Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    "Black people only have equal rights when it's to our political advantage", again, demonstrates a racist mentality; one that holds black enfranchisement subservient to the petty wants of a literal white ruling class.

    --Sam

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Sam answer me this - if blacks voted overwhelmingly republican would the NC Republicans have done this? Of course not, so it doesn't have to do with race but political affiliation. Now give me a real example based on race.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      "Black people only have equal rights when it's to our political advantage", again, demonstrates a racist mentality; one that holds black enfranchisement subservient to the petty wants of a literal white ruling class.

      --Sam
      I have no idea what you point is.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Most abolitionists were, in fact, black. That many were relatively invisible, being current or former slaves, seems less a problem for Hannah-Jones' thesis than for the rebuttal.
        No. The abolitionist movement was an intellectual and political movement. By the very nature of the movement, most abolitionists were white. Slaves did not have a political voice. During the colonial period, the make up of the movement was mainly Quakers who believed in gradual emancipation, and by the mid-1800s it was largely made up of white evangelicals and a number of free and escaped blacks, with a shift towards immediate emancipation.

        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Actually, that fits explicitly into Hannah-Jones' argument; Hannah-Jones doesn't argue that white Americas solely excluded black Americans and black Americans won greater purchase, thereby making democracy -real-. Instead, Hannah-Jones argues correctly identifies slavery as the foundational American effort to dehumanize and disenfranchise others and that the abolition of slavery paved the way toward the abolition of other types of disenfranchisement and discrimination. This is non-controversial to anyone familiar with the use of the 14th Amendment in civil rights law.
        I have no idea how this string of words counters my point.

        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        It would be quite hard to "just as easily argue that the suffrage movement paved the way for black rights struggle" since the suffrage movement came after both the end of slavery and the first Civil Rights Act and since suffragists explicitly used the language and the law of anti-slavery black civil rights. One can make an argument and dispute Hannah-Jones' account, sure, but that's a rather academic disagreement and not an obvious example of an anachronism.
        No. The suffrage movement predated the end of slavery and the first Civil Rights Act. Most historians mark the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 and the National Woman's Rights Convention of 1850 as a couple of the earliest milestones of the movement.

        And as feminist journalist Elaine Weiss points out in her book The Woman's Hour,
        "The crusade for woman suffrage stands as one of the defining civil rights moments in the history of our country, and its organizing strategies, lobbying techniques, and nonviolent protest actions became the model for the civil rights campaigns to follow in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries."
        "The genius of the woman suffrage movement—its strategies, lobbying tactics, public education efforts, non-violent protest (demonstrations, marches, picketing, civil disobedience)—would prove to be a valuable template for later civil rights campaigns of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The African-American civil rights era, gay rights campaigns, and efforts to secure women's reproductive rights and marriage equality—all took a page from the suffragists, in both their public protests and their political maneuvers."

        Hannah-Jones argues that the black struggle paved the way for all rights movements. Weiss argues that it was the suffrage movement that paved the way for those same rights movements. Both Weiss and Hannah-Jones are pushing a narrative that aligns with the cause they're championing. It's much more accurate to say that the women and black rights movements shared similar goals, and often collaborated. And if we really want to push it, one might argue that preceding either of these were religious rights movements, or peasant vs. landowner rights movements, or that the American and French Revolutions with their focus on equal treatment and rights of free men, paved the way for all future rights movements. History is a lot more complicated than Hannah-Jones' essay is attempting to make it out to be.

        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        A matter of format: if I think the post includes something direct, specific, and substantive that should be read before my reply, the quote goes on top.
        Maybe a poll needs to be taken, but I don't think this is as helpful as you think it is. For me at lesat, it has the affect of making your posts harder to comprehend (at least initially).

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          No. The abolitionist movement was an intellectual and political movement. By the very nature of the movement, most abolitionists were white. Slaves did not have a political voice. During the colonial period, the make up of the movement was mainly Quakers who believed in gradual emancipation, and by the mid-1800s it was largely made up of white evangelicals and a number of free and escaped blacks, with a shift towards immediate emancipation.
          You don't find this highly dubious? The "abolitionist movement" wasn't some narrow intellectual enterprise; it was the top layer of an effort to free enslaved people. You're blotting out the active and majority participation of slaves and former slaves in favor of a much smaller group of people who were allowed, by their whiteness, to "have a political voice".

          That doesn't strike you as misguided?



          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I have no idea how this string of words counters my point.
          Then I'd say one or both of us aren't being clear enough in what we're sayin!


          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          No. The suffrage movement predated the end of slavery and the first Civil Rights Act. Most historians mark the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 and the National Woman's Rights Convention of 1850 as a couple of the earliest milestones of the movement.

