Red, White, and Black. Scholars and activists challenge the 1619 Project

[get these nets]

An indispensable corrective to the falsified version of black history presented by The 1619 Project, radical activists, and money-hungry “diversity consultants.”

In the rush to redefine the place of black Americans in contemporary society, many radical activists and academics have mounted a campaign to destroy traditional American history and replace it with a politicized version that few would recognize. According to the new radical orthodoxy, the United States was founded as a racist nation—and everything that has happened throughout our history must be viewed through the lens of the systemic oppression of black people.

Rejecting this false narrative, a collection of the most prominent and respected black scholars and thinkers has come together to correct the record and tell the true story of black Americans in all its complexity, diversity of experience, and poignancy.

Collectively, they paint a vivid picture of black people living the grand American experience, however bumpy the road may be along the way. But rather than a people apart, blacks are woven into the united whole that makes this nation unique in history.

Featuring Essays by:

John Sibley Butler
Jason D. Hill
Coleman Cruz Hughes
John McWhorter
Clarence Page
Wilfred Reilly
Shelby Steele
Carol M. Swain

Dean Nelson
Charles Love
Rev. Corey Brook
Stephen L. Harris
Harold A. Black
Stephanie Deutsch
Yaya J. Fanusie
Ian Rowe
John Wood, Jr.
Joshua Mitchell
Robert Cherry
Rev. DeForest Black Soaries, Jr.

 

[get these nets]

 

[Althalucian]

Disgusting.

 

[OfTheCross]

The woman in the screencap for the first video has no credibility. The Prager U videos she does are full of lies

 

[Professor Emeritus]

lol

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The woman in the screencap for the first video has no credibility. The Prager U videos she does are full of lies

Not to mention she just chaired the "1776 Commission" for Trump. She's something else.

Shelby Steele worked his way on there too.


edit: Yo Carol Swain's wiki entry is worse than I remembered


In 2002 Swain argued against reparations for American descendants of slaves during an event at Delaware State University, a historically black university.[50] However, in 2005 she called for President George W. Bush to issue a formal apology to African Americans for the institution of slavery;[51] She also wrote a policy document on the subject for the Heartland Institute.[52] When an apology was eventually issued in 2009, during the presidency of Barack Obama, she called it "meaningless" and expressed disappointment that it did not happen under the previous president, a Republican, as "it would have shed that racist scab on the party."[53]

In October 2009, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) mentioned Swain in a critique of A Conversation About Race, a documentary directed by Craig Bodeker that contends that racism is not an issue in America. The SPLC stated that the film had been well-received among white supremacist organizations, and that the film's director gave interviews to white supremacist publications to promote it. The SPLC noted that Swain was one of the few mainstream figures who had endorsed the film.[54] Swain stated that the content of the film could be effectively used in social science classes to encourage debate,[55] called the SPLC article a smear, and claimed that the SPLC was retaliating against her for past criticism of the organization.[56]

Swain called the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012 "a very scary situation".[2] She argued that civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had used the shooting of Trayvon Martin to increase voter registration for the Democratic Party,[57] and argued that black-on-white crimes are underreported in the media.[58] She also criticized Martin's mother for failing to address the issues of black-on-black crime rates, unemployment, and abortion in black communities.[59]

In July 2016, Swain criticized Black Lives Matter, suggesting it was "a Marxist organization" and "a very destructive force in America." She reiterated that it was "pure Marxism" and concluded that it "needs to go". In October 2020, a video recording was released which showed her comparing Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan.[62]

In August 2016, Swain appeared in Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, directed by Dinesh D'Souza.[68]




This who you want us to get our history knowledge from @Get These Nets?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Yo, I started from the beginning and worked up:

* Dean Nelson is a right-wing activist who works for an anti-abortion organization and has no background in history or education
* Charles Love is a radio host who now writes for conservative RealClearPolitics. He started an educational foundation to remove social justice and "diversity" from education.
* Rev. Corey Brook is a pastor/businessman who created controversy by endorsing a Republican for governor. No background in history/education.
* Stephen L. Harris is a retired religious studies professor with no background in American history. Also, he seems to be dead.
* Harold A. Black is a retired finance professor with to have no background in history
* Stephanie Deutsch is an "independent writer" who has no formal background in American history but wrote a book about Booker T. Washington
* Yaya J. Fanusie works at the Center for a New American Security where he does cryptocurrency stuff. No background in history or education.
* Ian Rowe is a fellow at the conservative AEI think tank where he argues that structural racism isn't real
* John Wood Jr. is a Republican politician who writes for the "Intellectual Dark Web" publication Quillette
* Joshua Mitchell is a conservative author who argues that white heterosexual males are under attack
* Robert Cherry is a retired professor (economics, not history) writing for right-wing outlets like National Review and Real Clear Politics. He argues White racism is a myth.
* Rev. DeForest Black Soaries, Jr. seems like a good guy to me but he's a Republican, so there's that

Here's a great quote from Joshua Mitchell:

"America has always been committed to the idea that citizens can work together to build a common world. Today, three afflictions keep us from pursuing that noble ideal. The first and most obvious affliction is identity politics, which seeks to transform America by turning politics into a religious venue of sacrificial offering. For now, the sacrificial scapegoat is the white, heterosexual, man. After he is humiliated and purged, who will be the object of cathartic rage? White women? Black men?"



@Get These Nets, why should we learn history from these people?

 

[get these nets]

@Rhakim

Response books by teams of scholars/writers are nothing new. I've posted about a few of them in my time here.
The response to the Manning Marable book about Malcolm X was edited by Herb Boyd.
Mentioned here
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/32287134/

The response to "The Confessions of Nat Turner" was edited by John Henrik Clarke.
Mentioned here.
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-other-nat-turner-film-controversy.605072/

I'm a student of history, so I'd like to see the specific points of contention about the project. See which dates, details, and points are being challenged. Fluff, conjecture, etc are scanned, recognized, and noted by me when I read books and articles, as it is when I read coli posts. I know when people are staying on topic, and when they aren't.

 

[Cole Cash]

@Rhakim

Response books by teams of scholars/writers are nothing new. I've posted about a few of them in my time here.
The response to the Manning Marable book about Malcolm X was edited by Herb Boyd.
Mentioned here
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/32287134/

The response to "The Confessions of Nat Turner" was edited by John Henrik Clarke.
Mentioned here.
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-other-nat-turner-film-controversy.605072/

I'm a student of history, so I'd like to see the specific points of contention about the project. See which dates, details, and points are being challenged. Fluff, conjecture, etc are scanned, recognized, and noted by me when I read books and articles, as it is when I read coli posts. I know when people are staying on topic, and when they aren't.

the problem is that the people challanging this have a vested interest in c00ning, so none of these are good faith. my man Andray Domise and my friend a community college professor adam hudson actually do this, but those folks actually love black people and being black.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@Rhakim

Response books by teams of scholars/writers are nothing new. I've posted about a few of them in my time here.
The response to the Manning Marable book about Malcolm X was edited by Herb Boyd..

Herb Boyd is a journalist and activist who teaches Black Studies at City College of New York. Seems like an appropriate guy to write about Malcolm X.
John Henrik Clarke (R.I.P.) was a professor of Black Studies at City University of New York. Seems like an appropriate guy to write about Nat Turner.

On the other hand, the guys I just listed are right-wing activists and politicians, writers at right-wing publications, or professors in subjects like finance, economics, and religious studies. They don't appear to have studied in American History. So why would they be your go-to voices for a critical response to the 1619 project? Their bias is obvious and their expertise is limited, wouldn't they be some of the worst possible sources for such a perspective?

