What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

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.

I think that very way of doing so resulted in the far left going on about being stifled and how the moderates are sending the message that the Republicans were right.

Which of course, was not the case, and is not the case.

I think a good chunk of what you are talking about is a tactical effort by the left to achieve the results they see on the right, where the most radical parts of the side have effectively marginalized anyone not deemed sufficiently committed. I think that would be terrible for America, and for the progressive cause.

[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

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

Sure, the exact same thing that did not include absurd things like the American Revolution was all about protecting slavery and the fundamental casting of Abraham Lincoln is that he was a rabid white supremacist and that slavery was unknown in the Americas prior to 1619.

[Berkut]

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.

From wikipedia:

In defense of the project, Silverstein said that the Somerset case caused a "sensation" in American reports. But Wilentz countered that the decision was reported by only six newspapers in the southern colonies, and the tone of the coverage was indifferent.^[55] Also at issue was the significance of Dunmore's Proclamation as cited by Silverstein,^[7] with Wilentz asserting that the event was a response to rebellion rather than a cause; he also questioned the reliance on a quotation by Edward Rutledge as interpreted by Jill Lepore.^[44] Harris has also pointed to Dunmore's Proclamation as a spur to the disruption of slavery by the revolutionary side as well.^[48]

[grumbler]

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.

One of the values of Zimm and things like the 1619 Project is precisely that they are looking at history through an openly-admitted lens.  Having students use them in addition to their textbooks makes them properly question what lens the textbook authors were using.  Neither Zimm nor the 1619 Project are attempting to introduce alternate facts, just alternate interpretations.

[The Minsky Moment]

Wilenz's IMO unfairly characterizes the effect of Somerset. The decision was discussed in the US; in addition to the newspaper articles which Wilenz alludes to, there were books and pamphlets written explicitly stating the case that slavery in the colonies was inconsistent with the decision.  Although Mansfield in later pronouncements indicated the decision should be interpreted narrowly, other UK court decisions gave a broader construction. And there were liberty lawsuits brought in Massachusetts that explicitly raised the decision as precedent.  The broader issue is that the operation of the common law and common law reasoning in general was not so clearly defined that one could definitely make the argument that Wilenz did in the Atlantic that Somersett simply did not apply overseas.  That might have been Mansfield's view but once enunciated common law principles are not so easily contained.  Indeed, a key piece of the Dred Scott story is the state court judgment granting him freedom based in part on the Somersett principle - and Taney's extreme opinion denying the humanity of Dred Scott stemmed in no small part from the perceived need to escape the logic of that principle.

What is more speculative is exactly how key elites in the south viewed the decision and how it impacted their overall mindset and motivations.  But it's obviously very challenging to read the minds of people that have been dead for two centuries.

[Berkut]

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.

One of the values of Zimm and things like the 1619 Project is precisely that they are looking at history through an openly-admitted lens.  Having students use them in addition to their textbooks makes them properly question what lens the textbook authors were using.  Neither Zimm nor the 1619 Project are attempting to introduce alternate facts, just alternate interpretations.

That is certainly valuable, although my reading of it is that that lens is not nearly as openly admitted as you suggest.

Interpretation as an alternative perspective has value, but it doesn't mean that an absurd interpretation becomes not absurd.

You can look at the Southern states secession through a lens of ACW apologism, for example, and put forth the interpretation that the South seceeded mostly because of tariffs, rather then slavery. That is an "interpretation" of the facts, but it is also an absurd one, because it is clear (or at least I think it is clear when *I* claim that I find that narrative absurd) that the person making that interpretation is doing so not because they looked at the shared facts and came to a different interpretation because they had different values, or different weight applied to the shared facts, or even different political views. Rather, I find it absurd because it seems obvious to me that they started with their conclusion, and then "interpreted" the facts so that they would fit their conclusion. The facts are there to serve the narrative only.

