Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching ‘1619 Project’

[Slade3200]

Does the project treat Lincoln's short foray into colonialization as something more substantial that it really was?

I haven't read the text.

Yeah that's the rub. I actually subscribe to the NYT yet actually reading the material remains elusive. Mostly what there is out there are "reactions."

You can read it on the Pulitzer website.

https://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/full_issue_of_the_1619_project.pdf

 

[Slade3200]

Come on Eric, lets talk, stop dodging... Enough with the ignorant talking points. Time to read and analyze and actually display a sense of understanding and comprehension for the things you speak about. What is the specific lie in the Lincoln portion of the 1619 project that you are criticizing?

You already said you haven't read the project, though you lied about that.
And I freely admit I haven't read it. When I read the actual text you will know. In the mean time I simply rely
on honest historically accurate scholars to make my case for me.

Would you have a lawyer defend a client who has read no transcripts, police reports or talked to witnesses?

I hadn't read it when I made that comment. I joined this thread to learn about it. In the process I have read both analysis, sections of the actual project and also sourced material. So you are wrong to call me a liar, I didn't lie about anything.

I would have a lawyer defend a client no matter what that clients knowledge is... that's between them and irrelevant to this conversation. So back to the subject.

In this situation you are making claims about things and I'm trying to dig in and look at those claims. You say that she is lying about Abe Lincoln. So I read her section on Abe Lincoln and then I read her reference sources. I'm ready to discuss it. What do you think she was lying about? Be specific please.

 

[Slade3200]

Does the project treat Lincoln's short foray into colonialization as something more substantial that it really was?

I haven't read the text.

Yeah that's the rub. I actually subscribe to the NYT yet actually reading the material remains elusive. Mostly what there is out there are "reactions."

You can read it on the Pulitzer website.

https://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/full_issue_of_the_1619_project.pdf

Also if you are interested here is the actual transcript from Lincolns meeting that she discusses on pages 19 and 20 of the project. Eric here is claiming that she is lying however he hasn't read any of the actual material. Rather irresponsible and pathetic don't you think?

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5 [Oct. 24, 1861-Dec. 12, 1862]. | Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections

 

[otto105]

Since VP Biden will win 95% of the African-American vote....

But hey, your guy is holding a lot of the lower educated cracker vote.

Your post is at first presumptive...and then stupid.

Presumptive?

Hillary Clinton won 91% of the Black vote in 2016 and Biden polls better.


Also, second statement is completely true. The lower educated one is the more likely they will vote for trump.

 

[Slade3200]

Looks like Eric Arthur Blair is done with this debate. Anybody else want to point to a specific lie or falsehood that they'd like to discuss about the 1619 project? If you are going to object to it then you should at least know why, so prove that you do.

 

[lantern2814]

Looks like Eric Arthur Blair is done with this debate. Anybody else want to point to a specific lie or falsehood that they'd like to discuss about the 1619 project? If you are going to object to it then you should at least know why, so prove that you do.

Just STFU. Christ, you get given examples and ignore them because you’re an idiot. Try learning actual history. Until then get lost.

 

[Slade3200]

Looks like Eric Arthur Blair is done with this debate. Anybody else want to point to a specific lie or falsehood that they'd like to discuss about the 1619 project? If you are going to object to it then you should at least know why, so prove that you do.

Just STFU. Christ, you get given examples and ignore them because you’re an idiot. Try learning actual history. Until then get lost.

You've said this before and then failed to specify what I ignored... I asked you and you ignored my question. I haven't ignored a thing and if you think I have then point to it and I'll address it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Also if you are interested here is the actual transcript from Lincolns meeting that she discusses on pages 19 and 20 of the project. Eric here is claiming that she is lying however he hasn't read any of the actual material. Rather irresponsible and pathetic don't you think?

I caught you lying once already over whether or not you've read this material and I let it go because frankly little trolls like you aren't worth the trouble. And now I find you've read more and more of it, after claiming you read none of it even though you practically begged me to discuss the 1619 Project.

What did you think you would gain by drawing me into a conversation under false pretenses?

If possible I respect the work of Nikole Hannah-Jones even less now knowing the sort of people that are
out pushing it. It's liars and other assorted sociopaths.

