History

The 1619 Project Depicts an America Tainted by Original Sin

In this worldview, redemption for the founding seems impossible.

|

The verdict is in: The idea that America's real founding was in 1619 does not wash. And yet, it will be considered a mark of sophistication to pretend otherwise.

Since last August, The New York Times has asked us to consider that America's real founding was not in 1776 but in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to these shores. Nikole Hannah-Jones teaches that the Revolutionary War was fought mainly not to escape British tyranny, but out of fear that British tyranny was about to threaten the institution of slavery.

Stimulating proposition, but professional historians, as modern academics about as enlightened on issues of race and racism as any humans on the planet, have politely but firmly declared that the facts simply do not bear out this take on our nation's founding. Gordon Wood and others wrote careful and authoritative pieces to this effect, and more recently Sean Wilentz has penned a careful response to the inevitable pushback. Unless fact is not fact, unless documentation is forgery, no unbiased observer could read Wilentz here as partisan or as even swayed by subconscious racism.

After the first round of criticisms, we were invited to recall the early 20th century Dunning School of academic history—named after one William Archibald Dunning, a man with no purchase at all upon modern consciousness—that decried Reconstruction as a desecration of a noble South. OK, we shall recall it. I am dutifully recalling it now as I write. It sucked. But in the here and now, when the Dunning School adherents are long gone, Hannah-Jones' analysis is wrong, tout court.

Crucially, however, we can be quite sure that no one connected to The 1619 Project will admit that. Already, the Times stated that it would not revise the basic claims after the first letter of critique. Meanwhile, while none of us have crystal balls, it is distinctly difficult to imagine Hannah-Jones or anyone else simply admitting that they got the history wrong—especially as podcasts and teaching materials based on the 1619 perspective are now being distributed for the delectation of the nation at large.

The 1619 idea is already set, then, as a meme. We can be sure from here on it will be treated as a mark of enlightenment to ever "consider" that America at least "could" be supposed to have begun in 1619, roughly, "because slavery." This chardonnay wisdom will be considered as unquestionable in polite society as climate change—despite the fact that unlike climate change, the 1619 idea is not supported by empirical evidence.

The problem here is the general assumption that on race issues, empiricism is but one pathway to the truth, with a larger goal being to identify and revile racism in all of its facets, a goal so paramount that where necessary, we are to elide fact and consider instead what we might call—especially à propos the 1619 case—a narrative.

* * *

Only this perspective can explain how serenely professional historians' takedown of The 1619 Project will be ignored. Of late, social justice warrior ideology has been deemed a new religion by many writers, Vox writer Matthew Yglesias' term "The Great Awokening" being especially apt. The 1619 idea is an almost uncanny embodiment of this new way of thinking.

For one, note the suspension of disbelief we are expected to maintain. Supposedly the Founding Fathers were trying to protect slavery, despite never actually making such a goal clear for the historical record, and at a time when there would have been no shame in doing so. What are the chances that this supposed revelation would have slept undiscovered until now, when for almost 50 years, humanities academics of all colors have been committed to their socks to unearthing racism in the American fabric? Can we really believe that a group of journalists writing for the Times has unboxed such a key historical revelation from reading around, that no one else of any color has chosen to trumpet in the mainstream media for decades?

Hogwash, clearly. And yet it will be considered the height of insolence to address the decisive historical observations of historians like Wilentz. Here and only here, serious academic chops don't matter. We are to think of a broader goal—endlessly and liturgically attesting to the racism that black people have suffered from—as licensing a fantastical way of thinking. People like Wilentz will be classified as nattering nuisances who just don't "get it," callously prizing the literal over what is "deeper," as if they were requiring that someone today walk on water before subscribing to Christianity. That is, people who insist on the truth will be classified as blasphemers.

Then, the parallel with Christianity seems almost deliberate in that the 1619 idea lends the American story an original sin. Already, the Great Awokening's emphasis on white privilege has constituted such a concept on the level of the individual. As even children are now often inculcated in the concept, we have a substitute for the idea that we are born stained, and always will be. One can only endlessly "testify" to the stain throughout life, in hopes of being "saved" at some point in prosperity—Christianity calls it Judgment Day, anti-racism terms it "When America Gets Past Race."

But now we have a true Genesis-style scenario under which, at the very outset, a ship brings Africans to this land in 1619 and everything that happens here afterward is rooted in the unjustifiable bondage of those human beings and what was connected to it. Now, not only does the American individual harbor the original sin of being born privileged, but America itself is a product of a grand original sin, permeating the entire physical, sociological, and psychological fabric of the nation, to an extent no one could ever hope to undo, and for which any apology would be insufficient to the point of irrelevance.

* * *

The air of the epic, the mythical, here is not an accident. Among people without writing, history is preserved orally, in epics where the line between fact and legend is porous. This is because when there is no writing available to preserve insignificant details such as what Franklin Pierce's wife's name was, history is approached in a utilitarian fashion, to inspire and counsel living people about matters of urgency in their current lives. The 1619 idea, presented as enlightenment, is actually a rejection of history in favor of what we might call lore.

The attraction of something that seems so atavistic is that the 1619 myth will feel, like so many legends do worldwide, useful. Black Americans were treated like animals for centuries and then subjected to Jim Crow. It would be surprising if the race's self-image was not damaged by this history. As such, the 1619 idea joins many others in bolstering the black American soul with the substitute pride of noble victimhood. If you are a member of a race whose subjugation is part of the very DNA of the nation, it renders anything one does well a kind of victory snatched from the jaws of defeat (if only at generations' remove) and in general lends one a way of feeling significant, distinct, special.

Whites, in the meantime, seek absolution from the acrid charge of being racists. One way to do so is to concur with and support not only anti-racist policies and ideas, but ideology even when it slips the bounds of logic. One learns not to question, this often phrased as "I can't know what they go through." Hence, 1619 becomes truth.

Some might wonder what's wrong with a little bit of mythology in our historical conceptions, or with even a little bit of mythology in how we process the present. "Let us tell our own story," we will hear—with a sense that there is something small in asking any real questions. And indeed, there are times when we must allow basal responses their space.

For example, a major wellspring of today's comfort with treating race issues as fables is the O.J. Simpson media circus. Here, not just the intelligentsia but a great many black people beyond it studiously refused to acknowledge the rather plain evidence that Simpson murdered two people. In the present tense this was irritating to many (including me). However, with more perspective—which I gradually came to understand—few could fail to sympathize at least somewhat with the fact that the acquittal of Simpson was processed as vigilante justice after how Los Angeles black people had suffered at the hands of the police for eons.

A line from film director John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance advised "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," and in selected cases, maybe we should. But the 1619 business is not one of them.

* * *

For example, amid the superficial satisfactions—and that is what they are—of casting America as a grand original sin, what is the actual purpose of teaching young people that a grievous injustice against black people is the very warp and woof of our polity? What is the endgame? In which way will an America in thrall to this conception be better?

Surely, non-black people will feel a little guiltier about "the black thing," and internalize a reluctance to assign black people true culpability out of a sense that "they" have been through too much to be expected to perform at the level of other people. Few things more crisply demonstrate that the Civil Rights revolution has gone off the rails than that so many smart black people actually see this condescending poster child status as civic improvement.

Meanwhile, black people will internalize an even deeper sense that America is not great and doesn't like them, in the only country they will ever know. We are now to instruct black kids just a few years past diapers in this way of thinking—in studied despair over events far in the past, and a sense that it is more enlightened to think of yourself as a victim than as an actor. At no other point in human history have any people, under any degree of oppression, conceived of this kind of self-image as healthy—and no one could effectively argue that they were missing something that we have just figured out.

Another problem: There was a time when you could print the legend and after a short time it was hard to unearth what the truth had been. The Tawana Brawley hoax in 1987 was one of those legends, and for some years afterward, to learn the truth beyond its announcement mostly in the New York area during a news cycle or two required trawling microfilm or spending time in a big library paging through old bound magazines.

These days, however, the truth on these matters will always be easily available. Anyone will always be able to read the truth about 1619 on their phones instantly—and legions of teenagers and beyond will do so. Just as people might come to question Sunday school catechism as they mature, the 1619 scripture will be something fed to young people who will easily find out later that it wasn't real by just reading around a bit. Again, how will that be an improvement over now?

* * *

The insistence on maintaining the 1619 idea is rooted in a pervasive modern notion that when evaluating race issues, it is a form of intelligence and morality to duck truth when it is inconvenient to a victimhood-focused construct. W.E.B. Du Bois tackled the Dunning School with facts; today people sensing themselves as his heirs insist we accept alternative facts. Yet, to point out that neither Du Bois, Frederick Douglass, nor Martin Luther King Jr. would see this as progress renders one a heretic. This is one more thing we must overcome.

NEXT: American Dirt Author Cancels Book Tour, Claiming Safety Concerns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Original Sin”

    Totally not a religion.

    1. Pete 1619 project is just more propaganda from the enemy within.

        1. Hi, Hihn!

          1. Did you educate yourself?
            Or are you as ignorant as Last of the Shitheads, which would explain your diversion

            1. Go fuck your boyfriend in his shit stained ass, Hihn, then please kindly drink a whole bottle of Draino fucking slaver scum.

                1. Educate yourself. It’s not our job to do your research for you.

                  No one started a war because of a potential risk to slaves at some random later point, especially as a number of the founders were Abolitionist.

                  If you wish to hate America so much, feel free to leave.

        2. Even God can not change the past. We should focus on the present and future and promote racial harmony. The 1619 Project does the exact opposite.

  2. Don’t hit your ass with the door on your way out.

  3. I agree that 1619 is wrong, but I would have appreciated a point by point take down of 1619’s main thesis, rather than the muddled and meandering article above.

    1. Feel free to seek another publication, widdle baby.

      1. Take your own advice.

    2. I agree, the author could have at least provided some links to sources.

      1. Sources??

        This is Reason, we don’t need no stinkin’ sources.

        1. Hit and Run in it’s original form on suck.com was actually one of the pioneers of in-text hyperlink usage. They must not have sent McWhorter the style guide.

    3. It’s an opinion essay.

      1. I get that. But he assumes we all know why the 1619 thesis is wrong. He dismisses the whole thing in a single paragraph by referring obliquely to two other authors. The rest of the article jumps around from what possibly motivates people to be wrong to comparing other historical theories that were controversial. The whole bit that was about preemptively dismissing an argument for historical myths was, well, boring, and not an argument I have heard from the 1619 authors or fans.

