Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You'll note Sebby's critiques always involve attacking an author personally, characterizing their intent, or otherwise throwing a bunch of adjectives that don't - and this is critical - require actually reading or digesting the position he is criticizing.
That would be too much work.
|
Did I attack the author of 1619 personally? I think you might want to reread.
Also, this argument that unless I read the full 100 pages of the thing, I can’t comment on it, despite its having been condensed to executive summaries in dozens of article, is facile.
It’s a broad compilation of essats which sought to create the impression they were rigorously researched history, or journalism. But the essential scaffolding is that of an OpEd, a piece of advocacy.
No one started this project with an eye toward discovering if there was an alternative history that’d been missed. It was 2019, and that created a compelling marketing campaign for a narrative telling the story that we were at the 400th anniversary of the nation’s true founding. From a branding perspective, it was perfect. And Trump was even in office. How much more incendiary a climate could there be into which to lob this narrative?
