The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine)

[David Lockmiller]

(06-27-2020 03:44 PM)Gene C Wrote:  It is amazing to me that someone could write an 8,000+ word essay and not realize how short sighted they are.

Money won't solve this problem.
(And I only used 26 words)

According to Nikole Hannah-Jones, money (and lots of it) is the answer and will be the answer.

All that you will be hearing from now on from those that support the false "1619 Project" is: "Reparations, reparations, reparations!"

The "Project 1619" timetable had to be advanced because of the widely-popular "unacceptable" response to the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis policeman.

[David Lockmiller]

Proposed Federal legislation against the teaching of the “1619 Project”:

Arkansas Republican senator Tom Cotton introduced legislation last Thursday that aims to prohibit use of federal funds to teach the 1619 Project, an initiative from the New York Times that reframes US history around August 1619 and the arrival of slave ships on American shores for the first time. He called the enslavement of millions of African people “the necessary evil upon which the union was built” in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published on Sunday.

Also on Sunday, Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted: “If chattel slavery – heritable, generational, permanent, race-based slavery where it was legal to rape, torture, and sell human beings for profit – were a ‘necessary evil’ as Tom Cotton says, it’s hard to imagine what cannot be justified if it is a means to an end.

[Gene C]

"Trump Warning Schools Teaching 1619 Project 'will not be funded'

From Fox News - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-w...teaching-1

From CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/06/politics/...index.html

[David Lockmiller]

More Than Ever, Trump Casts Himself as the Defender of White America

New York Times
By Peter Baker
Published Sept. 6, 2020
Updated Sept. 7, 2020, 4:51 a.m. ET

Mr. Trump’s memo on Friday adopted much of this language, attributing it to “press reports.” The memo, signed by Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said “this divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.”

Mr. Trump wrote or reposted roughly 20 Twitter messages about the memo on Saturday and on Sunday said the Education Department would investigate schools that use curriculum from the 1619 Project by The New York Times Magazine, an effort to look at American history through the frame of slavery’s consequences and the contributions of Black Americans.

The 1619 Project: "an effort to look at American history through the frame of slavery’s consequences and the contributions of Black Americans."

Now, there's some real self-serving propaganda from the New York Times.

The 1619 Project is a false rewrite of American history, including the role in history of President Abraham Lincoln.

[Mylye2222]

Just can't stand Cancel Culture anymore.

[LincolnMan]

(09-07-2020 11:10 AM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  Just can't stand Cancel Culture anymore.

I’m with you. But I’m afraid it isn’t going to be cancelled.

[Mylye2222]

(09-07-2020 12:36 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 11:10 AM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  Just can't stand Cancel Culture anymore.

I’m with you. But I’m afraid it isn’t going to be cancelled.

Unfortunately. And in Europe it's getting so worse, Cancel Culture and communalism that I'm afraid I might be one day be forced to exile.

[David Lockmiller]

Let's have a vote.

Who is for having President Abraham Lincoln quotations, well-documented by accredited Lincoln scholars, being altered in meaning by a significant degree?

This would include clear misstatements of context.

[Mylye2222]

(09-07-2020 01:49 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Let's have a vote.

Who is for having President Abraham Lincoln quotations, well-documented by accredited Lincoln scholars, being altered in meaning by a significant degree?

This would include clear misstatements of context.

I say.... NAY! Or Nay but if only it's accompanied by contextualization

[LincolnMan]

I would say not.

[Gene C]

If you are not going to quote someone correctly, what's the point in quoting them at all.
It only makes the person quoting look foolish or dishonest.

[Amy L.]

But Sept 7. David L. made the following assertion, which was a good point:

"Politicians 'improve' President Lincoln's quotations because on any particular subject matter President Lincoln did not say or write the 'correct' words at the time and thereby conveyed the 'wrong' message on the particular subject matter under current discussion. It's sort of a public service not appreciated by 'purists',..."

