Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?
Two historians go head-to-head on whether the controversial New York Times project has any value.

Woody Holton, a professor of history at the University of South Carolina, and Phillip Magness, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research, debate the resolution, "The New York Times book The 1619 Project, and the Hulu video series based on it, are important contributions to our understanding of slavery and the role of African Americans in American history."
The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.
Taking the affirmative was Holton, who is the author of Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia, which won the Organization of American Historians' Merle Curti Social History Award; Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, a finalist for the National Book Award; Abigail Adams, which won the Bancroft Prize; and Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution, which Holton wrote as The Huntington Library's Los Angeles Times distinguished fellow and as a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow.
Arguing against the resolution was Magness, the author of The 1619 Project: A Critique. He holds a Ph.D. and master's from George Mason University's School of Public Policy and a bachelor's from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Magness' work encompasses the economic history of the United States, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. In addition to his scholarship, Magness' writings have appeared in numerous venues, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I earned $25000 last month by using the use of working on-line most effectivefor five to eight hours on my computer and this turned into so clean that i inmy view could not receive as proper with earlier than working on this internetsite. in case you too need to earn this kind of huge coins then come and be apart of us. try this internet-website on-line ...........
This Website➤---------------➤ WORK AT HOME
No
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
give it a Newbery award otherwise no, quit asking
Yes, how to ridicule and everything written is not true.
Without double-standards, progressives would have no standards at all.
Yes: That Pulitzer prizes should be known for propaganda, rather than good journalism. That good journalism has been replaced by sensationalist narrative tripe. And that said narrative tripe is very effective at brainwashing our kids.
So many kids are growing up thinking that America is uniquely racist, that we live in horribly racist times, and that a young black male is in imminent danger because of white supremacy. They think all of these things because of reporting in rags like the NYT and their Pulitzer winning pieces, such as the 1619 project
You sure they don't think that because of books like The Autobiography of Malcolm X? Or the Souls of Black Folks by WEB DuBois? Or the speech by Frederick Douglass - What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? Or Negroes with Guns by Robert Williams?
You sure you don’t think that because of the excellent Pulitzer Prize winning reporting of New York Times journalist Walter Duranty?
Also, I'm reasonably sure that none of today's young journalismers have never heard of, let alone touched anything written by DuBois, Douglass or Robert F. Williams.
And DuBois and Douglass's opinions are poison to the CRT crowd.
Antifa even vandalized Douglass’s
Statue during the summer of love.
Earning money online is very easy nowdays. Eanrs every month online more than $17k by doing very easy home based job in part time. Last month i have made $19754 from this job just in my spare time which is only 2 hrs a day. Very easy work to do and earning from this are awesome. Everybody can get this right now and start earning cash online by follow instructions on this webpage.............
SITE. —> usdtwork
Nobody is saying America has no historical racism.
To act like America is UNIQUELY racist --- which has been a claim for decades --- is silly at best. We have less to apologize for than almost any country on Earth.
re the particular article, the assertion is that America is uniquely BRUTAL because of the legacy of slavery. That is not the same thing at all. The assertion basically is that the racism of slavery created the brutality but even if the direct racism is mostly gone but the brutality remains then the legacy of racism remains.
And the notion that the US has less to apologize for than anywhere is a)bullshit and b)irrelevant (don't need to apologize - only to acknowledge the grievance) and c)a strong indicator that even if you think there was historical racism it should not be discussed in public anymore because your sensibilities are too precious.
"re the particular article, the assertion is that America is uniquely BRUTAL because of the legacy of slavery."
Except that is also false. There is no "unique brutality" involved with the US. Had slaves not been brought here --- they'd be living in FAR more brutal circumstances in Africa, where slavery was ended by the West forcing them to.
The USA is the most just and equal society possible. No less brutal society exists.
"The assertion basically is that the racism of slavery created the brutality but even if the direct racism is mostly gone but the brutality remains then the legacy of racism remains."
