Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 80

Thread: 1619 Project

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default 1619 Project

    I've been so pissed since I read about this in NYT, that I was hoping someone else would start the discussion, alas.

    So, the NYT has decided we should all look at American history through the slave perspective. It is only they, that have done anything towards making America a semi-decent place to be. Any accomplishments have been on their backs or by them. Seriously. They have even come up with lesson plans made in conjunction with the Smithsonian, thus using all of our money to change history.

    Oh the Founding Fathers? )They don't capitalize that title, they were just lucky heirs to what had already been done with the slaves. The entire Revolution was a response to England wanting to end slavery. There is no mention of the thousands of years that slavery existed prior to 1619, it was all those English colonists doing.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/605...omment-1021541

    Retconned America – The 1619 Project
    Posted by Sgt. Mom on August 19th, 2019 (All posts by Sgt. Mom)

    It appears that this week, the New York Times, the so-called paper of record, upon whom the self-directed spotlight of smug superiority ever shines – has now taken that final, irrevocable step from the business of reporting news and current events, matters cultural and artistic to becoming a purveyor of progressive propaganda. Of course, as characters in British procedural mysteries often say, ‘they have form’ when it comes to progressive propaganda; all the way from Walter Duranty’s reporting on famine in the Soviet Union through the drumbeat of ‘worst war-crime evah!’ in coverage when it came to Abu Ghraib, and the current bête noir – or rather ‘bête orange’ man bad. It seems that it has now become necessary for the Times to make the issue of chattel slavery of black Africans the centerpiece, the foundation stone, the sum and total of American history. Everything – absolutely everything in American history and culture now must be filtered through the pitiless lens of slavery.


    Never mind that as a human institution, slavery has existed at least as long as war, prostitution, and agriculture itself. Never mind that black slaves from Africa went largely to the middle east, to the Caribbean and to South America, where they labored in such horrible conditions that few survived, let alone reproduced. Never mind that at least as many English, Irish and Scots arrived in those English colonies in North America as indentured servants laboring under the same brutal conditions. Never mind that at least half of the founding fathers had strong objections to chattel slavery, and less than a hundred years into the great experiment in self-rule, sufficient numbers of Northerners felt strongly enough about it to fight a brutal civil war in order to bring it to an end. And never mind that slavery itself kept the South inefficient, relatively poor, largely inhospitable to industrialization and unattractive to poor and working-class immigrants.


    No, all must be reframed and ret-conned; the concept of the United States is fatally stained with the new version of original sin; slavery and racism. There must be nothing left of our traditions and culture in which we can take honest and openly expressed pride. Not throwing off the last ragged remnants of feudal rule, and establishing a democratic republic, wherein the common, ordinary citizen could, by voting, exercise political control of his or her own life. Industrial innovation and creativity in everything from weaving cloth to taming the wild atom, setting up trade networks, exploring and settling a continent, reaching out into space, encouraging social mobility in a manner practically unknown to any other nation … no, all of that and more. Everything about America – that part of it occupied by the United States of – is now marred by the stain of slavery, in the eyes of the NY Times. All because better than half of us who live in it and honor those traditions had the temerity to vote for the ‘bête orange’.


    The NY Times, the so-called, duly anointed and authoritative ‘paper of record’ has now taken up the heavy job of entirely re-writing American history. Will they have any luck at this, given the death-grip that the establishment media has on current culture? Or are there enough of us still left who actually read history that we can pull pop culture the other way? Discuss as you wish.


    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...rget-trump-too

    New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too by Byron York

    | August 17, 2019 07:18 PM

    by Perhaps when you think of the founding of the United States, you think of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers. Now, the New York Times wants to "reframe" your understanding of the nation's founding.


    In the Times' view (which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans), the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.


    This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called the 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: "It aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."




    Another, more concise statement from the Times: "The goal of The 1619 Project is to reframe American history."


    The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It begins with an overview of race in America — "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true." — written by Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, who on Twitter uses the identity Ida Bae Wells, from the crusading late 19th-early 20th century African American journalist Ida B. Wells.


    The essays go on to cover the economy ("If you want to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation."), the food we eat ("The sugar that saturates the American diet has a barbaric history as the 'white gold' that fueled slavery."), the nation's physical health ("Why doesn't the United States have universal healthcare? The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War."), politics ("America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others."), daily life ("What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot."), and much more.


