Quote:Multiple historians slammed The New York Times Magazine’s “1619 Project,” calling the reframing of history false and disturbing, as others are pushing for it to continue being added into public school curriculum.

The “1619 Project” is made up of multiple stories and poems about racism and slavery. It suggests America’s “true founding” was when the first slaves arrived in 1619 and “aims to reframe the country’s history.” Written by journalists and opinion writers, the project has already received criticism from many conservatives.

Historian and Brown University professor Gordon Wood called the project “wrong in so many ways” in an interview with World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) published Thursday.

“I had no warning about this. … I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it’s going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of the New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways,” Wood said in the interview.

The “1619 Project” has already been implemented into some public schools around the country, like Chicago, and has lesson plans available for schools to begin teaching its student this reframed history. The Pulitzer Center Education Resources and Programs, which provides lesson plans for the “1619 Project,” did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Wood said no one approached him about the project and that “none of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War” appeared to have been consulted either. Wood continued on to provide evidence that he said negates multiple points made in The NYT’s project.

American Civil War historian and Pulitzer Prize winner James M. McPherson was also interviewed by WSWS on Nov. 14, and he called the project lacking in “context and perspective.” Like Wood, McPherson was never made aware of the project until it came out.

“Because this is a subject I’ve long been interested in I sat down and started to read some of the essays,” McPherson said. “I’d say that, almost from the outset, I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history.”

“And I was a little bit unhappy with the idea that people who did not have a good knowledge of the subject would be influenced by this and would then have a biased or narrow view.”

McPherson also countered some of The NYT’s points throughout the project. He, like Wood, said the outlet never approached him. He added that lead writer of the “1619 Project” Nikole Hannah-Jones’s claim that “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country” did not “make much sense” to him.

“I suppose she’s using DNA metaphorically,” McPherson said. “She argues that racism is the central theme of American history. It is certainly part of the history. But again, I think it lacks context, lacks perspective on the entire course of slavery and how slavery began and how slavery in the United States was hardly unique.”

“But the idea that racism is a permanent condition, well that’s just not true.”

Historian James Oakes was also interviewed by WSWS on Nov. 18. He said that “their work has prompted some very strong criticism from scholars in the field.”

“These are really dangerous tropes,” Oakes said about some of the claims the project makes. “They’re not only ahistorical, they’re actually anti-historical. The function of those tropes is to deny change over time. It goes back to those analogies.”

Oakes added that some of the project’s assertions are just “ridiculous” and he, too, provides contextual evidence to disprove some of The NYT’s “reframing.”

Hannah-Jones, who is working on the project, dismissed the historian’s viewpoints of the “1619 Project.” She tweeted that McPherson did not read the entire project and therefore should not be taken seriously.

“They are using a scholar who did not feel inclined to study the work he is dismissing in order to attempt to make an argument about the faultiness of the scholarship in the 1619 Project,” Hannah-Jones tweeted Nov. 26. “What they are actually doing, without knowing, is demonstrating why this project must exist.”

“As a black woman, I literally cannot *imagine* sitting down for a recorded interview on a major work that I haven’t bothered to read thoroughly. I wld have either declined the interview or read the project & gathered detailed thoughts about it. That he did not speaks for itself,” she also tweeted.

Hannah-Jones also wrote that since McPherson is a Civil War historian, his viewpoint also doesn’t matter because “the 1619 Project scans 400 years and is absolutely not a history of the Civil War.” She did not give an opinion about the other historians who disputed the project. The project, which Hannah-Jones herself said “scans 400 years,” would include the Civil War as it began in 1861.

Link

The Future Is Known...It's The Past That Keeps Changing - George Orwell

One of the board leftists will respond it is their contention Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.

(12-02-2019 12:20 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  One of the board leftists will respond it is their contention Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.

Either that or they'll point out he's an old white due and therefore obviously racist.

" Hannah-Jones also wrote that since McPherson is a Civil War historian, his viewpoint also doesn’t matter because “the 1619 Project scans 400 years and is absolutely not a history of the Civil War.” She did not give an opinion about the other historians who disputed the project. The project, which Hannah-Jones herself said “scans 400 years,” would include the Civil War as it began in 1861."

I received my undergraduate degree in History. This assertion by Hannah-Jones is patently false. In order to study any event, one has to study much further back in time than the episode in question. I took a year long Civil War course at the University of Cincinnati, and we studied colonization. It was necessary to get a firm grip on the subject matter. To use another example, I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  " Hannah-Jones also wrote that since McPherson is a Civil War historian, his viewpoint also doesn’t matter because “the 1619 Project scans 400 years and is absolutely not a history of the Civil War.” She did not give an opinion about the other historians who disputed the project. The project, which Hannah-Jones herself said “scans 400 years,” would include the Civil War as it began in 1861."

I received my undergraduate degree in History. This assertion by Hannah-Jones is patently false. In order to study any event, one has to study much further back in time than the episode in question. I took a year long Civil War course at the University of Cincinnati, and we studied colonization. It was necessary to get a firm grip on the subject matter. To use another example, I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

McPherson is named after and descended from General McPherson, who was a Union hero who turned the tide while giving his life in the Battle of Atlanta. There's a historical marker near a MARTA station in Atlanta that tells how we was smoking cigars with his staff when he heard the sound of gunfire. He sent his staff with messages to General Sherman and rode to the front where he re-organized and motivated his troops, surprised by the attack. You see a very decided Northern viewpoint and not a sympathetic Southern viewpoint from his work.
So we aren't talking about someone who "rationalizes" Southern slavery.