The assertion is utterly false.
"And the notion that the US has less to apologize for than anywhere is a)bullshit"
100% accurate, actually.
"b)irrelevant (don’t need to apologize – only to acknowledge the grievance)"
We have not been acknowledging this grievance for fucking decades now?
"c)a strong indicator that even if you think there was historical racism it should not be discussed in public anymore because your sensibilities are too precious."
If you're a fucking moron, sure.
I love this whole "If you do not kowtow to what I want...you're just dumb and mean". Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Had slaves not been brought here — they’d be living in FAR more brutal circumstances in Africa
Yes I understand that Southern slavery was a positive good for everyone involved. It’s why the darkies danced and sang while picking cotton. Indeed, running away from slavery is a mental disease – Drapetomania – not a quest for freedom/liberty. Not that you believe any of that Lost Cause mythology. Even if you don't buy the states rights denial of slavery as a cause stuff. You're all in on the defense and expansion of slavery is a righteous cause for a war if slavery is a positive good.
Oh, silly me. I thought you were capable of thinking and not just emoting pathetically. My mistake.
This is turd with a better vocabulary.
Scratch the surface of race baiters and you quickly end up in a realm of hysterics, hyperbole, condescension, straw man arguments, and pseudo-intellectual sophistry.
A fine contribution to the Pulitzer tradition epitomized by Walter Duranty and Profiles in Courage.
Seems a rather silly question.
Is the 1619 Project more historically erroneous than say Lost Cause mythology? Because the latter remains pervasive in teaching/learning history – less so directly now but very much indirectly. The South’s ‘Fire Eaters’ are still almost completely unknown and undiscussed. Which means many view secession as an essentially ‘leave us alone’ event rather than as an act of war – a deliberate attempt to destroy the ‘free states’ and take control over ‘federal territories’ so that slave states could take it all over and make it friendly to the expansion of slavery. Just because they lost and were stupid (and imo evil) as fuck doesn't mean they didn't try. They created a myth about the war to salve the conscience and loser status. And the rest of the US bought that shit later in order to reconcile with the [white] South.
Myths – right or wrong – are also part of the way we interpret history. The way we make it interesting and the way we separate ourselves into irreconcilable tribes.
If those can’t be taught because some dictatorial moron thinks they have an absolute claim to truth and finds it important to suppress all narratives with which they disagree…
Do you try to be such an astounding ignoramus?
The 'lost cause' isn't taught in anything but college. And then as something to be derided.
It is a Democrat/leftist fabrication designed to hide Democrats multiple sins.
It is being used these days by Democrats and leftists to get ignorant Republicans to attack themselves and defend Democrat's crimes against humanity.
It is a propagandistic lie just like the 1619 project, which was designed to work WITH it to keep those Republican morons screeching.
The Lost Cause framework still pervades history teaching and hence American beliefs NOW about our history.
Who fought for 'states rights' using say the Dred Scot case as an example?
Is there any controversy or difference of opinion today about say Confederate memorials in say the South or say Arlington National Cemetery or say the names of US military bases? Did those differences of opinion arise from people being taught something or from college-educated aliens landing at Roswell and putting fluoride in the drinking water via contrails?
That’s a neat trick, blaming all your crimes on your enemies.
So if the NYT produced a “Lost Cause” curriculum for teaching history to children, everyone should just accept that history is subjective?
That sounds stupid.
You’re making the opposite point you think you are. The left, progressives, and all sophisticated people have embraced as historical fact that the Confederacy fought the Civil War to preserve slavery, and the Lost Cause is an anti-factual myth. That’s an explicit rejection of interpreting history from the subjective perspective of desired narratives.
If those same people turn around and embrace the 1619 Project because they like the narrative, then, I’m sorry, but you lose the right to go around explaining how fact-based you are, and how wrong your political enemies are. Apparently we’re all just interpreting history according to our subjective preferences.
