3 ms·

By simply saying "The aim isn't to educate [...] but form opinion and install ideology" you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, which is to make an u

By simply saying "The aim isn't to educate [...] but form opinion and install ideology" you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, which is to make an unsubstantiated claim and expect others to believe it. Aim higher.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Can you elaborate on your concern? The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical review - the lead author has consistently said that it's "reframing history", "using history and reporting to make an argument", "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative". It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact they reference.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  My 'concern' was clear. He was doing what he accused others of doing. > The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical review cite? > "reframing history" I'm not sure what that means but link, please? > "using history and reporting to make an argument" What's your objection to that? Should they have used bluster and lies instead - what do you want? (and cite for that quote, pls) > "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative" If the national narrative was wrong then that's reasonable (and cite, pls) > It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact they reference. Perhaps, but some backup is necessary for verification.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Respectfully, your questions can be easily answered by reading the 1619 project. For example, every article within the project contains the following insert, describing it as an activist effort and containing the quote about "reframing history": > The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. If you want a specific link, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-history-american-democracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/blac... was the first article, but as I mentioned this insert is present in all the others.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      You're presuming I'm american. I'm a brit and only heard about the 1619 project an hour ago here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24262679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24262679. Regarding the quote, I don't entirely see the problem. I mean the consequences of slavery have not been fully appreciated (are they taught in US schools in depth?). > "the contributions of black Americans" In your view, have such contributions by black americans been fully recognised? Because if they are the 1619 project is redundant, if they have not then perhaps 1619 has a valid purpose. From what you've posted, the 1619 project may be flawed but it doesn't come across as "indoctrination and "install[ing] ideology" as the original poster said in the above link.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        Nikole Hannah Jones (the creator) has been pretty explicit about wanting to "control the narrative." It's activism masquerading as history, regardless of whether they claim it to be otherwise. https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744904526012417?s=20 https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744904526012417?...
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        This is why I like links (upvoted because of that). To quote in full "The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself. One group has monopolized this for too long in order to create this myth of exceptionalism. If their version is true, what do they have to fear of 1619?" Not quite what you said. Interesting, and needs a better statement of precisely what she's trying to do, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as underhand as you imply. "I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past." Again, she needs to be very clear of her intent, but it seems it's about un-erasing an unpleasant past, recognising it which I presume is hoped to prevent such things happening again. I see that you haven't answered my questions BTW.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Can you elaborate on your concern? The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical review - the lead author has consistently said that it's "reframing history", "using history and reporting to make an argument", "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative". It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact they reference.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
My 'concern' was clear. He was doing what he accused others of doing. > The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical review cite? > "reframing history" I'm not sure what that means but link, please? > "using history and reporting to make an argument" What's your objection to that? Should they have used bluster and lies instead - what do you want? (and cite for that quote, pls) > "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative" If the national narrative was wrong then that's reasonable (and cite, pls) > It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact they reference. Perhaps, but some backup is necessary for verification.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Respectfully, your questions can be easily answered by reading the 1619 project. For example, every article within the project contains the following insert, describing it as an activist effort and containing the quote about "reframing history": > The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. If you want a specific link, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-history-american-democracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/blac... was the first article, but as I mentioned this insert is present in all the others.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    You're presuming I'm american. I'm a brit and only heard about the 1619 project an hour ago here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24262679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24262679. Regarding the quote, I don't entirely see the problem. I mean the consequences of slavery have not been fully appreciated (are they taught in US schools in depth?). > "the contributions of black Americans" In your view, have such contributions by black americans been fully recognised? Because if they are the 1619 project is redundant, if they have not then perhaps 1619 has a valid purpose. From what you've posted, the 1619 project may be flawed but it doesn't come across as "indoctrination and "install[ing] ideology" as the original poster said in the above link.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      Nikole Hannah Jones (the creator) has been pretty explicit about wanting to "control the narrative." It's activism masquerading as history, regardless of whether they claim it to be otherwise. https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744904526012417?s=20 https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744904526012417?...
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        This is why I like links (upvoted because of that). To quote in full "The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself. One group has monopolized this for too long in order to create this myth of exceptionalism. If their version is true, what do they have to fear of 1619?" Not quite what you said. Interesting, and needs a better statement of precisely what she's trying to do, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as underhand as you imply. "I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past." Again, she needs to be very clear of her intent, but it seems it's about un-erasing an unpleasant past, recognising it which I presume is hoped to prevent such things happening again. I see that you haven't answered my questions BTW.