3 ms·
In quite a few of the critiques I've read, it's described as a valuable perspective despite the ahistorical bits -- some of which have been corrected. Should t
by klyrs 5y ago
In quite a few of the critiques I've read, it's described as a valuable perspective despite the ahistorical bits -- some of which have been corrected. Should the entire project be censored?
- temp8964 5y agoI am not sure what you mean "censored". It's so wrong that it should be excluded from school curriculum, does this mean it is censored? Like how creationism is censored from science curriculum?
- themitigating 5y agoCreationism isn't a scientific subject.
- temp8964 5y agoI am not what's your point. Science is a subject. Creationism should be excluded from science curriculum. Just like history is a subject, and 1619 should be excluded from history curriculum.
- themitigating 5y agoWhat makes them the same?
- chernevik 5y agoIt's utter nonsense that hasn't corrected its widely documented errors and omissions. Those "ahistorical bits" include a claim that preservation of slavery was a motivator of the American Revolution. And it is surely odd that an account of American race relations somehow neglects to mention the Civil War. The book shouldn't be censored, but it isn't "history" any more than intelligent design is "science". I suppose a public library maybe should have it, but it belongs on a shelf with the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the works of Lysenko and the tracts of the Flat Earth Society. It doesn't belong within a hundred yards of a school.
- klyrs 5y ago> It's utter nonsense that hasn't corrected its widely documented errors and omissions. This goes far beyond all but the most partisan criticism I've read about the project, and even partisans are mad about the project issuing "silent" corrections without notice so your understanding may be outdated. Regardless, I think that some nuance is warranted here and it sounds like the librarians at BPL agree.