        1. I think he’s assuming that you already read the historian’s takedowns of the project.
          His mistake was in thinking you’d read anything outside of your daily Media Matters briefs.

        2. “I get that. But he assumes we all know why the 1619 thesis is wrong”

          He is assuming we have at least a passing knowledge with the history of the American revolution.

          The basic facts ought not to be in dispute. The Revolution was really about taxation and self government. Not slavery. In contrast , the Civil War was really about slavery, not self government.

          1. In fact the crown got a big cut out of every slave imported to the Colonies. Parliament actually passed laws making it illegal for colonist to emancipate their slaves. Far from ending slavery, the British government not only endorsed it, but in many cases forced it upon the colonies (who many were more than willing to take advantage of it).The push for ending slavery that occurred in the 1820’s was only because, with the loss of the US colonies (and the southern plantations they lost a large export market. The utter defeat of the French (and Spain’s weakness) during the Napoleonic wars, also left England no real competitors in the Caribbean Sugar Trade. So the economic benefits of slavery no longer existed. This lead the people of England to re-examine their stance on slavery, and to demand Parliament end it. The industrial revolution had also shifted England’s economy more towards exporting manufactured goods, and less reliant on importing foreign goods (and re-exporting them). The slave system really didn’t end in colonies such as India, Burma etc, it just got renamed. I doubt if England would have banned slavery if it had lost the US colonies, and still had a ready market for slaves.

        3. His real problem is that you proved him wrong when he said high school students would take 5 seconds to google the answer.

          https://www.google.com/search?q=Sean+Wilentz+1619&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS875US875&oq=Sean+Wilentz+1619&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.6583j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

        4. I get that. But he assumes we all know why the 1619 thesis is wrong

          It’s NOT wrong. British Courts ruled the slave trade a violation of Common Law in …. 1774. — roughly 60 years before US Emancipation, which freed all slaves when the hit British soil (Applied to England and Wales)

          Parliament then banned slavery for the Commonwealth in 1807

          1. You may wish to look at the dates you posted all occurred after 1619. The Revolution started before 1774 as a reaction to the Stamp Act and other English impositions , so it is unlikely that the 1774 ruling had any effect at all. The fact that the Revolution started in new England, which was already anti-slavery suggests that protecting slavery was not a motivation. Perhaps the case is that “we don’ need no stinkin’ facs, we’re progressives”

            1. I never made any claims about 1619
              Your full of shit on when the revolution started. Perhaps confusing it with the Articles of Association in … wait for it … 1774 … October …. AFTER the English ruling ,,, as a ban in imports from Britain. NOT a revolution.

              WHAT DO WE CELEBRATE ON JULY 4th? 🙂

              I’m not a progressive, Gomer. Why does your ilk ALWAYS whine “progressive” … ON NO EVIDENCE. PURE IGNORANCE?
              For EVIDENCE, here’s the web archive of my published political writing. http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

              Check the article summaries for Taxes, Health Care, Federal Budget/Debt, New Federalism and Education

              The healthcare proposals, from the mid-90s, are STILL way ahead of both the Republican and libertarian establishments … neither of which has a fucking thing.

              The Tax Plan and New Federalism, also compares well with the rank stupidity of the establishment elites. Hint: The ONLY way to control spending is … EMPOWER VOTERS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!! … UNdelegating powers is both Jeffersonian and Randian.

              Partial Summary: Stupidity of the elites
              1) Flat tax in income. Ummm, progressive tax rates subsidize roughly half the entire income tax burden of the core middle class ($40k – 100k) Flat rates would create a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class.

              2) Sales tax is even crazier, since the rich consume very little of their income, and the middle class consumes nearly ALL of its (including consumer debt)

              3) With government so large, ANY tax on ONLY income or consumption will severely distort free markets … and fuck the middle class. A sales tax would shift the punishment from investment to consumption … and what kind of dummy thinks a 30% national sales tax (on top of state sales taxes) would not crush consumption?

              3) TWO flat taxes, at equal low rates, on BOTH income and consumption would work fine. MY plan.

              4) Medicare vouchers are the ILLUSION of privatization but WOULD increase competition, IN THE WRONG FUCKING MARKET! Umm, insurance is NOT health care, and progs are NOT the only ones fucking THAT up. Vouchers would insert insurance companies and HMOs as costly, and USELESS middle-men! There has always been competition in the RELEVANT market, providers. Seniors can choose, but have no skin in the game. So YOUR heroes fuck up which market needs competition, AND somehow never thought of skin in the game. YOUR heroes, NOT this so-called “proggie.”

              5) In New Federalism (expanded from Reagan’s) EACH state would CONTROL which programs to be run ENTIRELY at ONE level of government (state or federal), with ALL the funding. The incentive is that EACH state keep 100% of any savings they create. (Smaller states might “partner” to jointly run, say, food stamps) … THEN, every 5-10 years, VOTERS seize control, going out for bids, state vs federal, the LIBERTARIAN principle of “competing governments.”

              Two questions
              1) Still say I’m a prog?
              2) Can you understand that tears are now streaming down my face … from laughing at you?

    4. I would have appreciated a point by point take down of 1619’s main thesis

      The take down is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support The 1619 Project’s main theses. None.

      So the question being examined here is, “why do people commit so forcefully to believing it anyway?

      Supposedly the Founding Fathers were trying to protect slavery, despite never actually making such a goal clear for the historical record, and at a time when there would have been no shame in doing so.

      And they even openly debated abolishing slavery. Asserting that the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery is just retarded, and the burden of proof is solidly on the person making this retarded claim, not on those who point out that the claim is retarded on its face and has no evidence to support it.

      1. “The take down is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support The 1619 Project’s main theses. None.”

        Yep. You simply cannot make a ‘point by point’ takedown of something that has no data points and is built from supposition, innuendo, and assumed bad faith.

        You’d think Jeffy would know a thing or two about those things.

        The 1619 project is as historical as Genesis.

        1. You could list the main points that are wrong for those who are less familiar with the project, though.

          1. That’s now how this works Zeb.

        2. The take down is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support The 1619 Project’s main theses. None.

          EDUCATE YOURSELF
          https://reason.com/2020/01/31/trump-has-fully-embraced-the-idea-that-deficits-dont-matter/#comment-8111741

          Yep. You simply cannot make a ‘point by point’ takedown of something that has no data points and is built from supposition, innuendo, and assumed bad faith.

          (laughing) YOU have been taken down!

          P.S. The English Judiciary had ALREADY ruled that slavery was a violation of English Common Law …. TWO YEARS BEFORE OUR REVOLUTION. That alone does not prove causation, but it sure makes a monkey out of whoever taught you those ignorant “arguments.”

          And for those goobers who whine about judges “inventing” rights … judges have been RECOGNIZING rights, which are inherent, since the 1500s. That’s their job — here as a check against the other branches violating fundamental rights … which are GUARANTEED by the Ninth Amendment … but NEVER listed.

          Mexico also ended slavery before we did, which is WHY Texas left it.

          Any questions?

    5. Then why dont younfucking read the essays and letters from the many historians have Jeff. It isnt aimed private protest. Stop being intentionally ignorant.

  4. “The 1619 idea is already set, then, as a meme.”

    This is correct, but slightly off, and the rest of the article proceeds from the same sliggt miss-understanding.

    It’s been memed because of how stupid it is, and it has already become something like believing in ghosts.

  5. >>”Original Sin”

    The Swing was a great INXS album

    1. Dream on white boy
      Dream on black girl
      Then wake up to a brand new day
      To find your dreams are washed away

      1. yep. still have the vinyl.

    2. “Missionary Man” by the Eurythmics is what came to my mind.

      Well I was born an original sinner
      I was born from original sin
      And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I’ve done
      There’d be a mountain of money piled up to my chin

      1. That’s where my head has been, too. Can’t get it out, now.

      2. Annie and Dave are both awesome.

    3. Is their singer still hanging around?

      1. Don’t be so hard on the guy.

      2. lol ouch too soon. i loved inxs.

  6. You know who else believes America is tainted by original sin? My favorite libertarian writer Shikha Dalmia.

    A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.

    According to Dalmia’s analysis, there is precisely one way to atone for our original sin — we must implement the immigration agenda of Reason.com’s billionaire benefactor Charles Koch.

    #OpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. Yeah, fuck that woman. Her quote is the single most ignorant and hyperbolic steaming turd pile to ever be dumped on this website.

      It’s now nothing but pretentious twaddle to call this site “Reason”.

        1. I read your fucking stupid “comment” and its twisted history and by that you twist it to suit your fucking bottom feeding propaganda. Nobody is being educated by you, your a leftard propagandist, dishonest scum, your nothing but dog shit on my heel. Everybody knows it which is the reason why nobody takes you seriously, Hihn.

          1. (Facts must be in-con-veeeeeeeeeeeen-yent to the anti-liberty warrior.)

  7. So, the moral of the story is, “slavery is bad”?

    OK.

    1. No, the moral of the story is that you’re bad and you should be ashamed of yourself.

      1. Yep. Marxism has always been a religion.

      2. No, the moral of the story is that your parents (and their parents, and their parents, etc.) were bad, but you have a chance to redeem yourself by denouncing them with all the vigor of Red Guards at a struggle session during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It’s all an effort to brainwash schoolkids into thinking that there is absolutely nothing about their country’s founding that they should be proud of, that they should feel no pride in the flag or the National Anthem, and should free to jettison the Constitution, with its nasty electoral college, equal Senate representation, and first and second amendments.

  8. tl;dr

  9. “…no unbiased observer”

    “…have politely but firmly declared that the facts simply do not bear out this take on our nation’s founding. Gordon Wood and others wrote careful and authoritative pieces to this effect, and more recently Sean Wilentz has penned a careful response to the inevitable pushback. Unless fact is not fact, unless documentation is forgery, no unbiased observer could read Wilentz here as partisan or as even swayed by subconscious racism.”

    Nikole Hannah-Jones: “I’m not going to pretend to be objective about it.”

  10. “Chardonnay wisdom”

    That is SO quaint.

    1. But a good name for a band.

      1. Not any band that I’d listen to.

      2. Like GWAR, but with Hilary Clinton impersonators.

        1. THAT would be scary! Maybe their first contrivance, er album, could be named limousine liberal. Goes well with Chardonnay wisdom.

        2. RIP Oderus.

  11. Guys, guys, settle down; this is published by the New York Times. It is not worth reading, let alone discussing.

    1. McWhorter is a superb essayist who’s not a progressive nutbar.

      1. But is he a full-bore clinger?

        1. He’s black so I’m pretty sure he’s exempted from being a clinger.

          1. When they’re black, the technical term is not clinger, but Uncle Tom.

        2. Do you sing any different songs? If you’re going to be a troll at least try to be somewhat interesting. You’re like a steady diet of corn dogs.