    The Times promises more 1619 Project stories in the future, not just in the paper's news sections, but in the business, sports, travel, and other sections. The Times' popular podcast, The Daily, will also devote time to it.


    But a project with the aim of reframing U.S. history has to be more than a bunch of articles and podcasts. A major goal of the 1619 Project is to take the reframing message to schools. The Times has joined an organization called the Pulitzer Center (which, it should be noted, is not the organization that hands out the Pulitzer Prize) to create a 1619 Project curriculum. "Here you will find reading guides, activities, and other resources to bring The 1619 Project into your classroom," the center says in a message to teachers.


    The paper also wants to reach into schools itself. "We will be sending some of our writers on multi-city tours to talk to students," Hannah-Jones said recently, "and we will be sending copies of the magazine to high schools and colleges. Because to us, this project really takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has shaped their country's history."


    The project rollout just happened to come at the same time as the leak of a transcript of a Times employee town hall in which the paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, discussed his "vision" of making race the central theme of Times coverage for the remaining two years of President Trump's term in office.


    Baquet spoke frankly about the paper's approach to Trump. For two years, he explained, the Times made a very, very big deal of the Trump-Russia affair. "We built our newsroom to cover one story," Baquet said. But then came the Mueller report, which failed to establish the core allegation against the president: that he and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election.




    "Now we have to regroup," Baquet told the staff, "and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."


    That different story is race — and Trump. "We've got to change," Baquet said. "I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world's reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that's become so divided by Donald Trump?"


    Some on the staff appeared both anguished by the president ("it's a very scary time") and more than ready to make race a key feature of Times coverage.


    "I'm wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting?" one staffer asked Baquet. "Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn't racist, I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting."


    The staffer's point brought Baquet back to the paper's new initiative. "One reason we all signed off on The 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that," Baquet said. "Race in the next year ... is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration."


    So the Times has two big plans. One would be big enough: to focus on the universe of racism accusations that increasingly surround the president at a time when he just happens to be running for reelection. But the other is even bigger: to "reframe" American history in accordance with the values of Times editors. It's an extraordinarily ambitious undertaking for people in what used to be known more simply as the news business.





    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  2. Thanks Russ, LongTermGuy thanked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Another.

    https://nypost.com/2019/08/19/the-le...icas-founding/

    The left’s vile smear of America’s founding
    By Rich Lowry August 19, 2019 | 8:17pm

    Beto O’Rourke has taken the measure of America and found it wanting.


    “This country, though we would like to think otherwise,” he intoned last weekend, “was founded on racism, has persisted through racism and is racist today.”


    This is now a mainstream sentiment in the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders said earlier this year that the United States was “created” in large part “on racist principles.”


    The New York Times has begun its so-called 1619 Project, marking the 400th anniversary of the importation of slaves from Africa.


    The series seeks nothing less than “to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”


    It is certainly true that an American nation existed prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and slavery was its great sin, with permutations still felt today. But to pretend that racism is the essence of America and constituted one of the country’s founding principles is an odious and reductive lie.


    It doesn’t explain why any reference to slavery was kept out of the Constitution. James Madison, per his notes during the drafting convention, “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”


    The careful avoidance of the term was subsequently used to buttress the position of opponents of slavery from John Quincy Adams to Abraham Lincoln to Frederick Douglass. The great black abolitionist asked, “If the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument,” how could it be that “neither slavery, slaveholding nor slave . . . be anywhere found in it?”


    The notion of slavery as a founding principle doesn’t explain the passage of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, setting out the terms of settlement in the swath of territory between the Great Lakes and the Ohio River. It stipulated that “there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.”


    It doesn’t explain why the Constitution permitted the prohibition of the slave trade as of 1808, when it was indeed prohibited.

    Beto exploits tragedy for sake of politics
    Of course, in crucial respects the Constitution was indeed a compromise with slaveholders. It isn’t clear why it would be considered better if, in the absence of such a compromise, slave states had possibly gone their own way to create a rump nation-state wholly devoted to slavery and not yoked to a North that became more anti-slavery over time.


    Rather than enhancing the moral standing of slavery, the Founding tended to undermine it.


    “The Revolution suddenly and effectively ended the cultural climate that had allowed black slavery, as well as other forms of bondage and unfreedom, to exist throughout the colonial period without serious challenge,” the historian Gordon Wood writes. In his view, it set in motion the “ideological and social forces” that eventually led to the Civil War.