If that’s the case, then I’m interpreting it according to my favorite narratives, not yours. And for what reason should I choose yours over mine? A guilt trip over stuff that happened almost 2 centuries ago? Please.
I say it’s a false dilemma: present historical facts as objectively as possible. It will never be perfect, but embracing known falsehoods for your own narrative preferences isn’t history: that’s propaganda.
As objectively as possible? You’re already being taught crap steeped in Lost Cause mythology. Just because crap has been around a long time and is fossilized doesn’t mean it is now ‘objective’. This isn’t some tabula rasa.
Further – Magness himself objects to the 1619 Project specifically re the asserted ties between slavery on the one hand and large-scale industrial-style management, banking/finance/debt/leverage/growth, ‘unique brutality of American-style capitalism’, the economic importance of cotton, etc. For example one 1619 article (its online) by Matthew Desmond called ‘American Capitalism is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation.’ Magness doesn’t object much to a lot of the other stuff.
The goal of the 1619 Project – esp re the economic connections – is to make a case for reparations That can certainly be addressed/rejected on its own terms. And fine, if you want to ignore that case as part of a school curriculum, then do so because the prerequisites for assessing that case are not remotely K-12 level.
But two parts of the economic story of slavery are very very different. YOU are ignoring one part which is – there is NOTHING ‘objective’ about how to teach that slaves were chattel property in that system. People whose ancestors were not slaves can be taught about that but it can’t mean anything to them. People whose ancestors WERE slaves can see themselves as the chattel. They can understand the three elements of legal property – usus, fructus, abusus – and especially the abusus part which comes with a whip and lynching and slave patrols. There is not one single objective ‘truth’ here. Only starkly different perspectives and if you choose to ignore that then you are in fact suppressing the one perspective for ongoing racist reasons which are STILL an attitude originating in slavery. Chattel doesn’t HAVE valid opinions – and especially not about ‘property’ so STFU. And why would it be a surprise at all that that also leads to different notions about property itself?
The second issue are the economic details of what may or may not have originated from or been an important element of slavery as an institution. That’s the stuff that interested me because I just don’t know that stuff. Was cotton really important to the economy or not? Magness says not really but all he does is wave his hands around when pressed to describe ONE thing more important to the economy then? So was cotton really important or not? Apparently decades of Magness’ scholarship on this issue lead to – no answer at ALL? Does he have Alzheimers?
Earning money online is very easy nowdays. Eanrs every month online more than $17k by doing very easy home based job in part time. Last month i have made $19754 from this job just in my spare time which is only 2 hrs a day. Very easy work to do and earning from this are awesome. Everybody can get this right now and start earning cash online by follow instructions on this webpage.............
SITE. —> usdtwork
I went to the pro-professor's university and I never learned of the Civil War being a "lost cause". Bad idea or mistake, for sure, but not lost cause. I was even taught, for years, that if one reads the actual declarations of secession and the Confederate Constitution, the only state right they seemed to be concerned with WAS slavery.
And my state started the damned thing.
So, no, we are not taught the "lost cause" myth. But we are taught that American slavery was, somehow, worse than it was anywhere else, ever.
What started the damn thing was Lincoln's invasion of Virginia.
I would say if you study Civil War battles, generals like Bragg and Hood did almost as much for the Union victory as Grant, Sherman and Thomas. While Davis loved Bragg the men he commanded hated him.
"The Lost Cause framework still pervades history teaching and hence American beliefs NOW about our history..."
Assertions from lefty ignoramuses =/= evidence or argument.
The lost cause theory does not pervade teaching in this country. To believe so is to push a desired narrative rather than embracing reality.
The Lost Cause framework still pervades history teaching
Of course it does. Democrats using Democrat propaganda.
Democrats--not Republicans-- are adherents of he 'Lost Cause' mythology. They created it. To justify their war to keep slaves. To disguise the fact that they started a war so that they could own black people. That they killed hundreds of thousands so they could keep buying and selling black people.
