6 ms·

The central claim of the lead essay seems to be that "[The US's] founding ideals were false when they were written". Perhaps you mean "a" central claim?

rayiner 6y ago
Maybe the “central novel claim” of the essay. All schoolchildren know Jefferson was being a hypocrite in declaring “all men are created equal” while owning other people. That was taught to us when I was in school in Virginia, a curriculum that otherwise venerated Jefferson. The idea that the founders were primarily motivated to break from Britain to protect slavery is what attracted so much attention, because it was novel. Unfortunately, it was novel because most historians don’t think that’s true. There is a real story here: people don’t appreciate the scope of things that were affected and influenced by the institution of slavery. But the New York Times went far beyond that in its bombastic claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/magazine/1619-project-livestream.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/magazine/1619-project-liv... > The goal of the project is to deepen understanding of American history (and the American present) by proposing a new point of origin for our national story. In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery. Deepening the understanding of American history is good. But claiming that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery” is demagoguery. America didn’t rebuild Europe after WWII because of slavery. It didn’t become the most successful immigrant country in the world because of slavery. Silicon Valley, the moon landing, and our raft of Nobel Laureates didn’t grow out of slavery.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Maybe the “central novel claim” of the essay. All schoolchildren know Jefferson was being a hypocrite in declaring “all men are created equal” while owning other people. I'd encourage you to ask that question of modern Republican leadership. > But claiming that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery” is demagoguery. No. Its a critical response a commonly held romanticization of the founding and early history of the US (an incredibly stupid romanticization given the amount of criticism the founders had for each other). It's also a response to work by a variety of groups to erase the impact and negative stigma around Slavery. To re-romanticize it as heritage and something to be proud of. I'm also not sure that you're correctly quoting the article (or perhaps it changed, but it currently reads) > Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, its diet and popular music, the inequities of its public health and education, its astonishing penchant for violence, its income inequality, the example it sets for the world as a land of freedom and equality, its slang, its legal system and the endemic racial fears and hatreds that continue to plague it to this day. The seeds of all that were planted long before our official birth date, in 1776, when the men known as our founders formally declared independence from Britain. I'd be curious to know which of those things you believe didn't grow, in some part or another, out of slavery. And whether the moon landing, silicon valley, or our many nobel laureates weren't in turn influenced/attracted/created by our economic might and industrial power. > America didn’t rebuild Europe after WWII because of slavery. It didn’t become the most successful immigrant country in the world because of slavery. Silicon Valley, the moon landing, and our raft of Nobel Laureates didn’t grow out of slavery. Directly? Perhaps not. But are you really going to claim that the immense wealth among white Americans didn't grow out of the subjugation of slaves (and native populations) and theft from those groups? Slavery jumpstarted the US economy, and much of the early US economy (even that of the North) was only successful due to slavery as an institution. That wealth still, today, hasn't really trickled back into the hands of Black Americans. > America didn’t rebuild Europe after WWII because of slavery. You're correct in that slavery was not the impetus for rebuilding Europe. But to ignore slavery (and, by the 1940s, the various post-slavery racist policies to subjugate and extract value from Black Americans, whether sharecropping or reconstruction era prison slavery in the south), yes there's a fair argument to be made that much fo the accumulated wealth of the US is due to that wealth not being distributed to slaves in the early years. Consider the raw numbers: 1/6 of America's population in 1860 was slaves. That means that, as a reasonable guess, 20% of America's workforce wasn't compensated for their work on a national scale, and that was true for decades. Think about what a massive transfer of wealth that would be, compounded over the century and a half since. > Silicon Valley This is particularly ironic given Shockley's views on eugenics and race.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    > Slavery jumpstarted the US economy, and much of the early US economy (even that of the North) was only successful due to slavery as an institution. That's a very bold claim to make, especially given that the half of the country that was heavily dependent on slavery lagged far behind, economically. > That means that, as a reasonable guess, 20% of America's workforce wasn't compensated for their work on a national scale, and that was true for decades. Think about what a massive transfer of wealth that would be, compounded over the century and a half since. It enriched a relatively small but very wealthy planter class, but there's a very strong argument to be made that it prevented economic development in the South. At the very least, something has to explain why the northern states economically developed so much more rapidly than the South during the first half of the 19th Century, and slavery is a very likely explanation.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > That's a very bold claim to make, especially given that the half of the country that was heavily dependent on slavery lagged far behind, economically. When you're restricting yourself to first order effects, yes. But do you think that northern states didn't, like, benefit from the southern economy. Eli Whitney was a northerner through and through. Cotton, however, was able to be acquired cheaply due to slave labor. > It enriched a relatively small but very wealthy planter class, but there's a very strong argument to be made that it prevented economic development in the South. At the very least, something has to explain why the northern states economically developed so much more rapidly than the South during the first half of the 19th Century, and slavery is a very likely explanation. Yes, the northern recovery was easier because they didn't fall into a local maximum and have their economy entirely depend on slave labor to function. That doesn't mean that the northern/US economy didn't vastly benefit from cheap tobacco (and particularly tobacco exports), cotton (and exports), and sugar production. (The price of cotton went up significantly in the direct postwar period, but went back down eventually due to Sharcropping and increased production in the south, as well as increased competition from Egypt and other nations). We now, I think, generally recognize the interconnectedness of economies. Pretending that prior to 1865 economies weren't also interconnected seems strange to me.