I think when I look at the 1619 project around these parts that I find absurd, I see the exact same thing. A conclusion searching for facts to support it, rather then an alternative interpretation of shared facts. Of course, others might find my own views on it absurd, just like lots of Southern apologists find by view on the absurdity of their position equally absurd.

[Berkut]

What is more speculative is exactly how key elites in the south viewed the decision and how it impacted their overall mindset and motivations.  But it's obviously very challenging to read the minds of people that have been dead for two centuries.

I think the burden of proof is on those making a clear claim that the views of the key players in the American Revolution were not at all what they themselves in their own statements, writings, private letters and correspondence, and public proclamations suggested, but that in fact that was all convenient lies they are told with nearly perfect consistency, including privately, and really, it was all about protecting slavery.

Again, it is an absurd conclusion given the information available. It's not like there isn't copious amounts of information available about the motivations of the people involved in the American Revolution.

[Berkut]

All that being said, I do think the core idea behind CRT and even the 1619 Project broadly, is valid, justified, and incredibly valuable and long overdue.

If I tried to state what I think that core thesis is (at least for the 1619 project specifically) it would be that American history as it has been broadly told for the last 200+ years, has minimized, marginalized, and in many cases outright lied and obfuscated the role of racism and slavery in the formation, evolution, and modern reality of the American experience. This has had profoundly negative consequences for all Americans, and must be fixed if we want to have any hope of resolving our continuing issues around race and racism.

[Oexmelin]

Again, it is an absurd conclusion given the information available. It's not like there isn't copious amounts of information available about the motivations of the people involved in the American Revolution.

This is far from absurd, as any close reading of precisely that correspondance reveals.

The impact of Mansfield's decision on the Revolutionary War that the 1619 Project carries on relies on the scholarship of David Waldstreicher, who himself builds on George Van Cleve and Wieck, which is admittedly dated, and recent scholarship has indeed cast doubt on this interpretation, at least for the South, even if . (It's on more solid ground for the abolitionist cause in the North). This isn't however, absurd. It's a bona fide disagreement on the interpretation of the evidence. What people posit of their own motivations, and what we interpret and infer from their actions, is often quite distinct.

Where there isn't much ground for disagreement is on the impact of the revolutionary war itself in convincing Southern planters that the war would indeed *protect* slavery in a more sound manner than siding with the British would. Whether it was because of the threat on plantation control that Woody Holton has studied for Virginia, the fear of slave insurrection incited by the British in South Carolina, or generally speaking, the clear sense that it would be easier to compromise with victorious Northern colonists than with victorious British imperialist, as studied by Rob Parkinson, Southern planters made it clear that they saw the war led by the British as a threat to slavery in the South. The pushback against Henry Laurens' plan to arm slaves is especially telling in that regard.

For those interested, Matthew Mason (BYU) has a v. clear article in Slavery and Abolition from a couple of years back (itself a response to the 1619 Project) that provides a good synthesis of the issue.

[Berkut]

I don't feel any need to rehash the arguments here - I've seen them all already made by people more eloquent then either of us.

Suffice to say that I find the arguments made that claiming that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery." is absurd.

You claim you do not find it absurd. OK. Frankly, I don't actually believe you - I think you find it "not absurd" because that is the claim that this group made, and you want to support them, not because you looked at the evidence and thought "Yep, the American Revolution was definitely all about slavery!"

Where there isn't much ground for disagreement is on the impact of the revolutionary war itself in convincing Southern planters that the war would indeed *protect* slavery in a more sound manner than siding with the British would

That doesn't actually speak to the claim though.

The claim is that the motivation for revolution was the protection of slavery, not that one of the things used to convince some subset of people to support revolution was that they would be better served by it because they had slaves. They might have supported revolution absent whether or not it would be better for slavery. This is not an unreasonable position given that the most of the actual center of gravity for revolution was in those areas without significant slavery! Indeed, it would appear to be the other way around, for anyone who has actually studied the American Revolutionary war - most southern (and hence dependent on slavery) colonies were considerably LESS supportive of the rebellion, not more.