    In the broadest gauge, it’s a mistake to treat the United States as an outlier in terms of its racial attitudes, when it was really an outlier in its (imperfect) embrace of liberty.


    “Europeans did not outdo others in enslaving people or treating slaves viciously,” the late historians Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and *Eugene Genovese observe. “They outdid others by creating a Christian civilization that eventually stirred moral condemnation of slavery and roused mass movements against it. Perception of slavery as morally unacceptable — as sinful — did not become widespread until the second half of the eighteenth century.


    “Today we ask: How could Christians or any civilized people have lived with themselves as slaveholders? But the historically appropriate question is: What, after millennia of general acceptance, made Christians — and, subsequently, those of other faiths — judge slavery an enormity not to be *endured?”


    It’s not a question anyone running in the Democratic presidential primaries, or editing The New York Times, is inclined to ask.




    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    https://spectator.org/dean-baquet-ki...ew-york-times/

    Dean Baquet Kills the New York Times
    It’s hard to imagine America’s former leading newspaper recovering from what its executive editor admitted last week.
    Scott McKay by SCOTT MCKAY
    August 19, 2019, 12:05 AM

    The revelations from an internal town hall between New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet and key members of the paper’s staff, which leaked to Slate and were reported Thursday with an extensive transcript, prove everything we already knew — namely, that the paper was dedicating its coverage and its very credibility to the Trump-Russia narrative.


    “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet told the assemblage. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”


    Think about that statement for a minute. Baquet says he “built our newsroom” to cover a story which turns out to have been based on a hoax spread by Democrat Party operatives and used by a corrupt Obama administration to spy on innocent American citizens while attempting to prejudice a presidential election.


    Had the Times actually covered the back half of the Trump-Russia story, in which the abuses by the Obama and Clinton camps turn out to have been the meat of the thing, it might have been justified to “build our newsroom” around it. But of course that’s not what Baquet did.




    Not shockingly, as Baquet admitted, things went badly.


    “Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump,” he said, “not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”


    Then came Honest Bob Mueller, who it turns out was a big disappointment to Baquet and his gang.

    ...

    In a way, Baquet has done the country a favor. Now that his performance at the Times’ internal meeting has leaked out, there can be no denying the intentions behind the nonstop accusations of Trump’s racism — and that of every one of his voters by extension — to come in the next year and change before the November 2020 elections.


    If the ownership of the Times had any integrity or business sense, they would drop Dean Baquet like a radioactive turd this very day. I can’t think of anything more poisonous than a newspaper’s executive editor essentially publicly admitting his plan to stoke racial animosity in an effort to influence a presidential election when his charge is to present that publication as an objective deliverer of news. Fulfilling that mission is now impossible.


    Baquet has to go, as does the newsroom he built in pursuit of a hoax perpetrated on the American people — and he has to go now, before he does any more damage to domestic stability.


    So until he does, it isn’t a bad idea for those people unsatisfied with the quotes above to not just refuse to spend a single dime on the Times’ content but also to similarly refuse patronage of its advertisers.


    The reason this kind of abuse of the First Amendment happens is those behind it don’t see consequences to their actions. That can’t continue. It’s time to make the Gray Lady suffer.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  5. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default



    I'm going to have to read this one a couple of times
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post


    I'm going to have to read this one a couple of times
    Indeed. As I said, they are working on tying lesson plans around 'slavery first' as the base of the US. I don't know how they got the Smithsonian to join in, but will say that the New York Times lesson plans are widely used in high schools and private middle schools.

    A few years of this and kids won't have a clue to how the Constitution came to be, it will be considered the ill gotten gains of aristocracy.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  8. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  9. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    I don't read NYT. Or the Washington Post.

    If it isn't free I'm not reading it.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  10. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
    Likes High_Plains_Drifter liked this post
  11. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    After high school graduation I waited a few years to go to college. I was shocked at the new history books. I was an older adult and I certainly had a ton of questions because it didn't jive with what I had learned. Teachers didn't like me asking questions. When I took American History the books were from Indian and slave viewpoint and was already diminishing white accomplishments. Not quite to the shaming stage it us today though.

    It's crap like this that makes me thankful I have more yesterdays than tomorrows.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  12. Thanks High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  13. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SassyLady View Post
    I don't read NYT. Or the Washington Post.

