This @AdamSerwer survey of the 1619 is, as one would expect, very fair minded, informed, and accurate https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ …
-
-
Which takes precedence, the racism, the south, or the whiteness? Which points matter yesterday, today and tomorrow, and are ever present? When and how have reflections on each changed over time?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think we’d have to know precisely what Sean meant before describing this as an error. This was in critical ways a Southern line of argument and interpretation that became dominant nationally by the late 19th century, regardless of where Dunning was born.
-
Perhaps, though that would be giving him a benefit of the doubt that he did not extend to any of the people he has critiqued regarding the 1619 Project.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dunning's view in many ways reflected Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," and Griffith was a southerner, and the views presented by Dunning and Griffith were inflected with southern views of Reconstruction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Look at Nell Painter's Guardian essay about the year 1619. Then ask yourself why the Times screwed up basic facts. The answer is the intent was to make a political point, not teach history. The 1619 Project could have been great. Instead, while an improvement, it's still flawed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The idea that preservation of slavery was the prime mover of the revolution is about as big a blunder one can make - because it's a much bigger claim than "where" a school of thought is located.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.