The biggest scar on the US, the one the Democrats deride the US for in everything they say and do is entirely of their creation.
So no, the 1619 project teaches nothing of value.
From time to time, I long for the harsh Reconstruction the Radical Republicans wanted.
We wouldn't be having these conversations today because there wouldn't BE any Democrats. Your odious party would have already been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Nonsense. The original secession states seceded to keep slavery, but Lincoln made a war out of it.
You should travel more, because many southern cities still have monuments to the Confederacy and the promote the idea of the Lost Cause.
No, a statue of, say, Lee does not "promote the Lost Cause". Someone who defends secession on the ground that it was "not about slavery" may approve of a statue of Lee, but so may someone less inclined to be a groveling pussy.
TL; DR
It's OK to be a propagandist as long as you are pushing left wing orthodoxy.
Brought to you by: the guy who simped for the lefty authoritarians on COVID and was famously wrong, every step of the way.
You're a meme now, you know that right?
So the 1619 project is “tolerable as myth teach to children” because “you think someone somewhere is teaching the Lost Cause”?
Ok……..
The logical stretching modern race baiters have to engage in is phenomenal at this point.
Nothing can be totally useless if it can serve as a bad example - - - - - - - -
It said it before, yesterday, and I will say it again. NO.
The moral lesson of the 1619 Project is that the NYTimes should never forget how the Yucatan Maya enslaved the first free African sailor to come ashore when a Spanish ship sank off their coast in 1519.
No, the moral lesson is that black Americans are the descendants of the tribespeople who were the losers of intracontinental conflicts between other sub-Saharan tribes and Arab/Berber raiders for the last 1500 years, and their academics and entertainers have been coping with that reality for the last 50 years by blaming it entirely on white Europeans, and claiming that various European and Mediterranean historical figures were actually blacker than eggplants.
Is that a fact? You need to get out and see more eggplants
It teaches us that the writer of that tripe is a racist that wanted to tell a narrative. And got most of the media to buy in to it.
Word!!
The biggest thing that the 1619 Project teaches us is that there is still a great fear of looking at the history of black people in America. The response to the 1619 Project is out of proportion and has in effect build the work up rather than to tear it down. The Netflick's series is a direct response to the criticism the work has received. Banning books has never worked. Those who disagree with the work will never get the opportunity to debate it because they will have banned it first.
What you call fear is historical accuracy. No one fears black history. What we object to is historical myths taught as facts.
Earning money online is very easy nowdays. Eanrs every month online more than $17k by doing very easy home based job in part time. Last month i have made $19754 from this job just in my spare time which is only 2 hrs a day. Very easy work to do and earning from this are awesome. Everybody can get this right now and start earning cash online by follow instructions on this webpage.............
SITE. —> usdtwork
I sorry but you are wrong. This is not a fight on accuracy of facts this is outrage about someone daring to present a different historical viewpoint. Phillip Magness talks about these inaccuracies and then goes on a rant about slavery not being capitalism, that is what is absurd. Plantations were part of a capitalist system. Now the fact that plantations operated in a capitalist system does not mean that capitalism is wrong. It is an acknowledgement that the real world is complex. Just as the fact that our third President wrote elegant words about equality and then kept people enslaved.
I am also correct the outrage, and it is little more than outrage, over the 1619 Project has only raised its profile.
"This is not a fight on accuracy of facts"
Yes it is.
"someone daring to present a different historical viewpoint. "
How is that different than Holocaust denial, outside of you supporting it? Isn't that just a "different historical viewpoint"?
You cannot back up this viewpoint with facts, just as Holocaust deniers also cannot do so.
"Plantations were part of a capitalist system."
Not really, no. Again, no moreso than "private companies" in Nazi Germany were functioning in a capitalist system.
"Just as the fact that our third President wrote elegant words about equality and then kept people enslaved."
Thought exercise: Pretend Jefferson freed all of his slaves.
Then what?