    If it isn't free I'm not reading it.
    I hear that. What the point though of the upset is that it is to change how people look at the country, starting with teaching from the very start. If the Times is going there, it will become part of the news media very quickly and it would take only a generation or two to be complete.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  14. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,760
    Thanks (Given)
    5669
    Thanks (Received)
    6731
    Likes (Given)
    5711
    Likes (Received)
    4154
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    I hear that. What the point though of the upset is that it is to change how people look at the country, starting with teaching from the very start. If the Times is going there, it will become part of the news media very quickly and it would take only a generation or two to be complete.
    Yeppers. Upsets me as well.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  15. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  16. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Getting into it a bit. Like Sassy, I do not subscribe to the NYT, nor do I have time to dig into the revisionism they are writing. Luckily, others do.

    BTW, this really is all about today's politics, in the sense of 'proving' the conservatives, this president in particular, are racists. That they are smearing the whole history of the United States, to make people who had no power centuries ago, the lead characters? Well that's how one revises history.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...659952128.html



    Dan McLaughlin
    @baseballcrank
    a day ago, 25 tweets, 5 min read

    That's one of the more obviously a historical claims in this piece, if you know anything at all about the history of British or American abolitionism or the origins of the American revolution.


    America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One
    Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written. For generations, black Americans have fought to make them true.
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...democracy.html

    RBe
    @RBPundit


    Imagine hating the United States so bad that you want to rewrite history and claim that the American Revolution was started because England wanted to ban slavery.


    Imagine thinking that and thinking you're the sane one.


    981
    9:52 AM - Aug 19, 2019


    Go read on the decades of William Wilberforce's uphill battles against slavery in Parliament - @ericmetaxas tells the story very dramatically - if you think Britain was on the eve of banning slavery in 1775, much less that the colonists in Massachusetts were worried about that.


    The Revolution was fought, in part, by slaveowners. It was not, for most of its participants, fought *for* slavery.


    The Constitution was written, in part, by slaveowners. It avoided disrupting slavery. But it was not written *for* slavery, nor to increase its power vs 1786.


    The whole reason the Republican Party exists is bc America had universal Founding principles to go back to, when opponents of expanding slavery wanted to fuse that cause with broader political movements that drew on the same sources. If that's a lie, so is everything Lincoln did.


    5. Let's talk a little here about classical liberalism, the ideology of the American Founders & the Lincoln Republicans. Classical liberalism is not the same as conservatism. But by marrying it to conservatism, American conservatives created a uniquely powerful fusion. @Gunny


    6. Conservatism, of course, begins with the particular & familiar and in Lincoln's words, "adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried." Community. Order. Hearth & home. Without stated principles, conservatism is tribal because humans are tribal.



    7. Progressivism, as the opposite of conservatism, in theory rejects the tribe in favor of The State, but in every practical iteration, because it empowers The State to bestow favors, it not only picks favorites but develops theories to make some tribes more equal than others.


    8. The greatness of classical liberalism is that it is both universal & constraining: it makes promises that defy tribal category, & it limits state power & state favor in ways that ameliorate the natural tribal tendency.


    9. Classical liberalism can be reconciled, if always imperfectly, with conservatism; fusion of the two gives content & continuity to the society under classical liberal governance while restraining the tribal tendency by forcing it to work within a framework of universal ideas.


    10. Classical liberalism cannot, by contrast, be reconciled with progressivism, as progressivism rejects the idea of neutral rules or their authority to restrain whatever is deemed "progress," and requires for its justification a hierarchy of groups rather than equal individuals.


    11. The connection between modern progressivism & identity-politics grievance is too fundamental to be capable of restraint by neutral principles, & progressive intellectuals often reject the concept of neutral principles or of the primacy of individual over group identity.


    12. Conservatism, when married to classical liberalism, preserves a natural balance: group identity exists organically in communities, but the state must stay evenhanded towards individuals. For conservatives, that equilibrium takes work. For progressives, it is anathema.


    13. Discrediting neutral-principles classical liberalism as always a pretext for group identity politics is THE ballgame for progressivism; it's the biggest intellectual prize & one that pervades progressive academia. Reframing the American Founding as a lie is make-or-break.


    14. For Republicans, by contrast, the party ceases to have any reason to exist if we buy into the progressive premise of an endless struggle of group identities, rather than adhering to the tried & tested Lincoln formulation of a government of universal, individual principles. ( My edit: i.e., tribalism/populism)



    15. This is why so many conservative intellectuals recoil at Trumpism, aside from Trump's persona: because it cedes the first principle to progressivism, rather than wielding the legacy bequeathed us by Washington & Lincoln. In that sense, both fights are the same fight.


