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

[GP270watch]

 1619 wasn't some ground breaking revelation to anybody that reads American history critically. White Supremacy and the preservation of slavery fundamentally shaped Americans history in ways students are not taught about in school. To not teach them about this in an honest manner is a disservice.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

I don't really have an opinion on the 1619 project, but I do think it is important that the 17th century be included in discussions of American history. Too often everything before 1776 is brushed over.

[Diabolical Materialism]

I don't really have an opinion on the 1619 project, but I do think it is important that the 17th century be included in discussions of American history. Too often everything before 1776 is brushed over.

1776 project? 1619 project? Nah, 1676 project.

[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.

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

Well this strikes me as a libertarian argument, and, from the left, no better than saying employers have the right pay whatever salary they please. Clearly you're being extremely obtuse if you think there is no rational reason to take one view on a major issue like this on which intelligent and informed persons have disagreed. Surely one could argue that it is not a good idea for motivated or skilled workers to leave their native country, contributing to its decline; and 'undercut' native workers with their skills or acceptance of lower wages? One can certainly disagree - in fact I think I do - but you wouldn't be doing so from the left.

On a side note, do you support tarriffs or adjustments on products which compete well because they come from jurisdictions with weaker labour laws and the like?

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

I don't really have an opinion on the 1619 project, but I do think it is important that the 17th century be included in discussions of American history. Too often everything before 1776 is brushed over.

1776 project? 1619 project? Nah, 1676 project.

Bacon's Rebellion

[Diabolical Materialism]

I don't really have an opinion on the 1619 project, but I do think it is important that the 17th century be included in discussions of American history. Too often everything before 1776 is brushed over.

1776 project? 1619 project? Nah, 1676 project.

Bacon's Rebellion

An important, albeit both underrated and overrated, event in American history

[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.

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

Next to none. Honestly not sure where you conjured that misapprehension.

[cp]

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.

... this is making me doubt your objectivity on the matter.

I don't know what kind of historian you are, but you certainly haven't represented the views of historians of American history accurately. To the extent there is any consensus among historians in this field, it's that the 1619 Project is a terrifically successful piece of public history that has done an excellent, though not flawless, job in bringing valuable and worthwhile historical research to the forefront.

It's not 'just' the work of amateurs or journalists*, as you put it; well known and reputable historians have contributed to it extensively. It's disseminated high-quality historical research which sometimes has a polemical edge. That's not unusual among professional historians' peer-reviewed works. The 'controversy' about the robustness/accuracy of the evidence they present (to be clear, some of the arguments were overwrought and it was right to walk them back a bit) is exactly the kind of thing historians chew over in trade journals and at conferences. Again, the 1619 Project is not some egregious outlier in that regard.

Also, 'liberal revisionsts' isn't a historiographic school of thought. It isn't anything, as far as historians are concerned. It's the language of political hacks and professional opinion-havers, especially from the right-wing.


*Even if it was, this is elitist nonsense. Good history can be done by amateurs and journalists. It's not just the preserve of those lucky enough to get academic appointments.

[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.

... this is making me doubt your objectivity on the matter.

I don't know what kind of historian you are, but you certainly haven't represented the views of historians of American history accurately. To the extent there is any consensus among historians in this field, it's that the 1619 Project is a terrifically successful piece of public history that has done an excellent, though not flawless, job in bringing valuable and worthwhile historical research to the forefront.

It's not 'just' the work of amateurs or journalists*, as you put it; well known and reputable historians have contributed to it extensively. It's disseminated high-quality historical research which sometimes has a polemical edge. That's not unusual among professional historians' peer-reviewed works. The 'controversy' about the robustness/accuracy of the evidence they present (to be clear, some of the arguments were overwrought and it was right to walk them back a bit) is exactly the kind of thing historians chew over in trade journals and at conferences. Again, the 1619 Project is not some egregious outlier in that regard.

Also, 'liberal revisionsts' isn't a historiographic school of thought. It isn't anything, as far as historians are concerned. It's the language of political hacks and professional opinion-havers, especially from the right-wing.


*Even if it was, this is elitist nonsense. Good history can be done by amateurs and journalists. It's not just the preserve of those lucky enough to get academic appointments.

The "failing New York Times" bit was a tongue in cheek reference to a Trump quote from some time ago and nothing more.

But overall this is a fair criticism of what I've said. When it comes to matters of history I will admit that I tend to wear my school's biases on my sleeve more often than not. I am through and through a Marxist with a particularly strong, and admittedly unfair at times dislike and lack of respect for immaterialist interpretations of history. And I think what I said reflects more so my frustration with interacting with supposedly progressive historians who don't examine or put enough emphasis on the material aspect of human history in anything. I wasn't really trying to make a rational, reasoned case against the 1619 project. Truth be told I just wanted to rant at the expense of both it's supporters and detractors.

