Biden administration cites the 1619 project as inspirational in history grant proposal

[Hindsight was 2020]

The actual definition of bigotry from Cambridge that you conveniently cut off is “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”

While Afrocentrism is defined as “a scholarly movement that seeks to conduct research and education on global history subjects, from the perspective of historical African peoples and polities”.

So no Afrocentrism is not bigotry in of itself because it’s goal is not the belittling of European/White accomplishment but the promotion of African ones and the fact that you have more disdain for the 1619 projects over the 01/06 terrorist shows your a bigot. As Badger would say good day sir 👋

[Figueira]

So, are there any problems with the 1619 project other than that one fact being wrong?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

the 1619 project praises the British Empire to demonize America so that is absolutely false

[Big Abraham]

The actual definition of bigotry from Cambridge that you conveniently cut off is “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”

While Afrocentrism is defined as “a scholarly movement that seeks to conduct research and education on global history subjects, from the perspective of historical African peoples and polities”.

So no Afrocentrism is not bigotry in of itself because it’s goal is not the belittling of European/White accomplishment but the promotion of African ones and the fact that you have more disdain for the 1619 projects over the 01/06 terrorist shows your a bigot. As Badger would say good day sir 👋

The Cambridge definition is how the word is commonly used in the United States, hence why I opted for that one. But "obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, etc." would work just as well anyway. Miss Hannah-Jones sure seems obstinately attached to her ideology to the exclusion of others, and has demonized whites as a whole so... yeah. Also L O L at how you think Afrocentrism" is just the "promotion of African accomplishments"... (easy to accuse me of cherry-picking definitions when you're even less innocent in this regard) when the actual definition that I cited is the belief in the preeminance of Black culture...

Pre-eminent. Meaning "surpassing all others." Seems rather supremacist, no? After all, supremacism is a form of bigotry, probably its most obvious form.

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

the 1619 project praises the British Empire to demonize America so that is absolutely false

The project sees the empire as the lesser evil at the time of the American revolution, particularly on the issue of slavery, not as praiseworthy in and of itself. After all, the British empire was one of the most dominant participants in the international slave trade and transported millions to their colonies in the Caribbean and other places.

[OSR stands with Israel]

So, are there any problems with the 1619 project other than that one fact being wrong?

Its Anti American

[lfromnj]

Biden admin: Invites people for public comment for a proposal which includes it.

Red avs: Stop talking about it!!!

Look I called out Alben for that silly obesity thread based on some random tweeter.   This probably isn't directly related to Biden but it is a federal policy under his purview which could be enacted. Its perfectly reasonable to start a thread about this. It is a small amount of course under this proposed grant although it is still worrisome for the reasons Avveroes outlined

[Figueira]

So, are there any problems with the 1619 project other than that one fact being wrong?

Its Anti American

No one cares, this isn't a f**king dictatorship where you can't criticize the country.

So, are there any problems with the 1619 project other than that one fact being wrong?

My quoted post above links to two critiques.

The idea that it is disliked because it got "one fact" wrong is absolutely ridiculous. No one has made a real effort to defend the project on any of the occasions when the topic has come up on this forum.

OK, those sound like fair criticisms.

[Figueira]

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

Wow. Not even trying to hide your true colors anymore, are you?

Do red avs have any attempt at a witty response any more other than "wow, going full mask off" / "showing your true colors" anymore? I guess not. Pretty sad honestly. I defer to Dule's sig.

"But but but John Dule's sig" is going to be the new right-wing response to everything, isn't it?

[Big Abraham]

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

Wow. Not even trying to hide your true colors anymore, are you?

Do red avs have any attempt at a witty response any more other than "wow, going full mask off" / "showing your true colors" anymore? I guess not. Pretty sad honestly. I defer to Dule's sig.

"But but but John Dule's sig" is going to be the new right-wing response to everything, isn't it?

If red avs wouldn't dish out the cookie-cutter one liners, invoking Dule's sig wouldn't be necessary.

Also, I'm not a right-winger lol

[Calthrina950]

We've had several "Opinion of the 1619 Project" polls on this forum, all of which revealed it to be extraordinarily unpopular, and none of which uncovered anyone all that interested in defending it. It's favorability peaked at 26% last summer and fell to 10% as of a couple of months ago.