          And as feminist journalist Elaine Weiss points out in her book The Woman's Hour,
          "The crusade for woman suffrage stands as one of the defining civil rights moments in the history of our country, and its organizing strategies, lobbying techniques, and nonviolent protest actions became the model for the civil rights campaigns to follow in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries."
          "The genius of the woman suffrage movement—its strategies, lobbying tactics, public education efforts, non-violent protest (demonstrations, marches, picketing, civil disobedience)—would prove to be a valuable template for later civil rights campaigns of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The African-American civil rights era, gay rights campaigns, and efforts to secure women's reproductive rights and marriage equality—all took a page from the suffragists, in both their public protests and their political maneuvers."

          Hannah-Jones argues that the black struggle paved the way for all rights movements. Weiss argues that it was the suffrage movement that paved the way for those same rights movements. Both Weiss and Hannah-Jones are pushing a narrative that aligns with the cause they're championing. It's much more accurate to say that the women and black rights movements shared similar goals, and often collaborated. And if we really want to push it, one might argue that preceding either of these were religious rights movements, or peasant vs. landowner rights movements, or that the American and French Revolutions with their focus on equal treatment and rights of free men, paved the way for all future rights movements. History is a lot more complicated than Hannah-Jones' essay is attempting to make it out to be.
          But this is like arguing that the nascent abolition movement predated the nascent suffrage movement and so we're right back to the original argument. What Hannah-Jones argues, and argues correctly, is that the legal victories won by former slaves formed the basis of many anti-discrimination victories that would follow, including women's suffrage. That both movements existed contemporaneously doesn't refute Hannah-Jones' thesis.

          But, again, we're now at some high-level disagreements dealing with academic history questions. To brush off the essay (after skimming!) as biased or anachronistic for some nuanced academic disagreements doesn't seem to me to be fair or appropriate.


          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Maybe a poll needs to be taken, but I don't think this is as helpful as you think it is. For me at lesat, it has the affect of making your posts harder to comprehend (at least initially).
          Won't stay around long enough for it to matter much.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            You don't find this highly dubious? The "abolitionist movement" wasn't some narrow intellectual enterprise; it was the top layer of an effort to free enslaved people. You're blotting out the active and majority participation of slaves and former slaves in favor of a much smaller group of people who were allowed, by their whiteness, to "have a political voice".

            That doesn't strike you as misguided?
            What an unusual counterargument. Of course it doesn't seem misguided to me. The abolitionist movement was accomplished by people who weren't bound by the strictures of slavery. That was the point. Slaves did not have a voice. Abolitionists (whites, free blacks, and escaped slaves) spoke for people who had no voice to convince the government (other white people) of the wrongs of slavery. I'm dumbfounded that this is news to you. There's no controversy or debate to be had about this. This is just what the abolitionist movement was.

            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            But this is like arguing that the nascent abolition movement predated the nascent suffrage movement and so we're right back to the original argument. What Hannah-Jones argues, and argues correctly, is that the legal victories won by former slaves formed the basis of many anti-discrimination victories that would follow, including women's suffrage. That both movements existed contemporaneously doesn't refute Hannah-Jones' thesis.
            You're merely restating your point. The black rights struggle did not pave the way for all other rights struggles as I've pointed out.

            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            But, again, we're now at some high-level disagreements dealing with academic history questions. To brush off the essay (after skimming!) as biased or anachronistic for some nuanced academic disagreements doesn't seem to me to be fair or appropriate.
            I'm sorry it doesn't seem fair or appropriate to you. It is what it is I suppose.

            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            Won't stay around long enough for it to matter much.
            You keep telling people this, but I'm not sure why. This is the second time in the last month or so that I've seen you pop into a thread after a long absence, and tell people you're not going to stick around. What's motivating you to keep coming back? Why not just leave now and not say anything about it? I mean, I wouldn't mind if you stuck around. I like seeing your point of view on this forum occasionally, and I think you often make some constructive arguments. Even on this subject, I imagine there's more we agree on than disagree. Some of the essays I've reviewed contain some really fascinating material that I think the wider public ought to know, but overall the presentations appears to have a far left, postmodern, critical theory bent to them.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              What an unusual counterargument. Of course it doesn't seem misguided to me. The abolitionist movement was accomplished by people who weren't bound by the strictures of slavery. That was the point. Slaves did not have a voice. Abolitionists (whites, free blacks, and escaped slaves) spoke for people who had no voice to convince the government (other white people) of the wrongs of slavery. I'm dumbfounded that this is news to you. There's no controversy or debate to be had about this. This is just what the abolitionist movement was.
              But it's not just what the abolitionist movement was, not even close. It's the tip of the abolitionist movement; your depiction paints the abolitionist movement as an essentially legal argument when, in fact, it was a political effort that embodied far more than just the public speaking or legislative efforts of freemen. Free abolitionists may have spoke for enslaved abolitionists ... but those enslaved abolitionists were still active members of the movement! The Underground Railroad, to give one example, was primarily facilitated by slaves. Just as there wouldn't be freemen abolitionists to speak for the enslaved abolitionists without the enslaved abolitionists, the UR wouldn't have existed without the participation, organization, and effort of enslaved abolitionists.