 

[Slade3200]

Also if you are interested here is the actual transcript from Lincolns meeting that she discusses on pages 19 and 20 of the project. Eric here is claiming that she is lying however he hasn't read any of the actual material. Rather irresponsible and pathetic don't you think?

I caught you lying once already over whether or not you've read this material and I let it go because frankly little trolls like you aren't worth the trouble. And now I find you've read more and more of it, after claiming you read none of it even though you practically begged me to discuss the 1619 Project.

What did you think you would gain by drawing me into a conversation under false pretenses?

If possible I respect the work of Nikole Hannah-Jones even less now knowing the sort of people that are
out pushing it. It's liars and other assorted sociopaths.

No you didn't catch me in a lie as I explained. I had not read anything about the project when I made that post and when I started with this thread. In the course of discussing it here I have read parts of it along with other materials. In fact the only part of it I have read so far is the Abe section because you brought it up and I wanted to see what you were talking about. So you didn't catch me in a lie. I didn't lie. do you understand that now? You are digressing to act like a grade schooler by the way. Grow up and try and have a real discussion.

You still haven't addressed the actual substance of the thread. You are hiding from it to try and call me a liar and you are sounding like a fool in the process. Try the actual subject and answer the questions. What specific lie do you think project 1619 tells about Abe?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. I would never lower myself to read the New York Times.

2. But -- as a fair-minded person -- I admit that in this instance it is correct: Everything that is happening now and before can be traced back to 1619, when the first folks were brought here from a faraway continent to do unpaid work.

3. I sometimes think of what a happy country this would be today if that event in 1619 had not happened.

This country would not exist.

Thank you for your considered opinion.

I think that this country WOULD exist today if 1619 had not happened.

And we would not be having the unpleasantness that has existed ever since 1619.


Have a nice day!

Thet are not a superpower. Small population. Desert and wilderness make up most of their country.

 

[bendog]

Does the project treat Lincoln's short foray into colonialization as something more substantial that it really was?

I haven't read the text.

Yeah that's the rub. I actually subscribe to the NYT yet actually reading the material remains elusive. Mostly what there is out there are "reactions."

You can read it on the Pulitzer website.

https://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/full_issue_of_the_1619_project.pdf

Also if you are interested here is the actual transcript from Lincolns meeting that she discusses on pages 19 and 20 of the project. Eric here is claiming that she is lying however he hasn't read any of the actual material. Rather irresponsible and pathetic don't you think?

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5 [Oct. 24, 1861-Dec. 12, 1862]. | Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections

Well thanks to you I was able to read it, and I'd give her three out of fours Pinocchio's for falsity and selective use of facts achieve an agenda. She didn't need to do that because oppression is not debatable, but she seems to need to "pile on" more that history allows. Lincoln fully knew the emancipation would free the slaves but it was meaningless without constitutional amendment because that was the law at the time. Lincoln "may" have still harbored some idea of "recolonization," after his proclamation, but recolonization had already proved a failure, and Lincoln was not blind to the immorality of denying suffrage to blacks who fought for the Union. Further Lincoln fully supported suffrage in his last speech, and that was one reason he was assasanated. And for that INTENITONAL misrepresentation her entire theses needs to be reviewed with the skepticism its getting.

 

[Slade3200]

Does the project treat Lincoln's short foray into colonialization as something more substantial that it really was?

I haven't read the text.

Yeah that's the rub. I actually subscribe to the NYT yet actually reading the material remains elusive. Mostly what there is out there are "reactions."

You can read it on the Pulitzer website.

https://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/full_issue_of_the_1619_project.pdf

Also if you are interested here is the actual transcript from Lincolns meeting that she discusses on pages 19 and 20 of the project. Eric here is claiming that she is lying however he hasn't read any of the actual material. Rather irresponsible and pathetic don't you think?

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5 [Oct. 24, 1861-Dec. 12, 1862]. | Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections

Well thanks to you I was able to read it, and I'd give her three out of fours Pinocchio's for falsity and selective use of facts achieve an agenda. She didn't need to do that because oppression is not debatable, but she seems to need to "pile on" more that history allows. Lincoln fully knew the emancipation would free the slaves but it was meaningless without constitutional amendment because that was the law at the time. Lincoln "may" have still harbored some idea of "recolonization," after his proclamation, but recolonization had already proved a failure, and Lincoln was not blind to the immorality of denying suffrage to blacks who fought for the Union. Further Lincoln fully supported suffrage in his last speech, and that was one reason he was assasanated. And for that INTENITONAL misrepresentation her entire theses needs to be reviewed with the skepticism its getting.

