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

[bendog]

Lincoln and emacipation and suffrage. It's old.

Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma: Emancipation and Black Suffrage

.

The problem Arthur is that logically there's no way to dispute the northern non slave owner chose to count black men as 3/5 human, and there is no dispute they agreed to do that for time ever lasting. Their nation did not, and never would, give up slavery. There was no plan, or way to even guess, abolition would win out. The South had nearly all the presidents and political power through the first generation. Was there some divine plan that Calif would be a state? Jefferson wasn't president for 12 years. Andrew Jackson wasn't contemplating abolition when he stole the Native American lands for westward expansion.

In the end it took a civil war, and the Founders did not put that in the const. There was no "necessary evil" because no one considered it a necessity. We could have just kept slavery.

The thesis of 1619 would be right that the Northerners NEVER fought to free slaves. Lincoln clearly said he'd let the south keep the slaves. He disapproved of slavery, but he had to evolve to accept the federal govt forcing emancipation and granting suffrage to blacks.

It's true we ultimately allowed blacks to vote, but you might notice the gop is suppressing that it Ohio and Fla today. And the thesis of 1619 would be right if it was that a majority of whites will keep doing that if it's in their interests so long as it's legal.

 

[bendog]

Again you seem limited to personal attacks written by right wing publications. Have you actually ever read the work? Don’t your own fact checking?

i read the 1619 passage about Lincoln after you mentioned it. Three things flagged me as over the line statements. I then fact checked them. I was hoping to discuss but you don’t seem interested in details so what are we doing here?

Do you mean what are you doing here? I will discuss these things or other things when I decide I want to
and in my own way. Not under your prompting like a prissy schoolmarm with raging PMS.
Get bent, Jack!

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.

imo her original thesis is largely correct. The intent of America, from colonization, was a place where white men could exploit what they found for profit. I will try to read one or more of the other essays.

 

[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?

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

Good points... I had that line about the DNA as one of my flags as well. I went back to see if Lincoln’s actual words really reflected that. This line does support such an argument:

‘‘Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals?’’ ‘‘My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.’’

Don't get me wrong I think Abe Lincoln was an amazing president and did incredible things for black people. I was surprised to read about the recolonization meeting and see some of the language that he used. I understand it was different times and I'm not going to call for his statues to be taken down or anything. However, learning about that stuff does give more context and perspective about what it was like in those times. I don't think this is a bad thing to learn about and I certainly don't think it is a lie to write about it. I didn't read her section like it was an attack on Lincoln, we all know what he did to free slaves and much of what she included were his actual words, including his feelings about the evils of slavery. But he was also a pragmatist and knew that even if slavery was abolished the pathway to equality for blacks in the USA was still a long ways away. Considering this fact how can you not say that racism wasn't in the DNA of our country? Its a harsh statement but I can't really say that it is false. Can you?

No diss at all intended, but I don't see what discussing the specifics would do. She selects quotes selectively, and that was the historical criticism, and by folks better than me.

It's not a historical certainty that by the time of the EP Lincoln still saw recolonization as a possibility or even morally worth considering. Her quotes from the meeting two years after the EP assume Lincoln said all that was on his mind or lacked a ironic mockery, when those whom he asked about recolonization said they'd have to think on it. "Take your time, no hurry." LOL Lincoln was rather famous for asking for divergent opinions and expecting honest answers on issues, while not offering his own.

By the time of his assassination, there was no mention of recolonization, and Lincoln was fully supportive of some suffrage. In his last speech he supports Louisiana's plan a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. " Which is more radical than we'd think today, because that was ahead "of the curve."

I didn't read further than the first essay, and pretty much skimmed after she'd finished with Lincoln. I realize that Lincoln "the great emancipator" is a myth, and it's objectionable to her. but simply mischaracterizing the other direction is not acceptable, to me.

Thanks again for the link. I may read some of the other essays.

The NYT defended by saying "we're reporter/writers, not historians." Fine, leave history alone then. (-:

Did you read the original transcript that she used to put that section together? Interesting read

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

 

[Slade3200]

Again you seem limited to personal attacks written by right wing publications. Have you actually ever read the work? Don’t your own fact checking?

i read the 1619 passage about Lincoln after you mentioned it. Three things flagged me as over the line statements. I then fact checked them. I was hoping to discuss but you don’t seem interested in details so what are we doing here?

Do you mean what are you doing here? I will discuss these things or other things when I decide I want to
and in my own way. Not under your prompting like a prissy schoolmarm with raging PMS.
Get bent, Jack!

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.

imo her original thesis is largely correct. The intent of America, from colonization, was a place where white men could exploit what they found for profit. I will try to read one or more of the other essays.

