I’m doing the thing where I say that talking about the impact of slavery on American life is no more divisive than “the impact of slavery on American life” and talking about the history of slavery is a positive good.
I'll just note that a lot of the out-of-the-blocks criticism here is aimed at how the NYT is framing & marketing the series. You should at least be able to understand why people react to that.
-
-
I understand the meta criticism, ie, I see how framing becomes a part of the culture war, but that can’t replace actual engagement with arguments. And sure—this is a long standing fight between several “master narratives” here and that can be incorporated. But texts must be read.
-
I'd be interested to know if you defend this exceptionally broad assertion, which is presented on the thinnest of evidence in the headline essay, and on what basis:pic.twitter.com/WFBABRl3kN
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Good old optics. Why can’t they make slavery seem nicer..
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.