Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You liked Factfulness. In many ways, 1619 is the same kind of project, makes people take a look at subject from a different (and fact-based) perspective, and the idea that a bunch of people are up in arms over the idea that slavery was an important issue in the American revolution (the most common complaint about the project) kind of makes the point.
Of course slavery was an issue in the Revolution. For example, not a lot of people are really aware of how prevalent or extensive slavery was in the North, or how many of the Northern signers of the declaration owned slaves. I grew up near the family seat of the Livingston family in upstate NY, for example, one of whom signed the Declaration and another of whom was on the five person committee drafting it, and at the time not only did they own slaves but they also operated a traditional Dutch patroon that imported indentured servants who became, effectively, serfs, and there is little doubt one of their objections to the British revolved around the pressures the British were bringing to bear on both slavery and serfdom. The fact that the revolution was run by slaveowners, north and south, motivated by a desire to preserve property is an important point made by 1619 (though it's quite an old point in historical terms, certainly, you find it made quite strenuously in the Dred Scott decision, for example, though there it's argued that its a motivation that should be embraced rather than rejected). (By the way, serfdom remained in upstate NY until the very early 19th century, so it survived the Revolution by more than a quarter century).
Its good to see these points being picked up by popular culture as well. If you haven't seen it, watch Turn on Netflix, it's about a spy ring Washington was running in NY and Long Island, and does a good job pointing out some of the moral ambiguity of the war. It depicts slaves on Long Island and in NY in the period, and has a bit of a punch on the issue at the end.
|
I think where the friction occurred in re
1619 was the marketing. To say slavery was an important thing in the colonies and the Revolutionary War is factual. Cannot be debated. To argue for an alternative date of founding of the nation is a daring pitch.
I bet if Jones could have it back, she'd have asked the Times to move off that marketing and shift to a more accurate description of the project -- a revision of history that more accurately states the importance of slavery and later Jim Crow.
As with many things, due to an effort by the Times to get maximum eyeballs on the project, it was instead offered as an absolute or near absolute argument where it was really an argument of degree.
It cannot be argued that the Revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery. But it can be agreed upon by reasonable people that slavery was a significant consideration to many involved in the Revolutionary War.
I accept the existence of systemic racism because it's just obvious. Where I bristle is when people assert that there's a direct cause and effect -- that racism is inherent to non-blacks, and that this racist bent causes them to take racist actions at blacks which leads to systemic racism. There are a ton of complex factors, involving class, geography, wealth, and politics that indirectly lead to systemic racist effects. And I think the emphasis, which I found in some of what I'd read of
1619, on whites being inherently anti-black throughout US history, does violence to the concept of systemic racism.
If US society as controlled by whites inflicts racism on blacks because most whites are inherently biased against blacks, then it's not systemic racism so much as predatory and intentional racism. Systemic racism is much more subtle but far more ubiquitous. And it exists so broadly, and is so hard to eradicate for exactly that reason. Dislike of or discrimination toward blacks for being black is not a central defining feature of the country (even in the Jim Crow South, it wasn't a hatred of blacks, but a desire to avoid power [read money] sharing with them). It's a collateral, but massive, impact of a society that treated blacks as chattel many years ago and never focused on redressing the disadvantages that horrible start in this new world laid upon them. It's not a symptom of a society that cares about race but of one that doesn't.
ETA: You're the fifth or so person who's recommended
Turn to me.