              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              You're merely restating your point. The black rights struggle did not pave the way for all other rights struggles as I've pointed out.
              This is not correct; we're saying two different things. You're saying that the contemporary existence of other civil rights struggles negates Hannah-Jones' claim that black civil rights victories laid the foundation for the success of those other struggles. I'm pointing out that Hannah-Jones' argument is that the legal victories won in emancipation and black civil rights laid the foundation for future victories. That's the core of her argument, not that black people alone suffered or struggled.


              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I'm sorry it doesn't seem fair or appropriate to you. It is what it is I suppose.
              Your original complaint was that the articles were "HEAVILY anachronistic" and "essentially racist". I feel like that's a complaint that requires a higher burden of evidence than what's been argued so far, which is a nuanced and largely academic complaint about just how much credit black abolitionists should get for civil rights victories.



              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              You keep telling people this, but I'm not sure why. This is the second time in the last month or so that I've seen you pop into a thread after a long absence, and tell people you're not going to stick around. What's motivating you to keep coming back? Why not just leave now and not say anything about it? I mean, I wouldn't mind if you stuck around. I like seeing your point of view on this forum occasionally, and I think you often make some constructive arguments. Even on this subject, I imagine there's more we agree on than disagree. Some of the essays I've reviewed contain some really fascinating material that I think the wider public ought to know, but overall the presentations appears to have a far left, postmodern, critical theory bent to them.

              It's as much a reminder to myself as a declaration to others. There have been only two popular phenomena in the last few years that piqued my interest in how a subset of conservative Christian culture is responding. In both cases (Mueller Report, 1619 Project), I saw conservative Christians respond to fairly significant cultural and political moments by 1) not actually reading the content and 2) forming deep and antithetical opinions about that content, anyway. That fascinates me to a degree and, in both cases, drove a deeper probe.

              But, by necessity, there's not enough content there to last. Can't wring blood from a turnip or informed discussion from people who've never read (or read poorly) the source material. And online debate is a time sink, a misuse of the day, yada yada yada.

              So that's my apology and why I think I've pretty much tapped out this thread in the same way as the Mueller thread. I do appreciate this conversation, though, which was substantive and dealt with some actual content in Hannah-Jones article. I'm up to Essay 4 in my reading tonight; I've followed Jamelle Bouie on Twitter for a long time and I'm sure it's going to be a good read.

              --Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                But it's not just what the abolitionist movement was, not even close.
                It is what the abolitionist movement was. I have no idea where you got this idea that the abolitionist movement was made up of slaves, but you're wrong.

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                It's the tip of the abolitionist movement; your depiction paints the abolitionist movement as an essentially legal argument when, in fact, it was a political effort that embodied far more than just the public speaking or legislative efforts of freemen.
                You're right, it was more than a political movement. It was also a social movement. It was a way of getting white people to think differently about slavery (or in the case of some racist abolitionists, it was a way of getting rid of black people). Slaves themselves largely did not have opportunity to make this case.

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Free abolitionists may have spoke for enslaved abolitionists ... but those enslaved abolitionists were still active members of the movement! The Underground Railroad, to give one example, was primarily facilitated by slaves. Just as there wouldn't be freemen abolitionists to speak for the enslaved abolitionists without the enslaved abolitionists, the UR wouldn't have existed without the participation, organization, and effort of enslaved abolitionists.
                No. The Underground Railroad was not primarily facilitated by slaves. Who told you that? It was mainly made up of freed blacks (called conductors) with the help of white abolitionists (while sympathetic with the Underground Railroad most whites wanted to do things on the up and up). Most slaves (by the very nature of slavery) did not have the means, resources, or ability to work the Underground Railroad. Again, I'm completely bewildered how any of this is news to you. And besides all of this, the Underground Railroad is just one part of the greater abolitionist movement, which, again, was mainly comprised of white people.


                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                This is not correct; we're saying two different things. You're saying that the contemporary existence of other civil rights struggles negates Hannah-Jones' claim that black civil rights victories laid the foundation for the success of those other struggles.
                Not quite. I'm saying that the quote, "black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights" is at best, an overreach.

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                I'm pointing out that Hannah-Jones' argument is that the legal victories won in emancipation and black civil rights laid the foundation for future victories. That's the core of her argument, not that black people alone suffered or struggled.
                And according to journalists like Elaine White, it was the suffragette movement, their "strategies, lobbying tactics, public education efforts, non-violent protest (demonstrations, marches, picketing, civil disobedience)" that laid the foundation for future victories. And while it's true that history is written by the victors, history is a lot more sloppy than "blacks paved the way for every other civil rights movement," or 'suffragettes paved the way for every other civil rights movement." It might be closer to the truth to say that they shared a burden, were both influential on one another, and were themselves the recipient of previous rights movements.

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Your original complaint was that the articles were "HEAVILY anachronistic" and "essentially racist".
                Yes, I stand by the complaint.

