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.
-
-
What they're actually saying is that (1) there is no evidence to support the thesis, and (2) there is evidence to support the contrary conclusion.
-
It doesn't say "no evidence" it says insufficient evidence (and adduces sources that should be consulted & arguments that should be overcome if thesis is to be accepted). Nor is there any contrary conclusion -- the two arguments go hand in hand, as you refuse to recognize.
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.