It is not uncommon for university professors to share their views on the curriculum of public schools. At least, that may have been the view of Jay Bergman, a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, when he wrote to the state’s superintendents to criticize the inclusion of “1619 Project curriculum” in schools. Fellow professors have now asked for Bergman to be disciplined and even fired for expressing his views of the project, which is most associated with former New York Times writer and now Howard University Professor Nikole Hannah-Smith.
As have previously discussed the 1619 Project which has been heavily criticized by historians and others for some of its sweeping historical claims over slavery being a motivation for the American Revolution and labeling figures like Abraham Lincoln as racists.
According to The Atlantic , Princeton historian Sean Wilentz criticized that work and some of Hannah-Jones’s other work in a letter signed by scholars James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes. They raised “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’” They objected that the work represented “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” The Atlantic noted that “given the stature of the historians involved, the letter is a serious challenge to the credibility of the 1619 Project, which has drawn its share not just of admirers but also critics.” Researchers claimed the New York Times ignored them in raising the errors.
The New York Times was criticized later for a “clarification” that undermined a main premise of her writing. In March 2020, the New York Times wrote “We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. A note has been appended to the story as well.” None of that appeared to concern the Pulitzer Committee anymore than University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media.
Many still support the Project, including historians. For her part, Hannah-Smith has acknowledged errors but insisted that they do not change the thrust of the research. It is the type of academic debate that should be welcomed with people of good-faith on both sides.
That is not exactly the response that Bergman encountered after he lashed out at the inclusion of the project for K-12 level students. Bergman declared that the curriculum “presents America’s history as driven, nearly exclusively, by white racism” and insisted that “nearly everything else in the 1619 Project, is entirely false, mostly false, or misleading.” The letter contains over-heated rhetoric (like calling Hannah-Smith an “anti-White bigot”) as well as characterizations of supporters that are insulting and gratuitous. However, this is not about agreement with these arguments or the language but the response to them that is so concerning from a free speech perspective.
The local NBC affiliate and the conservative site College Fix have reported that Bergman has been attacked by his colleagues for voicing his opinion.
The campaign against Bergman began when Putnam Superintendent Daniel Sullivan chose not to simply respond to Bergman but wrote the university president and provost to object to his voicing his criticism. (One site claims that it was Sullivan who went to the media to trigger a public backlash against Bergman).
In the letter below, Sullivan admits that there are errors in the 1619 Project but objects to “…Professor Bergman’s utter disregard for the centuries long struggles of minority communities.” That may be a fair criticism but what is the point of writing to his superiors if Sullivan was not seeking to get the school to pressure or take action against Bergman for voicing his opinion? Sullivan claims that a professor writing to object to curriculum is “a blatant effort to force his ideology” on the school. Were those academics writing in support of the curriculum are not advancing their “ideology”? All academics should ideally take an issue in K-12 curriculum and share their views on the merits of such material. Indeed, most universities ask faculty in annual reviews to detail how they have engaged with the wider community to contribute to different causes and efforts.
The most concerning element in the controversy was the response of Bergman’s colleagues at the university. A letter signed by six members of the history department denounced Bergman’s views. The letter was, in my view, an appropriate response to the merits his arguments, though it did not delve into specifics on his criticism of the 1619 project. The one aspect that struck me as odd was the ending that stated “[Bergman’s] opinions about the schools’ curriculum, if he wanted to express them, should have been delivered as a citizen, not as a professor of history opining in an area in which he lacks expertise.” They then however proceed to sign their names with their titles as professors of history. It is entirely common for professors to use their titles (or for others to note their titles) when speaking publicly on controversies. Professors are also encouraged to contribute to their communities and contribute to national and local debates.
Even more chilling was the response of Professor Kristine Larson in the astronomy and geological sciences departments. According to a site supporting Bergman, Larson wrote the following on May 5th a letter posted to a university listserv (and copied to the university president) :
Once again the good name of our University has been dragged through the mud through the actions of one of our own: https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/investigations/strong-words-on-slavery-concerns-raised-after-email-blast-by-ct-professor/2479664/
Dr. Bergman has been publicly spouting his offensive personal politics for years, always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen’s rights under the First Amendment.
Enough.
This time he crossed the line, by:
Using his CCSU email to distribute his latest diatribe, and 2) Signing said email as “Professor of History / Central Connecticut State University.”
He is clearly intending for the recipient to believe he is acting in his role as a Professor of History employed by CCSU (he lists his role on the Board of the NAS second to his CCSU affiliation).