I'm working my way through it too. I like to read the source material in conjunction to see how she is interpreting it. Right now my thoughts are that it reads like a research paper with expressed opinion. It has had some eye opening elements that I do find relevant and interesting. I don't think it would directly work as a history book but would be a fascinating discussion for higher level classes on journalism, civics, history and/or race relations. For lower level education I could see elements taken from it to add context and give a more complete perspective of our history. It does not work as a stand alone account of history. I haven't yet dove into the curriculum that has been developed around the project to see how it is actually being used. My hope when I came into this thread was to find a critic of the piece, learn about their objections and then see if the objections, bias, and/or falsehoods from the project made it into the curriculum... I have yet to find anybody that wants to go down that road with me. Its amazing that the biggest critic that is engaging in this thread is Eric Arthur Blair and he doesn't even seem interested in reading the text that he is calling a lie.

I appreciate your engagement.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

"It was "necessary" to have slaves to get the constitution" (BS btw) "

Why is it BS? The south would not stand for destroying their economy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Lincoln and emacipation and suffrage. It's old.

Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma: Emancipation and Black Suffrage

.

The problem Arthur is that logically there's no way to dispute the northern non slave owner chose to count black men as 3/5 human, and there is no dispute they agreed to do that for time ever lasting. Their nation did not, and never would, give up slavery. There was no plan, or way to even guess, abolition would win out. The South had nearly all the presidents and political power through the first generation. Was there some divine plan that Calif would be a state? Jefferson wasn't president for 12 years. Andrew Jackson wasn't contemplating abolition when he stole the Native American lands for westward expansion.

In the end it took a civil war, and the Founders did not put that in the const. There was no "necessary evil" because no one considered it a necessity. We could have just kept slavery.

The thesis of 1619 would be right that the Northerners NEVER fought to free slaves. Lincoln clearly said he'd let the south keep the slaves. He disapproved of slavery, but he had to evolve to accept the federal govt forcing emancipation and granting suffrage to blacks.

It's true we ultimately allowed blacks to vote, but you might notice the gop is suppressing that it Ohio and Fla today. And the thesis of 1619 would be right if it was that a majority of whites will keep doing that if it's in their interests so long as it's legal.

What suppression on Ohio and Florida? Do you think you can make such a ludicrous claim and not be called on it?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.

You could always pass right by my posts and save yourself much suffering.

 

[Slade3200]

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.

You could always pass right by my posts and save yourself much suffering.

I enjoy poking fun at you. It fascinates me to see people who don't know what they are talking about act like they know what they are talking about. Im just here to remind you of that... Someday you'll thank me

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Lincoln and emacipation and suffrage. It's old.

Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma: Emancipation and Black Suffrage

.

The problem Arthur is that logically there's no way to dispute the northern non slave owner chose to count black men as 3/5 human, and there is no dispute they agreed to do that for time ever lasting.

As already explained political expediency demanded it. Either give in to Southern slave holders or
kiss the dream of independence from England goodbye.
And everything that is done is done for time everlasting...until things change.
That point you make over and over is kind of disingenuous.

Their nation did not, and never would, give up slavery. There was no plan, or way to even guess, abolition would win out. The South had nearly all the presidents and political power through the first generation. Was there some divine plan that Calif would be a state? Jefferson wasn't president for 12 years. Andrew Jackson wasn't contemplating abolition when he stole the Native American lands for westward expansion.

You completely disregard how strong the abolition movement was.
In your view we were in Viet Nam forever, until we weren't. You absolutely disregard how much power
and influence the peace and abolition movement had.

In the end it took a civil war, and the Founders did not put that in the const. There was no "necessary evil" because no one considered it a necessity. We could have just kept slavery.

There are lots of things we could keep institutionally which we have done away with over the years because people seem to be more moral than you give them credit for. Child labor is one example.

The thesis of 1619 would be right that the Northerners NEVER fought to free slaves. Lincoln clearly said he'd let the south keep the slaves. He disapproved of slavery, but he had to evolve to accept the federal govt forcing emancipation and granting suffrage to blacks.

It's an odd view that we never fought to abolish the immoral institution of slavery yet look where we are at.

It's true we ultimately allowed blacks to vote, but you might notice the gop is suppressing that it Ohio and Fla today. And the thesis of 1619 would be right if it was that a majority of whites will keep doing that if it's in their interests so long as it's legal.

I'll accept your view that the GOP is suppressing votes when you admit the democrats are
filling their voter rolls with dead people, illegals and felons.

As for the other point it was legal to hold slaves and all these white people demanded an end to'
the evil institution anyway. I don't find your "white man is the devil" belief to hold up to scrutiny.
It is Louis Farrakhan stuff you are spouting off.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.

