Tuesday, March 1, 2022
14 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
on the first one, that depends on the version of "History" you refer to.
ReplyDeleteLately, Leftists are trying to rewrite it, especially the 1619 folks.
To hear conservatives tell it, the slaves were happy and content and were just clamoring to get on the boats. That crap made it into textbooks. And, of course, the perennial lie that the Civil War was about states' rights.
ReplyDeleteAin't none of the "history" taught today left or right is the truth.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about biological warfare, since everyone's panties are so twisted I'm surprised their legs haven't fallen off trying to connect the Trump/Vape-Flu to the Chinese market it was hand-delivered to, not unlike the smallpox infested blankets handed out to the natives. Want to talk about genocide? The "Holocaust?" Upwards of thirty-five million First Americans were put to the sword in our unique solution to the "Indian Problem," a solution Hitler was admittedly a big fan of. Israel clearly a fan. Or maybe you want to talk about open air atomic testing, and how I was born with three thumbs.
History is rewritten by those who can get away with it, only repeats to those paying attention ...
Ah ha! I get it now. All those folks went on a midnight dinner cruise and a sudden storm threw them off course, where Skipper, the professor and Gillian saved them by steering them into Charleston harbor where they lived happily picking cotton.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, B tells the ‘truth’ as he knows it.
Dale
And then there is the myth of the Irish slaves.
ReplyDeleteIn America you get food to eat
ReplyDeleteWon't have to run through the jungle
And scuff up your feet
You just sing about Jesus and drink wine all day
It's great to be an American
Ain't no lion or tiger, ain't no mamba snake
Just the sweet watermelon and the buckwheat cake
Ev'rybody is as happy as a man can be
Climb aboard, little wog, sail away with me
Sail away, sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail away, sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
In America every man is free
To take care of his home and his family
You'll be as happy as a monkey in a monkey tree
You're all gonna be an American
Sail away, sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail away, sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail Away
Randy Newman
That Christianity is some ouroboros of a theology. Makes you understand why Muslims consider it polytheistic. But American 'Christians' are done with the bible and a distant cruel vindictive God, smiting and genociding with jealous glee. They need no dusty old book to tell them how to think and act. They now have their God Emperor trump and his mighty voice is Fox News. And if it tells them Russia has always been our BFF then there is no arguing with the Big Guy (trump). Let's go Vladdy! Smite Ukraine!
ReplyDeleteSO you accept the 1619 lies then? Please answer "yes" or "no"
ReplyDeleteI have no issues with the truth, but the 1619 project is full of lies and misrepresentations.
I reject your characterization.
ReplyDeleteB, have you stopped beating your wife? Answer “yes” or “no”.
ReplyDeleteI accept that 1619 has been, is being and will for the foreseeable future be lied about.
ReplyDeleteB:
ReplyDeleteWhat lies and misrepresentations are you referring to? To the best of my knowledge, the 1619 were absolutely accurate in their characterizations of the treatment of Blacks brought from Africa to be slaves.
Probably true, up til that point. Then they went off the rails.
ReplyDeleteHere’s the Times’ defense of the project:
ReplyDeleteThough we may not be historians, we take seriously the responsibility of accurately presenting history to readers of The New York Times. The letter writers express concern about a “closed process” and an opaque “panel of historians,” so I’d like to make clear the steps we took. We did not assemble a formal panel for this project. Instead, during the early stages of development, we consulted with numerous scholars of African-American history and related fields, in a group meeting at The Times as well as in a series of individual conversations. (Five of those who initially consulted with us — Mehrsa Baradaran of the University of California, Irvine; Matthew Desmond and Kevin M. Kruse, both of Princeton University; and Tiya Miles and Khalil G. Muhammad, both of Harvard University — went on to publish articles in the issue.) After those consultations, writers conducted their own research, reading widely, examining primary documents and artifacts and interviewing historians. Finally, during the fact-checking process, our researchers carefully reviewed all the articles in the issue with subject-area experts. This is no different from what we do on any article.
As the five letter writers well know, there are often debates, even among subject-area experts, about how to see the past. Historical understanding is not fixed; it is constantly being adjusted by new scholarship and new voices. Within the world of academic history, differing views exist, if not over what precisely happened, then about why it happened, who made it happen, how to interpret the motivations of historical actors and what it all means.
The passages cited in the letter, regarding the causes of the American Revolution and the attitudes toward black equality of Abraham Lincoln, are good examples of this. Both are found in the lead essay by Hannah-Jones. We can hardly claim to have studied the Revolutionary period as long as some of the signatories, nor do we presume to tell them anything they don’t already know, but I think it would be useful for readers to hear why we believe that Hannah-Jones’s claim that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery” is grounded in the historical record.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html