Yes, this is you affirming both that the study of history is useful solely in as much as it reaffirms your ideological priors, not for what it is or what it can teach us about our past, president or future, and that you didn’t read a word before passing judgement. So thanks.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Nope. But i do appreciate your narrow range of put downs, your inability to defend your position on the merits, and your selective appreciation for the importance of historical study. I’ll enjoy it next time you invoke said history in one of your poorly written legal briefs.
6 replies 48 retweets 1,732 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You’re not my enemy ilya. And there’s absolutely nothing I could say to you that would be more devastating or revealing than you, a self-proclaimed libertarian, proclaiming yourself uninterested in the history of the greatest conflict over liberty this nation has ever known.
6 replies 44 retweets 648 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer @ishapiro and
I'm all for examining history. But how did the preposterous claim that the American Revolution was motivated partly by fear that Britain would abolish slavery get past an editor?
26 replies 25 retweets 155 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @AdamSerwer and
That's a contestable claim but not an absurd one. It's argued among other places in this book(which was praised by some top historians of colonial America):https://books.google.ca/books?id=Wa9eun5ElEgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Slave+Nation:+How+Slavery+United+The+Colonies+And+Sparked+The+American+Revolution,+by+Alfred+and+Ruth+Blumrosen.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8hfrmvo3kAhXEmq0KHZvWCg4Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false …
4 replies 2 retweets 92 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @AdamSerwer and
The original draft of the Declaration of Independence included a paragraph condemning King George for "forcing" the slave trade on the colonies. (Later removed to keep the pro-slavery delegates in the fold.)
6 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @AdamSerwer and
That's one data point & an ambiguous one (since the paragraph wasn't included). The Blumrosens provide much other evidence that points in another direction. Again, it's contestable but not self-evidently absurd or false.
4 replies 3 retweets 87 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @CathyYoung63 and
Again, i have no issue with people critiquing the project or disagreeing with what’s in it. I have a problem with “we all know slavery happened, who cares” and “if you want to read about slavery and how it shaped America you hate America.”
9 replies 35 retweets 370 likes
I agree -- debates about the actual claims in project are productive. I'm just noting that this particular disputable claim isn't something the Times invented out of thin air but an argument serious historians have put forward.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @CathyYoung63 and
I understand. I am just saying this is not the type of critique i take issue with because it engages with the actual claims in the text rather than taking offense at the topic itself.
1 reply 4 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer @HeerJeet and
I'll amend "preposterous" to "highly dubious."
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.