Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I missed that. Cite, please.
Maybe you missed that you are responding to a post in which I quoted WW as saying, "Hannah Nikole-Jones’ admitted overstatement of the extent to which the American Revolution was motivated by the desire to protect American slavery."
I've read that. Have you read this?
You said the 1619 Project is "marbled with BS arguments." You've named one. Mostly you seem resentful of the idea that slavery is central to the country's history. |
Jones said it on Twitter:
“The fight over the 1619 Project is not about history. It is about memory,“ she responded on social media. “I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ry%3f_amp=true
But she seems to have wiped it from her feed. (Cue GGG petulantly saying, “All you can find is an Examiner article?”)
I’m not resentful of anything. You keep trying to assign an ethos to me. I’m only interested in dismantling something.
These sorts of things remind me of religion. I’m interested in poking holes in things people are desperate to believe. You totally misapprehend what drives me. If I see a thing and it seems there’s even a hint of suspension of disbelief, or worse faith, required to believe it, I’m interested in showing its flaws.
I’m not a conservative. I’m still the kid who heard the stories of religion and a lot of American myths as a kid and said, “Nope, not buying it.” The only real driving mantra in my head is a strong opposition to even a hint of myth. And what truly drives me nuts is people agreeing to suspend disbelief because they think they are on the side of right and good. That’s a high speed lane to hell.
ETA: I must correct myself. Jones said 1619 was journalism. But it seems she doesn’t really know what that means. To the extent they are both presumably accurate reporting of facts, history and journalism are identical. One can’t tell a false history and call it journalism or write false journalism and call it history. Both require accuracy. She should have been more concise and used “opinion piece using selected historical events as support.”