Here are a couple of balanced pieces that point to issues with the project, both of which have been shared here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ - Professor of history and fact-checking collaborator who was rebuked for rejecting one of the project's central claims, that the American War of Independence was fought primarily to preserve slavery. He also expresses concern about criticism of the project taking toxic forms, but this contributes to his critique.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html - Critique from Victoria Bynum, James McPherson and other historians, published as a letter to the editor + response in the NY Times. They argue that the project involves substantial failures in matters of fact, method, and presentation.

Quoting central claims for those too lazy to click:

We are dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it.

These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. [...] On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false. Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”

Still other material is misleading. The project criticizes Abraham Lincoln’s views on racial equality but ignores his conviction that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed universal equality, for blacks as well as whites, a view he upheld repeatedly against powerful white supremacists who opposed him. The project also ignores Lincoln’s agreement with Frederick Douglass that the Constitution was, in Douglass’s words, “a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.” Instead, the project asserts that the United States was founded on racial slavery, an argument rejected by a majority of abolitionists and proclaimed by champions of slavery like John C. Calhoun.

The 1619 Project has not been presented as the views of individual writers — views that in some cases, as on the supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices, have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability and have been seriously challenged by other historians. Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. Those connected with the project have assured the public that its materials were shaped by a panel of historians and have been scrupulously fact-checked. Yet the process remains opaque. The names of only some of the historians involved have been released, and the extent of their involvement as “consultants” and fact checkers remains vague. The selective transparency deepens our concern.

Kendi is even worse, and it's alarming how their influence continues to grow. That said, this is just a grant proposal, and none of the reporting on it so far does a good job of explaining what any of this means.

Last summer, I was at a Barnes and Noble bookstore with one of my former high school teachers, who was buying me a book as a (college) graduation gift. I ultimately ended up getting a biography of Andrew Jackson. One of the books which I looked at before making my choice was one written by Kendi. I don't remember what it was called, but it was some sort of "history about white supremacy", and the language that he used was heated. It came across as a rant against white dominance and white power.

While as a black person, I certainly don't think all aspects of our country's history have been fairly or thoroughly covered, I'm also someone who isn't uncomfortable with works that spin their own mistruths, if you will. Kendi certainly is someone who is favored by the mainstream media; CBS News had him on as a guest at the beginning of their Special Report coverage about the Chauvin trial a few weeks ago.

[7,052,770]

So, are there any problems with the 1619 project other than that one fact being wrong?

My quoted post above links to two critiques.

The idea that it is disliked because it got "one fact" wrong is absolutely ridiculous. No one has made a real effort to defend the project on any of the occasions when the topic has come up on this forum.

Maybe for you, but that's the only tangible criticism OSR has ever given.

[dead0man]

You're still raging about this? Get some new material...

Yes cause it’s a disgrace

Stop giving it attention then

Then it shouldn’t be taught

But you harping on it all the time is just giving it more attention. What does that solve?

wait, what?  Apply this logic to, well, any other current issue.  Should BLM not "harp" so much on police violence because it's giving it more attention?  What does that solve?

[QAnonKelly]

You're still raging about this? Get some new material...

Yes cause it’s a disgrace

Stop giving it attention then

Then it shouldn’t be taught

But you harping on it all the time is just giving it more attention. What does that solve?

wait, what?  Apply this logic to, well, any other current issue.  Should BLM not "harp" so much on police violence because it's giving it more attention?  What does that solve?

My point is harping on one insignificant thing is dumb. No one irl knows what the 1619 project is but conservatives complaining about it just keeps it in the news. There’s no comparison between police violence which is a huge endemic problem and some rando bad podcast from two years ago.

[brucejoel99]

Wow, who could've guessed that this thread would turn into an utter sh*t-show?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'm not a fan of students being taught false information in school.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The 1619 project is anti-American, sensationalist claptrap that doesn't belong in the papers, let alone our classrooms.

[dead0man]

My point is harping on one insignificant thing is dumb. No one irl knows what the 1619 project is but conservatives complaining about it just keeps it in the news. There’s no comparison between police violence which is a huge endemic problem and some rando bad podcast from two years ago.

what is significant or not is clearly subjective, telling someone to "stop giving attention" to a subject they care about so it "stays out of the news" is quite clearly wrong.  You don't get to pick what other people care about.  Something is happening that he doesn't like, he wants to attract attention to that and explain to others why.  If you want to defend the 1619 Project, knock yourself out, someone around here should as many of you seem to have a problem with people pointing out it's flaws.

