What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

I prefer the 1632 Project, where a town of West Virginians bring democracy to the HRE.

[Berkut]

What are the absurd parts?

Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong.

Some excerpts:

In a December 2019 letter published in The New York Times, the historians Wood, McPherson, Wilentz, Bynum, and Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the authors of a "displacement of historical understanding by ideology." The letter disputed the claim, made in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay, 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."

Also in December 2019, twelve scholars and political scientists specializing in the American Civil War sent a letter to the Times saying that "The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery." While agreeing to the importance of examining American slavery, they objected to what they described as the portrayal of slavery as a uniquely American phenomenon, to construing slavery as a capitalist venture, and to presenting out-of-context quotes of a conversation between Abraham Lincoln and "five esteemed free black men." 

In January 2020, historian Dr. Susan Parker, who specializes in the studies of Colonial United States at Flagler College, noted that slavery existed before any of the 13 Colonies. She wrote in an editorial in The St. Augustine Record that "The settlement known as San Miguel de Gualdape
 lasted for about six weeks from late September 1526 to the middle of November. Historian Paul Hoffman writes that the slaves at San Miguel rebelled and set fire to some homes of the Spaniards."^[46] Writing in USA Today, several historians—among them Parker, archaeologist Kathleen A. Deagan also of Flagler, and civil rights activist and historian David Nolan—all agreed that slavery was present decades before the year 1619. According to Deagan, people have "spent their careers trying to correct the erroneous belief" in such a narrative, with Nolan claiming that in ignoring the earlier settlement, the authors were "robbing black history."

In March 2020, historian Leslie M. Harris, who had been consulted for the project, wrote in Politico that she had warned that the idea that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery was inaccurate, and that the Times made avoidable mistakes, but that the project was "a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories."^[48] Hannah-Jones has also said that she stands by the claim that slavery helped fuel the revolution, though she concedes she might have phrased it too strongly in her essay, in a way that could give readers the impression that the support for slavery was universal.^[5][48] On March 11, 2020, Silverstein authored an "update" in the form of a "clarification" on the Times' website, correcting Hannah-Jones's essay to state that "protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists."^[49] This "clarification" was reportedly prompted by a private warning to Silverstein by Harvard classicist and political scientist Danielle Allen that she might go public with criticism if the passage on the revolution were not corrected

[Oexmelin]

I know what the talking points have been. I wanted to know what you thought was absurd.

[DGuller]

I'm a liberal because I believe in principles.  Principles are only principles if they're applied uniformly.  You're not a critical thinker if you only critically think about ideas that run counter to your ideology.  You're not against discrimination if you're only condemning discrimination against some groups and promoting discrimination against other groups for which you deem discrimination justified.  You're not for freedom of speech if you support prohibitive consequences against certain speech.

When it comes to political success, there it's not just winning, it's also about what you're fighting for.  Winning political power at the cost of your principles is a dubious victory.  It's a shame that by its nature principles-based thinking is not as emotionally appealing as extremism, but that's not enough to make me give up on the ideology altogether.  I think part of the reason the left fights the extremists on their side is because they don't want to be marginalized inside their own tent, like the non-fascists have been marginalized on the right. 

It's not about appearing moderate or trying to appeal to conservatives, although I do think that extremism on the left provides extra fuel for extremism on the right.  When you hear something obviously stupid on the left and can only find validation on the far right, because the other kinds who are not far left extremists don't want to deal with the bullshit that comes with publicly disagreeing with them, you may start thinking that the far right has a point in general.

[Admiral Yi]

There was no reason to talk as much as it was about "Defund the police" except as a ways to defer to the Republican talking points.

Disagree.  A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.

[DGuller]

There was no reason to talk as much as it was about "Defund the police" except as a ways to defer to the Republican talking points.

Disagree.  A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.

I agree, and what you responded to is revealing.  It's like the thought of ideas being discussed on their merits is not even entertained, not for yourself and not for others, it's straight to the political implications of ideas. 

That said, if political implications are all that you want to entertain, then think about the political implication of a rise in crime, and which political forces benefit from that.  Think about who benefits from progressive ideas failing catastrophically when implemented.

[Oexmelin]

Disagree.  A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.

Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?

Again, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.

[Oexmelin]

And, once again:

Principles are awesome. I am all about principles. I have principles. If that leads y'all to give out time, effort, energy, money, in keeping Republicans out of office, keeping fascism in check, bringing about their defeat, asking Democrats to be accountable for their action, or inaction, as the case may be, that's awesome. We can all go back to arguing about the Green New Deal later.

But the good liberal people against the Green New Deal, or ACAB, or UBI, or whatever, for better of for worse, haven't really succeeded in crafting any sort of message that sticks. With such an absence of direction, and tepid results at best, I can at least sympathize with people who want to change the messaging.

[The Minsky Moment]

What are the absurd parts?

Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong

Is there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?

AFAIK most of the substantive criticism has focused on Hannah-Jones' statement that protecting slavery was a "primary goal" of the American Revolution, a statement she admitted was exaggerated and that she intended to convey that it was a goal of some of the revolutionaries.  That's hardly halt the presses absurdity.

It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.

[Razgovory]

Disagree.  A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.

Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?

Again, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.

Maybe Yi didn't like the "defund the police" movement.

[Admiral Yi]

Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?

Sure.  Seattle city council vote to cut spending by 40%, establishment of the Queen Anne Hill free zone.

Again, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.

OK, how would one do that?

[The Minsky Moment]

Disagree.  A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.

Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?

As in reduce to zero?  No but it was proposed.
As in reduce funding?  Yes in many places including NYC.  And that was a terrible counterproductive policy.

The lesson to draw from the sorry episodes of police brutality and racial profiling was that police departments need to be reformed and transformed and that take more money and not less.  Even if the GOP and its allied media did not exist, there would still be good reason for thoughtful people on the left to push back hard on "defund the police"

[Eddie Teach]

What are the absurd parts?

Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong

Is there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?

AFAIK most of the substantive criticism has focused on Hannah-Jones' statement that protecting slavery was a "primary goal" of the American Revolution, a statement she admitted was exaggerated and that she intended to convey that it was a goal of some of the revolutionaries.  That's hardly halt the presses absurdity.

It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.

Which revolutionaries were motivated by fear of Britain outlawing slavery, an event that wouldn't happen for another 30 years?

[Sheilbh]

It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.

All of them, no?

I always remember being told in school (and university) when studying English and history that the most important thing was having an argument. It's a bit like showing your working in maths - that's where you get most of the points.

[Oexmelin]

Which revolutionaries were motivated by fear of Britain outlawing slavery, an event that wouldn't happen for another 30 years?

The Somerset v. Stewart case happened in 1772. In the Southern States, it was enough to stir up concern about the future of slavery within the British empire, concerns that were greatly amplified by the Dunmore proclamation in 1775. Regulation of slavery from Britain was certainly an issue that contributed to the wariness of Southern elites towards British imperial government.

One of the warranted critique of the 1619 Project is that anti-slavery rhetoric was gaining a lot of ground in the Northern colonies. But that means precisely that the success of the Revolution, as revolution, hinged upon the Northern colonies agreeing to bracket the issue of slavery aside to find common cause.