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                I feel like that's a complaint that requires a higher burden of evidence than what's been argued so far, which is a nuanced and largely academic complaint about just how much credit black abolitionists should get for civil rights victories.
                I thought it was clear that my observation wasn't based on this one essay alone, and nor had I intended to provide a high burden of evidence for my complaint. My complaint was a personal observation from my skimming of the essays. It wasn't exactly a challenge for a debate on the subject.

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                It's as much a reminder to myself as a declaration to others. There have been only two popular phenomena in the last few years that piqued my interest in how a subset of conservative Christian culture is responding. In both cases (Mueller Report, 1619 Project), I saw conservative Christians respond to fairly significant cultural and political moments by 1) not actually reading the content and 2) forming deep and antithetical opinions about that content, anyway. That fascinates me to a degree and, in both cases, drove a deeper probe.

                But, by necessity, there's not enough content there to last. Can't wring blood from a turnip or informed discussion from people who've never read (or read poorly) the source material. And online debate is a time sink, a misuse of the day, yada yada yada.
                There's something about this, prodding fellow Christians of a different political flavor than your own, that doesn't sit right with me. It comes off... I don't know...sort of smug, or contemptuous or something. Maybe that's not what you're going for, but it's just a feeling I have. For the record, I'm not a Conservative, so it appears your time sink may have been deeper than you realized.

                Comment


                • #68
                  It seems that Sam thinks that since virtually every black person, both free and enslaved, were opposed to slavery, that made them a part of the abolition movement.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    It is what the abolitionist movement was. I have no idea where you got this idea that the abolitionist movement was made up of slaves, but you're wrong.


                    You're right, it was more than a political movement. It was also a social movement. It was a way of getting white people to think differently about slavery (or in the case of some racist abolitionists, it was a way of getting rid of black people). Slaves themselves largely did not have opportunity to make this case.


                    No. The Underground Railroad was not primarily facilitated by slaves. Who told you that? It was mainly made up of freed blacks (called conductors) with the help of white abolitionists (while sympathetic with the Underground Railroad most whites wanted to do things on the up and up). Most slaves (by the very nature of slavery) did not have the means, resources, or ability to work the Underground Railroad. Again, I'm completely bewildered how any of this is news to you. And besides all of this, the Underground Railroad is just one part of the greater abolitionist movement, which, again, was mainly comprised of white people.
                    Yes, it was. I don't quite get why this is controversial but the Underground Railroad began with runaway slaves escaping and creating safe havens or "maroons", turning around and helping other slaves escape. Even later, before slaves could make it to the "official" UR, slave escapes were plotted, organized, and assisted by other slaves in the South. There's simply no way to consider the UR or the abolitionist movement without the great mass of work beginning and existing among enslaved black Americans — they were active participants in each other's freedom attempts.

                    You're reducing the "abolitionist movement" to a very narrow sense that might be useful when talking about a specific aspect of it but is woefully inappropriate for discussing its sum.


                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Not quite. I'm saying that the quote, "black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including womenÂ’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights" is at best, an overreach.


                    And according to journalists like Elaine White, it was the suffragette movement, their "strategies, lobbying tactics, public education efforts, non-violent protest (demonstrations, marches, picketing, civil disobedience)" that laid the foundation for future victories. And while it's true that history is written by the victors, history is a lot more sloppy than "blacks paved the way for every other civil rights movement," or 'suffragettes paved the way for every other civil rights movement." It might be closer to the truth to say that they shared a burden, were both influential on one another, and were themselves the recipient of previous rights movements.
                    So you can make that argument, certainly, but it's not a particularly obvious argument to make and Hannah-Jones has a much greater weight of evidence, given the history of legal victories, for her argument. Regardless, it makes this:


                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Yes, I stand by the complaint.

                    I thought it was clear that my observation wasn't based on this one essay alone, and nor had I intended to provide a high burden of evidence for my complaint. My complaint was a personal observation from my skimming of the essays. It wasn't exactly a challenge for a debate on the subject.
                    untenable from my perspective. If you're going to charge something as being highly anachronistic or essentially racist, it can't stand on what can only be seen as a matter of nuanced academic debate. If it's just a personal observation that's not going to be substantiated in a very thorough manner ... well, I'm not sure that's advisable for Christians.


                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    There's something about this, prodding fellow Christians of a different political flavor than your own, that doesn't sit right with me. It comes off... I don't know...sort of smug, or contemptuous or something. Maybe that's not what you're going for, but it's just a feeling I have. For the record, I'm not a Conservative, so it appears your time sink may have been deeper than you realized.
                    Condescending is how I'd imagine it coming off to folks ... but my counter-argument for that is there's a certain standard to public conduct, especially among Christians, to have at least some sense of what you're talking about before launching into strong opinion or accusation. This means dealing with the content of an issue, which means reading source documents. If it's condescending to say "Folks need to read and understand what they're reading before making strong factual or opinionated claims against others", I'll cop to that ... but only in the same sense that Augustine might have. I remember plenty of times folks on TWeb -- many of whom frequent Civics or have even posted on this thread -- dogpiled on some atheist or agnostic poster who opined on a matter of Christian doctrine without having familiarity with even some of its more nuanced premises or obscure documents. Expecting the same standard to be followed with basic source documents seems like it would be a priority for a forum ostensibly dedicated to serious debate.