That is a HUGE difference. It is the difference between the idea that if there were no slaves in the colonies,  there would be no Revolution. THAT is what is being claimed here - and that is, in fact, absurd.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the burden of proof is on those making a clear claim that the views of the key players in the American Revolution were not at all what they themselves in their own statements, writings, private letters and correspondence, and public proclamations suggested, but that in fact that was all convenient lies they are told with nearly perfect consistency, including privately, and really, it was all about protecting slavery.

And you read those statements, writings, correspondence, what comes across is that some planters had complex and even guilty feelings about slavery but at the same time conformed to and followed the interests of their class.  The late 18th century was not the 1850s - you would not expect to see lots defiant "moral" justifications of slavery among the leading men.  But at the same time you see men very conscious of their status position in society, of the wealth required to maintain that status, and the sources of their wealth.  One may label it as "Marxist" to draw the inference that when a historical person acts consistently with economic self-interest, there is likely some connection.  But another label for the same process is "common sense".

[Oexmelin]

You claim you do not find it absurd. OK. Frankly, I don't actually believe you - I think you find it "not absurd" because that is the claim that this group made, and you want to support them, not because you looked at the evidence and thought "Yep, the American Revolution was definitely all about slavery!"

As ever, the most gracious of posters.

I, like everybody else, came to the study of the American Revolution with a host of preconceived notions about it. Because no one comes to the study of the American Revolution as a blank slate, just waiting to read "American scripture" and be amazed. 

However, I did not come to the study of the American Revolution from the 1619 Project. I read, attended talks, and actually discussed them with Holton, Parkinson, Waldstreicher, Chris Brown, Gordon Wood, Martha S. Jones, Huselbosch and others, many years before the idea of the project was even born. So I came to the 1619 Project knowing where it was coming from.

I have my issues with the 1619 Project. I disagree with some of the interpretation, and with the fact that Hannah-Jones felt she needed to shock with a strong statement. But no, I do not find it absurd. I understand where the claim is coming from. The idea that the Revolution could have been waged to protect slavery goes so much against the grain of what people want to believe that she knew she'd shock. The context of publication also played a role. I wish she'd used that precise turn of phrase ("waged war" rather than "declare independance"), or that she allowed for the strong abolitionism of the North, or that she'd been more prudent in this or that. But, as Minsky said, these sorts of reservations are inevitable on all historical texts, even more so when those are published with a polemical intent. In the best of times, that polemical intent fosters historical research (and it has). In the worst of times, people weaponize the project without caring much for the issues at stake (and it certainly has)

The reason I asked you what exactly you found absurd, was because I wanted to know if you wanted to discuss the issues themselves, or the controversy. I think you mostly want to discuss the controversy.

[Berkut]

I think the burden of proof is on those making a clear claim that the views of the key players in the American Revolution were not at all what they themselves in their own statements, writings, private letters and correspondence, and public proclamations suggested, but that in fact that was all convenient lies they are told with nearly perfect consistency, including privately, and really, it was all about protecting slavery.

And you read those statements, writings, correspondence, what comes across is that some planters had complex and even guilty feelings about slavery but at the same time conformed to and followed the interests of their class.  The late 18th century was not the 1850s - you would not expect to see lots defiant "moral" justifications of slavery among the leading men.  But at the same time you see men very conscious of their status position in society, of the wealth required to maintain that status, and the sources of their wealth.  One may label it as "Marxist" to draw the inference that when a historical person acts consistently with economic self-interest, there is likely some connection.  But another label for the same process is "common sense".

That is dependent on the assumption that they did in fact believe that the only way to protect their self interest was in fact rebellion, and in fact that all the other reasons were not just the reasons claimed, but actually lies formed to obfuscate the real reason.

The idea that absent slavery, there would have been no American Revolution is absurd. The claim that the southern slave owners so clearly saw a bright line casual effect of "no rebellion, I will lose my slaves and status" is absurd.