rayiner 6y ago

Maybe the “central novel claim” of the essay. All schoolchildren know Jefferson was being a hypocrite in declaring “all men are created equal” while owning other people. That was taught to us when I was in school in Virginia, a curriculum that otherwise venerated Jefferson. The idea that the founders were primarily motivated to break from Britain to protect slavery is what attracted so much attention, because it was novel. Unfortunately, it was novel because most historians don’t think that’s true. There is a real story here: people don’t appreciate the scope of things that were affected and influenced by the institution of slavery. But the New York Times went far beyond that in its bombastic claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/magazine/1619-project-livestream.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/magazine/1619-project-liv... > The goal of the project is to deepen understanding of American history (and the American present) by proposing a new point of origin for our national story. In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery. Deepening the understanding of American history is good. But claiming that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery” is demagoguery. America didn’t rebuild Europe after WWII because of slavery. It didn’t become the most successful immigrant country in the world because of slavery. Silicon Valley, the moon landing, and our raft of Nobel Laureates didn’t grow out of slavery.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Maybe the “central novel claim” of the essay. All schoolchildren know Jefferson was being a hypocrite in declaring “all men are created equal” while owning other people. I'd encourage you to ask that question of modern Republican leadership. > But claiming that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery” is demagoguery. No. Its a critical response a commonly held romanticization of the founding and early history of the US (an incredibly stupid romanticization given the amount of criticism the founders had for each other). It's also a response to work by a variety of groups to erase the impact and negative stigma around Slavery. To re-romanticize it as heritage and something to be proud of. I'm also not sure that you're correctly quoting the article (or perhaps it changed, but it currently reads) > Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, its diet and popular music, the inequities of its public health and education, its astonishing penchant for violence, its income inequality, the example it sets for the world as a land of freedom and equality, its slang, its legal system and the endemic racial fears and hatreds that continue to plague it to this day. The seeds of all that were planted long before our official birth date, in 1776, when the men known as our founders formally declared independence from Britain. I'd be curious to know which of those things you believe didn't grow, in some part or another, out of slavery. And whether the moon landing, silicon valley, or our many nobel laureates weren't in turn influenced/attracted/created by our economic might and industrial power. > America didn’t rebuild Europe after WWII because of slavery. It didn’t become the most successful immigrant country in the world because of slavery. Silicon Valley, the moon landing, and our raft of Nobel Laureates didn’t grow out of slavery. Directly? Perhaps not. But are you really going to claim that the immense wealth among white Americans didn't grow out of the subjugation of slaves (and native populations) and theft from those groups? Slavery jumpstarted the US economy, and much of the early US economy (even that of the North) was only successful due to slavery as an institution. That wealth still, today, hasn't really trickled back into the hands of Black Americans. > America didn’t rebuild Europe after WWII because of slavery. You're correct in that slavery was not the impetus for rebuilding Europe. But to ignore slavery (and, by the 1940s, the various post-slavery racist policies to subjugate and extract value from Black Americans, whether sharecropping or reconstruction era prison slavery in the south), yes there's a fair argument to be made that much fo the accumulated wealth of the US is due to that wealth not being distributed to slaves in the early years. Consider the raw numbers: 1/6 of America's population in 1860 was slaves. That means that, as a reasonable guess, 20% of America's workforce wasn't compensated for their work on a national scale, and that was true for decades. Think about what a massive transfer of wealth that would be, compounded over the century and a half since. > Silicon Valley This is particularly ironic given Shockley's views on eugenics and race.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > Slavery jumpstarted the US economy, and much of the early US economy (even that of the North) was only successful due to slavery as an institution. That's a very bold claim to make, especially given that the half of the country that was heavily dependent on slavery lagged far behind, economically. > That means that, as a reasonable guess, 20% of America's workforce wasn't compensated for their work on a national scale, and that was true for decades. Think about what a massive transfer of wealth that would be, compounded over the century and a half since. It enriched a relatively small but very wealthy planter class, but there's a very strong argument to be made that it prevented economic development in the South. At the very least, something has to explain why the northern states economically developed so much more rapidly than the South during the first half of the 19th Century, and slavery is a very likely explanation.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > That's a very bold claim to make, especially given that the half of the country that was heavily dependent on slavery lagged far behind, economically. When you're restricting yourself to first order effects, yes. But do you think that northern states didn't, like, benefit from the southern economy. Eli Whitney was a northerner through and through. Cotton, however, was able to be acquired cheaply due to slave labor. > It enriched a relatively small but very wealthy planter class, but there's a very strong argument to be made that it prevented economic development in the South. At the very least, something has to explain why the northern states economically developed so much more rapidly than the South during the first half of the 19th Century, and slavery is a very likely explanation. Yes, the northern recovery was easier because they didn't fall into a local maximum and have their economy entirely depend on slave labor to function. That doesn't mean that the northern/US economy didn't vastly benefit from cheap tobacco (and particularly tobacco exports), cotton (and exports), and sugar production. (The price of cotton went up significantly in the direct postwar period, but went back down eventually due to Sharcropping and increased production in the south, as well as increased competition from Egypt and other nations). We now, I think, generally recognize the interconnectedness of economies. Pretending that prior to 1865 economies weren't also interconnected seems strange to me.