    16. The conservative reaction to the 1619 Project cannot be understood outside the context of that ongoing debate over whether the classical liberal doctrines of 1776, 1787, & 1865 were, and remain, the legitimate ideological backbone of the American way.


    17. You need not to be any more a friend of slavery than Abe Lincoln was to adhere to those ideas; without them his cause would have failed, as would MLK's. A society without neutral, universal principles has no language with which to persuade the majority against its interests.


    18. Of course, classical liberal principles alone did not defeat slavery, nor Jim Crow; there was also an older, shared language, that of Christianity, in which to reproach the majority in the name of its own principles. Today's Right critics of Lincolnism get this half right.


    19. If we lose the shared language of classical liberalism, then both Right & Left are left with no better choice than to choose the strongest fighter for their tribe. Most of human history goes this way, & we know where it ends.


    20. Lincoln saw the American Founding as legitimate, and in its legitimacy he found the tools to defeat slavery. His example even helped inspire more illiberal regimes, from Egypt to Russia to Brazil, to abandon servitude.


    21. Progressivism, lacking such touchstones of external legitimacy, can never impose on its own constituencies such a demand. It can only follow the logic of the tribe, by which the favored in-group is to be rewarded by sacrifice of the out-group.


    22. For all these reasons, any effort to delegitimize the very ideas that were used to dismantle American slavery & segregation should be regarded with suspicion. That doesn't mean we bury the reality or history of enslavement; Lincoln & Douglass faced it graphically.


    23. But it does mean that we still hold those same truths to be self-evident. And we still see America as the shining city on the hill because it was founded on them. America was never without sin, but the nature of our Founding is what allowed sin to be condemned as such.


    24. In short: slavery is the "yes, but" of the American Founding. It is no basis to discredit its greatness, but rather the reason why the Founding principles remained vital to keep examining.


    25. If you get that wrong, if you embrace instead the collective & the group over "ALL men are created equal" no matter who their ancestors were, then you will always be against the friends of liberty wheresoever they are found. Individual liberty was good then, and it still is.



    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  17. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  18. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    and Jim Geraghty, always an interesting take, once you start 'reframing history, all must follow from there.' Thus black history changes too:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ct-leaves-out/


    What The 1619 Project Leaves Out
    By JIM GERAGHTY
    August 20, 2019 1:12 PM


    “The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year,” The New York Times Magazine editors declare. “Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.”

    The scale of the opening offering is massive by the standards of modern journalism: 100 pages (with a few ads), ten essays, a photo essay, and a collection of original poems and stories from 16 additional writers.


    But the 1619 Project’s effort to “reframe American history” requires cropping out some significant figures in African-American history. Perhaps no near-100-page collection of essays, poems and photos could cover every significant figure in African-American history, but the number of prominent figures who never even get mentioned or who get only the most cursory treatment is pretty surprising.


    Early in Nikole Hannah-Jones’s essay, she reiterates the important point, “in every war this nation has waged since that first one, black Americans have fought — today we are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the United States military.” The name Crispus Attucks is mentioned three times, but he is, as far as I can tell, the lone black Revolutionary War combatant mentioned. James Armistead was a spy for Lafayette who had access to General Cornwallis’s headquarters. Back in 1996, the New York Times wrote about the First Rhode Island Regiment, who fought at Newport and Pine’s Bridge, and in a regrouped form, Yorktown. By one account, one-quarter of the American forces at the battle of Yorktown were black. The 1619 Project does not mention the Battle of Yorktown.


    One might argue that the essay authors preferred to focus on lesser-known African-American historical figures . . . but you really have to strain to contend James Armistead is sufficiently widely known already. Could anyone seriously argue that African-American contributions to the Revolutionary War are too well-known?


    Martin Delany was an abolitionist, the first African American accepted to Harvard Medical School (white students quickly forced him out), and the first African-American field grade officer in the U.S. Army in 1865. He’s quoted once in passing.


    In the early 1860s, about 179,000 black men enlisted in the U.S. Colored Troops, almost 10 percent of the entire Union army. The U.S. Colored Troops are not mentioned in the 1619 Project. The Buffalo Soldiers are not mentioned in the 1619 Project. There is a brief mention of African-American soldiers heading west after the Civil War: “Even while bearing slavery’s scars, black men found themselves carrying out orders to secure white residents of Western towns, track down ‘‘outlaws’’ (many of whom were people of color), police the federally imposed boundaries of Indian reservations and quell labor strikes.”