                    Wasn't trying to peg you as a conservative, for what that's worth -- I think there's little doubt that the majority of folks posting in this thread and forum are. Certainly nearly all the folks who posted before my first comment fit the bill.

                    --Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      It seems that Sam thinks that since virtually every black person, both free and enslaved, were opposed to slavery, that made them a part of the abolition movement.
                      That black slaves were active participants in the effort to free black slaves is the argument, and that these black slaves, though largely formless and nameless to history, represented the majority in the movement.

                      To reduce or outright erase their contributions to their freedom efforts strikes me as foolish.
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Yes, it was. I don't quite get why this is controversial but the Underground Railroad began with runaway slaves escaping and creating safe havens or "maroons", turning around and helping other slaves escape. Even later, before slaves could make it to the "official" UR, slave escapes were plotted, organized, and assisted by other slaves in the South. There's simply no way to consider the UR or the abolitionist movement without the great mass of work beginning and existing among enslaved black Americans — they were active participants in each other's freedom attempts.
                        I have no doubt that escaped slaves helped non-escaped slaves escape. And I've pointed out from the start that escaped slaves were part of the abolitionist movement, so I don't know why you think my posts controversial. Still the Underground Railroad was "predominantly run by free Northern African Americans"1. Where we disagree is that the abolitionist movement as a whole was largely comprised of black people (the Underground Railroad comprised only a part of the overall abolitionist movement, and was controversial within the movement itself). The abolitionist movement was NOT largely comprised of black people, it was largely comprised of white people, along with a number of free blacks, and escaped slaves. It was composed of people who had the voice, resources and ability to influence whites to put an end to slavery, and, by the very nature of slavery, this often necessarily excluded the enslaved.

                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        You're reducing the "abolitionist movement" to a very narrow sense that might be useful when talking about a specific aspect of it but is woefully inappropriate for discussing its sum.
                        To the contrary, you're expanding the concept of the "abolitionist movement" in a sense that is not commonly understood or taught, and that would have been alien to abolitionists in the 18th and 19th century.

                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        So you can make that argument, certainly, but it's not a particularly obvious argument to make
                        To you, perhaps.

                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        and Hannah-Jones has a much greater weight of evidence, given the history of legal victories, for her argument.
                        She'd need to make that argument to Elaine Weiss, not me. Like Weiss, Nikole Hannah-Jones is a journalist, not a historian. Hannah-Jones doesn't cite sources, she makes proclamations and asserts claims, and her weight of evidence is as great as Weiss' as far as I can tell.

                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        If you're going to charge something as being highly anachronistic or essentially racist, it can't stand on what can only be seen as a matter of nuanced academic debate. If it's just a personal observation that's not going to be substantiated in a very thorough manner ... well, I'm not sure that's advisable for Christians.
                        Wait, what? Says who? Since when does being a Christian require one to substantiate, in a thorough manner, one's personal observations? I don't find that anywhere in my Bible. This is an absurd assertion as far as I can tell.


                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Condescending is how I'd imagine it coming off to folks ... but my counter-argument for that is there's a certain standard to public conduct, especially among Christians, to have at least some sense of what you're talking about before launching into strong opinion or accusation. This means dealing with the content of an issue, which means reading source documents. If it's condescending to say "Folks need to read and understand what they're reading before making strong factual or opinionated claims against others", I'll cop to that ... but only in the same sense that Augustine might have.
                        What source documents did you read of the opinionated essays of journalists of The New York Times Magazine before coming here to defend them? You yourself have pointed out that you hadn't even read all of the essays you're defending. Again, I think it an absurd suggestion that, because we're Christian, our standard of public conduct is called into question for offering opinions based on opinion of historical record. This is some weak stuff. Sam, I don't know if you're just attempting to win a conversation or what, but you're usually a bit better prepared than this.

                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        I remember plenty of times folks on TWeb -- many of whom frequent Civics or have even posted on this thread -- dogpiled on some atheist or agnostic poster who opined on a matter of Christian doctrine without having familiarity with even some of its more nuanced premises or obscure documents. Expecting the same standard to be followed with basic source documents seems like it would be a priority for a forum ostensibly dedicated to serious debate.
                        These are not "basic source documents." These essays are mainly from journalists, activists, and people offering personal anecdotes. Heck, there are even a few poems thrown in. How in the world this compares to atheist/agnostic posters opining on matters of Christian doctrine is...well, I have no idea how you're making that connection.

