calvin can you account for your whereabouts last night

thephan wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Can someone help me out with this 1619 Project stuff. I totally get that the history told to our children is whitewashed and excludes many of the indecencies white people committed on native americans and africans. This needs to end and a more accurate version of history should be the focus. But how do we go from that to the date of the founding of the country being the first imported slave? I say imported because Europeans had already used native americans as slaves. Seems like not the best measure of the date of the founding. I'm interested in the curriculum because it probably has some great stuff, but they will lose a lot of people with the 1619 thing, I think. I don't think it's the first important thing europeans did here.


I also think we need a civics class because we can't have a functioning democracy if people don't know how it's supposed to work, but I digress.

In the 1980's the history books used in Virginia (was told about this, honestly do not remember what I got in PA) painted a picture of the 'happy slave' well taken care of...



1619 tries to re-frame the narrative to some sense of reality. Sorry it is GIANT, I don't have time to mess with the image, but certainly the nice man in the suite with his well dressed family being welcomed by his enslaver after his long journey is a fuck load more than messed up.

That part I get and I definitely support it, but framing everything through slavery seems to be too far in that direction. Can't we have a history without an agenda attached to it? I know history is always subjective, but I'm I would like a curriculum that tries to take away that subjectivity.

not really sure what you're arguing for here? i'm pretty sure any telling that is close to the truth will seem like there is an agenda attached.

when they say use it in the curriculum, I'm pretty sure they mean reading and discussing parts of the project, not having kids memorize "The United States was founded in 1619"

Bucky wrote:not really sure what you're arguing for here? i'm pretty sure any telling that is close to the truth will seem like there is an agenda attached.

I don't know much about the project, but I think the stated purpose is to reframe the history of the US around the beginning of slavery in the US. If this is a side part of the curriculum, I don't have a problem with it, but if the whole curriculum is based on that premise, then I don't like it. First of all, the first african slaves to the US arrived long before 1619 and native americans were enslaved before africans. So why 1619 and why base it only on african slaves? And is the history of the US primarily based on slavery? I don't think it is. IF anything, it's about religious freedom and economic opportunity. Much of that economic opportunity occurred through slavery and that should definitely be a big part of a good history curriculum, but I don't think it should be the first focus, the primary lens.

But I do think the scholarship and collaboration involved in something like this is really cool and I'm sure I would like to see many of these things in the curriculum.

I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseDamiani ... 7414900736

but it's all the protesters fault I guess?

Augustus wrote:I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

I'm all for all of that, but I don't think I'm focusing just on the date. I probably need to look more closely at it, but it sounded like they were rewriting the history curriculum primarily through the lens of slavery and I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. I think it's a big part of the economics and it certainly has affected us up to this day, but I don't think it should be the primary lens. I think doing it that way is almost as bad as doing the whitewashed version. History is always subjective, but we should be as accurate as possible.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseDamiani/status/1287762787414900736

but it's all the protesters fault I guess?

DId someone post that it was?

yes, people in this thread have consistently posted that the fault lies with the protesters

History is different for each person who has set foot on American soil. While I support the 1619 project I think MB has a point about other cultures, especially the Native Americans.

JFLNYC wrote:History is different for each person who has set foot on American soil. While I support the 1619 project I think MB has a point about other cultures, especially the Native Americans.

We should have a history where all stories are told. Can't get too complex in high school, but we can do a lot more than we've traditionally done

azrider wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/23/portlands-protests-were-supposed-be-about-black-lives-now-theyre-white-spectacle/

Pretty good read, I highly suggest it.

unfortunately, “spectacle” is now the best way to describe Portland’s protests. Vandalizing government buildings and hurling projectiles at law enforcement draw attention — but how do these actions stop police from killing black people? What are antifa and other leftist agitators achieving for the cause of black equality? The “Wall of Moms,” while perhaps well-intentioned, ends up redirecting attention away from the urgent issue of murdered black bodies. This might ease the consciences of white, affluent women who have previously been silent in the face of black oppression, but it’s fair to ask: Are they really furthering the cause of justice, or is this another example of white co-optation?

Btw the author of this piece is E.D. Mondainé, president of the Portland, Ore., branch of the NAACP.

I guess he was right.

Black man stabbed at a BLM protest in Portland by a “protester”.

https://thejewishvoice.com/2020/07/anti ... -portland/

Wonder why the mainstream media failed to pick this story up?

Antifa militant and convicted pedophile Blake David Hampe was arrested in the early hours of Saturday following his alleged stabbing of a black Trump supporter in Portland, The Blaze and The Post Millennial reported

In the Periscope livestream(follow link to hear the victim speak) the black conservative activist alleged that Hampe had stalked him and his group of friends for several blocks in Portland before stabbing him.

“That knife was long enough. He stabbed me to kill me,” said Black Rebel(the activists social media handle) , who says that he spotted Hampe, who was part of a group of Antifa following his group of friends for several blocks before he approached Hampe to ask why he was following them.