I’m glad to hear that you read it. Now we can have an actual discussion. Kudos for that. Did you also read the transcripts from the Lincoln meeting that she referenced in her article?

 

[bendog]

There's really nothing to be discussed. The author gives only a partial truth to Lincoln's reasons for issuing the EP. She never acknowledges that he called for extending suffrage to all blacks.

I realize she's pushing back against the notions that whites fully accepted extending full rights to blacks even in 1865, and more importantly that America was actually founded upon the notion that "all men are created equal." But she's no more honest than Cotton.

 

[Slade3200]

There's really nothing to be discussed. The author gives only a partial truth to Lincoln's reasons for issuing the EP. She never acknowledges that he called for extending suffrage to all blacks.

I realize she's pushing back against the notions that whites fully accepted extending full rights to blacks even in 1865, and more importantly that America was actually founded upon the notion that "all men are created equal." But she's no more honest than Cotton.

Well she is bringing a different perspective and experience of history. Just as a case can be made that the history that we were all taught didn’t include much of the stuff in 1619 project. Does that make our history books false and full of lies? I don’t think so.

I also don’t think she ever proposed to give a comprehensive and complete version of history... she would still be writing if that was the case. But she saw gaps and elements in our history that have been lost and not recognized that she wanted to shine a light on.

so besides not being comprehensive would you say that she was presenting lies and false hoods from what you read?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No you didn't catch me in a lie as I explained. I had not read anything about the project when I made that post and when I started with this thread. In the course of discussing it here I have read parts of it along with other materials. In fact the only part of it I have read so far is the Abe section because you brought it up and I wanted to see what you were talking about. So you didn't catch me in a lie. I didn't lie. do you understand that now? You are digressing to act like a grade schooler by the way. Grow up and try and have a real discussion.

You still haven't addressed the actual substance of the thread. You are hiding from it to try and call me a liar and you are sounding like a fool in the process. Try the actual subject and answer the questions. What specific lie do you think project 1619 tells about Abe?

Should I suggest again that you read the citation provided?

 

[Slade3200]

No you didn't catch me in a lie as I explained. I had not read anything about the project when I made that post and when I started with this thread. In the course of discussing it here I have read parts of it along with other materials. In fact the only part of it I have read so far is the Abe section because you brought it up and I wanted to see what you were talking about. So you didn't catch me in a lie. I didn't lie. do you understand that now? You are digressing to act like a grade schooler by the way. Grow up and try and have a real discussion.

You still haven't addressed the actual substance of the thread. You are hiding from it to try and call me a liar and you are sounding like a fool in the process. Try the actual subject and answer the questions. What specific lie do you think project 1619 tells about Abe?

Should I suggest again that you read the citation provided?

Yes, I read it and I responded to you about it pages ago. You continue to change the subject because you obviously don’t know enough about the subject matter to actually talk details. I’m more interested in talking to people like bendog who actually read the material and can articulate arguments of his own. Perhaps one day you can step up like him and engage in a real debate. Let me know if that day ever comes.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes, I read it and I responded to you about it pages ago. You continue to change the subject because you obviously don’t know enough about the subject matter to actually talk details. I’m more interested in talking to people like @bendog who actually read the material and can articulate arguments of his own. Perhaps one day you can step up like him and engage in a real debate. Let me know if that day ever comes.

It won't come with you. I don't like your style and you don't deal with others in good faith.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, I read it and I responded to you about it pages ago. You continue to change the subject because you obviously don’t know enough about the subject matter to actually talk details. I’m more interested in talking to people like @bendog who actually read the material and can articulate arguments of his own. Perhaps one day you can step up like him and engage in a real debate. Let me know if that day ever comes.

It won't come with you. I don't like your style and you don't deal with others in good faith.

You don’t seem to deal with anything at all. You speak ignorantly about things you don’t know anything about and then take no initiative to explain yourself or learn about the subject matter. It begs the question... what are you doing here? Just looking to vent or gain reenforcement from an echo chamber?

