Interesting story. I actually read this one.

"BLM activist arrested in relation to Lincoln statue defacement in Idaho"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blm-act...oln-statue

The one thing I can't understand. How did this guy graduate from college, let alone be hired by one as a adjunct professor?
Our education system is failing our country.
"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forest Gump

 

(03-26-2021 03:25 PM)Gene C Wrote:  "BLM activist arrested in relation to Lincoln statue defacement in Idaho"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blm-act...oln-statue
 

[From the story]:

In Instagram account bearing the name of one of the co-organizers, Peaceful Roots of Change, posted a photo of the defaced statue and criticized Lincoln for his role in permitting the execution of 38 Native Americans in 1862.

[First paragraph from an Instagram post]

peaceful.roots.of.change wrote:

On December 26, 1862, Abraham Lincoln ordered the largest mass execution in American history. 38 Santee Sioux were hanged and 265 others were convicted and tortured. He put bounties on Indigenous individuals asking for scalps of men, women, and children.

other posts by same individual:

It’s time we recognize the white-washing and sugarcoating of our American history . . .

Mayor McLean knows NOTHING of the Dakota 38, the slaves Abraham Lincoln himself owned, or the true history of America . . . .

I wonder where this clown has learned "the true history of America."

(10-19-2020 12:43 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 12:02 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

No one in the general public is going to look at Nikole Hannah-Jones and say "well, I would have questioned her, but she won the Pulitzer, so she must know what she's talking about.'

Rob, are you serious? Nikole Hannah-Jones writes an essay that wins the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. In large measure, she discusses therein the March 14, 1862 meeting in the White House with President Abraham Lincoln and a Committee of five prominent black free men on the subject of black colonization.

Whenever she is introduced as an authority on American history in a public meeting for the next ten years or so, she will be introduced as the winner of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. And, you actually believe now that: "No one in the general public is going to look at Nikole Hannah-Jones and say 'well, I would have questioned her [about President Abraham Lincoln], but she won the Pulitzer, so she must know what she's talking about.'"

I disagree.

Nikole Hannah-Jones Receives Support in Tenure Dispute
By Katie Robertson

More than 200 writers and cultural figures signed a letter opposing the University of North Carolina’s failure to give the Times Magazine correspondent tenure with her position there.

Overseer of 1619 Project Receives Support in Tenure Dispute
PRINT EDITION: May 26, 2021, Page B3

More than 200 academics, journalists, sports luminaries and other cultural figures published a letter on Tuesday in support of Nikole Hannah-Jones, a correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, who was not offered tenure in her new position at the University of North Carolina by the board of trustees despite a recommendation from its journalism department.

The letter was published on the Black news and culture site The Root [letter] as part of a wider cultural debate on how race and slavery are taught in American schools. That dispute often involves the 1619 Project, a series, overseen by Ms. Hannah-Jones, that offered a broad re-examination of the legacy of slavery in America and appeared in The Times Magazine in August 2019. Ms. Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize in commentary for her introductory essay to the series.

Now, the self-interested New York Times has published this story for a much larger audience. In 2020, The New York Times had 6.5 million total subscriptions, a figure that includes 5.7 million digital-only subscriptions. I read the story online. No comments were permitted by the New York Times to be made to the story.

“State institutions across the country are attempting to ban frank and rigorous conversation about our history in the classroom,” the letter said. “Few single works have been threatened with more restrictions than the 1619 Project, a landmark exploration of America’s deep roots in enslavement.”

Heavens to Betsy, David. The world as we know it is going to end!

I can only assume your point is that because 200 people out of a population of 328 million wrote a letter supporting her bid for tenure, that this is a "groundswell" of support because she won the Pulitzer Prize. Did it ever occur to you that they also might be defending a little principle called academic freedom? Knowing you, probably not.

Best
Rob

(06-01-2021 08:37 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Heavens to Betsy, David. The world as we know it is going to end!

I can only assume your point is that because 200 people out of a population of 328 million wrote a letter supporting her bid for tenure, that this is a "groundswell" of support because she won the Pulitzer Prize. Did it ever occur to you that they also might be defending a little principle called academic freedom? Knowing you, probably not.

