Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hateful_surely_not t1_j6jc2j5 wrote

Reply to comment by MikiLove in TIL of Clement Vallandigham, a lawyer and congressman during the Civil War. The Union deported him for supporting the Confederacy. After the war, he died by accidentally shooting himself during a murder trial while trying to show the murder weapon could have misfired. His client got off as a result by MikiLove

When first released (before professional historians leaned on the Times and they made stealth edits) the Project and Hannah-Jones made the explicit argument that the perpetuation of slavery was the reason for the political separation of the United States from England. It's certainly ludicrous enough to be a strawman but in this case it's just a straightforward description.

−5

MikiLove OP t1_j6josac wrote

Like I said it was not perfect, and I'm glad they reviewed and updated it (as all historical texts should) but associating anyone who supports the 1619 project, or pointing out the Confederacy was primarily focused on the continuance of slavery and white supremacy, as racist is the straw man.

4

hateful_surely_not t1_j6jrcsr wrote

Anyone who supports the 1619 Project is either ignorant or racist. There's just no other way to approve of that complete shambles. "Not perfect" is making a mistake or misinterpretation. "Absolute travesty of journalism" is ignoring pre-publication corrections of fact from historians and even your own publication's fact checker, and then accusing all detractors of racism.

I'm not gonna argue about why the Confederate states seceded; they made pretty clear in their own words that it was mostly (though not exclusively) over slavery and white supremacy. It's just interesting that whether treason is bad depends on which party you find objectionable.

−2

MikiLove OP t1_j6jt0zf wrote

Or can see positives in the review of it versus fully condemning it. Again it is not perfect, but gives a different perspective than traditional American history is taught.

And you're right, a Civil War/Revolution can be morally justifiable given the circumstance. The Hatian or America revolution are examples as those that were justifiable

4

hateful_surely_not t1_j6juu0d wrote

There are good things about the 1619 project, but they're all duplicative of previous, better work. The general idea of hypocritical liberty goes back to Frederick Douglass or even before (Douglass gave it the best, most pointed treatment); the long-term impact of slavery and racism has been the subject of countless scholarly and popular works over the last 20 years. Without the false, radical revisionism, it's just kinda bland and pointless.

0