4 ms·

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 na

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.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > this is how social justice views it I don't know exactly what she means, and you are presuming a) that you do and b) that it is something deceitful. If you can't do facts, attack the person. > It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities elevated at the NYT and not the broader academic community Again, you're throwing dirt. I'm damn sure eg. the trail of tears is well documented by academics but is it covered much in schools? Is slavery? > because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing original, creative content but waging a tweet war That's a descent to mud slinging. I'm not impressed. Again, I see that you haven't answered my questions. Why not?

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.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> this is how social justice views it I don't know exactly what she means, and you are presuming a) that you do and b) that it is something deceitful. If you can't do facts, attack the person. > It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities elevated at the NYT and not the broader academic community Again, you're throwing dirt. I'm damn sure eg. the trail of tears is well documented by academics but is it covered much in schools? Is slavery? > because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing original, creative content but waging a tweet war That's a descent to mud slinging. I'm not impressed. Again, I see that you haven't answered my questions. Why not?