Best
Rob

The following is the email that I sent to the author of the New York Times piece in reference. The Subject Line reads: Nikole Hannah-Jones is trying to cheat posterity out of the truth about President Abraham Lincoln.

The body of the email reads:

Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones is incrementally subverting the factual truth about President Abraham Lincoln and will continue to do so until she is stopped by the truth in opposition. Throughout the 1619 curricula, there will be a continuing interpretative denigration of the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln by means of distortion or omission of important historical facts. The false historical “truth” contained within the 1619 Project about President Abraham Lincoln and related historical events will be taught in schools throughout this democracy to those students relying upon the 1619 Project curricula for historical truth.

If for some reason a person has the audacity to challenge this 1619 Project revised “truth” of history, what would be that person’s basis for making a simple, historically-accurate argument? A clear example of this historical fact alteration to subvert the truth about President Abraham Lincoln by Nikole Hannah-Jones follows.

The undisputed fact is that President Abraham Lincoln’s August 14, 1862 one hour speech on a black colonization proposal to the Committee of five prominent free black men was unanimously well-received by the Committee members. This historical fact is evidenced by a letter written by the Committee chairman to President Lincoln two days following the meeting at the White House. This “letter fact” of history was conveniently omitted by American History historian Nikole Hannah-Jones in her false narrative describing the same historical event of the August 14, 1862 White House meeting. Nikole Hannah-Jones is trying to cheat posterity out of the truth.

Attendees at the August 14, 1862 White House meeting were the Committee of five prominent black men and the members of the press called to the White House for the purpose of disseminating the contents of President Lincoln's speech on "Colonization" to the nation. All of the attendees were fully aware of the purpose for the meeting. Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her book Team of Rivals, at page 469, described the purpose of the meeting as follows: "On August 14, Lincoln invited a delegation of freed slaves to a conference at the White House, hoping to inspire their cooperation in educating fellow blacks on the benefits of colonization."

The New York Times reported President Lincoln's speech the following day with a story title: THE PRESIDENT AND COLONIZATION.

Presumably, historian Nikole Hannah-Jones used this same August 15, 1862 detailed reporting of President Lincoln’s August 14th Colonization speech by the New York Times as her authoritative source in creating her own narrative describing the important events of that day in the White House, August 14, 1862. Therefore, there should be no major unexplained discrepancy between the New York Times published narrative regarding the meeting and the narrative that she provides in her New York Times essay that won for her the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones writes in her 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary essay describing her own presumed response of the members of the Committee: “You can imagine the heavy silence in that room, as the weight of what the president said momentarily stole the breath of these five black men. . . . As Lincoln closed the remarks, Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition. ‘Take your full time,’ Lincoln said. ‘No hurry at all.’”

The Committee of five prominent black men had been invited to the White House to hear President Lincoln's speech on the subject of a proposed colonization project, including the President's reasoning by which these men should support and even participate in the experiment themselves.

The first paragraph of the New York Times coverage reads:

"This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. . . . E.M. THOMAS, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation, to hear what the Executive had to say to them."

Nevertheless, historian Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote: “You can imagine the heavy silence in that room, as the weight of what the president said momentarily stole the breath of these five black men."

The Committee was fully aware of why they had been invited to the White House and that was "to hear what the Executive had to say to them" on the subject of colonization. In the hour long speech, what could have "momentarily stole the breath of these five black men?" Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones does not say.

But she does say: "As Lincoln closed the remarks, Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition. ‘Take your full time,’ Lincoln said. ‘No hurry at all.’”

The implication of these last two sentences is that the Committee Chairman's immediate reaction to the speech was strongly negative and that the President's last remark to the Committee was of a condescending nature.

However, the New York Times itself describes the close of President Lincoln's speech in the following manner:

I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you, then, to consider seriously, not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race and ours for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind -- not confined to the present generation . . . ."

The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that "they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer." The President said, "Take your full time -- no hurry at all."

Although the President had suggested in the close of his speech that "these are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour," the Committee chairman, in behalf of the entire Committee, responded to President Lincoln's proposal in a letter two days later on August 16, 1862 as follows:

“We were entirely hostile to the movement until all the advantages were so ably brought to our views by you,” the delegation chief wrote Lincoln two days later, promising to consult with prominent blacks in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston who he hoped would “join heartily in Sustaining Such a movement.” (Source: Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin, (2005), page 469.)


