3 ms·

"The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. " If you're looking for a

by conroy 7y ago

"The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. " If you're looking for a broader view on slavery, a project dedicated to American slavery isn't going to offer you that perspective.

nilkn 7y ago
That's my point. I think we're reaching a point in history where we can start looking at slavery at its true scope and scale, both in geography and time, so I'm increasingly less enthused with analysis that doesn't attempt to look beyond the US's involvement during the antebellum period. The US is still involved -- just with a different form of slavery in a different part of the world. It's still driven to this day by largely the same economic incentives discussed here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lostphilosopher 7y ago
  > "I think we're reaching a point in history where we can start looking at slavery at its true scope and scale" But are we though? I still encounter a non trivial number of people in the real world with objectively wrong ideas about the history of slavery in the US. We all see some of those folks passing laws and talking on national television. I am generally not convinced that Americans really understand how recent slavery was, how present its impacts are today, how directly it explains both historically and literally at the time large aspects of our legal system, society, and general inequality issues today. I agree with you that there's way more focus on the "US antebellum period" than other aspects, and that we should spend more time on the the other aspects than we do. Especially the modern day instances we actively propagate. But that seems like it should be an "and" effort not an effort at the expense of figuring out our own history. Also - to anyone taking nilkn in bad faith - reconsider. We need to be able to share opinions and ask questions we know aren't super popular or that skirt hot button topics. Doing so is how we learn. As long as we do it carefully, respectfully, and with an open mind. Worst case scenario is for ideas to stay unexamined in our heads or uncritically reinforced in an echo chamber.
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    >But are we though? I still encounter a non trivial number of people in the real world with objectively wrong ideas about the history of slavery in the US. We all see some of those folks passing laws and talking on national television. None of these people at this point are going to be reading the NYTimes for its pieces on slavery. So yes, the base that reads the NYTimes should start looking at a wider scope, especially if its slavery still active today.

by conroy 7y ago

nilkn 7y ago

That's my point. I think we're reaching a point in history where we can start looking at slavery at its true scope and scale, both in geography and time, so I'm increasingly less enthused with analysis that doesn't attempt to look beyond the US's involvement during the antebellum period. The US is still involved -- just with a different form of slavery in a different part of the world. It's still driven to this day by largely the same economic incentives discussed here.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lostphilosopher 7y ago
> "I think we're reaching a point in history where we can start looking at slavery at its true scope and scale" But are we though? I still encounter a non trivial number of people in the real world with objectively wrong ideas about the history of slavery in the US. We all see some of those folks passing laws and talking on national television. I am generally not convinced that Americans really understand how recent slavery was, how present its impacts are today, how directly it explains both historically and literally at the time large aspects of our legal system, society, and general inequality issues today. I agree with you that there's way more focus on the "US antebellum period" than other aspects, and that we should spend more time on the the other aspects than we do. Especially the modern day instances we actively propagate. But that seems like it should be an "and" effort not an effort at the expense of figuring out our own history. Also - to anyone taking nilkn in bad faith - reconsider. We need to be able to share opinions and ask questions we know aren't super popular or that skirt hot button topics. Doing so is how we learn. As long as we do it carefully, respectfully, and with an open mind. Worst case scenario is for ideas to stay unexamined in our heads or uncritically reinforced in an echo chamber.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  >But are we though? I still encounter a non trivial number of people in the real world with objectively wrong ideas about the history of slavery in the US. We all see some of those folks passing laws and talking on national television. None of these people at this point are going to be reading the NYTimes for its pieces on slavery. So yes, the base that reads the NYTimes should start looking at a wider scope, especially if its slavery still active today.