        3. No John McWhorter probably is not.

          But I suspect Kirkland is a knee-jerk liberal blue state coastie elitist.

      2. McWhorter is a superb essayist who’s not a progressive nutbar.

        Because he confirmed your own stupidity and/or racism???

        https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

        (smirk)

    2. But it is being taught as fact to your children. So, nothing to worry about, right?

  12. despite the fact that unlike climate change, the 1619 idea is not supported by empirical evidence.

    Both have the same amount of evidence, at least in quality.

      1. Go kill yourself, Hihn.

        1. Stop stalking me.
          Get a life, thug.

  13. “Chardonnay wisdom”

    I’m so stealing that.

    1. You’re a Chardonnay burglar.

    2. I already did; can’t wait for an opportunity to accuse someone of it.

  14. Gramscians are gonna, uh, Gramsci the place up. It’s what they do.

  15. Maybe we can all just start over. Send everyone but the Amerindians back to Europe, Africa or Asia. Oh hell, while we’re at it send the Amerindians back to Asia too. Then reboot and start over.

    If this is truly the original sin, a reboot is the only way to get past it. Otherwise we’re all doomed to hell and we should all just say fuck it and do whatever. But I don’t think that’s what the scolds at the NYT really want. So just reboot. I’m tired of this bullshit. I’m tired of being doomed to hell because I’m white even though my grandfather only came here in the 20s. Fuck it, imma gonna do what I want.

    1. Well, in the context of religion, some one (s) need to die to some for the original sin, even if it wasn’t their fault. You know who the lefties want to roast (literally).

      1. Make OMB literally a Messiah?

      2. Getting someone to die is easy. It getting them to rise from the dead on third day that is tricky part.

    2. “If this is truly the original sin, a reboot is the only way to get past it.”

      That’s not how the Puritans looked at it. They never spoke of a reboot, but faith in god and a life devoted to good works.

      “Fuck it, imma gonna do what I want.”

      That’s the attitude of a libertine like the Marquis de Sade. If you have no other goal in life than the frivolous, that’s fine, but the Puritans were serious about life and their responsibilities.

      1. Then by all means, go flagellate yourself into a plague in the public square for these imaginary sins, mtrue.

        1. Doing the right thing can be hurtful. At least you’ll be prepared when your time comes.

          1. Doing the right thing can be hurtful.

            It can be. But few things that are hurtful are actually the right thing to do. Puritans, socialists, and progressives generally do the wrong thing until it hurts; it’s still the wrong thing.

      2. Citing the Puritans is an absolute refutation of the 1619 project. Not for whatever they specifically were, but merely as proof that there was no single ‘founding’ of this nation.

        There were multiple groups, in multiple places, and at multiple different times with differing ideals and purposes who came here and eventually coalesced into a political entity. All sorts of compromises were made along the way regarding all manner of human relations. to point at slavery and declare ‘that was the one animating force for all that followed’ is silly beyond measure.

        There, Jeff, that is your ‘point by point’ takedown.

    3. Then reboot and start over.

      With a big pile of loot in Kansas, so it’ll be like the beginning of a Hunger Game.

      I’m tired of being doomed to hell because I’m white even though my grandfather only came here in the 20s.

      Yeah – most of my line came here post-1900 and settled in the far West where there never was any slavery. The only branch I can trace back to 1840s Ohio were Abolitionists who had come here as indentured servants and fought on the Union side in the Civil War.

      I’ve always been unclear about which part of all of this I’m supposed to be culpable for.

      1. My Great Grandmother’s family were part Saami who fled Norway to escape political, economic and ethnic persecution. She ended up marrying an ethnic Norwegian in South Dakota, where both families had homesteaded, but outside the house, she never admitted, nor did her parents admit to being “Finn” as they were called back then. That was because back then, even in America, most ethnic Norwegians and Swedish maintained the prejudices against the Saami (which actually remained official government policy in Norway until the 1970s). Trying to figure out what privilege her family had.

    4. Why don’t us AmerIndians get sent back to Asia?

      Europeans and Asians sent back to Africa.

      Let us all just go back to Africa, 7.53 billion of us humans.

      1. The original sin of white(ish) flight.

    5. That’s the funny thing about original sin. People say we’ve transgressed against the tribals and the Africans we imported…but where do they delineate from? We know the North American tribals were Asiatic migrants who crossed the Bering Strait and killed the Clovis people. Many of the Africans were sold into slavery by their own people. It’s really a stupid debate to try and figure out who came first, especially if it isn’t relevant to issues here and now.

    6. Oh, are you tired of the notion that you have something to atone for? They know that. So their motive must be more division.

      Why do they want that?

  16. NY Times 2019: The US is tainted forever because of slavery, and must atone by adopting socialism

    NY Times 2018: Sex and the environment were both better in the USSR under socialism. What gulags?

  17. Revisionism at its worst.

    1. Is there a bottom to this pit?

      Better keep digging to find out!

        1. You know, people like you make me root for Jack Klompus Magic Ink.

          1. Your type hates EVERONE who’s smarter than you. And so very more mature.

  18. “…despite the fact that unlike climate change, the 1619 idea is not supported by empirical evidence.”

    Climate changing will always be supported by ’empirical evidence’ because it’s changing.

    The question is, does the author think the mainstream narratives about ‘climate change’ (as sold by Erhlich, Hansen, Gore, Nye, Klein, Suzuki, Grrrreta and her handlers, etc.) is empirically backed up? It’s not these clowns don’t lie right?

    I gotta say….that’s a large mozza ball you’re reaching for. Youtube is filled with scientists from Watts to Friends of Science to Heller and a host of other personalities, scientists and channels who challenge the ‘evidence’. So don’t tell me it’s empirical.

    Because according to my own research and observations it’s FAR from ‘settled science’.

    In fact, neither climate change or 1619 have much evidence backing them up. In the case of climate, it certainly doesn’t merit ‘solutions’ like the GND which is really just socialism by other means.

    1. “Because according to my own research and observations it’s FAR from ‘settled science’.”

      I’ve read that heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature. What has your own research revealed?

      1. That the ice caps are all gonna melt by the year 2000.

      2. I’ve read that heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature. What has your own research revealed?

        That changes in global average temperature in fact have multiple causes.

        1. I wrote increases. You wrote changes.

          1. Increases in global average temperature also in fact have multiple causes.

            “Increases” comes under the general heading “changes,” as does “decreases.”

            The only phenomenon that doesn’t come under the heading “changes” is “staying the same.”

            1. I believe the average global temperature has been increasing. Some believe it is decreasing. I was just trying to figure out where you stand on it since you’ve chosen ambiguous language to replace my unambiguous language. And I understand changes could mean decreases as well as increases. That’s why I meant to clarify.

              1. Yes – and I was pointing out that your “unambiguous language” way, way, way oversimplifies the issue and substitutes a political narrative for empirical study. A lot like The 1619 Project.

                1. “way oversimplifies the issue and substitutes a political narrative for empirical study”

                  You’re the one who is calling it an ‘issue,’ and somehow my asking for your stand on the question of atmospheric temperature is substituting a political narrative. Is ‘change’ instead of ‘increase’ meant to signal your apolitical stance on the science? Because it seems to me an honest scientist would have no trouble calling an increase and increase.

                  1. somehow my asking for your stand on the question of atmospheric temperature is substituting a political narrative

                    Political narrative from your OP:

                    heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature.

                    Which you followed up with:

                    What has your own research revealed?

                    To which I responded that changes in global temperature (up or down) have multiple causes, which is, in fact, what the research shows.

                    Which causes are more or less material is debatable, but declaring “heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature” sweeps the actual science under the rug in service of a political narrative.

                    Is ‘change’ instead of ‘increase’ meant to signal your apolitical stance on the science?

                    No. My response to your original over-simplification was to point out that atmospheric temperature changes have multiple causes. You decided there was some significance to my having said “changes” instead of “increases.”

                    That temperatures have been rising over the course of recent centuries is indisputable. There seems to have been an acceleration in that warming in the latter half of the 20th c.

                    But it is less than fully empirically certain that that warming trend hasn’t essentially flattened out over the last 25 years. Which would problematize the narrative that “heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature.”

                    It may even be the case that something other than CO2 is a more direct culprit in the warming, but we’re not really being encouraged to think in those directions, now, are we?

                    Luckily, the warming, even in the most ‘warming-generous’ interpretations of the data, is not, at the moment, happening quickly enough to be catastrophic.

                    1. “To which I responded that changes in global temperature (up or down) have multiple causes”

                      I wouldn’t dispute that. Day time temperatures across the globe are warmer than night time temperatures, thanks to the influence of the sun, without any help from the various gases. I think increased CO2 due to increased fossil fuel burning is probably a more satisfying theory to explain the recent increase in temperature observed.

                      “but we’re not really being encouraged to think in those directions, now, are we?”

                      Sure we are. There’s several million $US in a Nobel prize if you can come up with a discovery that is as revolutionary as the one you are proposing. But scientists don’t work the way you are suggesting. If they don’t measure something, it doesn’t have any place in scientific discourse. That’s why your casting about for some candidate other than CO2 strikes me as politically, not scientifically, motivated.

                      “That temperatures have been rising over the course of recent centuries is indisputable.”

                      Many here believe that rising temperatures are a hoax, yet I’ve yet to see you dispute anyone claiming this. You really should join me in combating the foolish beliefs of some here.

                    2. I think increased CO2 due to increased fossil fuel burning is probably a more satisfying theory to explain the recent increase in temperature observed.

                      See – that’s a much more measured and rational statement.

                      That’s why your casting about for some candidate other than CO2 strikes me as politically, not scientifically, motivated.

                      I’m not “casting about.” I mentioned, for example, methane, which is also known to be a GHG whose recent rising atmospheric concentrations are indisputably anthropogenic.

                      Are you denying that scientists have identified methane as an anthropogenic GHG? If not, why do you cast your refusal to consider it to be a candidate as apolitical and my empirically-accurate observation that it is, in fact, a candidate as political?

                      Many here believe that rising temperatures are a hoax, yet I’ve yet to see you dispute anyone claiming this.

                      I haven’t seen much of that at all, but I have seen Climate Believers offering that up as a straw man to be attacked at every opportunity whenever someone questions the fossil fuel narrative.