The book appears explicitly polemic and only tangentially historical. Some of the chapter titles are

"A Positive Vision: The Agenda of '1776'"
"The Moral Meaning of America: Two Parallel Narratives"
"Critical Race Theory's Destructive Impact on America"
"We Cannot Allow '1619' to Dumb Down America in the Name of a Crusade"
"Slavery Does Not Define the Black American Experience"
"Black Is the New Idol"
"The Cult of Victimhood"
"Living by the Grace of God and the Power of Applying Oneself"
"True Freedom Comes From Serving Community and God"
"Why Black Patriotism is More Important than Black Victimization"
"From Rural Poverty to Ivy League Professor: Carol M. Swain's Life Lessons"

I mean, come on, the "customers also purchased" list on Amazon includes books by Josh Hawley, Bill O'Reilly, Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro.

At 75 years of age I have lived through the feminist's, black, sexual, gay and every other movement imaginable. These essays put the history of the Africans in America in a historically correct perspective. One of the few books I'll read numerous times.

 

[get these nets]

Herb Boyd is a journalist and activist who teaches Black Studies at City College of New York. Seems like an appropriate guy to write about Malcolm X.
John Henrik Clarke (R.I.P.) was a professor of Black Studies at City University of New York. Seems like an appropriate guy to write about Nat Turner.

On the other hand, the guys I just listed are right-wing activists and politicians, writers at right-wing publications, or professors in subjects like finance, economics, and religious studies. They don't appear to have studied in American History. So why would they be your go-to voices for a critical response to the 1619 project? Their bias is obvious and their expertise is limited, wouldn't they be some of the worst possible sources for such a perspective?

The book appears explicitly polemic and only tangentially historical. Some of the chapter titles are

"A Positive Vision: The Agenda of '1776'"
"The Moral Meaning of America: Two Parallel Narratives"
"Critical Race Theory's Destructive Impact on America"
"We Cannot Allow '1619' to Dumb Down America in the Name of a Crusade"
"Slavery Does Not Define the Black American Experience"
"Black Is the New Idol"
"The Cult of Victimhood"
"Living by the Grace of God and the Power of Applying Oneself"
"True Freedom Comes From Serving Community and God"
"Why Black Patriotism is More Important than Black Victimization"
"From Rural Poverty to Ivy League Professor: Carol M. Swain's Life Lessons"

I mean, come on, the "customers also purchased" list on Amazon includes books by Josh Hawley, Bill O'Reilly, Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro.

The 1619 Project was coordinated by a journalist, not a historian. Some of writers weren't historians.

The initial criticisms were from historians. This current project was edited by and features non historians.

I'm missing your point.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The 1619 Project was coordinated by a journalist, not a historian. Some of writers weren't historians.

The initial criticisms were from historians. This current project was edited by and features non historians.

I'm missing your point.

For the moment I'm going to treat you as if you're not being disingenuous, just in case it's true.

The 1619 was started by an investigative journalist who has a B.A. in History and African-American studies and an M.A. in journalism. Before starting the project she had spent over a decade working on the education and civil rights beats. So right off the bat she has multiple qualifications more appropriate to the project than the large majority of the authors of the book you promoted.

Secondly, the content of the 1619 project is supported by a panel of historians and officially aided by the Smithsonian Institution for fact-checking, research, and development. That indicates a level of oversight simply not present in your book.

Finally, I demonstrated that most of the authors of your book demonstrate bias in a direction that frankly makes them untrustworthy. Carol Swain is an incredibly disingenuous person who has said a lot of ridiculous things and who works for fukking Praeger University and the Trump Administration. Many of the others are openly pushing the Republican agenda and in at least a couple cases even the white supremacist agenda. So I ask again, why should we take them seriously?



Yes, the 1619 project has been criticized by some actual historians too, and supported by others. Any sincere, meaningful criticisms should be looked at on their own merits, and while many historians have certainly advanced pro-white and pro-america narratives in the past that they've allowed to override factual accuracy, I'm sure other criticisms are legitimate. The study of history is a constant debate and the 1619 project has openly welcomed that debate. What you've failed to demonstrate is why would should take the right-wing activists in this book as serious participants at all.