    In the seven times African-American soldiers mentioned, they are generally described as victims who have merely shifted from one system of subjugation and exploitation to another.
    There’s no mention of the Harlem Hellfighters fighting in World War One, and no mention of Dorie Miller’s heroism at Pearl Harbor. The horrors of the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male are discussed, but the Tuskegee Airmen are never mentioned.


    African-American heroism on the battlefield doesn’t really fit the narrative that the 1619 Project is trying to tell. In fact, you could argue that the essays are so wedded to a narrative of white brutality and black victimhood that they seem to fear that spotlighting any example of a successful African-American defiance of oppression would undermine their argument. In the reframing of the 1619 Project, African-American success stories disappear. There’s no mention of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympic Games. There’s no mention of Jackie Robinson. There’s no mention of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson, the African-American mathematicians who worked for NASA as depicted in the film Hidden Figures. Wilberforce University in Ohio, the first college owned and operated by African Americans, is not mentioned.


    The attack on Negro Fort in Florida is mentioned, but not the existence of its nearby predecessor Fort Mose, the first free African-American community in North America, founded in the 1730s.


    Frederick Douglass is mentioned twice. W.E.B. du Bois is quoted once. Thurgood Marshall is mentioned once.


    Harriet Tubman is never mentioned. Nor is Booker T. Washington nor is Bishop Richard Allen, who founded the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), the first independent black denomination in the United States. Abolitionist Sojourner Truth, Shirley Chisom (the first black woman elected to the U.S. Congress), Benjamin Oliver Davis Sr. (the first African-American general for the U.S. Army), Ida Wells (a journalist who documented lynchings and co-founded the NAACP), Duke Ellington, and Rosa Parks are never mentioned.


    Would the country as a whole be better off with a greater understanding of slavery and its legacy in American history? Absolutely. (The country would be better off with more understanding of just about any chapter of American history.) The 1619 Project argues, with considerable justification, that most of us been seeing only one part of the portrait of the founding, formation, and growth of our country . . . and then “reframes” the portrait to leave out some of the most consequential and under-discussed African Americans in our history.





    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  19. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  20. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    I'm aware that not everyone is going to be super interested in this topic, but I am gathering the links and gist in most cases so I can look more deeply when time permits. I'm really riled about it, but doubt many others will get all worked up.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/20...american-left/

    The Ghost Of John C. Calhoun Haunts Today’s American Left
    The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project is that it embraces the critique of the American Founding espoused by the leading defender of Southern slavery, Sen. John C. Calhoun.
    By John Daniel Davidson
    AUGUST 20, 2019


    It’s impossible to understand The New York Times’ 1619 Project as anything but sweeping historical revisionism in the service of contemporary left-wing politics.


    The gist of the project, named for the year the first Africans were brought to North America to be sold as slaves, is that everything about America, from our capitalist economy to our politics to the food we eat, can be explained by slavery and race. In other words, America was conceived in sin, born of evil intent, and all its lofty ideals about equality and liberty are nothing but a sham—the hypocritical stylings of slavers and white supremacists bent on the subjugation of their fellow man.

    The Times is unambiguous: “In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.” The arrival of those slaves in Virginia in 1619, we’re told, “inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years and form the basis for almost every aspect of American life.”


    Everything that made America exceptional, every aspect of American life, all of it the legacy of slavery. The Times’ entire purpose here, by its own admission, is to “reframe the country’s history” by placing slavery “at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.” It should come as no surprise that, in this telling, we are an irredeemably wicked people, and always have been.


    The 1619 Project Is Garbage History

    ...





    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  21. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    USA East Coast
    Posts
    3,091
    Thanks (Given)
    3048
    Thanks (Received)
    2042
    Likes (Given)
    4798
    Likes (Received)
    1753
    Piss Off (Given)
    230
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6803340

    Default The NYT's (Slimes) wants to RE-WRITE American History?

    Maybe we will all understand WHY, and WHO's idea this is.

    Namely....this fellow....
    I may be older than most. I may say things not everybody will like.
    But despite all of that. I will never lower myself to the level of Liars, Haters, Cheats, and Hypocrites.
    Philippians 4:13 I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me:

  22. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  23. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    Getting into it a bit. Like Sassy, I do not subscribe to the NYT, nor do I have time to dig into the revisionism they are writing. Luckily, others do.