“We were all out there, four triends, trying to keep each other safe in the best way possible. I figured I’d try to de-escalate and just have a conversation,” he said. “I went over there, said ‘what’s up buddy?’ and that mother**ker went around and shanked me in the f**king kidney.”

Hampe, who was booked into the Portland Police Central Precinct just before 6AM local time, has been charged with felony assault. His bail is set to $250,000, according to THe Post Millinial, who also discovered the ANTIA radical has a criminal record involving child pornography.

I'm not sure how he was a literal Antifa agent. Even if he was, what point are you trying to make? You got called out and now you're doubling down?

It was a riot. 2:30 am. An asshole stabbed someone. Bystanders held him down so that police could apprehend him. It's a crime, it's complicated... not sure why it needs to be "picked up by the mainstream media."

Werthless wrote:It was a riot. 2:30 am. An asshole stabbed someone. Bystanders held him down so that police could apprehend him. It's a crime, it's complicated... not sure why it needs to be "picked up by the mainstream media."

I read about it on the Oregonian website. Apparently bystanders (who I guess are not protesters, even though they were out on the streets of Portland at 2:30) held the assailant until police could arrest him.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Augustus wrote:I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

I'm all for all of that, but I don't think I'm focusing just on the date. I probably need to look more closely at it, but it sounded like they were rewriting the history curriculum primarily through the lens of slavery and I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. I think it's a big part of the economics and it certainly has affected us up to this day, but I don't think it should be the primary lens. I think doing it that way is almost as bad as doing the whitewashed version. History is always subjective, but we should be as accurate as possible.

I don’t want to come across as an unconditional defender of the 1619 Project, because it has its flaws (as does any work of history). But it’s about a lot more than slavery, it’s about white supremacy broadly. I also don’t know why you are questioning its accuracy and have such strong opinions about it when you haven’t read any of it.

And yes, Native narratives should absolutely be included in American history instruction.

Augustus wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Augustus wrote:I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

I'm all for all of that, but I don't think I'm focusing just on the date. I probably need to look more closely at it, but it sounded like they were rewriting the history curriculum primarily through the lens of slavery and I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. I think it's a big part of the economics and it certainly has affected us up to this day, but I don't think it should be the primary lens. I think doing it that way is almost as bad as doing the whitewashed version. History is always subjective, but we should be as accurate as possible.

I don’t want to come across as an unconditional defender of the 1619 Project, because it has its flaws (as does any work of history). But it’s about a lot more than slavery, it’s about white supremacy broadly. I also don’t know why you are questioning its accuracy and have such strong opinions about it when you haven’t read any of it.

And yes, Native narratives should absolutely be included in American history instruction.

Agreed and I think it's also worth remembering that it's also only in the news recently because Tom Cotton decided to make a big deal about withholding federal dollars from any school that includes any of its articles in its curriculum at all, which seems like a pretty obvious dog whistle.

I'm sure they're unrelated but with the stabbing in Portland and the shooting in Milwaukee I hope there's not some kind of trend developing.

Augustus wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Augustus wrote:I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

I'm all for all of that, but I don't think I'm focusing just on the date. I probably need to look more closely at it, but it sounded like they were rewriting the history curriculum primarily through the lens of slavery and I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. I think it's a big part of the economics and it certainly has affected us up to this day, but I don't think it should be the primary lens. I think doing it that way is almost as bad as doing the whitewashed version. History is always subjective, but we should be as accurate as possible.

I don’t want to come across as an unconditional defender of the 1619 Project, because it has its flaws (as does any work of history). But it’s about a lot more than slavery, it’s about white supremacy broadly. I also don’t know why you are questioning its accuracy and have such strong opinions about it when you haven’t read any of it.

And yes, Native narratives should absolutely be included in American history instruction.

I've read about the basics of it and I am using the author's description of it to make my opinion. I said I haven't read it all because I want to be transparent and admit that my opinion could change as I learn more. I wouldn't say I have a strong opinion about it beyond not liking the idea that the founding of the country is somehow primarily about slavery or white supremacy. The first settlers didn't come here so they could have slaves, they came because they were avoiding religious and other persecution. Yes, then the profiteers came and slavery became embedded in the culture, but I don't think it was the reason for the country's existence. In fact, I think it happened the other way around. People came here for religious and economic reasons and then slaves traders and users came to make the most possible money and take advantage of the resources here. Slavery came because of the opportunity created by the people who came here first for other reasons.

As for the project itself, I am in favor of it being used to augment and show different sides to our history, but I don't think slavery should be the #1 focus. It's an insult to all those who came here to avoid the horrors of their homes, which I'm sure is the vast majority of people. As a high school student in the early 80s, I read slave narratives in my english class and we discussed these things. It was very useful and I support learning about slavery and how closely it's tied to the economic growth of the nation. I just think it's overreach to make it the primary focus because I think it's inaccurate. I hope you can understand why I think we shouldn't have inaccurate things in the curriculum. And to me, the omission of native americans says something about the curriculum, and it's not a positive thing. It's not a throw away item.