While I understand that the CSU and CCSU administrations might have their hands tied in this matter (and I heartily thank them both for their response letters to the Putnam School Superintendent), we faculty do not.
I am therefore formally requesting that the Faculty Senate Steering Committee craft an article of Censure (or its equivalent based on its bylaws) against Professor Bergman. At the very least, I ask that as individuals we vociferously and unequivocally condemn his actions.
He does not speak for us – he should stop misleading others into believing that he does.
While I cannot deny that he remains an employee of this institution, from this moment forward, I personally will stop considering him to be a colleague. He has abused that privilege for far too long.
So Larson wants to censure a professor for voicing his opposing view on this controversial project? There is no a hint of concern for free speech or academic freedom — let alone specific responses to the points that he raises in the letter. She just insists that “He does not speak for us – he should stop misleading others into believing that he does.”
Bergman never said that he was speaking for the university. It is Larson who wants the university to speak officially to condemn his viewpoints. Moreover, it is very common for academics to use their emails for personal use. Indeed, these email was expressing Bergman’s view of an academic work and its historical foundations. Just as the other professors used their titles (and presumably their emails) in responding to Bergman, there is nothing untoward in the use of such an email for faculty to discuss such controversies.
I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. However, professors and students are routinely investigated, suspended, and sanctioned for countervailing views. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the merits or the tenor of Bergman’s letter. I am as supportive of this colleagues voicing their objections to his letter as I am Bergman’s right to voice his original opinion. What I oppose are efforts to have the school formally censure or take other actions against an academic for espousing dissenting views. Larson’s letter does not even suggest a hint of concern over free speech. She does not want to respond to Bergman. She only wants to silence or punish him.
The most telling line in her letter was objecting to how Bergman has been “publicly spouting his offensive personal politics for years, always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen’s rights under the First Amendment.” We have seen a growing movement in universities in treating free speech as a danger rather than the defining right of our country. This growing intolerance for free speech has even reached law schools, as discussed in a column this week. Larson captures that anti-free speech movement by denouncing those who are “always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen’s rights under the First Amendment.” Free speech does not allow people to “hide.” It does the exact opposite. The act of free speech is to allow people to stand publicly and openly behind their convictions. Larson simply declares Bergman’s “personal politics” as “offensive” and calls for university action against him. Larson would eliminate the free speech protections to get at those who hold, what she views, as “offensive” thoughts. Then there will be hiding as professors withdraw further into the shadows — avoiding those like Larson who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints.
As I have maintained at my own university for years, professors can individually or as groups voice their views on such controversies. However, some faculty want to use their institutions to denounce dissenting views despite professors or students who may hold opposing views. These faculty members know that it is hard for other professors to speak out against such institutional statements when they could then be accused of the same “abusive” viewpoints. Many faculty likely do not support Bergman’s arguments but support his right to voice his opinions. Yet, the whole point of forcing institutional statements is to convey that such viewpoints are unacceptable. It is less effective in convincing than coercing others.
NBC originally acquired the letters below.
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
The “1619 Project” is moot and to be utterly ignored. The actual historical anomaly is the failure to deport illegal aliens en masse. Upon the unconstitutional issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863, the status of slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien” requiring immediate deportation, which remains the legal resolution of this case. The unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” are illegitimate, were improperly ratified, and ratified under the unconstitutional duress of brutal, post-war, military occupation. Holding a gun to the heads of Americans is not a licit component of the constitutional amendment process. The entire “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was unconstitutional and slavery must have been terminated by legal means including, but not limited to, advocacy, boycotts and divestiture.
Egypt is ecstatic that the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers. Egypt hasn’t suffered for millennia, and doesn’t suffer now, a caterwauling, ineffectual and dependent minority which is relentlessly begging for “free stuff,” in all its multitudinous forms, including compulsory free social acceptance, free money, free food, free housing, free matriculation, free grade inflation, free hiring, free mortgage assistance, free healthcare insurance, free immunity from culpability, etc. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have made Karl Marx proud – no freedom and self-reliance for them, simply class “untouchability,” dependence and entitlement. The general thesis of the “1619 Project” does enjoy a modicum of validity in its conclusion that America must be remediated, although it presents the inverse of the appropriate corrective action.
_______________________________________________________________
“The ‘Great Emancipator’ and the Issue of Race”
Early Experiences
…
“’If all earthly power were given me,’ said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, ‘I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. ‘…he asked whether freed Blacks should be made ‘politically and socially our equals?’ ‘My own feelings will not admit of this,’ he said, ‘and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.’5
“One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:
‘There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …’
“Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, ‘must be effected by colonization” of the country’s Blacks to a foreign land. ‘The enterprise is a difficult one,’ he acknowledged,
‘but ‘where there is a will there is a way,’ and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.’