You could always pass right by my posts and save yourself much suffering.

I enjoy poking fun at you. It fascinates me to see people who don't know what they are talking about act like they know what they are talking about. Im just here to remind you of that... Someday you'll thank me

thanks a lot...sorry your feelings seem to be hurt

 

[Slade3200]

What am I doing here? I’m here to talk about details. It’s too bad I need to weed through the empty trolling insults and seemingly endless subject changes and diversions to get there.

You could always pass right by my posts and save yourself much suffering.

I enjoy poking fun at you. It fascinates me to see people who don't know what they are talking about act like they know what they are talking about. Im just here to remind you of that... Someday you'll thank me

thanks a lot...sorry your feelings seem to be hurt

Don't apologize, its all good. Thanks for looking out though. xoxo

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Don't apologize, its all good. Thanks for looking out though.

The apology was fake, like your posts. So don't worry about it. You'll find someone else to
bother. Some day.

 

[Slade3200]

Cotton on Tucker right now talking about 1619

 

[bendog]

Cotton on Tucker right now talking about 1619

Two racists picking Cotton together, LOL. I'll skip that one.

I read the second essay btw. I think the parallels between the 1837 credit meltdown and the great recession were interesting. I'm not so sure about the comparison leading to the conclusion (as I read it) that our current calls for deregulation and an end to the protections from speculation that were enacted in Dodd-Frank are caused by racism. P. 40

 

[Slade3200]

Cotton on Tucker right now talking about 1619

Two racists picking Cotton together, LOL. I'll skip that one.

I read the second essay btw. I think the parallels between the 1837 credit meltdown and the great recession were interesting. I'm not so sure about the comparison leading to the conclusion (as I read it) that our current calls for deregulation and an end to the protections from speculation that were enacted in Dodd-Frank are caused by racism. P. 40

I havent gotten there yet. I’ll check it out when I can

 

[RealDave]

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times‘s 1619 Project in public schools.

The bill—titled the Saving American History Act of 2020—would require secretaries from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture to cut federal funding to schools choosing to implement the 1619 Project into their curriculum. The amount of funds cut from public schools would depend on teaching and planning costs for the 1619 Project curriculum. Federal funding for low-income and special-needs students would not be affected by the bill.

"The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded," Cotton said. "Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage."

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

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Bj's pull quote


Catching much traction in progressive circles, the project has not been immune to criticism. Several of the nation’s top historians drafted a letter in December 2019 to express their "reservations" about the project’s historical veracity.

"It still strikes me as amazing why the New York Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support," said Gordon Wood, a National Humanities Medal recipient at Brown University.

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

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Racist fucks don't want people to know that their rascism has been in bred for generations.

It's called history. Teach it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Racist fucks don't want people to know that their rascism has been in bred for generations.

It's called history. Teach it.

It's called agitprop, dumb bastard! It's history corrupted by the NY Times and Nikole Hannah Jones.

It's all over your head. Jump back in your Wild Turkey filled swimming pool.

 

[bendog]

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times‘s 1619 Project in public schools.

The bill—titled the Saving American History Act of 2020—would require secretaries from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture to cut federal funding to schools choosing to implement the 1619 Project into their curriculum. The amount of funds cut from public schools would depend on teaching and planning costs for the 1619 Project curriculum. Federal funding for low-income and special-needs students would not be affected by the bill.

"The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded," Cotton said. "Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage."

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

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Bj's pull quote


Catching much traction in progressive circles, the project has not been immune to criticism. Several of the nation’s top historians drafted a letter in December 2019 to express their "reservations" about the project’s historical veracity.

"It still strikes me as amazing why the New York Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support," said Gordon Wood, a National Humanities Medal recipient at Brown University.

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

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Racist fucks don't want people to know that their rascism has been in bred for generations.

It's called history. Teach it.

Racists are ignorant trash, like a certain potus (-: whom Tom Cotton seeks to secede (-: But we'll always have them.

But imo 1619 has a kernel of underlying truth: within the systemic racism in America, there's a notion that it was somehow inevitable or foreknown, and maybe divinely inspired, that America would lead the world in condemning slavery. Historically, that's total bullshit, and the 1619 (or the first two essays I read) proves that. Systemic racism is different from racism. We out to try to honestly look at who we are and how we got there. Not doing that is unhealthy for both individuals and societies. It lets us believe in myths without acknowledging some of our beliefs are just based on false facts. A lot us have a tiny bit of Native American DNA but that doesn't really make us simpatico with poor bastards living on reservations, for example. (-: If people just choose to not seek the truth about themselves, they miss out on becoming more able to be what they'd like to be