoming a perplexing question for those on the right.
On the other side, emanating from our academic system, is another false telling of history and human relations, one that is ideologically driven too, pushed forth by both liberals and leftists alike (somewhat covered in the article/op): that our country is an irredeemable shithole, always exploited by the whites, with little to no progress to show.
Clearly, racism still exists, but the underlying machinery keeps generations of people under, no matter race, and addressing those aforementioned barriers would better serve our fellow countrymen than, say, focusing on 'probably never going to happen' dreams like the ones the 1619 project, and it's underlying ideology, spin.