Who prevents them from just being re-enslaved? He will have passed. Laws certainly did not protect them from much of anything. And if they were not enslaved, they had no rights to do much of anything. What kind of life would exist?
This is not saying "Yay, slavery"...just, as you said, reality is complex.
"I am also correct the outrage, and it is little more than outrage, over the 1619 Project has only raised its profile."
More of the "Why do you make me hit you, baby?" mentality.
Non-progressives have sat back and allowed the left, like you, to run amok. That ends.
Again, the out of proportion response. Let jump right to the Nazi comparisons. And yes private companies in Nazi controlled Germany did operate under capitalism. If you remember Oskar Schindler did not start out to save Jewish people, he started out with the goal to make money. Plantation owner did the same.
Again, incapable of thought so it's pathetic emoting again.
That individuals in an economic system are trying to make money does not mean that the economic system is capitalism.
That said, the case that the plantation system operated in a system of capitalism is much stronger than the claim that the system in National Socialist Germany was capitalism.
"...How is that different than Holocaust denial, outside of you supporting it? Isn’t that just a “different historical viewpoint”?..."
So's Creationism, and I'll bet that scumbag wouldn't go for that, either.
I sorry but you are wrong.
How dare people have their own opinion which doesn't comport with what you declare they really think.
1619 Project is garbage and should be treated with ridicule and condemnation. As should you. Lefty garbage.
As I said, only moderation he supports is in usage of factual info.
There is a concern about lies and untruths being the centerpiece of education, yes. Again, you are advocating for teaching false history.
"The response to the 1619 Project is out of proportion"
Explain how. They've tried to use it in fucking schools to teach history when it is, again, historically inaccurate. What would be an appropriate response?
Some left-wing "mostly peaceful" protests?
"Banning books has never worked."
No books are being banned. Stop confusing "not carrying in a school library" for a ban because all of the "banned" books are widely and easily accessible.
"Those who disagree with the work will never get the opportunity to debate it because they will have banned it first."
Seems the only moderation you support is in reciting of factual information.
They’ve tried to use it in fucking schools to teach history when it is, again, historically inaccurate.
Those historians who are countering much of the 1619 facts are not countering it with facts that are currently taught in schools. They are countering it with facts that are NOT being taught but that are, all of a sudden, deemed important.
eg The assertion that 1619 is when slavery first appeared in what became the US. When in fact it appeared for six weeks in a Spanish colony that only lasted for six weeks in 1526. The 1526 event has never been taught in schools. The 1619 stuff has pretty much never been taught. Mostly what has been taught is that slaves were passive peripheral victims on the margins of American life who briefly appear on stage only when Great White Massa frees them.
The assertion from the project that the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery is best undermined by the freedom suits of 1781. Those are the main reasons free states in New England abolished slavery early – and the Somerset case had a very different impact there than in the South. FACTS. But the first freedom suit that makes it into most history texts is Dred Scott – 70 years later. When the result is the exact opposite, absent of all context, and absent all ability to compare how far the planterocracy had taken over the legal system. Which renders freedom suits and all the earlier legal stuff re slavery – initiated by blacks – irrelevant to history class. They are irrelevant to their enslavement and to their emancipation. America is a story of what white people do – so to speak. No surprise paleos love that.
Unfortunately, the real result of this existing pedagogy is that it creates a vacuum. With no way to distinguish real facts from agitprop. So hey presto – another opportunity for a bunch of heated public vomit.
"...Those historians who are countering much of the 1619 facts are not countering it with facts that are currently taught in schools. They are countering it with facts that are NOT being taught but that are, all of a sudden, deemed important..."
Assertions from lefty ignoramuses =/= evidence or argument.
And yet there is no fear of looking at the actual history of black people. My lord, the gaslighting necessary to keep pushing this false narrative is getting absurd.
If you are arguing about "what the 1619 project has to teach hs" from the perspective of examining the content of the NYT articles, you have already lost.