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

(12-02-2019 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

Germany is still quite mercantilist. The creation of the EU was a German Mercantile brainchild.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-02-2019 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

it's always been about commerce and how trade is negotiated...the wars were nothing but a consequence of that relative to who would win the tech war....

the best part about dominating in both arenas today, is manual warfare is now the exception...."never fight a war you don't intend to win.", eh?

all we have to do now is continue to squeeze the 'earl' and foreign trade where req'd....

that takes someone with a sac hanging....

that ain' today's liberal/pacifist in any capacity...

get the cash flow in line first.....it's only then we can begin to plan for a better socialized version of education and healthcare....

all we've done to date is waste money and opportunity.....and we all know why that is....

(12-02-2019 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

That's pretty tenuous. The World Wars weren't a product of mercantilism. Mercantilism had been largely abandoned in favor of free trade by 1900.

Even the histories of the rivalries don't date back very far. German unification in the mid-1800s completely reoriented Europe's rivalries.

The first slave ship from W. Africa that arrived in Jamestown carried a man, who would be named Anthony Johnson.
He went on to become a wealthy slave owner Tobacco plantation owner. I will dig up a good website that details the early days of the history of Maryland, VA, the Carolinas. Whites and blacks freely intermingled, lived with each, married each other, as long as someone could get themselves out of slavery and indentured servitude (of which the majority of whites belonged to). Racist segregationist stuff came much later.

Heinegg's studies of free black families bear with particular force on the period when the South was a society-with-slaves. During those years--prior to the advent of the staple producing plantation, tobacco in the Chesapeake and rice in the Carolinas-- the line between freedom and slavery was extraordinarily permeable. Various peoples of European, African, and Native American descent crossed it freely and often. In such socially ill-defined circumstances, white men and women held black and Indian slaves and white servants, and black men and women did like. Peoples of European, African and Native American descent--both free and unfree--worked, played, and even married openly in a manner that would later be condemned by custom and prohibited by law.

Such open relations have long been known to students of the colonial past, but Heinegg's genealogies--by the weight of their number and by their extraordinary detail--make evident their full complexity and expose their extraordinary intimacy. Everywhere whites, blacks, and Indians united in both long-term and casual sexual relations, some coerced and some freely entered. That mixing took place at the top of the social order, where white men of property and standing forced themselves on unwilling servant and slave women, often producing children of mixed racial origins. But Heinegg maintains such relationships produced a scant one percent of the free children of color. Inter-racial sex was far more prevalent at the base of colonial society, where poor and often unfree peoples--mostly slaves and servants of various derivations -lived and worked under common conditions. Indeed, as Heinegg demonstrates, most free people of color had their beginnings in relations between white women (servant and free) and black men (slave, servant, and free). These relations, moreover, often represented long-term and loving commitments. It was precisely the lowly origins of free people of color--outside the ranks of the propertied classes--that condemned free people of color to poverty and excluded them from "respectable" society in the colonial South. The poverty of their parents--particularly their black fathers--denied free children of color the patrimony and the allied connections necessary for social advancement.
http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/foreword.htm

Receipts

http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/

(12-03-2019 12:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

That's pretty tenuous. The World Wars weren't a product of mercantilism. Mercantilism had been largely abandoned in favor of free trade by 1900.

Even the histories of the rivalries don't date back very far. German unification in the mid-1800s completely reoriented Europe's rivalries.

The standard causes taught in HS are M(militarism) A(alliances) I (Imperialism) N(Nationalism). Imperialism is basically a form of mercantilism.

(12-03-2019 01:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 12:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

That's pretty tenuous. The World Wars weren't a product of mercantilism. Mercantilism had been largely abandoned in favor of free trade by 1900.

Even the histories of the rivalries don't date back very far. German unification in the mid-1800s completely reoriented Europe's rivalries.

The standard causes taught in HS are M(militarism) A(alliances) I (Imperialism) N(Nationalism). Imperialism is basically a form of mercantilism.

Guys- we are getting lost in the weeds here. The real point is that the 1619 Project Author is wrong to point out that McPherson, as a Civil War Historian, is out of his element when discussing events prior to 1861.

(12-03-2019 12:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The first slave ship from W. Africa that arrived in Jamestown carried a man, who would be named Anthony Johnson.
He went on to become a wealthy slave owner Tobacco plantation owner. I will dig up a good website that details the early days of the history of Maryland, VA, the Carolinas. Whites and blacks freely intermingled, lived with each, married each other, as long as someone could get themselves out of slavery and indentured servitude (of which the majority of whites belonged to). Racist segregationist stuff came much later.

Good luck with that, the liberal "remaking history think-tank" has probably deleted all of those by now.

(12-03-2019 01:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 12:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I also took a World War II course. In order to study World War II, you have to go back to events in Europe in the late 19th century to get full context of what occurred in the next century.

In order to study WWII, you really need a grip on the imperial mercantile system in which Europe had participated for 400 years (funny that time frame), beginning with Henry the Navigator. And don't forget the Christian Reformation that started about the same time (again 400 years). Or you could go back even earlier to Charlemagne, or even the Roman Empire. Those things created the rivalries that played themselves out in WWI and WWII, leading ultimately to the total collapse of that imperial mercantile system.

That's pretty tenuous. The World Wars weren't a product of mercantilism. Mercantilism had been largely abandoned in favor of free trade by 1900.

Even the histories of the rivalries don't date back very far. German unification in the mid-1800s completely reoriented Europe's rivalries.

The standard causes taught in HS are M(militarism) A(alliances) I (Imperialism) N(Nationalism). Imperialism is basically a form of mercantilism.

hence, post #8...

the rest is just artsy fartsy wordy whateverism....

it's always about culture/geo/arteries and the ability to trade goods....

if not that, then 'whatism'....

I'm all ears....