The 1619 Project

It is, of course, not going to touch on many facts - it’s a news series / American History class, depending on which part you’re talking about, which is, by definition, going to be limited. How’s that even valid criticism? Is anyone presenting this to you an all comprehensive resource? No? Ok then, let’s move on from that.

And no, it doesn’t claim that America invented slavery, and no, it probably doesn’t need to go into the history of slavery in the world (how far back you want to go, and how deep?) to talk about slavery in America. Seems like a 9000 year history of slavery would best be discussed in a specialized class (not elementary or high school level), or touched upon in a world history class. I would expect only the relevant parts to be touched on in an American History class - the transatlantic slave trade and it’s relation to America for example. Do you complain that every topic covered in American History classes leaves out a number of facts and doesn’t dive deep into the historical context? Of course not, right? So why are you complaining about this one? Right.

But really, if you want to discuss it and criticize it, don’t you think it’d be useful to read the material available?

1 Like

Analogies are hard for some.

1 Like

This (ironically in a discussion where you seem to be downplaying the thesis of 1619 project) is due to one of the central points made in the 1619 project - the consequences of slavery and it’s aftermath is central to where we are as a country. Many high school students don’t know slavery was the cause of the Civil War because of the bullshit lost cause mythology that is taught in many high schools. The south lost the war, but they won the propaganda battle - back in the day, in my upstate NY high school, states rights was presented as the central cause of the civil war. In my local school district now, it’s presented as an open question of whether slavery was a cause of the civil war.

I don’t know why a few posters keep repeating this take on it. That’s not what the author is saying, or what the project is about.

It seems like there are certain (presumably white) posters that can not view any text or document on race relations without the filter of aggrieved victimhood, and they have to spin the narrative into one of being put upon.

This isn’t what the project or the text is about, why keep repeating this? Why is the idea of putting the African American experience central in American history lessons so hard to accept?

I think the criticism of this “class” by respected historians speaks for itself.

Of course, fixing the inaccuracies and making sure that students have a solid contextual understanding for the information they’re receiving is problematic because the political and ideological agenda of this “class” is patently obvious.

This class can’t look at the history of slavery in context, or celebrate how African culture, brought over to the Americas under tragic circumstances, has contributed greatly to the culture here. It would defeat the central theme.

1 Like

Why??? I see nothing whatsoever here in either the Times piece or the text posted denying that African cultures inform the African American legacy.

It’s funny you bring race into it. Many of my opinions about the victimhood issue have been influenced by the opinions of my African-American friends, as well as a close West African friend.

It seems there are certain (presumably white) posters who cannot believe that some African-Americans are tired that every discussion of their future has to be a discussion about the past.

It’s not that it denies it. It’s that it barely touches it because it’s inconsistent with the ideological narrative that is being promoted.

1 Like

It, of course, does not. There were apparently a bunch of historians who were asked to sign on to that letter by those 5 historians but declined.
History isn’t just facts, it’s interpreted. There will always be disagreement on interpretations of history. Always has been, always will be, and there, and there are, of course other respected historians who disagree with some of the criticism. Which is all not inherently a problem btw.

One of the great things about the 1619 project, compared to the way most curriculums are developed, is the continued discussion on it.

1 Like

Don’t they have Simpsons reruns in the US?

1 Like

Apparently not in upstate NY.

You’re contradicting yourself all over the map here. First you say that the project is no good because it doesn’t go deeply enough into the African past of African-Americans in the curriculum. Now you’re completely discarding the past entirely.

Having a hard time following.

Sorry but generic notions of “ideological promoting of narratives” as a way of ducking out of addressing material are out the window with the fake news regime.

I don’t understand why you’re having a hard time following. One can study history the history of a group of people (including ones own) without making it the central focus of their identity.

Imagine if you were Jewish and the education system was designed to have you construct your entire identity around the Holocaust so that everything that happened to you in this world inevitably raised the issue of that tragedy.

It’s a history project called the 1619 project. How would a history project avoid discussing history?

Imagine being Jewish and every time you referenced the Holocaust as an event, it was met with responses like “Why do they keep bringing up the holocaust in their history lessons”? Or “The Germans were just so tired of the Jews constant obsession with identity politics, they read it into everything. It’s time to move past this discussion of the holocaust as a defining event in their history”.

1 Like

Let’s pull this waaaay back? How comprehensive are you expecting this material to be?

You have lost the plot. Like I said, one can study history the history of a group of people (including ones own) without making it the central focus of their identity.

In my opinion, the 1619 Project is a history “project” with an ideological and political agenda. You don’t have to agree with that assessment, obviously.

I don’t have to imagine being Jewish.

I’ve never met anyone who has objected to history classes discussing the Holocaust, and I don’t believe that anyone is putting pressure on the Germans to focus their history and identity on WWII and the Holocaust.

Most importantly, I was never taught that the anti-Semitism my ancestors have experienced in the past or that I have personally experienced on several occasions in my own life define who I am, what my opportunities are, etc.

2 Likes

Have you considered going after the Egyptians for reparations?

3 Likes

And luckily, it doesn’t negatively affect your opportunities like it does african americans, to this day. Not being taught that doesn’t change that fact.

You are not the only one.

You’re telling me that the Holocaust didn’t directly affect the trajectory of your family, ancestors, their geopolitical location, their attitudes and beliefs? It was the basis for the formulation of Israel. It changed the trajectory of Jewish life in the 20th century and on in ways that are undeniable. The holocaust and the past history of the Jews are inextricable.

Your basic point is you want a discussion of African American history that omits their history.

OK.

I’m waiting for my pyramid. I’m told Giza is out of the question, but I’m holding out hope for Djoser.

Incidentally, slavery persisted in Egypt well into the 19th century.

1 Like

So what? That doesn’t diminish the project’s mission statement at all. It’s a project focused on American history.

1 Like