[Diabolical Materialism]

The 1619 Project is by and large loathed and rejected by the broader society of American history academia. Even those who would be the most historiographically inclined to defend it (liberal revisionists) think it's a garbage piece will little actual value as a piece of historical inquiry. As a historian I think it's a shame, albeit not a particularly surprising one, that yet another sensationalist piece of liberal history conducted by amateur historians with little concern for the historical method of inquiry has come to dominate the conversation.

It's frankly frustrating this keeps happening. I'm tired of having the same conversations over and over and over again. To an extent I blame liberal (in the historiographical sense) academics, professors, and their grad student foot soldiers for doing this. The academics for enabling it when they know it's trash, and their lackeys for falling for it hook, line and sinker. The venn diagram of history students taken in with whig ideology and history students who still read the failing New York Times is a circle. These kids suck. And I don't have the patience to listen some lily-white private school kid reading about Charlemagne on daddy's money tell me every other month about "how we need to rethink whiteness" or recognize "the integral role white supremacy plays in American history". It's not that I disagree with those concepts in a vacuum, and I think both are vital conversations to have in the study of American history. But it does get a little tiresome when it's advocates are always amateurs with only a shallow understanding of the historical method, like the journalists who wrote the 1619 Project.

It's just straight up bad history. It's equally distressing to me that the majority of the criticisms of the 1619 Project in this thread have been on the basis that it is "anti-American". Are y'all really that f##king soft? Do you expect histories to just be a glorification of the United States? Is every history book supposed to further confirm your romantic, and misguided notion that the United States is a uniquely moral and benevolent country? If so then I'd recommend School House Rock, leave the serious historical inquiry to the folks not as blinded by their emotions. Snowflakes the lot of you.

The fundamental issue with the 1619 Project isn't that it's "anti-American". Jesus. It's the fact that its methodology is sloppy, its primary sources are few and cherrypicked, and that its conclusions require too many assumptions to hold water.

I don't believe for a second that OSR has actually read it.

[Badger]

The fundamental issue with the 1619 Project isn't that it's "anti-American". Jesus. It's the fact that its methodology is sloppy, its primary sources are few and cherrypicked, and that its conclusions require too many assumptions to hold water.

I don't believe for a second that OSR has actually read it.

Correct on both points.

[Ferguson97]

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

Wow. Not even trying to hide your true colors anymore, are you?

Do red avs have any attempt at a witty response any more other than "wow, going full mask off" / "showing your true colors" anymore? I guess not. Pretty sad honestly. I defer to Dule's sig.

"But but but John Dule's sig" is going to be the new right-wing response to everything, isn't it?

If red avs wouldn't dish out the cookie-cutter one liners, invoking Dule's sig wouldn't be necessary.

Also, I'm not a right-winger lol

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

[Geoffrey Howe]

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

I still don’t understand why people on the left are so supportive of immigration.

[Badger]

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

I still don’t understand why people on the left are so supportive of immigration.

It's an American thing. You wouldn't get it.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

I still don’t understand why people on the left are so supportive of immigration.

It's an American thing. You wouldn't get it.

Well it is here too, to a lesser extent. I wonder how much it is Pavlovian opposition to Trump.

[Ferguson97]

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

I still don’t understand why people on the left are so supportive of immigration.

Because people deserve the right to freely move and live wherever they please? There’s no rational reason to oppose immigration.

[Calthrina950]

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

Wow. Not even trying to hide your true colors anymore, are you?

Do red avs have any attempt at a witty response any more other than "wow, going full mask off" / "showing your true colors" anymore? I guess not. Pretty sad honestly. I defer to Dule's sig.

"But but but John Dule's sig" is going to be the new right-wing response to everything, isn't it?

If red avs wouldn't dish out the cookie-cutter one liners, invoking Dule's sig wouldn't be necessary.

Also, I'm not a right-winger lol

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

Why do you say Big Abraham is anti-transgender and anti-BLM? I haven't derived that impression from what he's written.