[Berkut]

You claim you do not find it absurd. OK. Frankly, I don't actually believe you - I think you find it "not absurd" because that is the claim that this group made, and you want to support them, not because you looked at the evidence and thought "Yep, the American Revolution was definitely all about slavery!"

As ever, the most gracious of posters.

I, like everybody else, came to the study of the American Revolution with a host of preconceived notions about it. Because no one comes to the study of the American Revolution as a blank slate, just waiting to read "American scripture" and be amazed. 

However, I did not come to the study of the American Revolution from the 1619 Project. I read, attended talks, and actually discussed them with Holton, Parkinson, Waldstreicher, Chris Brown, Gordon Wood, Martha S. Jones, Huselbosch and others, many years before the idea of the project was even born. So I came to the 1619 Project knowing where it was coming from.

I have my issues with the 1619 Project. I disagree with some of the interpretation, and with the fact that Hannah-Jones felt she needed to shock with a strong statement. But no, I do not find it absurd. I understand where the claim is coming from. The idea that the Revolution could have been waged to protect slavery goes so much against the grain of what people want to believe that she knew she'd shock. The context of publication also played a role. I wish she'd used that precise turn of phrase ("waged war" rather than "declare independance"), or that she allowed for the strong abolitionism of the North, or that she'd been more prudent in this or that. But, as Minsky said, these sorts of reservations are inevitable on all historical texts, even more so when those are published with a polemical intent. In the best of times, that polemical intent fosters historical research (and it has). In the worst of times, people weaponize the project without caring much for the issues at stake (and it certainly has)

The reason I asked you what exactly you found absurd, was because I wanted to know if you wanted to discuss the issues themselves, or the controversy. I think you mostly want to discuss the controversy.

What I wanted to discuss in fact is the idea that the poor radical left is being "stifled" and that if only the left would let the radicals take over the party like the radical right has done, it would all be so much better for the progressive cause.

You do not find it absurd because it aligns with your goals. You are aligned with those who want the left to be defined by its radicals, and effectively shut down the moderates in favor of that more radical agenda. So you " disagree with some of the interpretation" but don't actually ever say that in discussion, nor do you take any stance on those disagreements, and instead apparently note it privately.

And when someone else disagrees with those interpretations, and calls them absurd for *exactly the reasons you object to* (they are being made to "shock" and are political in their intent, not actually representative of the actual facts, and clearly are there to serve a need to shock then a need to inform) then THAT is worthy of your comment and argument and disparagement.

Apparently the difference between our views of the 1619 Project is simply that we both disagree with these characterizations, you just are ok with supposedly historical objectivity giving way to the need for "shock" and simply ignoring inconvenient facts (indeed, outright lying about them - strong abolitionism in the North is not something that they overlook, they actively chose to pretend it didn't exist) is not absurd to you.

It is absurd to me. 

What is really absurd is your noting that people have " weaponize the project without caring much for the issues at stake". Yes, that is rather unfortunate, isn't it? But isn't choosing to go for "shock" and polemical language doing exactly that - weaponizing the project? 

[Berkut]

Aren't we pretty much way off the point though?

I mean, we can sit around and argue about CRT or the 1619 project, and none of us will come up with anything that hasn't been said by others already.

I find some of their positions absurd. Oex finds them wrong for all the exact same reasons I do, but doesn't think it is absurd, and in fact thinks that vocalizing that you find them wrong is itself wrong, apparently (I am not trying to create a strawmen, but recognize that perhaps I am - is that right Oex?).

What does that have to do with anything? 

Is there something that the progressive left should learn from that? Oex feels that the lesson is that we should all stop listening to moderates, and let the radical left take over and define the party much in the same way the radical right took over the GOP, and that would be better for everyone who supports the progressive agenda.

I am kind of dumbfounded that you could draw that conclusion, at least from the standpoint of arguing about what is effective politics (I can understand the position from the standpoint of believing that the radical left is correct, and hence ought to win any struggle with more moderate positions, but that is an ideological argument, not a political or practical one, and I thought we were talking about the latter).