Please ask Nikole Hannah-Jones to respond to you regarding the contents of this email and then print her response verbatim.

Rob, do people have the academic freedom to lie?

(06-01-2021 08:37 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Heavens to Betsy, David. The world as we know it is going to end!

I can only assume your point is that because 200 people out of a population of 328 million wrote a letter supporting her bid for tenure, that this is a "groundswell" of support because she won the Pulitzer Prize. Did it ever occur to you that they also might be defending a little principle called academic freedom? Knowing you, probably not.

Best
Rob

"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect." - Eleanor Roosevelt

I think it's rich that two white men feel comfortable saying that a woman of color is (in Gene's viewpoint) a)acting irresponsibly and (in David's viewpoint) b) (and more patently offensive) is a liar. Both reactions go far toward ratifying the central claim of the project, i.e., that white America will never understand how African-Americans see the history of this country.

Whether or not one believes that Hannah Nikole-Jones is acting irresponsibly is really irrelevant to me. That's a matter of opinion (which I disagree with), but one could accept the premise without necessarily seeing any nefarious underlying point of view.

However, I take especial exception to calling her a liar. David, just because you, in your fevered-dream attempts to sanctify Lincoln, don't like what she writes, then she is purposefully not telling the truth. That speaks volumes about you more than it says anything about her.

“There are legitimate critiques that one can engage in discussion with, but for them to just kind of dismiss the entire project in that manner, I thought, was really unwise,” (historian Minisha Snha) told the Atlantic. “It was a worthy thing to actually shine a light on a subject that the average person on the street doesn't know much about.”

That is a reasonable critique of the project. Yours, David, is offensive and deserves to be ignored.

Best
Rob

(06-02-2021 09:23 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I think it's rich that two white men feel comfortable saying that a woman of color is (in Gene's viewpoint) a)acting irresponsibly and (in David's viewpoint) b) (and more patently offensive) is a liar. Both reactions go far toward ratifying the central claim of the project, i.e., that white America will never understand how African-Americans see the history of this country.

Best
Rob

Nikole Hannah Jones was born in Waterloo, Iowa. Her mother is white.
(According to Wikipedia)

My grandfather on my mothers side was born in South Africa and of Irish parents.
I guess that makes me an Irish African American?
There is Cherokee ancestry on my fathers side. So I guess that makes me Irish African Native American.
Oh, I was also born in France. None of this really matters. So your first comment doesn't make much sense to me. Have you got something against Eleanor Roosevelt?
Lincoln mad the comment that he was not so interested in where he came from, but where he was going.

It's sad that many people from Africa were sold into slavery, but who sold them?
And I believe that most of the African Americans are better off today than most of the African's still in Africa. I don't see in the news all the people lining up at the border to leave this country. So let's get off our high horse and focus on what is so much better in our country that people are spending thousands of dollars and risking their lives and the lives of their children, to come here. Let's look at the history of Africa and teach African Americans the true history of their homeland.

Rob, you wrote "that white America will never understand how African-Americans see the history of this country."
Maybe African Americans don't understand the history of their ancestral country.
This country is not perfect, we have room to improve. That's not done by being divisive, but through unity. Not by being negative, but by looking at the positive side of things. Not complaining, but looking for ways to personally become involved on making things better. In perspective, maybe we are not so terrible here after all.

If some one finds my comments offensive, that is not my intent, please let me know and I will delete them.
I disagree with Rob, but I do not want to be offensive.

Gene,

When you fill out a form that asks your race, I will bet $1000 that you check "white." Hence, my first comment. Nikole Hannah-Jones identifies as a woman of color. Barack Obama had a white mother, but no one questions that he is a black man.

Quote:Rob, you wrote "that white America will never understand how African-Americans see the history of this country."
Maybe African Americans don't understand the history of their ancestral country.

Oh, they understand it just fine. Problem is it's not the "God Bless America" version that many white conservatives try to shove down our throats. I personally don't have a problem with pointing out the faults in this country. They are just as important (more so) than the virtues, of which there are certainly many.