    BTW, this really is all about today's politics, in the sense of 'proving' the conservatives, this president in particular, are racists. That they are smearing the whole history of the United States, to make people who had no power centuries ago, the lead characters? Well that's how one revises history.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...659952128.html
    Interesting article I found in light of the above. Read the sections on 'progressives' and then this written a couple years ago. The legacy of Calhoun:

    https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03...ivism-birthed/


    The Confederacy Still Lingers Within The Progressivism That Birthed It


    Progressives are outraged that a new HBO series will depict a modern-day Confederacy. But they have more in common with the Confederacy than they realize.


    By John Daniel Davidson
    AUGUST 3, 2017


    What if the South had won the Civil War? That’s the premise of a new HBO series from “Game of Thrones” showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, called “Confederate.” The series will be set in a present-day America in which slavery is legal, the secession of 1861 was successful, and another civil war is brewing.


    Although still in its infancy, the project has already drawn backlash from progressives who are offended at the idea of two white men producing a show about modern-day slavery. A grassroots effort to quash the series spring up on Twitter under the hashtag #NoConfederate, and some have called it “slavery fanfic” despite assurances to the contrary from Benioff and Weiss that the show won’t be some kind of weird alt-right fantasy.




    But progressives shouldn’t be so quick to denounce dramatic depictions of a sci-fi Confederacy. After all, modern-day progressivism is one of the Confederacy’s most enduring legacies in America today. Whether they realize it or not, progressives themselves are among the inheritors of the political ideology that led to the Civil War.


    Civil War historian Allen C. Guelzo wrote this week that the real-life Confederacy wasn’t the caricature of a rural backwater so often in popular depictions of the Civil War but an economically vibrant, industrializing region that had more in common with the modern-day administrative state than most Americans realize. But Guelzo only hints at the deeper links between Confederate governance and present-day progressivism:


    The Confederate government centralized political authority in ways that made a hash of states’ rights, nationalized industries in ways historians have compared to ‘state socialism,’ and imposed the first compulsory national draft in American history. If Benioff and Weiss are successful in creating an alternative world in Confederate, it will shock us fully as much as Game of Thrones has — not for how much of the Confederate future we avoided, but how little.


    If that sounds crazy to you, it’s because the dominant narratives about the Civil War and the South are by now so familiar, even if they’re largely wrong. Adding to the confusion is the mainstream media’s penchant for portraying Republican voters in the South as a bunch of Confederate flag-waving racists, while casting progressive Democrats as defenders of equality and sincere advocates for social justice.


    John C. Calhoun Sowed Modern Progressivism


    The truth is more complicated — and more uncomfortable for progressives, should they choose to face it. And no, I’m not talking about the facile argument that the Civil War was “really about states’ rights.” The war was most certainly about slavery. So much so, in fact, that decades before the war came, southern leaders were thinking about how best to preserve it in a country that was expanding westward.




    Chief among them was John C. Calhoun, who could see as early as 1846 that unless more slave states were added to the nation, a growing number of new free states would eventually make it impossible for southern states to veto antislavery legislation in the Senate, as they repeatedly had done to the Wilmot Proviso in the late 1840s. Eventually, free states would have a three-fourths majority to abolish slavery by amending the Constitution without the consent of any southern states.


    Calhoun considered this a “tyranny of the majority,” and developed a novel political theory that would preserve the “minority” rights of the slave states: the doctrine of the concurrent majority. Stated simply, the doctrine maintained that within the framework of American constitutionalism, certain minority groups (like slave states) had the right to veto decisions of the majority, which could only act with the acquiescence of the minority. Hence, these minorities also had the right to secede from the union — secession was merely a form of veto.


    The late political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa wrote that Calhoun’s theory was the antithesis of the Founders’ and Abraham Lincoln’s understanding of the Constitution, which held that states could only secede for just causes — they could “alter or abolish” a tyrannical government, essentially by making the same case the Declaration of Independence made. Secession on any other basis could only lead to anarchy.

    ...


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  24. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Ted Cruz on NYT, Trump

    https://victorygirlsblog.com/ted-cru...-the-woodshed/

    August 18, 2019
    Ted Cruz Takes New York Times To The Woodshed
    by Nina Bookout in politics


    Ted Cruz ripped into the New York Times today. He took the Old Gray Lady to the woodshed for their blatant Trump hatred and for going all in to further stoke racial tensions across the country.