                      I mean, yes – there are some here who deny any kind of warming, but that’s like two people.

                      And in times past I was confronting “deniers” here. But it’s been a very long time since the “deniers” have had any sort of political voice at all, while all kinds of destructive tomfoolery is being proposed by Believers, who hold high positions in government in virtually every Western nation, and who have the ear of the Media absolutely.

                    3. Link one person who says temperature doesnt rise. The majority here point out climate constantly changes you dishonest fuck.

                    4. “Are you denying that scientists have identified methane as an anthropogenic GHG? ”

                      No. Did I give you the impression I was?

                      “But it’s been a very long time since the “deniers” have had any sort of political voice at all,”

                      Over the past few years, public doubt of the AGW theory has increased. Their voice is getting stronger, if anything. The US president has stated on a number of occasions that the whole thing is a Chinese hoax.

                    5. “Are you denying that scientists have identified methane as an anthropogenic GHG? ”

                      No. Did I give you the impression I was?

                      Good. So, my follow-up question was:

                      “If not, why do you cast your refusal to consider it to be a candidate as apolitical and my empirically-accurate observation that it is, in fact, a candidate as political?”

                      Over the past few years, public doubt of the AGW theory has increased.

                      Not in my experience, it hasn’t. Not everyone agrees with the current framing of the problem by the political left, and there has been increasing pushback against the demonization of scientific skepticism, but that’s not the same thing as rejecting science.

                      The US president has stated on a number of occasions that the whole thing is a Chinese hoax.

                      No, he hasn’t. AFAIK he said that exactly once, about eight years ago. Just the other day he said, in summary, ‘of course it’s not a hoax, and we’re going to participate in the Trillion Tree Initiative.’

          2. CO2 does increase global average temperatures slightly; that is correct.

            You wrote that it “causes the increases”, and that is false. If heat trapping by CO2 was all there was, the discussion would be over, because that increase by itself is too small to matter.

      3. It’s far more nuanced than that and you know it.

        Honestly, there’s an army of literature that discusses what you said that doesn’t conclude what’s being sold. There’s no excuse for investigating it yourself.

        1. “It’s far more nuanced than that and you know it.”

          What are these nuances you’ve come across? Are you referring to adjustments to data? Is that a nuance or is it outright fraud like some here would have it?

      4. Funny, I read the same research and they all said that heat-trapping CO2 is correlated with increases in global average temperature. It’s almost like there’s a possibility that the relationship is reversed and average temperature cause increases release CO2 from the ocean.

      5. The heat trapped from doing of 702 under perfect absorption assumptions is 0.7 deg. The models on average predict 3.2. So by your own religion, 75% of the hearing is from feedback, not co2.

        Of course this assumes a non stable closed system.

        This is why you and other anti science alarmists are laughed at.

        1. ” The models on average predict 3.2.”

          Models are only models. That is my religion. And I definitely prefer a model who is a 10 rather than your measly 3.2.

      6. I’ve read that heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature. What has your own research revealed?

        Climate change hysteria wouldn’t work if that was the cause. In order to get to multi-degree warming, “scientists” need to postulate positive feedback mechanisms, postulate that there are no negative feedback mechanisms, and assume unreasonable economic models. In other words, your “research” has revealed garbage.

    2. Here’s the “empirical evidence,” brainwashed goober!

      https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

      Educate yourself. (smirk)

  19. Do black people need another false history?

    They are awash in these idiocies. They were Egyptians, they were Greeks, all the great people of history were black, white people were created by an evil black man, all white knowledge is stolen from blacks….it goes on and on and on.

    And what does it get them?

    If they’re smart, they resent it when they discover the truth. They get annoyed that this sham has been put in the place where real history should have been.

    If they’re stupid they won’t discover the truth. They’ll discover the lies the white people made up to keep the true man, the melanated man, the hue man from learning his real place as master.

    ‘Chardonnay’ wisdom, my ass.

    1. “Do black people need another false history?”

      They are Moorish Americans who are native freemen on the land.

    2. “They were Egyptians, they were Greeks”

      They were Irish and Italian, too. With the one-drop rule, blacks can come from any nation.

    3. >>Do black people need another false history?

      Yahoo says Pat Mahomes is black and all historic and shit but I don’t think anyone asked his mom about it

    4. Do black people need another false history?
      They are awash in these idiocies.

      Educate yourself, idiot

      https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

      (smirk)

  20. “Here, not just the intelligentsia but a great many black people beyond it studiously refused to acknowledge the rather plain evidence that Simpson murdered two people.”

    Because the murder was secondary. Many blacks, including those jurors who found him not guilty, readily admit that their decision was payback for the Rodney King debacle.

    1. And that is why they can’t have nice things.

      1. And why I use the handy phrase, “Dumber than the OJ jury.”

        1. Jurors don’t always have the same reverence for the legal system that normal people do. Just because they have an axe to grind doesn’t make them dumb.

          1. “Just because they have an axe to grind doesn’t make them dumb.”

            Maybe, but these folks were D-U-M, dumb.

            1. It’s dumb to serve on any jury. The jurors are not paid, they are sequestered away from their families and society, and are expected to concentrate on tedious legal back and forth for months on end. Smart people usually can figure out a way to avoid the ordeal. Legal bonespurs, if you will.

              1. ^ This is true.

              2. As long as you can still get pissed when stupid juries make shitty decisions.

              3. Jurors in my county are paid, Not sequestered unless a huge case, and get a free lunch.

    2. Never underestimate the appeal of schadenfreude.

      1. Especially when sjw-ism lines up perfectly with NPD.

    3. Many blacks, including those jurors who found him not guilty, readily admit that their decision was payback for the Rodney King debacle.

      I’m sure Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman are glad to have given their lives for the cause.

      You have to admit, though, it does support McWhorter’s point – to those jurors the identity-based political narrative was more important than the facts or the lives of the murder victims.

      1. That’s my point too. I just don’t think it makes them dumb. They knew exactly what they were doing – payback for Rodney King. It’s dishonest to claim it as anything else.

        1. In fairness, they also weren’t presented all the evidence.

  21. Great article, but then there’s the reference to

    “Du Bois, Frederick Douglass, nor Martin Luther King Jr.”

    If we were to be discriminating (in a good way), we’d distinguish between those civil rights leaders who not only fought racism, but did so without embracing other kinds of nonsense.

    Douglass was not a Lew Rockwell libertarian (if he were he would have opposed “public accommodation” laws – though at least there was state involvement in much of the public-accommodation discrimination) – Douglass, as I say, was not a purity-test libertarian, but he came durned close enough under enormous pressure. His solution to slavery was *freedom,* not some new-fangled servitude like socialism (one of King’s fetishes) or foreign totalitarianism (for which Du Bois had a weakness).

    1. Lew Rockwell is an authoritarian. Says people have no right to form voluntary associations, like governments
      .
      And that running for office is “conspiring with statists” — which makes him an Ivory Tower asshole with NO CLUE on how to CREATE a free society … and NO INTEREST in doing so. Only Gomers swallow shit like that.

      1. Your a fucking liar and anybody can prove that. Rockwell has never EVER fucking said people have no right to form a voluntary association, all he has done is advocate for that right. Your a fucking bottom feeding, lying, pile of shit and I hate you with every fiber of my being. Its you that is the authoritarian, every comment I’ve read from you is filled full of lies and cherry picked data. Your worse than a ignorant asshole because I can tell you aren’t ignorant, your lying to further your control freak agenda. Your worse than shit.

        1. I KNEW you were one of them!

  22. I don’t about the ‘founding of America,’ but the date when slaves were first imported must be significant. It shows that Europeans were serious about making a go of it and prospering in their new home rather than simply escaping religious conformity.

    1. It may even indicate that different groups of Europeans came here for different reasons and with different goals.

      1. That’s my point. The Europeans who went to the trouble and expense of importing a ship load of slaves with them were in for the long haul. Until then, European settlement in the US was about as sustainable as the earlier Viking efforts which disappeared in obscurity.

        1. To apply your own level of meticulous pedantry, what you said was that importing slaves “shows that Europeans were serious about making a go of it and prospering in their new home rather than simply escaping religious conformity.”

          Not “some” Europeans. Europeans.

          Some actually were escaping religious conformity, didn’t bring slaves with them, and were serious about making a go of it for the long haul (and did).

          Matter of fact, that’s largely where the Abolitionists came from.

          1. “Some actually were escaping religious conformity”

            I’m not disputing this. In fact I raise the very point in my comment. The significance of the slavery is that it enabled cotton, tobacco and cane. These were America’s 3 largest exports and sources of foreign exchange for as long as there was slavery and slaves. Canada had to make do with flogging beaver pelts to the Europeans, and so slavery was never significant like it was in the US. Religious nonconformity is fine, but don’t try making a living exporting it.

            1. I’m not disputing this. In fact I raise the very point in my comment.

              Your comment:

              “It shows that Europeans were serious about making a go of it and prospering in their new home rather than simply escaping religious conformity.

              The significance of the slavery is that it enabled cotton, tobacco and cane.

              So, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic are all defined by their legacies of slavery, too?

              1. “So, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic are all defined by their legacies of slavery, too?”

                Ask a Haitian. Or a Cuban. They might give you different answers.
                I would say their date of founding is close to 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. The original sin in their case was the genocide perpetrated on them by original Spanish expeditions.

                1. The original sin in their case was the genocide perpetrated on them by original Spanish expeditions.

                  What “them?” There is no indigenous population in the Caribbean anymore. There are Europeans, Africans, and Indians (the Asian kind).

                  And if genocide is what defines the remaining peoples of the Caribbean, why isn’t that the original sin of the US, too? There were more slaves in the Caribbean than there were in North America, and a much larger percentage of the current Caribbean population traces its lineage to slaves.

                  Was Castro’s Cuba tainted by his ancestors’ genocide of the local population and enslavement of Africans to work the tobacco fields?

                  Is England polluted by the slaughter of the ancient Britons? Is North Africa polluted by the Arab slaughter and enslavement of the Berbers?

                  Is there any country on the planet that isn’t tarnished by history? If not, what is the point of all this?

                  1. Are Homo Sapiens tarnished by the extinction of Neanderthals (which our ancestors likely contributed to). Fuck it, everyone commit suicide, we are all tarnished.

                    1. David Hume approves.

                  2. What “them?”

                    The people who live in the countries you mentioned. Ask them if you are interested in their ideas. Everything you get from me will be second or third hand. I’ll still try to answer your questions, but note there are others who can no doubt provide you with better answers.