No, I have nothing against Eleanor Roosevelt. I do have a problem with blind patriotism, however.

For the record, I don't find any of your comments offensive. I find them misguided, but not offensive.

Best
Rob

(06-02-2021 12:29 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  For the record, I don't find any of your comments offensive. I find them misguided, but not offensive.

Well we can agree on that. I feel the same way about you sometimes

(06-02-2021 09:23 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I think it's rich that two white men feel comfortable saying that a woman of color is (in Gene's viewpoint) a)acting irresponsibly and (in David's viewpoint) b) (and more patently offensive) is a liar. Both reactions go far toward ratifying the central claim of the project, i.e., that white America will never understand how African-Americans see the history of this country.

Acting in an irresponsible way has nothing to do with being a woman or a person of color. It's about what you say or do

So then what exactly makes her behavior irresponsible? If it's merely because you disagree with her, then you could be accused of the same thing. There has to be some detailed explanation, coupled with evidence offered, to accuse someone of irresponsibility.

Best
Rob

I think that's in part, what we have been discussing here and under other threads.

She has to a certain extent, academic freedom, freedom of speech, etc. With that freedom, is she acting in a responsible manner?
Has she used her freedom to influence our community in a positive direction? Several people on this forum and well known, respected historians and educators have indicated she hasn't.

I'm sorry Gene, but that's not good enough. What I've seen here so far is David's obsession about her denigrating the reputation of Lincoln (as if that is even a thing). The bottom line, as I see it, is that you and others disagree with her conclusions, therefore you believe her to be acting irresponsibility. While you are well within your right to disagree with her conclusions, to accuse her of being irresponsible because she is somehow purposefully misleading people who obviously don't know better is still merely your opinion, and therefore has nothing else to back it up.

She is under no obligation to present anything in "a positive manner," and besides, who gets to determine what "positive" even means?

Best
Rob

(06-03-2021 07:18 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  . While you are well within your right to disagree with her conclusions, to accuse her of being irresponsible because she is somehow purposefully misleading people who obviously don't know better is still merely your opinion, and therefore has nothing else to back it up.

She is under no obligation to present anything in "a positive manner," and besides, who gets to determine what "positive" even means?

Best
Rob

Here is some of my nothing else to back it up....
Here are a few comments from the National Review by George Leef
"She was the mastermind behind the New York Times’ infamous “1619 Project.” Criticism of that project and especially her contributions have been sharp and non-ideological.

In today’s Martin Center article, Jenna Robinson examines this controversy.
(Additional article by Jenna Robinson is linked to below)
A key point is the claim Hannah-Jones made that the American Revolution was mainly about protecting slavery. But she cited no evidence in support of that astounding assertion. Historians of the Revolution were quick to point out that the preservation of slavery had virtually nothing to do with the sparking of the rebellion in 1775.

Robinson writes, “In December of 2019, five historians, led by Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz, wrote an open letter expressing their ‘strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project.’ The signatories were a politically diverse group: Victoria Bynum at Texas State University, James M. McPherson at Princeton, James Oakes at City University of New York, and Gordon S. Wood at Brown University. They called attention to serious factual errors in the project, including its central thesis that the American Revolution was fought to protect the institution of slavery:

These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’ They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds—that they are the objections of only ‘white historians’—has affirmed that displacement.”

Instead of acknowledging that her history was wrong, which would have pulled the rug out from under the whole endeavor, Hannah-Jones and the Times went into evasions.

It also turns out that members of the Pulitzer committee had strong reservations about awarding their Prize to Hannah-Jones, but were ignored.

Rather than forthrightly confronting the criticism of her work, Hannah-Jones has resorted to evasions, deleting of evidence, and personal attacks.

The entire article is here - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho...nah-jones/

An additional article by Jenna Robinson, which I found more specific, is from May 21, 2021 on the James G Martin Center OF Academic Renewal website.,
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2021/05/...nah-jones/

For those interested, Wikipedia has a lengthy article about the 1619 Project
I found the section "Reactions From Historians" especially interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

Thanks to Roger for letting us discuss this subject (we wandered a little from the original thread topic) and thanks to those who contribute for trying to be respectful of others.