The only way to understand the 1619 project is from the high level goals. The problem the 1619 project was designed to solve was "defeat Donald Trump". If you missed that, you can't possibly have an intelligent discussion.
The NYT news editors famously had a meeting with their entire staff where they explained that their attempt to "get Trump" using Russia had failed, but they were going to find a new strategy.
The strategy they chose turned out to be an old one. Make Racism Great Again. And out of this, the 1619 project was born. It is a push across all DNC associated platforms - make everything about racism. It took almost 2 years to finally percolate through, but they did actually succeed in bringing racism to the post-racial society.
"Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?
It teaches us that left-wing racism is eagerly embraced by almost all of the media and government.
The 1619 project is flawed history (at best) with a central thesis that is incorrect: The Revolution was not fought to preserve slavery, and the US is hardly unique in it’s racist past. However, as flawed as it may be, it’s still probably more accurate than the garbage we were taught as kids in school. I went to a very left wing school as a child in NYC, and what I learned was basically this: Slavery existed only in the South, and then the valiant North fought a war to free the slaves. Everything was great, except they still had segregation in the South, and that evil Klan (Only in south, mind you.) But Martin Luther King came along with the civil rights movement, and after he was assassinated, everyone felt bad, and that was the end of segregation, and everyone was equal, except for a few evil Southern sheriffs in the movies. No one taught me about red-lining. No one taught me about the extent of lynching. We never learned about the Tuskegee experiment, The Tulsa Massacre, forced sterilizations, etc. Segregation? As I said, that was only in that backwards south. No one ever told me that just a few blocks away from where I grew up, the largest post-war housing development, Stuyvesant Town, didn’t allow black people.
Good summary of how American history is taught. Just need to tweak a couple words here and there to make it all local. eg Klan isn't evil everywhere. And in some places MLK is a commie.
How us the Tulsa Massacre more historically significant than the 1919 Chicago race riot?
They turned the area into industrial zone, prevented rebuilding, stole land and destroyed the rest of the neighborhood to bulldoze an interstate and baseball stadium, and covered up the massacre for 80+ years. That’s multiple generations of complicity
"covered up the massacre for 80+ years"
LOL!
All history is flawed. Even honest historians can’t uncover every fact related to even a single event from the past, even the most critical turning points. Every historian sets out to put some spin on the opinions of previous historians and those of us who follow the process end up learning something new as new evidence or explanations evolve. Giving the “1619 Project” the benefit of the doubt, the writers sought to put a new spin on the significance of the evolution of slavery in the Colonies. To the extent that it failed, it failed at least partly due to the wishful thinking of the historians and not a little due to the political goal that motivated it. Having said that, your experience in school does not match mine. Maybe you weren't listening or reading the textbook, or maybe you didn't bother to do any reading outside of school to educate yourself above the lowest common denominator the system was trying to reach.
1) No
2) That history can be rewritten and twisted to suit whatever the modern theme is.
3) Someone, if they can make money off rewriting history, will do so and ride that gravy train.
"Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?"
No. Next question?
I don't mean to pick on you personally, you're just the last person to say the same thing. I learned a lot from the "1619 Project" because I continue to try. Every time I read something that makes me say, "Wait! That can't be right!" it prompts me to read further into it from other sources. I almost always pick up some new facts that way - whether they tend to support the new narrative or refute it - and I almost always end up shifting my perspective from the new viewpoint. Sometimes I read new interpretations of old facts and say, "Ah! That makes more sense to me than the old interpretations made." The history I was required to read in school focused heavily on events, dates and places because that was the starting point for any relatively well-informed citizen.
The 1619 project has plenty to teach us. It teaches us that rich and powerful institutions and people, the type who are picking the pockets of the public, like to stir up racial strife among the public so it won’t worry so much about the pocket-pickers and focus attention on the significance of Lord Dunmore and the Somerset case.