 

[bdkane]

Some dangerous negroes there.

 

[get these nets]

For the moment I'm going to treat you as if you're not being disingenuous, just in case it's true.

The 1619 was started by an investigative journalist who has a B.A. in History and African-American studies and an M.A. in journalism. Before starting the project she had spent over a decade working on the education and civil rights beats. So right off the bat she has multiple qualifications more appropriate to the project than the large majority of the authors of the book you promoted.

Secondly, the content of the 1619 project is supported by a panel of historians and officially aided by the Smithsonian Institution for fact-checking, research, and development. That indicates a level of oversight simply not present in your book.

Finally, I demonstrated that most of the authors of your book demonstrate bias in a direction that frankly makes them untrustworthy. Carol Swain is an incredibly disingenuous person who has said a lot of ridiculous things and who works for fukking Praeger University and the Trump Administration. Many of the others are openly pushing the Republican agenda and in at least a couple cases even the white supremacist agenda. So I ask again, why should we take them seriously?



Yes, the 1619 project has been criticized by some actual historians too, and supported by others. Any sincere, meaningful criticisms should be looked at on their own merits, and while many historians have certainly advanced pro-white and pro-america narratives in the past that they've allowed to override factual accuracy, I'm sure other criticisms are legitimate. The study of history is a constant debate and the 1619 project has openly welcomed that debate. What you've failed to demonstrate is why would should take the right-wing activists in this book as serious participants at all.

"My book" and the book that "I'm promoting"?
Now who is being disingenuous?

You've lifted your pivot foot a few times here.
You challenged the response book on the grounds that it is not edited/presented by a historian.

I pointed out that neither was the 1619 Project
Despite the length of your last post, you didn't refute that Nikole H.J. is not a historian.

You bringing up that the 1619 Project was backed by the Smithsonsian is lifting your pivot foot.
The same team of historians and scholars who made the initial criticisms of the 1619 Project are surely behind the Red, White, and Black project. In fact, the R,W, and B writers are there partly to have Black faces being the ones doing some of the public pushback.

We've tracked the project and the responses on this forum. The RWB project is just another one.
I've watched self identified Black conservatives on talk shows and in public debates for decades. From the honest ones speaking their own words to the apologists/revisionists.
I know juelzing when I hear it. I'm interested to hear what kind of spin these writers will put on the topic. To see what level of truth is expressed and the lengths some are willing to go to juelz.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

"My book" and the book that "I'm promoting"?
Now who is being disingenuous?

Did you throw this random juelz in here just so your response would take more words?

You've lifted your pivot foot a few times here.
You challenged the response book on the grounds that it is not edited/presented by a historian.

I pointed out that neither was the 1619 Project
Despite the length of your last post, you didn't refute that Nikole H.J. is not a historian.

False. I challenged the book based on the fact that the authors were explicitly conservative Republican biased and most had no expertise in the subject matter.

Nicole Hannah-Jones has a B.A. in History and African-American Studies, an M.A. in journalism, has covered the education and civil rights beats for over a decade, and has her project curated by a panel of historians and the Smithsonian Institution for fact-checking and consultation. There is zero comparison between that and what I just demonstrated with those authors.

So you just gonna keep showing everyone how much you want to play games?

I've watched self identified Black conservatives on talk shows and in public debates for decades.

I mean, you're not telling us anything you haven't made obvious recently.

You bringing up that the 1619 Project was backed by the Smithsonsian is lifting your pivot foot.
The same team of historians and scholars who made the initial criticisms of the 1619 Project are surely behind the Red, White, and Black project. In fact, the R,W, and B writers are there partly to have Black faces being the ones doing some of the public pushback.

Where do you get that claim from? If the historians and scholars who made the initial criticisms of the 1619 Project are supporting this set of clowns then they're fukking fools. Did you really make this claim seriously?