                    “of the Caribbean, why isn’t that the original sin of the US, too?”

                    The Puritans and the Spanish empire builders were cut from a different cloth. I don’t think the Puritans tried to exterminate the natives and were probably more sinned against than sinning in that department, being the object of numerous massacres. The same cannot be said of Columbus’ expedition.

                    “There were more slaves in the Caribbean than there were in North America”

                    Caribbean was a wealthier place. More slaves shouldn’t surprise anyone.

                    1. Ask them if you are interested in their ideas.

                      Can’t. They got genocided.

                      So, is that genocide fundamental to the identity of, say, Bob Marley?

                      The Puritans and the Spanish empire builders were cut from a different cloth. I don’t think the Puritans tried to exterminate the natives

                      Yes, they were different, but actually the Spanish actively encourage miscegenation, which the English specifically discouraged it.

                      You’re not really saying that there was no genocide in the USA but that there was in the Spanish Empire, are you?

                      Caribbean was a wealthier place. More slaves shouldn’t surprise anyone.

                      But weren’t you just arguing that the USA needed slaves because it was comparatively poor?

                      And does this legacy of slavery taint Che Guevara?

                    2. “Can’t. They got genocided. ”

                      But you can. Their influence lives on today in the people who live there. It was William Faulkner who wrote ‘you might be finished with the past, but the past isn’t finished with you.’

                      “You’re not really saying that there was no genocide in the USA but that there was in the Spanish Empire, are you? ”

                      Genocide in the US took place after 1492 and 1619. There were other sins that have a better claim to being original instead of genocide which is something of a johnny come lately in the US context, but was there at the beginning in the Caribbean.

                      “But weren’t you just arguing that the USA needed slaves because it was comparatively poor? ”

                      Slaves made agriculture in Caribbean and America a profitable business. White prison labor was susceptible to diseases like malaria which didn’t effect the African labor to the same degree.

                      “And does this legacy of slavery taint Che Guevara?”

                      Not so much. It doesn’t taint Jorge Luis Borges, either, as Argentina found that normal white people were able to make a go it in without slavery, largely in the beef business. There were slaves in Argentina, but they weren’t as significant as the other places you were discussing.

                    3. Their influence lives on today in the people who live there.

                      How so, when your claim is that they were immediately genocided?

                      And by that logic, don’t I have a claim to represent the Native Americans who were genocided here? So that they’re not really gone, after all? Is that a logical corollary of your assertion? If not, why not?

                      It was William Faulkner who wrote ‘you might be finished with the past, but the past isn’t finished with you.’

                      He wasn’t saying that the past has a metaphysical existence that persists and can be consulted from the present. He was saying that the past created the context you’re in now, and shapes the possibilities you have before you.

                      Besides, Faulkner was a drunk and was history’s worst mailman. He wrote some of the greatest novels ever written, but “Faulkner said so” is a persuasive argument in no context other than “Faulkner said this whisky is good.”

                      Genocide in the US took place after 1492 and 1619.

                      So? Europeans settled here prior to 1619, and slaves continued to be imported after 1619. Parts of the country never had slaves at all.

                      And the “King Cotton” paradigm has largely been debunked. Cotton can’t have both been so unprofitable as to require slaves and be the golden goose that was driving the whole US economy. Add to that the fact that keeping slaves is not free – to argue that the cotton couldn’t have been produced without slavery just doesn’t really make economic sense.

                      But at root, if the country isn’t defined by the arrival of the first Pilgrims, why is it that it is defined by the arrival of the first slave (from a different continent – let’s recall that Europeans did not introduce slavery to the Western Hemisphere)?

                      Slaves made agriculture in Caribbean and America a profitable business. White prison labor was susceptible to diseases like malaria which didn’t effect the African labor to the same degree.

                      Yup. Same thing in colonial Africa and India. But that doesn’t actually answer the question of why you argue in one place that the USA needed slaves because it was so poor and in another that the Caribbean needed more slaves because it was so rich.

                      “And does this legacy of slavery taint Che Guevara?”

                      Not so much.

                      How about Fidel Castro?

                    4. “And by that logic, don’t I have a claim to represent the Native Americans who were genocided here?”

                      You can claim whatever you like. Getting someone at the NYT interested in your claim is another matter.

                      I never liked Faulkner, I much prefer Joyce, history is a nightmare from which I can’t awake.

                      “to argue that the cotton couldn’t have been produced without slavery just doesn’t really make economic sense. ”

                      Not couldn’t but wasn’t. Same with tobacco, America’s second most important export at the time.

                    5. You can claim whatever you like

                      Thank you. What I’m trying to get at, though, is your claim that I can still go talk to the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. Doesn’t seem like you want to talk about that, anymore, though.

                      “to argue that the cotton couldn’t have been produced without slavery just doesn’t really make economic sense. ”

                      Not couldn’t but wasn’t. Same with tobacco, America’s second most important export at the time.

                      So, you agree that The 1619 Project is wrong to point to slavery as the fundamental existential fact about our country?

                  3. ” If not, what is the point of all this?”

                    Some feel burdened by the weight of history, some don’t. The English whose ancestors were ravished by the Vikings typically don’t while the folks in the New York Times story evidently do. Why should this surprise you or strike you as unusual?

                    1. Why should this surprise you or strike you as unusual?

                      It doesn’t. I’m saying it’s political bullshit. Which your comment seems to support.

                    2. They don’t whine in England because my ancestors killed all the whiners and fucked all the women, so most of the UK’s whites is at least partially descended from the Norse and Danes (the Norman’s were also descended from the Norse, viking is an action not a person to use political correct tactics). In fact, the Saxons originated in southern Denmark, and the Anglos from Jutland in Denmark. There were also a number of Jutes and Gotlanders (from Norway and Sweden) who assisted in the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Romo-Briton society. So basically, England (and Scotland to a large degree, especially the highlands) is a Scandinavian country. This is a bit of a non-sequitur, and a bit of a tongue in cheek joke (the killed the whiners and fucked the women joke at the beginning). But it does go more towards Squares point about trying to decide who is and isn’t tarnished by the sins of the ancestors.

                    3. my ancestors killed all the whiners and fucked all the women

                      Scandies unite!

                      Actually, I’m part Icelander, part Swede, part Irishman, part Englishman, and part Spaniard. So all kinds of parts of me really hate different parts of me. It’s a very conflicted existence.

                    4. Same here. Scots-Irish, Cornish and German on my Mom’s side, Norse and Dane on my Dad’s side. My wife is Dutch and German, so my kids have Dutch thrown in too.

                  4. Actually, the English didn’t slaughter the ancient Britons. They just conquered them and made them speak English instead of Celtic. DNA shows that the people in England today are largely the same people who’ve been there for thousands of years. The Anglo-Saxons were just a thin upper class on top of that population.

            2. The first slaves were purchased from privateers who had captured them from Portiguese slave traders. No one imported them into the US with them. They were also treated as indentured servants at first. The first true chattel slavery didn’t occur until after 1640.

              1. It was in the Old Testament, which was written a few months prior to 1640.

                You also need to know what indentured servitude is/was.

  23. The 1774 Articles of Association that barred slavery before there was a Declaration, Articles of Confederation or Constitution. The blog that covers these topics is ProgressingAmerica on Blogspot. If by “climate change” our lecturer means misanthropic “global warming,” thermometers that have been recording data since 1900 show a cooling trend. As in Orwell’s 1984, past data tampering is rampant, but raw data and free warez can be had at realclimatescience.com

    1. That was two years AFTER England ruled the slave trade in violation of British Common Law. And — HINT — the Articles of Association ban on slave trade did NOTHING! There was a ban on imports from England, where very few American slaves came from.

      Educate yourself

      https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

  24. It’s okay. You don’t have to refer to blatant lies and historical revisionism as a “worldview”.

  25. I think the end goal here is reparations.

    1. No – that’s a median goal. The goal of reparations is to keep black people voting Democrat.

  26. The U. S. didn’t invent slavery, or even African slavery. The inventor of slavery is lost to fame (and to infamy).

    The Founders didn’t invent slavery, but they helped invent wishful thinking over slavery, hoping it would wither away with time, because they acknowledged it didn’t square with their publicly-proclaimed (and often sincerely held) ideals. And in the North they gradually got rid of it. The South was a different matter, where they found slavery profitable either as a part of the economy or as a source of slavebreeding for the slave economy. It finally got so profitable they finally stopped even pretending to acknowledge it was wrong (hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue).

    Indeed, the spread of slavery convinced many Northern whites (including even many racist ones) that the institution was a danger to freedom. Abolitionists focused on the denial of freedom to slaves, many racists focused on the threat of slave competition with nonslaveholding whites, and in between were people with both kinds of motives for their antislavery views.

    So finally the South was like, “if you won’t let us feed and expand our peculiar institution, we’ll just leave.” Which even some slavery sympathizers thought was too much. In the resulting war, the North went from solemnly disavowing antislavery to taking it up as a war aim.

    Even with all these nuances, erupting into a war because you can’t deal with your own country’s contradictions re slavery is a fairly unusual event. Or to be more specific, slavery-related wars tend to be initiated by the slaves themselves.

    The country has acknowledged the “agency” of black Americans in resisting slavery through fleeing and joining the Union Army, but nowadays that’s not enough. Sharing the credit for defeating slavery with icky white people with their icky mixed motives – no, it’s better to just put all white people into the same basket of deplorables. That allows some ducking of the contradictions in the original sin argument – if whites inherit sin because of the actions of pro-slavers, why can’t they inherit virtue from those who fought and died (in effect, and for mixed motives) to end slavery? It’s almost as if the idea of ancestral guilt is not only immoral but unworkable.

    1. And here’s something that you can’t say anywhere else. In the backdrop of world history, American slavery (Irish indentured servants were slaves too by the way) was far less vicious. It’s worth noting African kings were selling their own to European and Arab slave traders.

      I’m not saying it wasn’t horrible (of course it was) but the way it’s being depicted it feels parochial and self-absorbed.

      You know, it’s pretty awful that a nation tore itself apart to the tune of 600 000 dead to abolish it and there are people to this day who feel the need to modify the facts of history because they can’t accept the past nor forgive. Judging by the rhetoric, America can never be made whole and this is just…sad.

      You don’t have to forget and it’s a part of the American experience but I don’t see how reframing the facts of history to fit a current narrative helps anyone – especially American blacks.

      Seems like race hucksters want to keep the anger going.

