Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because when pressed, the author of the centerpiece article argued it was not history.

I missed that. Cite, please.

As an essay, the argument the revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery is both factually and facially... rubbish.

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."

And on the facts, it appears there’s a whole lot to scrutinize here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ilentz/605152/

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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 clear what she meant when she said it "is not a history" and "is a work of journalism," nor do I understand why you think it matters. I do not read what you quoted here as some sort of admission that she wasn't trying to capture the truth, which is the spin I thought you initially put on it.

I’m not resentful of anything. You keep trying to assign an ethos to me. I’m only interested in dismantling something.

Dude, you just wrote a post, all by yourself, in which you described your core political beliefs, and made sure to point out that you were anti- woke people, people who see race as super important, and the 1619 Project. If you don't like what you're seeing, stop looking in the mirror.

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.

Oh, nuts. There are plenty of things that people suspend disbelief in that you couldn't care less about. There are certain things that really push your buttons, and you helpfully listed a bunch of them in the post you wrote where you described your beliefs.

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.”

She's a 44-year-old woman with a master's degree in journalism who has worked as a reporter for almost two decades, include several at the New York Times. A few years ago she was given a MacArthur genius grant. It must be that she doesn't really know what "journalism" means. Fun to see you suspending disbelief.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

This pretty much says it all. 100 or so pages of essays (many by well known historians, not just journalists) is just too damn long for you to try to bite off in order to get a perspective on 400 years of history.

Pontificate away, lazy dude.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This pretty much says it all. 100 or so pages of essays (many by well known historians, not just journalists) is just too damn long for you to try to bite off in order to get a perspective on 400 years of history.

Pontificate away, lazy dude.

I haven't read it either, but I didn't define my political views by saying that I'm anti people who believes it holds water. There's actually a certain amount of faith involved here on Sebby's part, not that he would care to see it that way.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This pretty much says it all. 100 or so pages of essays (many by well known historians, not just journalists) is just too damn long for you to try to bite off in order to get a perspective on 400 years of history.

Pontificate away, lazy dude.

Actually, where you're right, you're quite right. Factfulness is awesome.

1619 is a biased, baggy mess. And Rosling, or even Pinker, whose views are similar to Rosling's, or Taleb, who disagrees with Pinker's factual analyses but applies the same level of rigor, would find considerable fault with 1619.

It's a faith as much as fact. I'd gain nothing from reading the entire Bible, which is a pile of nonsense and superstition. You seem to hold an affinity for both religion and the pseudo-religion of wokeness. Whatever works. But it's all different points on the continuum of narrative. Narratives which include many conservative bromides.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I haven't read it either, but I didn't define my political views by saying that I'm anti people who believes it holds water. There's actually a certain amount of faith involved here on Sebby's part, not that he would care to see it that way.

I am anti-wokeness because wokeness is as much emotion as it is fact. It's a new religion dressed as fact.

That's a shame, because before white progressives turned it into a religion, BLM had a lot of promise.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm not clear what she meant when she said it "is not a history" and "is a work of journalism," nor do I understand why you think it matters. I do not read what you quoted here as some sort of admission that she wasn't trying to capture the truth, which is the spin I thought you initially put on it.

She's slippery. Which says a lot. You know where I'm going.

Dude, you just wrote a post, all by yourself, in which you described your core political beliefs, and made sure to point out that you were anti- woke people, people who see race as super important, and the 1619 Project. If you don't like what you're seeing, stop looking in the mirror.

You're slippery. I'm not anti-people who see race as important. I'm anti-Woke. The two groups are markedly different. I am in favor of extreme justice reform to root out racism and classism in the system. I am also anti-Woke. If you can't hold both of those positions together or deem them mutually exclusive, you're an idiot.

Oh, nuts. There are plenty of things that people suspend disbelief in that you couldn't care less about. There are certain things that really push your buttons, and you helpfully listed a bunch of them in the post you wrote where you described your beliefs.

Those things aren't on display here. I'm pouring acid on the foundation of what I see. Would you like me to quote the argument in favor of atheism I've been waging with my mother for twenty years? What I do here is mild. Religion still draws the greatest level of ire.

Wokness is a new religion for people looking for purpose. Full stop.

She's a 44-year-old woman with a master's degree in journalism who has worked as a reporter for almost two decades, include several at the New York Times. A few years ago she was given a MacArthur genius grant. It must be that she doesn't really know what "journalism" means. Fun to see you suspending disbelief.