                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Wasn't trying to peg you as a conservative, for what that's worth -- I think there's little doubt that the majority of folks posting in this thread and forum are. Certainly nearly all the folks who posted before my first comment fit the bill.
                        Fair enough, but if a non-Conservative like myself gets the inkling that these essays are mainly an exercise in postmodern critical theory, maybe there's something to their objections.
                        Last edited by Adrift; 08-23-2019, 06:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          I have no doubt that escaped slaves helped non-escaped slaves escape. And I've pointed out from the start that escaped slaves were part of the abolitionist movement, so I don't know why you think my posts controversial. Still the Underground Railroad was "predominantly run by free Northern African Americans"1. Where we disagree is that the abolitionist movement as a whole was largely comprised of black people (the Underground Railroad comprised only a part of the overall abolitionist movement, and was controversial within the movement itself). The abolitionist movement was NOT largely comprised of black people, it was largely comprised of white people, along with a number of free blacks, and escaped slaves. It was composed of people who had the voice, resources and ability to influence whites to put an end to slavery, and, by the very nature of slavery, this often necessarily excluded the enslaved.
                          This, again, is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the enslaved black Americans working toward the emancipation of some or all black slaves (including but not limited to methods like the UR) were part of the abolitionist movement.


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          To the contrary, you're expanding the concept of the "abolitionist movement" in a sense that is not commonly understood or taught, and that would have been alien to abolitionists in the 18th and 19th century.
                          That's incidental to the argument; you introduced the abolitionist movement as a counter to Hannah-Jones argument that black Americans, through their efforts against slavery and discrimination, are predominately responsible for the achievement of a more true democracy. But doing so either A) regulates the "abolitionist movement" to a very narrow aspect of the wider emancipation movement or B) necessarily incorporates all emancipation efforts. (A) doesn't rebut or refute Hannah-Jones thesis; (B) is an affirmation of it.


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          To you, perhaps.
                          Nor to you, if you allow that it's a debate that would take considerable back-and-forth from historians or journalists.


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          She'd need to make that argument to Elaine Weiss, not me. Like Weiss, Nikole Hannah-Jones is a journalist, not a historian. Hannah-Jones doesn't cite sources, she makes proclamations and asserts claims, and her weight of evidence is as great as Weiss' as far as I can tell.
                          It's not because Hannah-Jones has the weight of legal history and case law, as I noted earlier.


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Wait, what? Says who? Since when does being a Christian require one to substantiate, in a thorough manner, one's personal observations? I don't find that anywhere in my Bible. This is an absurd assertion as far as I can tell.
                          You believe it's advisable for a Christian to make a flippant accusation of racism against a writer, group of writers, or publication?


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          What source documents did you read before reading the opinionated essays of journalists of The New York Times Magazine before coming here to defend them? You yourself have pointed out that you hadn't read through all of them, before coming to their defense. Again, I think it an absurd suggestion that, because we're Christian, our standard of public conduct is called into question for offering opinions based on opinion of historical record. This is some weak stuff. Sam, I don't know if you're just attempting to win a conversation or what, but you're usually a bit better prepared than this.
                          Read my posts. I haven't defended any of the articles or writers I haven't read. Where I haven't read something, I've only made the argument that we should actually read the essays before making strong claims. The opinions that were being offered here were not "opinion of the historical record" but ignorant (because people had not read, let alone read thoroughly) what they were criticizing with inflammatory language.


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          These are not "basic source documents." These essays are mainly from journalists, activists, and people offering personal anecdotes. Heck, there are even a few poems thrown in. How in the world this compares to atheist/agnostic posters opining on matters of Christian doctrine is...well, I have no idea how you're making that connection.
                          These are the basic source documents for discussion about the 1619 Project. If people are going to make claims about the project, its content or what the NYT is intending by publishing it then the 1619 Project magazine is the source document.


                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Fair enough, but if a non-Conservative like myself gets the inkling that these essays are mainly an exercise in critical theory, maybe there's something to their objections.
                          It's possible -- but one doesn't get a good sense of a project by skimming, either. The 1619 Project is, of course, an exercise in critical theory ... but that's what history fundamentally is. What was being argued here is not that NYT was engaging in a work of critical theory but that it was doing so in a way that obviously wrong with clearly malicious motives.

                          Holding people to a higher standard than that doesn't strike me as inappropriate.

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            This, again, is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the enslaved black Americans working toward the emancipation of some or all black slaves (including but not limited to methods like the UR) were part of the abolitionist movement.
                            Your argument has been far stronger than that. Our main source of contention is your belief that black people made up the majority of the abolitionist movement. From the start I have conceded that escaped black slaves made up a number of the abolitionist movement, but that the majority was white.