You are right that I should not let that blind me from pursuing an as objective as possible stance in historical matters. However I do want to clear up the notion that I was taking an elitist stance on who can and can't do history. If what I said gave off that indication then I apologize. I fully believe that history is a field that belongs to the people and is benefited by having as many voices as possible contributing to the discourse. However I will admit my frustration when I see projects like the 1619 project get all this attention, and dominate so much of the conversation when so much of the "technical" aspects of the piece feel frankly, amateur. You're absolutely correct that it isn't an egregious outlier in this regard, but what makes it particularly frustrating in this regard is that it is an extremely flawed piece that is getting in my opinion, undue attention from politicians and the public.

"Liberal revisionism" is a bit of a clunky term I'll admit but I was struggling to find the best way to describe revisionist historians (as in those writing directly in response to and in critique of a previously established narrative) who operate within a "liberal" framework ideologically. When writing I was actually tempted to call it post-colonial but that felt even more wrong. Don't mistake that as me being some reactionary blindly opposing politically liberal interpretations of history on the basis that it is "revisionism".

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

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.

What's wrong with whiggery? Are you some sort of tory absolutist?

[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.

What's wrong with whiggery? Are you some sort of tory absolutist?

Worse yet, I'm a digger.

[Cassandra]

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.

What's wrong with whiggery? Are you some sort of tory absolutist?

Worse yet, I'm a digger.

Hell yes! The only good guys in the english civil war.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

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.

What's wrong with whiggery? Are you some sort of tory absolutist?

Worse yet, I'm a digger.

Hell yes! The only good guys in the english civil war.

What about the Levellers? Or even some of the more moderate Parliamentarians, who while not as radical, still fought for the right side?

[West_Midlander]

Slavery, and its beginnings in the United States, is already taught in school. Anti-Americanism, however, shouldn't be in our official curriculum.

[Figueira]

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.

Were you born in 2015?

[Horus]

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.

Nor do I, it's not feasible. When the working class minority vote drops out for Dems in the next few years, they'll start to self reflect.

[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.

Nor do I, it's not feasible. When the working class minority vote drops out for Dems in the next few years, they'll start to self reflect.

Note I am not advocating the idea that immigration is bad, I just struggle to understand the left's such strong support for it.

[Brittain33]

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.

Opposition to immigration in the U.S. is usually racist, so members of racial minorities see it as an attack on them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but have you considered that the vast majority of Americans are descended from immigrants, unlike in Britain and in other countries? That makes us more likely to empathize with immigrants because of our family histories—we also have a national story of being a refuge for immigrants which is contested by many white Americans, but still powerful.

Finally, opposing immigration forces governments into cruel and nasty behavior toward poor and vulnerable people, and if you find that immoral, it drives your decisions.

So, no, it’s not a brainless, mindless “Pavlovian” response by drooling dogs barking “HATE TRUMP”, but a long-standing belief system informed by the history of the U.S., morality, ethics, and a sense of nefarious beliefs behind the opposition.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Opposition to immigration in the U.S. is usually racist, so members of racial minorities see it as an attack on them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but have you considered that the vast majority of Americans are descended from immigrants, unlike in Britain and in other countries? That makes us more likely to empathize with immigrants because of our family histories—we also have a national story of being a refuge for immigrants which is contested by many white Americans, but still powerful.

Finally, opposing immigration forces governments into cruel and nasty behavior toward poor and vulnerable people, and if you find that immoral, it drives your decisions.

So, no, it’s not a brainless, mindless “Pavlovian” response by drooling dogs barking “HATE TRUMP”, but a long-standing belief system informed by the history of the U.S., morality, ethics, and a sense of nefarious beliefs behind the opposition.

Considering how much of a positive impact immigration has had on America economically I also don't really understand why the right is so opposed to it. Well it's because the right in America is more an angry illogical movement, and you don't have much of a sensible liberal centre-right.

The foreign born population of Britain is around 15% and I'd be willing to bet a majority is 'descended' from immigrants.

Now many would contend that lots of immigration is 'nasty' towards unskilled native workers; and I think that a lot of the backlash is not born of xenophobia, although that helps, but because of a fear of job loss and the like. It's fairly clear to me that in the long run immigration is a positive for non-immigrants but one does not have to be racist to disagree. Calling opposition to immigration racist etc. has done a good deal of harm to liberal movements I think.

Why do you have such a contigent - likely noisier than big - who are against the very idea of borders? I do suspect that Trump has accelerated support for immigration amongst Democrats simply because one often defines oneself in opposition to something rather than in support of something.

[Brittain33]

While immigration has always existed in the UK and increased greatly after WW2, it simply does not have a foundation story as a nation of immigrants that the U.S. has. We have no equivalent to the English, Scots, and Welsh who are both the dominate ancestry and trace their roots back more than 1000 years. The closest we have are the descendants of English and Scots-Irish in Appalachia and the South who identify as “American” on the census which is nothing like English heritage in the U.S.