[Insert air handjob gif here.] You're better than to support an argument with "X received an utterly political award." Bob Dylan has my proxy in snubbing the Nobel initially.

The institutions are largely for shit. Tribal, religious, picking sides. I've been to the dinners in DC where one hobnobs with people receiving awards. Spare me. It's a jerk-off. Tell me on the merits why she's deserving. I'm not impressed by a MacArthur grant, or that she was a Fulbright scholar.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I haven't read it either, but I didn't define my political views by saying that I'm anti people who believes it holds water. There's actually a certain amount of faith involved here on Sebby's part, not that he would care to see it that way.

It's well worth reading. Even if you just pick it up and read two or three articles.

If you're a history nerd, you'd probably end up with an overall view on it like the American Historical Association's editor, who was a little exasperated by the number of journalistic articles breathlessly claiming a new perspective while going through history that's been recited for a few decades in dozens of historical articles, but also a little querilous as to what the controversy was over.

If you're a fan of one or the other writers, you might find some nice nuggets there (Kevin Kruse is a lot of fun, and I've read a couple of his books, but his contribution is a nice introduction to a couple of basic themes that run through much of his stuff).

But if you're looking for a broad overview of American History that keeps slavery and African-American history in plain sight, you'll have trouble finding a more concise work or one that touches on as many different elements of American history.

Sure, like all histories, you can argue a lot of points. But it is a worthwhile read, and a couple steps above "dad" histories like McCullough. I know of no one who considers it a bible or the most scholarly thing around (sebby seems to know people like that, they really enrage him), but plenty who have enjoyed it and learned a few things.

[pony_trekker]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This pretty much says it all. 100 or so pages of essays (many by well known historians, not just journalists) is just too damn long for you to try to bite off in order to get a perspective on 400 years of history.

Pontificate away, lazy dude.

On another note, I have been published again

The last spurred on by another txt conversation in the office:

Patient Zero: "Can I come by maskless?"
pony_trekker: "Bro, you legit retarded?"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's well worth reading. Even if you just pick it up and read two or three articles.

If you're a history nerd, you'd probably end up with an overall view on it like the American Historical Association's editor, who was a little exasperated by the number of journalistic articles breathlessly claiming a new perspective while going through history that's been recited for a few decades in dozens of historical articles, but also a little querilous as to what the controversy was over.

If you're a fan of one or the other writers, you might find some nice nuggets there (Kevin Kruse is a lot of fun, and I've read a couple of his books, but his contribution is a nice introduction to a couple of basic themes that run through much of his stuff).

But if you're looking for a broad overview of American History that keeps slavery and African-American history in plain sight, you'll have trouble finding a more concise work or one that touches on as many different elements of American history.

Sure, like all histories, you can argue a lot of points. But it is a worthwhile read, and a couple steps above "dad" histories like McCullough. I know of no one who considers it a bible or the most scholarly thing around (sebby seems to know people like that, they really enrage him), but plenty who have enjoyed it and learned a few things.

Here’s a science based book, by an actual scientist, that explains a ton about why people are eager to embrace certain arguments and overlook their weaknesses while rejecting others and ignoring their strengths: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-.../dp/0393254690

To a significant extent, it's hard wired into our heads. Thousands of years of evolution have conditioned us to perceive things in ways that help us, comfort and reinforce us, and aid us in bonding with others.

Perception is reality. That’s true. But it’s not necessarily fact.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by pony_trekker

On another note, I have been published again

The last spurred on by another txt conversation in the office:

Patient Zero: "Can I come by maskless?"
pony_trekker: "Bro, you legit retarded?"

Congrats! Is there going to be a celebratory reception?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here’s a science based book, by an actual scientist, that explains a ton about why people are eager to embrace certain arguments and overlook their weaknesses while rejecting others and ignoring their strengths: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-.../dp/0393254690

To a significant extent, it's hard wired into our heads. Thousands of years of evolution have conditioned us to perceive things in ways that help us, comfort and reinforce us, and aid us in bonding with others.

Perception is reality. That’s true. But it’s not necessarily fact.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ugh. Here, this is close to my proxy: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../1619-s06.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619

Those biased conservative socialists!

"What about other forms of slavery" is not even attempting to engage in the discussion, which is that slavery in the Americas was uniquely racialized and heritable.

But sure, some lefties think all of history is best understood as class struggle. What a surprise.