      1. Many noted slave owners, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (eventually) came to realize that slavery would eventually lead to long term problems, and likely violence. Henry even blamed the crown itself for imposing slavery on the colonies, thus creating a society that would be self destructive. Franklin, who owned a few slaves in his early life but became an abolitionist, voiced many of the same ideals in his later years.
        Jefferson and Henry, (Franklin also) saw slavery as a sin, but were unable to see a way to end it while forming a new country where so many had come to depend upon it (including themselves in the case of Jefferson, Washington and Henry). Eventually, as Eddy pointed out, they decided the best course was to ban the importation of any new slaves and hope it died on its own. This actually happened in the second largest slave owning state of the time, New York. Many feel if Whitney’s cotton gin had not been invented, it is quite possible this may have happened in many southern states as well (not sure if they are right or wrong, but the cotton gin did revive slave prices, which had been decreasing as demand had slowed).

        1. As I understand it, they realized they couldn’t solve the slavery question. They decided to forge ahead with the task of declaring independence trusting the evil institution would get solved eventually. They made the pragmatic decision to create a country first.

          1. In the end that was what any decided. But they also realized that as long as there remained some economic incentive for slavery, then it would be difficult to eliminate peacefully. Interestingly enough, the two different strains of malaria that were brought to the colonies from Europe and Africa may have contributed to why chattel slavery (which generally isn’t economically sound policy) actually thrived in the south while ending quickly in the northern states after independence. The strain that was most common to the south was more lethal, and African’s had a slightly greater chance of survival then Europeans because of a protein difference on the red blood cells of the two ethnic groups. This means African slaves survived infection at a slightly higher rate then white indentured servants.

      2. Irish indentured servants were slaves too by the way

        Not in this country. And they were already political prisoners.

        Educate yourself

        https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

  27. ” thermometers that have been recording data since 1900 show a cooling trend”

    Antique thermometers may not be the most reliable way to measure average global temperature. They do amazing things with satellites these days, no thermometer necessary. I met a fisheries student who explained how satellites tell fisherpersons on the surface about the fisheries. With a few samples taken from the waters, the satellite data can be correlated and fisheries can be predicted globally. It’s amazing technology. I imagine surface temperature works in pretty much the same way. This modern technology has observed a warming trend. Indeed, the past few years have been on record as among the warmest ever.

    1. Antique thermometers may not be the most reliable way to measure average global temperature.

      Unless they show a warming trend, in which case they are infallible.

      This modern technology has observed a warming trend.

      Which has slowed significantly over the last 25 years.

      Indeed, the past few years have been on record as among the warmest ever since reliable global records started being gathered about 40 years ago.

      Warmest of the past 1,000 years? Probably not, but maybe.

      Warmest of the past 100,000 years? Probably not, but maybe.

      Warmest of the past 500,000 years? Empirically not.

      Warmest ever? Not even close.

      1. Is it a cooling trend? That’s apparently what realscience.com is claiming.

        1. I don’t really know realscience.com, but my understanding of the point being presented is that if you disaggregate the data and undo the adjustments, many of the oldest thermometers show a cooling trend.

          I think disaggregating the data is a no-brainer, since it so obviously introduces so much garbage into the system to aggregate it, but a lot of the adjustments in fact have pretty solid logic behind them, so I would be curious to see what happens if you disaggregate the data while still accepting some of the adjustments.

          The bottom line, however, is that the only real concern about warming was the pace of it. Which, as it turns out, is not nearly as fast as we once feared it might be.

          1. “if you disaggregate the data and undo the adjustments”

            Why undo the adjustments? Without adjusting the data, one is comparing many different types and methods of data collecting as though they were all to be taken at face value. For example, the measured temperature of a plastic bucket of seawater is not the same as the the measured temperature of a metal bucket of sea water because of the different properties of plastic and metal. What on earth do you gain by the pretense they are the same?

            1. Why undo the adjustments?

              Read my whole comment. Especially the part that says “but a lot of the adjustments in fact have pretty solid logic behind them, so I would be curious to see what happens if you disaggregate the data while still accepting some of the adjustments.”

              1. “so I would be curious to see what happens if you disaggregate the data while still accepting some of the adjustments.”

                Do you think this will yield truer, less politically motivated measurements, or is there another reason why you would like the data adjustments to be reversed?

                1. I don’t understand why you keep saying I think the data adjustments need to be reversed when I’ve quite clearly said the exact opposite a couple of times now. Can you clarify?

                  Disaggregating the data to remove those temperatures that are being taken in areas that have urbanized since the readings started being taken is simply throwing out the garbage data in favor of the good data. No one interested in empirical science should be against that.

                  1. “Water is always warmer when contained in a plastic bucket and always colder when contained in a metal bucket.” – mtrueman’s law of bucket thermodynamics

                    It may be that it’s always warmer in metal buckets and colder in plastic, I can never remember. I was never very good at bucket physics in school.

                  2. Wait, that’s right! It’s warmer in metal unless you’ve got CO2 in the liquid. That’s why athletes keep water and gatorade in bottles, to keep it cold, but beer and soda, which people also prefer cold, comes in cans. As the CO2 leaves the beer or soda, the can heats up the beverage. You can slow the escape of CO2 by wrapping your can in a koozie. White koozies keep CO2 in your beverage better than black koozies.

                    All those hours in PHYS 304 – Advanced bucket/koozie physics are coming back to me now.

                  3. “I don’t understand why you keep saying I think the data adjustments need to be reversed when I’ve quite clearly said the exact opposite a couple of times now. Can you clarify?”

                    Sure. Just that you’ve never taken the trouble to correct anyone who claims that adjusting data is anything but fraud. Instead you take issue with what I write.

                    ” is simply throwing out the garbage data in favor of the good data”

                    Is the plastic bucket data good data or garbage data? How about the metal bucket data?

                    1. Just that you’ve never taken the trouble to correct anyone who claims that adjusting data is anything but fraud.

                      No, I have. But as I mention above, the people who say those sorts of things currently have absolutely no political power in this country, while the people pushing your narrative are proposing geo-engineering and sabotage of our global economic system.

                      I don’t get too worked up about the people no one is listening to.

                      Is the plastic bucket data good data or garbage data? How about the metal bucket data?

                      No offense, but as mad.casual is trying to point out to you, this example of yours is only demonstrating how little you understand about physics.

                      If I’m using the water in the buckets as a proxy for the temperature of the air in the room, I would be wise to factor in that heat is going to transfer more quickly through the metal than through the plastic.

                      If the metal bucket is sitting on a warming plate then it’s not a very good proxy for the temperature of the air in the room.

                      You see?

                      To make it really crystal clear: if you have a thermometer that spent the first 50 years of its life in an open farm field, and now it’s in a downtown parking structure, that one’s not a good proxy for fluctuations in global temperature, and it should be thrown out.

                    2. ” But as I mention above, the people who say those sorts of things currently have absolutely no political power in this country,”

                      You don’t need political power if your aim is to maintain the status quo. Political power is necessary when you’re trying to make changes like replacing fossil fuels.

                      “this example of yours is only demonstrating how little you understand about physics. ”

                      No it demonstrates the need to massage the data when putting together something that is derived from dissimilar methods. Your heat island example is another case.

                    3. No offense, but as mad.casual is trying to point out to you, this example of yours is only demonstrating how little you understand about physics.

                      To be completely accurate, I can’t tell if it’s his understanding of physics specifically or critical thinking skills generally. It’s like diagnosing the more troubled joint between the knee and ankle of a paraplegic cripple.

                    4. Political power is necessary when you’re trying to make changes like replacing fossil fuels.

                      But note how you’re still starting with your preferred policy outcomes and cherry-picking those elements of the science that support those. I.e., you are politicizing the science.

                      No it demonstrates the need to massage the data when putting together something that is derived from dissimilar methods. Your heat island example is another case.

                      So is this you admitting that I’m right that the heat island data should be thrown out?

            2. For example, the measured temperature of a plastic bucket of seawater is not the same as the the measured temperature of a metal bucket of sea water because of the different properties of plastic and metal.

              So, what you’re saying is, if I take a plastic 5 gallon bucket full of water, measure the temperature, pour it into a metal 5 gallon bucket and measure the temperature I’m absolutely certain to get 2 different numbers? This isn’t even very good for pulling it out of your ass.

              What on earth do you gain by the pretense they are the same?

              Honesty? Simplicity? Ubitquity? Do you have an underlying scientific principle at which you’re driving to assume that they’re different or are we just to assume that the metal bucket is made of mythril, is constantly warm to the touch, and glows more brightly when orcs are nearby?

              1. Plastic and metal have differing properties when it comes to heat transfer.

                1. Really, who would have think it.

                  1. Who would have thought that climate scientists alter their data at the behest of their socialist masters?

                    1. Who said that the voices in your head?

                2. Plastic and metal have differing properties when it comes to heat transfer.

                  So, since we can assume these differences are absolutely critical up front, you’ll be able to tell us which bucket is warmer and which is colder and/or which bucket will keep the water warmer/colder longer.

                  Take your time with your answer, I expect you to be able to carry this “Wood and ducks have different thermal properties, ergo witches.” argument to the end.

                  1. “we can assume these differences are absolutely critical up front”

                    Not sure what you mean. The difference between plastic and metal is absolutely critical up front. There are many differences between plastic and metal. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether these differences are ‘absolutely critical up front.’

                    1. The difference between plastic and metal is absolutely critical up front.

                      I’ll leave it to you to decide whether these differences are ‘absolutely critical up front.

                      IC, less of a physics problem and more of a “Are you having a stroke?” problem.

  28. ‘despite the fact that unlike climate change, the 1619 idea is not supported by empirical evidence.’

    and just what empirical evidence supports the global warming hoax (aka climate change)?

    1. “and just what empirical evidence supports the global warming hoax”

      Increases in global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels predicted, observed and recorded.

      1. Also increases in methane levels, deforestation prior to the 1990s, and various and sundry other factors and correlations that have been observed and proposed as possible contributors.

        Almost nothing in nature has causation that is so simple, direct and unilateral as you’re proposing.

        1. “Almost nothing in nature has causation that is so simple”

          Ergo global warming/climate change is a hoax? Is that what you are saying? Do you believe that no evidence exists which supports the theory?

          1. Ergo global warming/climate change is a hoax? Is that what you are saying?

            No. And you assuming that that’s what I’m saying is just further evidence of how thoroughly this is a political issue for you, and not a scientific one.

            Do you believe that no evidence exists which supports the theory?

