They are going to show how racism since 1619 led to the election of TRUMP????
How about showing how the corrupt deep state and allowing Hillary Clinton to get away with brazenly defying classified information laws and the Corporate media and liberals telling all Americans they are racist if they disagree with Obama or Hillary is what led to Trump!
It’s not slavery and racism, you arrogant twats.
How about doing something about the open market slavery trading going on in Libya right now because of Obama and Hillary?
Talk about racism.
Utter Bullshit captures it. Republican removed the Democrats stain of slavery on this great nation.
TRUST US, WE’RE ABOVE-THE-FRAY INTELLECTUALS:
He questioned the accuracy of the ‘1619 Project.’ A history professor responded with ‘your mom.’
Who’s responsible when academics start acting like trolls?
Some academics have shown themselves unable to maintain decorum – or even argue factually – as they engage online.
When their ideology or scholarship is contested on Twitter, they are prone to sling personal attacks rather than meaningfully rebut the challenges. The result is a meager dose of quality academic content for other social media users, who learn that scholars are unwilling to defend their work.
That raises a question of professional ethics: Should bad behavior by academics be sanctioned or otherwise censured by academic groups?
Phillip Magness, an economic researcher and former history professor, alluded to this question when he reflected on Twitter exchanges with other academics following his criticism of the “
1619 Project” by The New York Times.
Interested in the sources that shaped the series of essays on the 400th anniversary of slaves arriving in America, Magness posed several questions on Twitter about the scholarship of one of the contributors, Cornell University historian Edward Baptist.
Did “enthusiasts” of Baptist’s book on “Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism,” Magness asked, know that Baptist’s statistics “arose from a documented mathematical error” and that “leading economic historians” found he had “misrepresented evidence and citations”?
Had Baptist himself “made any effort to respond” to critics or correct his factual errors, “which continue to be cited in the press, in academic works, and even in congressional hearings”? (Magness is
critical of Baptist’s “rehabilitation” of the “King Cotton” thesis, which holds that “slave produced cotton commanded a controlling position over the American economy and indeed the world’s commercial engines.”)
What Magness received on Twitter: a “
your mom” joke from a Howard University historian. “A tweet citing the work of Ed Baptist is alarming for whom troll?” wrote Ana Lucia Araujo.
Araujo’s subsequent tweets got more juvenile from there, as Magness documented in an
essay last month for the American Institute for Economic Research, where he’s a senior research fellow.
‘1619’ 'scholar' charged with fabricating quotes, evidence
