And other "leading figures" contributed to the 1619 project.
-
-
Replying to @jasonintrator
Such as Hannah-Jones? Bouie? These are journalists, not historians. And the Desmond piece is clearly not a majority view in the historical field (note the NYT doesn't even try to defend it).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I agree with almost everything in Hannah-Jones's opening essay based on my own scholarship in the area - and what I took to be her main claims, eg that Black intellectuals led the charge to realize democratic ideals, were not contested.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator
So, you agree with the central contested claim that the American Revolution was principally pro-slavery in motivation, a laughable proposition to anyone versed in the history of the period?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
No, I don't, and I did not read that as central to her essay. I read as central to her essay the claim that America owes a large debt to Black intellectuals from Douglass to King for realizing its ideals.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
So little in the 1619 project depends on the claim that the American revolution was *principally* devoted to defending slavery, that it's absurd to criticize such a rich project on that basis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator
If that were the case, the NYT would correct that enormously consequential & obviously indefensible assertion before using the project as a teaching tool. It refuses to do so.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Puzzled by your claim, I just rechecked Hannah-Jones' article. Nowhere does she make the claim that the American Revolution was PRINCIPALLY about protecting slavery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
This is what I mean. That's blatant misrepresentation. Hannah-Jones said "one of the primary reasons". Sure, it would be totally incorrect to say that the American Revolution was PRINCIPALLY about protecting slavery. Good think she never said it!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
That's what I mean about the coverage. It's just...lying about what's in it. And that seems to me...bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I confess that, this being Twitter, I'm doing this from memory. "one of the primary reasons" is nonetheless egregious.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Much less egregious. It's debatable. "Primary reason" would be egregious.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator
It is debatable only in the sense that any old conspiratorial nonsense is debatable. The whole point of scholarly fields is to distinguish between the consensus, the fair area for debate, & the outre thesis.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.