Just because Harry Jaffa says the Lyceum speech means [this], does that make it so? Do we want the freedom to use leaders' rephrased words to make a point, or is that misappropriation?

[David Lockmiller]

(09-09-2020 03:03 AM)Amy L. Wrote:  But Sept 7. David L. made the following assertion, which was a good point:

"Politicians 'improve' President Lincoln's quotations because on any particular subject matter President Lincoln did not say or write the 'correct' words at the time and thereby conveyed the 'wrong' message on the particular subject matter under current discussion. It's sort of a public service not appreciated by 'purists',..."

Just because Harry Jaffa says the Lyceum speech means [this], does that make it so? . . . .

I could not find the complete story about Lincoln's discussion with a group of men who apparently had made to Lincoln an invalid assertion of important fact. And directly to the valid point that you make, Amy, Lincoln asks of the men:

"How many legs will a sheep have if you call his tail a leg?"

They answered "Five."

"You are mistaken," replied Lincoln, "for calling a tail a leg does not make it so."

And, to the point Amy was making: "Just because Harry Jaffa says the Lyceum speech means [this], does that make it so?"

[David Lockmiller]

Harry Jaffa Debate with Thomas DiLorenzo in May, 2002 (Source: Wikipedia subject “Harry Jaffa”)

Jaffa and Thomas DiLorenzo debated each other on May 7, 2002 in an event hosted by the Independent Institute. Each man made a statement followed by a rebuttal by the other, ending with questions and answers from the audience.

Jaffa's argument was divided into four sections:

Section Two reads: The Right of Secession Is Not the Right of Revolution: Jaffa distinguished revolution from secession. Revolution, he argues, is explained under the Declaration of Independence. It states, "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [the security of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], the people have a right to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government [such] as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." In contrast, the Confederacy claimed the right of secession, as the Confederacy believed that such a right existed under the Constitution. Jaffa argues that the Confederacy claimed secession instead of revolution because its rights were not being violated by the federal government. However, he also notes that the states that ratified the Constitution also agreed to adhere to the results of all elections and that by seceding from the Union, the Confederacy violated this basic promise.

Simply stated, Lincoln argued in the July 4, 1861 Message to Congress that the Southern states did NOT have a constitutional right to secede. See my post #16 on Thread titled “RE: Maryland constitutional questions after Fort Sumter.”

[Southern State politicians] invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice.

With rebellion thus sugar-coated, they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years; and, until at length, they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretence of taking their State out of the Union, who could have been brought to no such thing the day before.

This sophism derives much---perhaps the whole---of its currency, from the assumption, that there is some omnipotent, and sacred supremacy, pertaining to a State---to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution---no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.

Jaffa makes no reference whatsoever to this critically important President Lincoln July 4, 1861 Message to Congress. Instead, Jaffa considered this violation of the Constitution as merely a “broken promise” by these states “to adhere to the results of all elections.”

President Lincoln effectively argued that there is no state “right of secession” from the Union of the United States.

[Amy L.]

I've read maybe a half-dozen articles on the demise of Nikole Hannah-Jones' 1619 Project. 

I rather like this one, from the NYT itself (Oct 9, 2020):  
"If there’s one word admirers and critics alike can agree on when it comes to The New York Times’s award-winning 1619 Project, it’s ambition. Ambition to reframe America’s conversation about race. Ambition to reframe our understanding of history. Ambition to move from news pages to classrooms. Ambition to move from scholarly debate to national consciousness."
... 
"None of this should have come as a surprise: The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around. Nor was this fire from the right: Both Wilentz and Harris were at pains to emphasize their sympathy with the project’s moral aims." 
... 
" All the more so as journalists, in the United States and abroad, come under relentless political assault from critics who accuse us of being fake, biased, partisan and an arm of the radical left. Many of these attacks are baseless. Some of them are not. Through its overreach, the 1619 Project has given critics of The Times a gift."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opini...cisms.html