                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            That's incidental to the argument;
                            It is NOT incidental. It has been at the heart of what we've been debating over the last several posts.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            you introduced the abolitionist movement as a counter to Hannah-Jones argument that black Americans, through their efforts against slavery and discrimination, are predominately responsible for the achievement of a more true democracy. But doing so either A) regulates the "abolitionist movement" to a very narrow aspect of the wider emancipation movement or B) necessarily incorporates all emancipation efforts. (A) doesn't rebut or refute Hannah-Jones thesis; (B) is an affirmation of it.
                            It does in fact refute her argument. Enslaved blacks, by the very nature of slavery, had no voice. They required someone to speak up for them in the same sense that pro-lifers speak up for the unborn. How in the world could the enslaved be responsible for the achievement of a more true democracy? They were enslaved! There were a few quickly squashed rebellions, but it took men, free men, mostly free white men of moral character, to fight and die for the rights of the enslaved for democracy to shine on the enslaved. Hannah-Jones (and by way of defense, you) are undermining the sacrifice of those who died and suffered during the Civil War to emancipate the enslaved.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Nor to you, if you allow that it's a debate that would take considerable back-and-forth from historians or journalists.
                            Sure. As I've stated, I think there's more to it than both presume.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            It's not because Hannah-Jones has the weight of legal history and case law, as I noted earlier.
                            I don't recall you noting that earlier.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            You believe it's advisable for a Christian to make a flippant accusation of racism against a writer, group of writers, or publication?
                            If the shoe fits, certainly. Do you think it incumbent upon a Christian to read the entirety of Mein Kamp before they suggest that its author is racist?

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Read my posts. I haven't defended any of the articles or writers I haven't read. Where I haven't read something, I've only made the argument that we should actually read the essays before making strong claims. The opinions that were being offered here were not "opinion of the historical record" but ignorant (because people had not read, let alone read thoroughly) what they were criticizing with inflammatory language.
                            I have read your posts. YOU have not read the articles you are defending. And make no bones about it, you came into this thread defending the essays you had not read. I'm certain that is plainly obvious to the majority of the posters in this thread. If you think this is up for debate, we can start a poll if you'd like.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            These are the basic source documents for discussion about the 1619 Project. If people are going to make claims about the project, its content or what the NYT is intending by publishing it then the 1619 Project magazine is the source document.
                            Oy vey. These are not basic source documents. They are opinion pieces. Basic source documents would be documents from the 19th century the essays are commenting on, or at the very least historical assessments on the historical documents of the 19th century.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            It's possible -- but one doesn't get a good sense of a project by skimming, either. The 1619 Project is, of course, an exercise in critical theory ... but that's what history fundamentally is.
                            History is NOT fundamentally an exercise in critical theory.
                            “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246)."

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            What was being argued here is not that NYT was engaging in a work of critical theory but that it was doing so in a way that obviously wrong with clearly malicious motives.
                            I'd argue that postmodern critical theory IS obviously wrong with clearly malicious motives.

                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Holding people to a higher standard than that doesn't strike me as inappropriate.
                            It may not strike you as inappropriate, but in this case (especially since you are guilty of the same) it most certainly is.
                            Last edited by Adrift; 08-23-2019, 07:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Your argument has been far stronger than that. Our main source of contention is your belief that black people made up the majority of the abolitionist movement. From the start I have conceded that escaped black slaves made up a number of the abolitionist movement, but that the majority was white.


                              It is NOT incidental. It has been at the heart of what we've been debating over the last several posts.

                              It does in fact refute her argument. Enslaved blacks, by the very nature of slavery, had no voice. They required someone to speak up for them in the same sense that pro-lifers speak up for the unborn. How in the world could the enslaved be responsible for the achievement of a more true democracy? They were enslaved! There were a few quickly squashed rebellions, but it took men, free men, mostly free white men of moral character, to fight and die for the rights of the enslaved for democracy to shine on the enslaved. Hannah-Jones (and by way of defense, you) are undermining the sacrifice of those who died and suffered during the Civil War to emancipate the enslaved.
                              No, and here's where you pass from holding a too-narrow view to holding an inappropriate perspective. In no way does acknowledging that the abolitionist movement was part of a broader emancipation effort, the majority of participants in which were black, "undermine the sacrifice" of anyone else who fought for emancipation. To argue that is to devalue the agency and efforts of black slaves, as your comparison to the unborn makes plain. What you argue here -- that the "abolitionist movement" should solely refer to the vocal political effort of white and black freemen, eliminates the work and even the agency of black slaves who were very much active agents in their emancipation. It's like arguing that Harriet Tubman only became an "abolitionist" after she made it to Philadelphia.


                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I don't recall you noting that earlier.
                              I did; I've noted the importance of legal victories arising from emancipation and the first Civil Rights Act several times.


                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              If the shoe fits, certainly. Do you think it incumbent upon a Christian to read the entirety of Mein Kamp before they suggest that its author is racist?
                              If that were the sole or even primary way they understand the author, yes, of course. Anyone here have an in-depth historical knowledge of Hannah-Jones or Desmond or Bouie before they started assailing their work in the 1619 Project? No.