            You mean your CO2 theory? There is abstract reasoning that supports the theory based in the principle of how GHGs work. There are correlations between GMT rising and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rising, but if you look at those over the long term, the correlation is not that tight, and the rising concentrations of CO2 tend to follow rather than precede the rising temperatures.

            At best, it’s very much more complicated than “CO2 causes GMT to rise.”

            Among GHGs, I personally think if anything is a problem it’s more likely methane, which can’t be absorbed by plants the way CO2 can.

            And I think there’s little harm in individuals voluntarily reducing their GHG emissions, in no small part since only individuals can do so. When governments start demanding that everyone in the world do X under force of law . . . well, you’d better hope those bureaucrats know what they’re talking about. But history should give us pause before assuming they do.

            1. But history should give us pause before assuming they do.

              Scientific skepticism, the more extraordinary the demand, the more extraordinary the pause.

            2. “And you assuming that that’s what I’m saying is just further evidence of how thoroughly this is a political issue for you, and not a scientific one.”

              I’m assuming that because I don’t think it’s a hoax and you are taking issue with my comments. You don’t seem to have any trouble with those who claim it is a hoax. I’m glad that you and I agree on the hoax question, and it wouldn’t hurt you too much to be more forthright. I suspect you view these hoax believers as political (that word again) allies and are to be humored. Science doesn’t work that way.

              “, I personally think if anything is a problem it’s more likely methane”

              Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, and a good portion of its emission is anthropogenic, from agriculture.

              ” and the rising concentrations of CO2 tend to follow rather than precede the rising temperatures. ”

              I’m not sure if that’s the case during the modern post industrial world of the last couple centuries. I think that preceding was observed in the Lake Vostok ice cores, and may not be relevant to today’s situation.

              1. I’m assuming that because I don’t think it’s a hoax and you are taking issue with my comments.

                Yes. And therefore, I must be on the “wrong side” and believe all the wrong things, right?

                You don’t seem to have any trouble with those who claim it is a hoax.

                I wonder if you’re over-counting that crowd based on your assumptions detailed just above re: those who take issue with your comments must think it’s all a hoax?

                I pass over those people because no one listens to them. Meanwhile, I know lots of children who lose sleep at night because they’re force-fed what you’re dishing out by the media, the schools, and the government.

                I suspect you view these hoax believers as political (that word again) allies and are to be humored.

                Nope. In my experience those guys are Republicans. As any of the Republicans around would I’m sure be happy to tell you, I’m not the biggest fan of Republicans.

                Science doesn’t work that way.

                Reconcile for me these statements of yours:

                “heat-trapping CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the increases in global average temperature”

                “Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, and a good portion of its emission is anthropogenic, from agriculture”

                “I’m not sure if that’s the case during the modern post industrial world of the last couple centuries. I think that preceding was observed in the Lake Vostok ice cores, and may not be relevant to today’s situation.”

                You’ve claimed to be quite certain of something, but that certainty doesn’t seem to be as unmitigated as you’ve represented.

                Science?

                1. He also regurgitates myth, most methane related to human activity in the US actually comes from sewage treatment and trash disposal. Agriculture is only 12% of US GHG emissions (methane isn’t even the largest agricultural GHG, NO2 is).

                  1. Actually water vapor, which is has the highest heat trapping capacity is, but it isn’t classified as a GHG for some reason.

                    1. “Actually water vapor…”

                      Has nothing to do with the point I made. El Oso said that global warming was a hoax and there was no evidence to support it. I countered that there was evidence in that climatologists have predicted higher global atmospheric temperatures and CO2 levels, and these have been observed and measured.

                2. “You’ve claimed to be quite certain of something”

                  Yes, I’m certain that higher temperatures have been predicted, observed and recorded. I’m pretty sure the original poster is a moron and you’re an intellectual coward for not telling him (or her) so. Pretty harsh, perhaps, but that’s how I roll.

                  1. I’m pretty sure the original poster is a moron and you’re an intellectual coward for not telling him (or her) so

                    So, the guy who is questioning the narrative being rammed down our throats by the government, the media, and the entire education system is an ‘intellectual coward’ while the guy who is parroting that narrative and desperately pleading with people to ignore the empirical science is the brave one telling Truth to Power?

                    Seems legit.

                    Also note that I have yet to resort to insulting you, and have in fact been engaging you in good faith.

              2. According to the EPA, agriculture contributes only 12% of GHG emissions produced in the US (as measured in the equivalent of the heat trapping ability of metric tons of CO2). Most methane production in the US, that is not “natural” actually comes from human sewage and trash disposal.

                1. Uh, folks:
                  mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                  “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                  That is an actual quote.
                  trueman is a pathetic piece of shit, hoping that someone will click on his name by mistake and double the number of hits his blog gets this week.

                2. “According to the EPA, agriculture contributes only 12% of GHG emissions produced in the US (as measured in the equivalent of the heat trapping ability of metric tons of CO2).”

                  Tell that other guy that gratuitously dragged methane into the discussion, and accused me of being a methane denier. Which I am, incidentally, but not in the way he means.

                  1. He never claimed most methane was from agriculture, like you did.b

                    1. I said a good portion of methane emissions were from agriculture. Not most. Read it again if you want to be sure. The methane is not material to the comment I made: I said that climate scientists have predicted increased temperatures, and increased temperatures have been observed and measured.

                    2. Keep ducking and diving trueman; maybe your mommy will help out again.

                    3. The ducking and diving is to be seen in those who agree with the following statement but are such intellectual cowards they can’t bring themselves to state it openly.

                      Increases in global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels predicted, observed and recorded.

                    4. Increases in global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels predicted, observed and recorded.

                      Not at all what you started out arguing, but good to see you are coming around to more measured and empirically supportable statements.

                  2. mtrueman
                    January.30.2020 at 11:00 pm
                    “(some bullshit)”

                    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                    “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                    Thanks trueman for proving it once again.

                    1. This is like watching nuclear physics being debated by chimpanzees!

                  3. Tell that other guy that gratuitously dragged methane into the discussion

                    So, are you back to saying methane isn’t a GHG? That it’s atmospheric concentrations haven’t been increasing? That the increase isn’t anthropogenic?

                    Can you clarify why mentioning methane is “gratuitous?”

  29. All one has to do is Google “first slave owner in america” to learn very quickly that the “1619” narrative is an oversimplified exaggeration of the truth (some call those a lie).

    1. Google THIS to see YOU are full of shit! (snort)
      (also irrelevant to the topic!!!)

      https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

      (And you lie about your own search)

      a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson. Possibly true. The wording of the statement is important. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court.

      That blacks were slaveowners is common knowledge. among the educated — but, as I said, has NOTHING to do with this topic. (yawn)

  30. These aren’t aware or don’t care that slavery has existed in the Americas prior to 1619, prior to Columbus. The Comanche took slaves, same for the Lakota, any tribe who conducted raids took in slaves. Meanwhile across the ocean, ancestors of these same people were already slaves. Who cares? They have their narrative kugel.

    1. Several years ago, someone here recommended “Commanche Empire” (https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300151176/comanche-empire); I in turn recommend it as a corrective to the assumption that the Amer-Indian populations were not agents and were ‘innocent victims’.

    2. Which has absolutely no relevance to the actual issue here.
      For the ACTUAL issue, you MAY wish to educate yourself here.

      https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/#comment-8110286

  31. Now, America gets to know how Germany feels having a largely fictive Holocaust hung around its neck.
    Delicious. Next, reparations, just like Germany’s been paying for over 60 years.

    1. The moon landing was faked, too. By the lizard people.

    2. Jett Rucker
      January.30.2020 at 10:11 pm
      “Now, America gets to know how Germany feels having a largely fictive Holocaust hung around its neck….”

      Now, one more scumbag bigot posting lies. Crawl back under that rock; your slime will dry out here.

  32. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  33. It is true that England effectively ended slavery before 1776. But what are facts to the eager-to-be-brainwashed loony right?

    Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Somersett’s case, and in State Trials as v. XX Sommersett v Steuart) is a famous judgment of the Court of King’s Bench in 1772 on labour law and human rights, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, although the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous.The first step was to destroy the slave trade, by emancipating newly imported slaves. British slave trade was banned totally in 1807, by Parliament — nearly 60 years before we did it — and a full ban in 1833.

    Mexico also banned before us, 1829, which is WHY Texas left it.

    The US has little to be proud of here. Like WHY did we make so many compromises to include slave states in the Constitution? DUH This is NOT rocket science.

    Let the screeching begin.

    1. Correction. My words vs source

      Sommersett v Steuart) is a famous judgment of the Court of King’s Bench in 1772 on labour law and human rights, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, although the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous.

      The first step was to destroy the slave trade, by emancipating newly imported slaves. British slave TRADE was banned totally in 1807, by Parliament — nearly 60 years before we did it — and a full ban in 1833.

      1. The importation of slaves was banned in 1808 in the US. Try again.

        1. After England had already done so in 1772.
          THAT ruling applied ONLY to England and Wales, as I cited.
          The TOTAL ban in 1807, means the entire Commonwealth

          Again, Mexico also banned slavery before we did, which is why Texas left it.

          Also again, WHY did we make so many compromises to include slave states in the Constitution? AND SLAVES?

          Anything else?

      2. Uh, actually, the British abolition of the slave trade came less than one year, not 60, before we did it (March 25, 1807 versus January 1, 1808).

        1. Uh, READ WHAT I SAID. SLAVERY WAS BANNED IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN 1774, as a violation of common law. 1803 APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE COMMONWEALTH.
          Our Constitution forbade Congress from restricting the immigration of slaves before 1808 — 34 years after Britain did more

          England did not fully emancipate until 1833. Do you know when we did that?

          1. CORRECTION:

            Uh, READ WHAT I SAID. SLAVERY WAS BANNED IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN 1774, 1772.

      3. How does Britain’s banning of slavery before the US relate to why the war for independence was started? Especially since England continued slaverish practices in India and elsewhere?

        1. 1) ENGLAND IS NOT INDIA!!! You may be confusing England with the British Commonwealth

          2) Read what I said. The 1772 court ruling banned it only in England and Wales, The commonwealth, in steps, 1808 and 1833, by Parliament

          3) I never meant to imply causation to our revolution. Just kick the shit out of the claim here that it could not be possible. And goobers and rubes will believe anything as a lie, if published in the fucking commie Times

          1. I have read what you said.

            It has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

            Other than to affirm that your tone derives from ignorance and hatred.

            As we expect from “liberals.”

    2. WHY did we make so many compromises to include slave states in the Constitution?

      So you think we should have, in effect, let the slave states secede in 1787-89 rather than 1860-61?