Id think that if you were truly concerned about using the 1619 project in schools then you would learn about what it actually said. And if you’re going to claim that there are lies then I’d think you’d take a minute to learn what those lies are. You don’t seem interested in any of that. So how can anybody take you seriously?

 

[bendog]

There's really nothing to be discussed. The author gives only a partial truth to Lincoln's reasons for issuing the EP. She never acknowledges that he called for extending suffrage to all blacks.

I realize she's pushing back against the notions that whites fully accepted extending full rights to blacks even in 1865, and more importantly that America was actually founded upon the notion that "all men are created equal." But she's no more honest than Cotton.

Well she is bringing a different perspective and experience of history. Just as a case can be made that the history that we were all taught didn’t include much of the stuff in 1619 project. Does that make our history books false and full of lies? I don’t think so.

I also don’t think she ever proposed to give a comprehensive and complete version of history... she would still be writing if that was the case. But she saw gaps and elements in our history that have been lost and not recognized that she wanted to shine a light on.

so besides not being comprehensive would you say that she was presenting lies and false hoods from what you read?

Well I'd say our history is false if we just say "after the civil war we had the reconstruction amendments which provided full equal rights to blacks." It was not that simple. I think that at the time of Lee's surrender, most northerners were not at all in favor of joining hands in egalitarian solidarity to the former black slaves, who had no skills beyond farm labor and were illiterate.

Possibly all national histories are false in that they have to compress the full plentiful fruit of opinions on issues of a particular time into something more digestible. But she devotes literally a page to Lincoln's supposed moral faults on equality to express the historical fact that those in the late 18th and early 19the centuries who favored manumission, and later termed abolition, began with most favoring sending blacks somewhere else, and only later came around to accepting the pragmatic fact that there was nowhere else for them. Lincoln did not believe that in 1865, and he literally died after his speech favoring full suffrage for blacks. She LIES BY OMISSSION and intentionally obscures the factual record. For reasons of her own, she has to apply 21st century sensitivities to probably the greatest American ever, and certainly the greatest of the 19th century.

And on page 24

Anti- black racism runs in the
very DNA of this country, as does
the belief, so well articulated by
Lincoln, that black people are the
obstacle to national unity.
page 21
-----

I think that's snarky. I don't think Lincoln ever really expressed that. There's no debate that America developed differently that say …. England or France … after 1776, and that the presence of blacks as Americans and racism is one reason. The US is also "exceptional" in that people, of ALL colors, from everywhere want to come here. It is easier to start one's own business and be able to succeed by one's own efforts.

As for popular history, I'd say one would be better served by the recent documentary on Grant, which devoted over an hour to the failure of Reconstruction.

The bigger issue, and the one posed by creatures like Tom Cotton is really the question people dance around publicly "are we really better off for having all these slaves." "It was "necessary" to have slaves to get the constitution" (BS btw) "But wouldn't we be better off if there'd just been a way to get rid of all the blacks back then, and just be done with it."

I think that's the question that the nation may have a chance to address in the 21st century. Assuming we don't spend ourselves into being Greece

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You don’t seem to deal with anything at all. You speak ignorantly about things you don’t know anything about and then take no initiative to explain yourself or learn about the subject matter. It begs the question... what are you doing here? Just looking to vent or gain reenforcement from an echo chamber?

Id think that if you were truly concerned about using the 1619 project in schools then you would learn about what it actually said. And if you’re going to claim that there are lies then I’d think you’d take a minute to learn what those lies are. You don’t seem interested in any of that. So how can anybody take you seriously?

If by "anybody" you mean yourself or others of your ilk I think it's a given you will not take me "seriously".
That doesn't bother me and I would only be concerned if you found something commendable in my posts.

The thread issue, which I guess you "forgot" was about legislation to counter the radical left and the NY Times pushing this politicized radical BLM version of history in our classrooms.

Based on everything I've read and seen, including who is for pushing this on impressionable kids
and those against the scheme, leads me to believe it is more of the same rank anti American crap we've seen
in California using history books, by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomskey, for example to indoctrinate.

Go find someone who will waste their time exchanging posts with you. I will resist that urge.