I was rereading the 1619 essays today and what's really shocking is that they are very sober, grounded in mainstream scholarship and fuelled by patriotism.
-
-
Good for you. This was my immediate sense of things but didn't know the scholarship well enough to reply.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
These people are all Breitbart-level clowns who are slightly better at masking their buffoonery. Why do you continue to pretend they are serious people, thus boosting their cachet?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And yet that point was made without references, quotes, or context, unlike many of the really strong parts of the article, especially when it is lifting AA sources that belong in our national narrative
-
In other words, twitter isn’t a place where we can give a significant piece of writing a solid B
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are these historians or scholars of a “studies” discipline?
-
Why don't you read them before making any prejudiced conclusions?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Jeet have you engaged with the scholars who disagree with the 1619 scholarship? I’d like to see that
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Jeet, I’ve taken a course specifically on the issue, and what is currently mainstream consensus is that the north had to make some pro-slavery concessions to the South to get the South on board. Few serious scholars argue that the driving purpose of Revolution was slavery.
-
It sounds like if the south would not have joined the revolution without those concessions, your argument concedes that slavery was central to the revolution.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.