      1. Not quite. When you say secede, that would be from the Articles of Confederation. I said Constitution to be generous — we’d had time to mature out of the colonial ties. Slavery is never mentioned in the Articles, because there were no binding national rights, unlike the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, most specifically the 9th Amendment. That’s one reason Jefferson opposed the Constitutional Convention’s goal of a “perpetual” Constitution. He said each generation should adopt its own (every 20 years) … else “consent of the governed” become “consent of the dead.” .. “government by might, not by right.” Hard for this libertarian to disagree!

        Your turn. Answer the question

  34. Wow. Just think how guilty white folks in the Caribbean and South America must feel. they imported almost 8 million enslaved Africans, as opposed to 307,000 to what’s now the U.S. Maybe the NYT should bop down to Rio and throw a guilt trip on the Cariocas.

    1. It is generally agreed that about 1.2 million slaves were imported into the USA in first 1800–1861. https://www.archives.gov/atlanta… About half a million were imported 1618–1800

      Get a map. Compare the size of South America to the colonies (you can ignore the Caribbean.) Since you are laughably wrong about our numbers, theirs were 11-12 million. Don’t forget to check that map!

  35. I see that the great thread-shitter showed up.

    1. LOVE humiliating goobers and rubes
      As you love being a whiny pussy, when FACTS are PROVEN over BLOWHARDS.

  36. So, how do we get this involved in the discussion, and still no one has pointed out that slaves were brought here from Africa. Slaves did no suddenly appear here in 1619, as if by magic.

    Slavery had existed in Africa since before Biblical times and whites had little involvement in it. Ultimately, Arabs created slave markets, in which slaves were bought and sold, generally to be kept within the continent of Africa. But how did the slaves become slaves? Simple. Other blacks enslaved them, which still goes on today. Just check out Boko Harem for illustration.

    But, back to NA. Many of the original conquistadors were black. They, too, engaged in the Spanish conquest of Indians. Note the term “conquest”. That’s how the Spanish did things. French and English (NOT allies at the time) both engaged Indians as trading partners, not enemies. Some of those Indians, notably the Cherokee, developed white plantation practices, including ownership of black slaves. In fact, many BLACKS owned black slaves. (Read “The barber of Natchez” for a great illustration.)

    And, no, whites did not universally accept slavery in NA. There was constant agitation against it. I am currently reading “World of Trouble” about Quaker life during the revolutionary war.

    I could go on, but enough of this. When I think of all the history of blacks and slavery, everywhere in the world; that “historians” would pick 1619 as some sort of turning point is just stupid.

    1. True on 1619. But British Courts ruled that slavery was a violation of British Common Law in 1774.

      To your opening, an ex-brother-in-law was a Roman Catholic priest, bought into Liberation Theologian when he was a missionary in Central America. So I was gob-smacked when he gave the best depiction of US slavery I’ve still ever heard — when he was challenged.

      Paraphrased from memory. “Slavery has existed since at least the Old Testament. Thousands of years. It was brought to the New World from Europe. Yet, it took us less than 90 years to end it.”

      England and Mexico did it before we did, of course (which is why Texas seceded from Mexico).

      1. Correction, sorry.

        “But British Courts ruled that slavery was a violation of British Common Law in 1774. 1772″

    2. There’s also a ‘first world problems’ or ‘post-liberty’ historical lensing issue as well as some magical economic thinking or false hope.

      Freely and independently wandering the deserts of Ancient Egypt could quite readily be a death sentence, a fed and housed slave was in many ways, better off.

      Similarly, if plantation owners in the wealthiest countries in the world couldn’t find anything for those people to do except pick cotton, what were the Africans, who didn’t even have a cotton industry, going to do with them? Millions of unskilled slave laborers died in the years immediately following the Civil War. Unskilled, they couldn’t obtain land and couldn’t effectively work the land they owned (even white Southerners were losing out to the beginning of mechanization), they starved to death. Even if we’d recognized the immorality of slavery early on and sent them back, they wouldn’t have turned into engineers, scholars, and industry magnates in Africa. The optimistic outcome is that they (largely) became slaves in some other country with similar misgivings about slavery and made them wealthy instead.

      1. Translation: Shoulda kept the fucking niggers enslaved.
        For their own good, of course.

        What I wrote was plain English. For many who were enslaved, their choices were slavery in America, slavery in worse places, or a fate worse than slavery. That doesn’t make slavery in America right, just less wrong than human sacrifice or mass murder/genocide.

        *uncontrollable vomiting*

        Take it up with Ta-Nehisi Coates, Manisha Sinha, and Jon Stewart. There’s a televised discussion about how many people Lincoln killed by undergoing the war. Reason’s own Judge Andrew Napolitano puts the number at ~785K. Jon Stewart corrects it to upwards of 5 million. Sinha corrects him to 2-5 million. When Coates talks about reparations, he uses the 5 million number. If you read his work on how he got that number he’s pretty explicit that ‘Upper Southerners’ transitioned to an integrated society better (even better than Northerners) because the slaves had already been used and integrated in a wider variety of skilled labor positions whereas ‘Lower Southerners’ only needed/used slaves to pick cotton and once they couldn’t do that, had no use for the majority of their slaves.

        I’m not revealing any groundbreaking, vomit-inducing truths here. Both Lincoln and Lee (and likely many, many others) were acutely aware of this fact at the time. They died because not even the South had wage paying jobs that it could hand them.

  37. Yet another actual historian here, with honors degree and everything, in Southern history no less to weigh in on the 1619 project – it is hogwash. This is the race-baiting version of “jumping the shark”, one hopes – the ludicrous claim that has nothing at all to back it up, the serpent to which that literally no one outside of a lingering few true-cult-believers can cling in hopes of a great healing.

    Here is reality – Slavery in America (longer in the rest of the West) has been outlawed for over 150 years. Segregation/Jim Crow laws which existed in only a part of America were outlawed over 55 years. You have to be of an age to receive your social security check to remember these laws having any meaningful impact on your life now. No one middle aged or younger in America has lived in a time where they were subject to these laws.

    Outside of the West, many nations still have slavery and severe racial strife to the point of mass murder and genocide being a regular concern. Navel gazing over events decades or centuries in the past while ignoring the horrors of the present speaks to a certain neurosis.

    1. WOW! We ALL thought slavery still existed in America. THANK YOU!

      *pees pants laughing*

  38. The problem with the entire premise is that they fail to understand that slavery was not just in America during that time. It was common practice worldwide from America to Africa to Asia. They also fail to understand that – even in what would become the United States – it wasn’t just Africans that were slaves, Asians and many Europeans were also forced into slave roles. The railroads didn’t build themselves and apparently I’m the only person who remembers learning about indentured servitude in grade school, which was how many poor white people came here from Europe.

    1. indentured servitude

      As I pointed out above, it’s only in the modern era that slavery looks absolutely repugnant and partly because we ignore history (and reality).

      Historically, trading your labor for room and board even involuntarily was a pretty fair trade, as opposed to dying of starvation, exposure, or being preyed upon (by humans or animals). It’s only in the modern era where food and lodging are plentiful and people don’t prey on each other as much (or at least as violently) that trading your labor for such security and stability seems like a moral wrong. Many of the indentured servants or slaves were POWs, human sacrifices, and/or criminals for whom being sold into slavery was the only option besides death.

      Point being, context matters. Soldiers were drafted into the Continental Army and marched to their deaths, shoeless in the snow, in Valley Forge but the slaves in Jamestown who never lost a night of sleep were the real victims.

      1. As I pointed out above,

        Same massive blunder as here.

        it’s only in the modern era that slavery looks absolutely repugnant and partly because we ignore history (and reality).

        Only to your ilk.

        Historically, trading your labor for room and board even involuntarily was a pretty fair trade, as opposed to dying of starvation, exposure, or being preyed upon (by humans or animals).

        Despite your profound ignorance of history (and reality) slavery in not the same indentured servitude

        Based on that same horrific lack of moral values, YOU say that slavery was oka

        It’s only in the modern era where food and lodging are plentiful and people don’t prey on each other

        1. Based on that same horrific lack of moral values, YOU say that slavery was okay, because they got food and lodging. Correction, this in much scarier than yours above.

          It’s only in the modern era where food and lodging are plentiful and people don’t prey on each other

          The modern era is the past 500 years or so?

          How large is your Klavern?

        2. Only to your ilk.

          Objectively. The Pharoah’s servants lived much closer to the lap of luxury than the Israelites who would give up their first born and either one would seem objectively better than wandering the desert praying for mana to fall from the heavens, starving if it doesn’t.

          Despite your profound ignorance of history (and reality) slavery in not the same indentured servitude

          So, being so much more in tune with reality and history, you can readily explain what the bright red line between slavery and indentured servant is/was? What lie are you going to tell? Indentured servants were always acquired and passed on under contract? They were always freed from their contracts? Slaves were never acquired under contract? They were never freed from the contracts they were never acquired under?

          Unlike slavery in America vs. slavery in Africa or the ME. You aren’t more or less wrong. You’re just wrong.

    2. apparently I’m the only person who remembers learning about indentured servitude in grade school, which was how many poor white people came here from Europe.

      You may also be the only one who thinks that has an relevance here, any at all.

      Indentured servitude was almost entirely voluntary. That’s how they paid their way to the New World! Their labor is how they paid back the “loan” (passage to America).

      1. Indentured servants were often treated poorly and a large number of them did not survive their period of servitude. BTW, to answer another point of yours about slavery, it wasn’t unusual in the ancient world for desperately poor people to sell themselves into slavery, where they’d at least get food and shelter, poor as it might be.

        As you like to say, “educate yourself”. https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonial_virginia#start_entry

  39. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website…… Read more  

  40. Hi……..
    I am getting $120 to $150 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 5 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you…
    c­h­e­c­k t­h­i­s l­i­n-k >>>>>

    ►►►►►►►► USA JOBS EARNING

    1. Because you can’t spell???

  41. I wish somebody could tells us when slavery was banned in Wales. Then we could get to the bottom of this mess.

    1. What? People had whales as slaves? That’s so mean!

      1. (forgot about Shamu)

  42. I thought our heads were exploding about disinformation on Facebook and a president who sees truth subjectively.

    Oh, well: might as well teach children fake history, I guess.

  43. I am boss of my own will. Come to join under link to earn $75 per hour by watching tv with family in spare time. Earn as much as you spent time. If so please copy the link and full fill your dream… Click it here  

  44. “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

  45. I am making 8 to 10 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 3 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….. Read more

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.