3 ms·

> You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people th

> You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people think highly of it and of her work - including her potential UNC professional colleagues, who wanted her there in a tenured job at an excellent university. It does represent a point of view that disagrees with established ones, but that's almost the point of academic research: Find where established beliefs are flawed. Especially on sensitive topics, that may result in an angry reaction and division; that shouldn't stop people from publishing, and that's what tenure protects. If the intention of the 1619 Project was merely to use rigorous historical methods to expand the purview of the historical record in accordance with the useful-sounding aspects of truthful claims that have been suppressed, as some insist, it would be a valuable, if not necessary, contribution. However, the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize). This it seeks to achieve by calling into doubt the American metanarrative and establishing alongside it, if not in place of it, the critical race Theoretical metanarrative instead: that the United States is indelibly racist and has been since its origins. This includes undermining trust in the liberal ideas of individualism and human universality, wherein people are judged by the contents of their character and recognized for their common humanity, and forwarding identity-group thinking that is more useful for (radical) identity politics. The fact that so many professors at UNC shares a critical consciousness is a sign of how far gone that university is from its original liberal vision of truth-finding in favor of identity politics. > What distinguishes those things? Who decides? Just because it has happened at some time in some place, is that evidence that it's happening now? Should we eliminate all academic freedom? If an academic is engaging in critical consciousness, basically creating meta-narratives to further a radical political activist goal instead of truth-finding, it should be treated the same as an academic that mainly teaches baptism of Christianity in history class and produce a revisionist meta-narrative to further baptism. Such a person would not receive academic freedom protections.

wolverine876 5y ago
> the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize). Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?
- asabjorn 5y ago
  Practically speaking, the idea behind the 1619 project is to make it impossible to think of the American Revolution or Founding without also thinking of slavery and a tendentiously, unnecessarily exaggerated notion of its significance both then and ever since, up to the present moment (where critical race Theorists say it, in effect, is still going on in many respects). This is achieved by forcing everyone who encounters the 1619 Project into a polarizing debate that isn’t interested in truth or falsity but instead which side of the politics of “oppression” and “liberation from oppression” one is willing to take. As critical theories are self-critical only in accepting critiques from critical theories (all other criticism is deemed an application of hegemonic power), it is not possible to defeat a critical theory with matters of facts. They can only be problematized more severely, which, while it defeats the specific critical theory, ultimately replaces it with a stronger critical theory. The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact around the events of 1619, 1776, 1863, or any such period; it’s to point out that it erases the earlier and more severe suffering of American indigenous people who were genuinely enslaved and subjected to genocide by the Spanish starting almost a century earlier. Again, it is not the matter of fact here that will overturn the 1619 Project (as being, itself, problematic). It is specifically that the 1619 Project did harm to indigenous peoples by erasing their allegedly earlier and more consequential suffering (Again, because it’s so difficult to remember about critical theories, truth and falsity do not matter in these analyses; it just has to be forwarded forcefully enough while appealing to the lived experience of suffering of subjugated indigenous people). Critical theory projects like the 1619 project is therefore not a tool to improve our historical understanding, and is inherently in conflict with the liberal projects ways of finding truth.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I get the idea; what I'm asking is, can you support these claims? More claims are not support for prior claims. > The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact ... Well that is a convenient formulation for someone who disagrees and has no facts.

wolverine876 5y ago

> the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize). Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?

asabjorn 5y ago
Practically speaking, the idea behind the 1619 project is to make it impossible to think of the American Revolution or Founding without also thinking of slavery and a tendentiously, unnecessarily exaggerated notion of its significance both then and ever since, up to the present moment (where critical race Theorists say it, in effect, is still going on in many respects). This is achieved by forcing everyone who encounters the 1619 Project into a polarizing debate that isn’t interested in truth or falsity but instead which side of the politics of “oppression” and “liberation from oppression” one is willing to take. As critical theories are self-critical only in accepting critiques from critical theories (all other criticism is deemed an application of hegemonic power), it is not possible to defeat a critical theory with matters of facts. They can only be problematized more severely, which, while it defeats the specific critical theory, ultimately replaces it with a stronger critical theory. The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact around the events of 1619, 1776, 1863, or any such period; it’s to point out that it erases the earlier and more severe suffering of American indigenous people who were genuinely enslaved and subjected to genocide by the Spanish starting almost a century earlier. Again, it is not the matter of fact here that will overturn the 1619 Project (as being, itself, problematic). It is specifically that the 1619 Project did harm to indigenous peoples by erasing their allegedly earlier and more consequential suffering (Again, because it’s so difficult to remember about critical theories, truth and falsity do not matter in these analyses; it just has to be forwarded forcefully enough while appealing to the lived experience of suffering of subjugated indigenous people). Critical theory projects like the 1619 project is therefore not a tool to improve our historical understanding, and is inherently in conflict with the liberal projects ways of finding truth.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I get the idea; what I'm asking is, can you support these claims? More claims are not support for prior claims. > The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact ... Well that is a convenient formulation for someone who disagrees and has no facts.