3 ms·

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?

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.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        "The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself." First - she claims it's not history but clearly the entire "conversation" is about history. And history as it's practiced nowadays isn't really about controlling narratives - this is how social justice views it (vague notions - that are intentionally selected to be impossible to prove, so as to evade the necessity of producing evidence - of the system, oppression, "centering", etc.). It's about rigorous academic work reviewed and debated among peers, not hashing out social justice in classrooms. > un-erasing an unpleasant past It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities elevated at the NYT and not the broader academic community. It'd be great if they could actually demonstrate that history is erased. Historians would love to hear about it and chances are they'd have already known about it. That'd be a juicy opportunity for scholarship, but again I have low hopes because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing original, creative content but waging a tweet war.
- aklemm 6y ago
  How do you understand “reframing history”? Your comments indicate that you don’t like it, and that makes me think you believe the framing we’ve lived with so far is authoritative. 1619 feels like a fair and useful project to me. That’s because I am suspicious of the dominate narrative and that’s because we have lots of evidence that the stories of marginalized people are underrepresented in history, which leads to injustice. That’s a perfectly intellectually honest thread to pull on.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's not a question of intellectual honesty. The problem is, in the OP author's words, "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question". I agree with much of what the 1619 project pulls, but I don't want those threads or any of my other political beliefs incorporated into school curriculums as though they're simple facts.

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.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      "The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself." First - she claims it's not history but clearly the entire "conversation" is about history. And history as it's practiced nowadays isn't really about controlling narratives - this is how social justice views it (vague notions - that are intentionally selected to be impossible to prove, so as to evade the necessity of producing evidence - of the system, oppression, "centering", etc.). It's about rigorous academic work reviewed and debated among peers, not hashing out social justice in classrooms. > un-erasing an unpleasant past It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities elevated at the NYT and not the broader academic community. It'd be great if they could actually demonstrate that history is erased. Historians would love to hear about it and chances are they'd have already known about it. That'd be a juicy opportunity for scholarship, but again I have low hopes because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing original, creative content but waging a tweet war.
aklemm 6y ago
How do you understand “reframing history”? Your comments indicate that you don’t like it, and that makes me think you believe the framing we’ve lived with so far is authoritative. 1619 feels like a fair and useful project to me. That’s because I am suspicious of the dominate narrative and that’s because we have lots of evidence that the stories of marginalized people are underrepresented in history, which leads to injustice. That’s a perfectly intellectually honest thread to pull on.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not a question of intellectual honesty. The problem is, in the OP author's words, "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question". I agree with much of what the 1619 project pulls, but I don't want those threads or any of my other political beliefs incorporated into school curriculums as though they're simple facts.