Of course, if your interest is history, not social division, you may still find the Somerset case and Lord Dunmore to be fascinating. Far be it from me to deny this. But I doubt it’s historical interest prompting powerful people to force a so-called conversation about these things right now.
It proves that Charles Manson made a mistake in becoming a murderous cult leader instead of an academic if he wanted to stir up a race war
“Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?”
Certainly. It teaches us that malicious totalitarianism is always tirelessly creating new ways to try to fool people.
"Does The 1619 Project Have Anything To Teach Us?"
Absolutely: Lefty shits will support education including all sorts of lies, so long as it isn't creationism!
Woody Holton is RIDICULOUS. I wish that he would not resort to BS tactics in the debate. The reality is that the 1619 project has become much more of a political statement than a history project.
Woody Holton lost the debate hands down.
It is not unreasonable to misinterpret historical facts in written history. For this, criticism is a good thing. It can make people think and it can correct the misinterpretation.
The 1619 Project is NOT misinterpreted historical facts. It is a purposeful twisting of historical events to support a narrative. Therefore, it is not history. At best, it is historical fiction. But most likely it is propaganda.
THe Black Conservative repsonse has been uniformly against the 1619 Project.
Henry Louis Gates popularized the research of Thornton and Heywood : Heywood's and Thornton's research estimating that “90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders.
For Frederick Douglass, it was an argument against repatriation schemes for the freed slaves. “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia,” he warned. “We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave trade than to stay here to work against it.”...
So Nikki wants more of that hate that keeps her comfortably part of white society
In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
Does it matter that I know not one -- not even one -- person who has a favorable view of Nikki or of the book?
She is believably like Obama, a wealthy privileged Black acting white as can be and making more money off outrage .
Does she ever acknowledge even a speck of complicity in her reparations-seeking buddies.
" two leading historians of the slave trade, John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University, for the proposition that roughly 90% of the slaves sent across the Middle Passage were enslaved by African traders and then sold to Europeans along the coast. Other leading scholars believe that the percentage is actually much higher, that only at the margins were any Africans enslaved directly by Europeans.
The leading role of Africans in the slave trade was a necessary one. The slave trade took place before Europeans colonized the continent of Africa, and white traders exercised little influence beyond their coastal trading posts. Only African societies could extract slaves from the interior of the continent, primarily by taking captives in wars or kidnapping in raids.
The vital role of Africans in the slave trade made for a highly profitable business for many African societies, lining the pockets of local rulers and of the many ordinary people who became involved in the trade. As Professor Gates notes, slaves were the primary export of many kingdoms in western and central Africa, including the Asante in Ghana, Dahomey in Benin, Ndongo in Angola, and Kongo in the modern Congo.
These facts dispel the myths that Africans were only tangentially involved in the slave trade, or that African societies were coerced into participation, or that the slave trade left a legacy of demographic or economic harm to those societies which participated in it."
Already fat, spoiled, and basically white Nikki made more money. It's the Michelle Effect: Life with lots of money at Princeton was very hard for me, worse than growing up in ghetto with no father and all.
I loved what Mrs Bush said when Michelle whined about how the White House was like a prison. "Yeah , a prison with four personal chefs" something like that
Magness, wins, no surprise.
You can't argue slavery and ignore Booker T Washington and Frederick Douglass.
At last someone has taken down the intenste hate of white Nikki about Catholics and slavery
" the Roman Catholic Church is the only living organization that has constantly denounced slavery for the longest time."
The Worst of Indignities: The Catholic Church on Slavery
By Paul Kengor, Ph.D.
THe main thing I tell students about 1619 Project and folks like you is, Watch where they start , it explains what they are up to.
So I quote 2 Black witnesses
1) "two leading historians of the slave trade, John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University, for the proposition that roughly 90% of the slaves sent across the Middle Passage were enslaved by African traders and then sold to Europeans along the coast. Other leading scholars believe that the percentage is actually much higher, that only at the margins were any Africans enslaved directly by Europeans."
2) In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.