                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I have read your posts. YOU have not read the articles you are defending. And make no bones about it, you came into this thread defending the essays you had not read. I'm certain that is plainly obvious to the majority of the posters in this thread. If you think this is up for debate, we can start a poll if you'd like.
                              If you've read my posts, you've read nothing that has defended or even made strong comments about the project as a whole or the essays as a group. It's not a matter of polling, friend. It's either in the posts or it ain't.


                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Oy vey. These are not basic source documents. They are opinion pieces. Basic source documents would be documents from the 19th century the essays are commenting on, or at the very least historical assessments on the historical documents of the 19th century.
                              They are the source documents for a discussion on the 1619 Project. It's not a matter of argument; if you're going to comment on the essays in the project, you have to read the essays.


                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              History is NOT fundamentally an exercise in critical theory.
                              “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246)."



                              "In the narrow sense" -- that's our disagreement with the use, here. I'm using it in the broad sense used in philosophy and history, where "doing history" or "doing philosophy" is exactly that a philosopher or historian is examining the phenomena, forces, and structures that shape events, societies, cultures, and thoughts. History is critical theory, though it may not be "critical theory" in the Marxist sense.

                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I'd argue that postmodern critical theory IS obviously wrong with clearly malicious motives.
                              I'm going to walk out onto a limb and suggest that the criticism of NYT publication of the 1619 Project was not borne of an academic distaste of postmodern critical theory as such.


                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              It may not strike you as inappropriate, but in this case (especially since you are guilty of the same) it most certainly is.
                              I am not; I've made comments about only the articles that I've actually read thoroughly; with the possible exception of seer, I'm the only one here who did so before stating opinions about the subject.

                              And, unless there's anything new that crops up, I think we've exhausted my interest in the thread. If it's going to primarily be an exercise in arguing over whether people should read what they're arguing about in depth before commenting, I doubt there's much I can offer.

                              Thanks for the time,

                              --Sam
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                No, and here's where you pass from holding a too-narrow view to holding an inappropriate perspective. In no way does acknowledging that the abolitionist movement was part of a broader emancipation effort, the majority of participants in which were black, "undermine the sacrifice" of anyone else who fought for emancipation. To argue that is to devalue the agency and efforts of black slaves, as your comparison to the unborn makes plain. What you argue here -- that the "abolitionist movement" should solely refer to the vocal political effort of white and black freemen, eliminates the work and even the agency of black slaves who were very much active agents in their emancipation. It's like arguing that Harriet Tubman only became an "abolitionist" after she made it to Philadelphia.
                                Slaves, by the very nature of slavery, could NOT fight for emancipation. They were subsumed into a system that by it's very nature gave them no voice. We seem to be repeating the same argument over and over again. Harriet Tubman, as a slave, wasn't a member of the abolitionist movement.

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                I did; I've noted the importance of legal victories arising from emancipation and the first Civil Rights Act several times.
                                I don't recall this. Weiss notes, in a round about way, the importance of legal history and case law. So I'm not sure why you find this impressive.

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                If that were the sole or even primary way they understand the author, yes, of course. Anyone here have an in-depth historical knowledge of Hannah-Jones or Desmond or Bouie before they started assailing their work in the 1619 Project? No.
                                You honestly think it a prerequisite to know something about Hitler before passing judgement skimming Mein Kampf? Seriously?

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                If you've read my posts, you've read nothing that has defended or even made strong comments about the project as a whole or the essays as a group. It's not a matter of polling, friend. It's either in the posts or it ain't.
                                It's definitely in the posts. Shall we take it to a poll? I'm absolutely confident my assessment will be justified. Can you say the same?

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                They are the source documents for a discussion on the 1619 Project. It's not a matter of argument; if you're going to comment on the essays in the project, you have to read the essays.
                                Which you have not, and yet you defend. And no. These are not "source documents" as the phrase is typically parsed. They are opinion pieces on source documentation.

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                [/INDENT]"In the narrow sense" -- that's our disagreement with the use, here. I'm using it in the broad sense used in philosophy and history, where "doing history" or "doing philosophy" is exactly that a philosopher or historian is examining the phenomena, forces, and structures that shape events, societies, cultures, and thoughts. History is critical theory, though it may not be "critical theory" in the Marxist sense.
                                Oh brother , I totally knew you were going to trip all over this. You know what "critical theory" means when discussing historical events.

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                I'm going to walk out onto a limb and suggest that the criticism of NYT publication of the 1619 Project was not borne of an academic distaste of postmodern critical theory as such.
                                I imagine that limb cracking from underneath you.


                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                I am not;
                                Indeed, you are.


                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                I've made comments about only the articles that I've actually read thoroughly; with the possible exception of seer, I'm the only one here who did so before stating opinions about the subject.
                                This is disingenuous. You very obviously came into the thread defending these articles well before you read them. If you think not, I'm again happy to put it to a poll.

                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                And, unless there's anything new that crops up, I think we've exhausted my interest in the thread. If it's going to primarily be an exercise in arguing over whether people should read what they're arguing about in depth before commenting, I doubt there's much I can offer.
                                Practice what you preach, brother.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                308 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X