    “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Sunday joined President Trump in lashing out at the New York Times over the paper’s coverage of the president.

    “The NYT is destroying itself w/ Trump hatred. And it’s ultimately bad for freedom of the press when ‘journalists’ openly revel in being partisan propagandists. When our Nation is so tribalised that each side has their own ‘news’ & ‘facts’ and we don’t even talk to each other,” Cruz tweeted.

    He called the paper a “propaganda outlet by liberals, for liberals.””

    Cruz is correct. The New York Times is destroying itself from within all because Trump won and Hillary didn’t. Since the election, numerous news items printed by the Gray Lady have been found to be hiding facts, taking speeches and incidents completely out of context in order to fit the narrative, and fanning the flames of Trump Bad!

    Just last week, as the New York Times was triumphantly announcing their 1619 Project, a contentious internal NY Times town hall became public. Multiple staffers asked the SAME question.

    “Could you explain your decision not to more regularly use the word racist in reference to the president’s actions?” [Emphasis Added]

    Read the entire town hall dialogue here. I promise you, it isn’t a waste of your time and will illustrate just how incredibly biased the New York Times is. Journalism for them means go after Trump, no holds barred. Facts? To hell with facts.


    Baquet is all worried that overusing words like racist, lying, liar, racism will diffuse their meaning, so he wants the news room to be cautious in their use of those words. The news room was having none of it. Furthermore, that 1619 Project of theirs is one that is being urged upon school districts and the NY Times is here to tell us that the ONLY reason this country was founded was because of it’s racist past that started with the first slave ship arriving in 1619.


    But sure! Let’s be careful to not overuse those ugly words shall we?


    @tedcruz
    It’s also deeply cynical—at a time when racial tensions are raw, for the NYT to be deliberately stoking the fires of racial tension & hatred. Ironically, their approach is the obverse of their original headline (before they succumbed to the mob): “NYT Urges Racism Vs Unity.” https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1163137145218973696


    @tedcruz
    The NYT is destroying itself w/ Trump hatred. And it’s ultimately bad for freedom of the press when “journalists” openly revel in being partisan propagandists. When our Nation is so tribalised that each side has their own “news” & “facts” and we don’t even talk to each other. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1163135857320235009
    10:38 AM - Aug 18, 2019


    It is indeed deeply cynical. Yet that is where the NY Times has gone. The Russia narrative isn’t working, so let’s pivot to racism! That’s the ticket!




    @SharylAttkisson
    The takeaway? The NYT says it is mapping out a narrative in advance of any naturally-occurring, true news events, and plans to shape all natural-occurring, true news events so that they are reported in the context of racism. This is what they believe their readers want. https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/sta...44323712802817




    @SaraCarterDC
    Read this and you’ll understand what’s happened in top newsrooms and why Independent investigative journalism is so important - these editors are shaping narratives at the expense of truth - to line their pockets and push political agendas. Very sad. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status...39895135940608
    6:22 PM - Aug 16, 2019


    There are some readers who do want this horrible kind of dialogue. In fact, someone got the memo early.
    Yes, O’Rourke in his REBOOT the other day also called Trump a racist. However, it seems he’s adopted the NY Times narrative 100%. Here’s the relevant clip if you don’t want to watch all 30 minutes of his arm flailing pandering.


    @BetoORourke
    Our country was founded on racism—and is still racist today. In Arkansas, I said why I believe there’s no denying this reality; and why it’s on all of us to change it.
    8:16 AM - Aug 18, 2019

    Other “journalists” have gotten the memo as well. Salon is here to tell us that all Republicans and Trump are the ones that hate America. Why? Because Trump keeps pointing out all the crime problems in cities like Baltimore and Chicago. Cities that have a higher population of blacks. Hey Salon? Pointing out the high crime issues and the fact that those cities have been Democrat run for decades is NOT hatred of America. Pointing out the failures of those city governments is actual TRUTH, not hatred. Nice try at the narrative though.


    Ted Cruz is correct. The New York Times would rather spend all their time in full frothed hatred of Trump instead of engaging in reporting the NEWS. There must always be a spin. The NY Times town hall has made it clear. ‘We are crafting and deciding what is news. You’d better like it…or else.’


    What’s ironic is that all the liberal media outlets and Democrat Presidential candidates are running around parroting Fake News and telling the world that Republicans and Trump are the racist ones. Tell me again which party worked to free the slaves?


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  25. Likes SassyLady liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums