4 ms·

You realize that a major portion of the 1619 project is discussing demonstrating HOW history HAS been manipulated. What you are referring to is the history we

by avs733 5y ago

You realize that a major portion of the 1619 project is discussing demonstrating HOW history HAS been manipulated. What you are referring to is the history we choose to center something DIFFERENT is somehow now being treated as 'manipulated' It's not. Choosing what to center and what not to center isn't inherently manipulative, its human nature. Its why I focus on my running and my research and my partner at the expense of learning a new language or instrument. I center things in my life that I'm good at and bring me joy. The fact that people are angry about shifting the centering is why literacy is important - because identifying the centering rather than jumping to 'bias' or 'manipulation' is where the literacy comes from.

temp8964 5y ago
No. It's not about "shifting the centering". It's about factually wrong. Updated: source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
- avs733 5y ago
  can you provide examples of that? clarifying: you claimed there were errors, pls provide examples. You made a claim, its not unreasonable to be asked to support it.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    I am not sure why are you asking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project Copy a little bit to show the dishonesty of the project creator: > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.
    - avs733 5y ago
      you: it's not about reframing, they get facts wrong the author: "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" I think this speaks to the fundamental issue that the entire conversation here AND the need for news literacy is about...taking a different lens on something cannot, by definition, be 'correct' or 'incorrect'. It is a perspective...it can be coherent or incoherent, it can be widely or not widely accepted. It is a claim, argumentation, it is not a fact. Reducing argumentation to 'a fact' or 'facts' debases discourse and is why we are stuck here as a society.
      - temp8964 5y ago
        "to show the dishonesty of the project creator"
    - saynay 5y ago
      So, no, you can't provide examples of errors?
      - temp8964 5y ago
        I need to copy paste the Wikipedia page for you?
- macintux 5y ago
  I found this a thoughtful analysis of some of the more contentious material in the project. To me, it sounds like "factually wrong" is quite a stretch: there's a lot of nuance when trying to interpret history, and the economic impact of slavery appears to be the clearest place where the project overstepped. https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-and-its-critics/ https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-... Do you have other suggested reading beyond the scope of that piece? Too much of the criticism I've found online seems to be attacking straw-man paraphrasing of the project.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Come on, the main thesis of the project is claiming 1619 is the true founding. And the project writer secretly removed it and denied she said it. > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice. A simple reading of its Wikipedia page can get those information.
    - avs733 5y ago
      the thesis of an argument is by definition not a fact. It's a point...founding is a theoretical concept, its metaphorical, its not provable and demonstrable and repeatable. Wow.
      - temp8964 5y ago
        I quoted the main thesis is to simply demonstrating the creator of project is a straight liar, so her work can't be trusted. You can get more information by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
refurb 5y ago
I get your point. You can view history from several viewpoints or with certain political filters. However, when you have academic historians, across the political spectrum, saying the 1619 Project has little resemblance to actual historical study, they should get you alarm bells ringing. If someone has a rigorous, evidence based viewpoint that’s cool. Flimsy analysis and force fitting history into a particular narrative is not. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians...
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
"The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." They removed this quote from the interactive website without giving an explanation as to why. It's really obvious how biased they are.

by avs733 5y ago

temp8964 5y ago

No. It's not about "shifting the centering". It's about factually wrong. Updated: source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

avs733 5y ago
can you provide examples of that? clarifying: you claimed there were errors, pls provide examples. You made a claim, its not unreasonable to be asked to support it.
- temp8964 5y ago
  I am not sure why are you asking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project Copy a little bit to show the dishonesty of the project creator: > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.
  - avs733 5y ago
    you: it's not about reframing, they get facts wrong the author: "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" I think this speaks to the fundamental issue that the entire conversation here AND the need for news literacy is about...taking a different lens on something cannot, by definition, be 'correct' or 'incorrect'. It is a perspective...it can be coherent or incoherent, it can be widely or not widely accepted. It is a claim, argumentation, it is not a fact. Reducing argumentation to 'a fact' or 'facts' debases discourse and is why we are stuck here as a society.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      "to show the dishonesty of the project creator"
  - saynay 5y ago
    So, no, you can't provide examples of errors?
    - temp8964 5y ago
      I need to copy paste the Wikipedia page for you?
macintux 5y ago
I found this a thoughtful analysis of some of the more contentious material in the project. To me, it sounds like "factually wrong" is quite a stretch: there's a lot of nuance when trying to interpret history, and the economic impact of slavery appears to be the clearest place where the project overstepped. https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-and-its-critics/ https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-... Do you have other suggested reading beyond the scope of that piece? Too much of the criticism I've found online seems to be attacking straw-man paraphrasing of the project.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Come on, the main thesis of the project is claiming 1619 is the true founding. And the project writer secretly removed it and denied she said it. > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice. A simple reading of its Wikipedia page can get those information.
  - avs733 5y ago
    the thesis of an argument is by definition not a fact. It's a point...founding is a theoretical concept, its metaphorical, its not provable and demonstrable and repeatable. Wow.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      I quoted the main thesis is to simply demonstrating the creator of project is a straight liar, so her work can't be trusted. You can get more information by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

refurb 5y ago

I get your point. You can view history from several viewpoints or with certain political filters. However, when you have academic historians, across the political spectrum, saying the 1619 Project has little resemblance to actual historical study, they should get you alarm bells ringing. If someone has a rigorous, evidence based viewpoint that’s cool. Flimsy analysis and force fitting history into a particular narrative is not. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians...

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

"The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." They removed this quote from the interactive website without giving an explanation as to why. It's really obvious how biased they are.