“To affirm the humanity of Blacks, Lincoln continued, was more likely to strengthen public sentiment on behalf of colonization than the Democrats’ efforts to “crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him …” Resettlement (“colonization”) would not succeed, Lincoln seemed to argue, unless accompanied by humanitarian concern for Blacks, and some respect for their rights and abilities. By apparently denying the Black person’s humanity, supporters of slavery were laying the groundwork for ‘the indefinite outspreading of his bondage.’ The Republican program of restricting slavery to where it presently existed, he said, had the long-range benefit of denying to slave holders an opportunity to sell their surplus bondsmen at high prices in new slave territories, and thus encouraged them to support a process of gradual emancipation involving resettlement of the excess outside of the country.”
– Robert Morgan
“…free white person…”
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person,…
Lincoln’s views evolved. He abandoned the prospect of voluntary colonisation during the war, permitted blacks to join the army, favoured giving the vote to blacks who had fought for the union or who had a degree of education and, in a published letter, esteemed blacks who had fought in the war over whites who had sat it out. And of course he preserved the union, issued the Emancipation Proclamation and helped Congress pass the 13th Amendment. His views on social and political equality between the races may not in the end have met today’s standards, but to assess him based on those views is to misunderstand his historical significance.
Dumbiel,
America is a society of laws. The first and fundamental law is the Constitution. Everything “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did was unconstitutional, from denying fully constitutional secession, that which the very Founders themselves engaged in, and prosecuting an unconstitutional war of aggression, not “common defense,” against a sovereign foreign country, to suspending habeas corpus, smashing printing presses, denying the constitutional freedoms of speech and press, imprisoning publishers and political opponents, confiscating legal private property, issuing a proclamation without a legal basis and fixing the election of 1864, including use of the military for that very purpose.
That you don’t like the law does not grant you authority or dominion to vacate the law and impose your form of tyranny and dictatorship. That is a criminal act. Lincoln was a criminal. Lincoln is the best cause in America history and the personification of the rationale for constitutional impeachment and conviction. It is always difficult at best to impeach a violent, brutal dictator. You proffer your own vacuous speculation. You present what you imagine. You are a fraud entirely lacking veracity or validity. Excerpts of “Crazy Abe’s” verbatim statements, a small part of the written history of “Crazy Abe’s” stated positions, are published above.
I was having a discussion with a Muslim colleague of mine this morning regarding this topic, CRT and the overall insanity the Left is imposing on this country. He and his extended family immigrated from Saudi Arabia and Syria. They all became citizens about 10 years ago. He’s a center-right Republican and the rest of his family are center-left Democrats. He said his entire family cannot understand why anyone would desire to turn this country into the totalitarian regimes like the one’s they left. He recognizes the utter lawlessness; violence, rioting, arson, assault, murder, looting, car-jacking going on all over this country. He recognizes that those pushing this “tribal warfare” are no different than the religious fanatics in their previous home countries. He knows what comes next from this anarchy is a push for oppressive control by the government to restore order. He equated the “anarchists” as arsonists on a rampage and the conservatives (Republicans) as firefighters and Democrats as bystanders enabling the anarchists or as passive observers. He and his family know how this will end if the Democrats that still love this country remain on the sidelines.
Olly,
You talk more and say less than any person I have found on this blog. That’s saying something! Congratulations!
If the goal for curriculum was accuracy, then the 1619 Project should have been abandoned once so many prominent historians analyzed its foundational flaws and untruths.
Yet that is not what happened.
The 1619 Project is still getting pushed. It is being taught in 4500 classrooms and 5 school districts have incorporated it districtwide.
The appropriate place to teach the 1619 Project would be a high school critical reasoning or debate class, in which the bigotry, untruths, and shaky reasoning of the paper could be examined. It would be a marvelous opportunity to teach kids how to unravel propaganda using logic and research.
Instead, it’s being taught as social studies, so students assume it is true.
The other well-worn behavior trend on display is for proponents to simply lie about it. For example, Jake Silverstein of the NYT claimed the purpose is “to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”” Yet instead the theme was that America is a racist country, founded on racism, and that its every strength traced to racism.
That’s what the politicians and activists do. They lie and expect you to disbelieve your own eyes.
They were “mostly peaceful protests”, while businesses burned in the background and millions of dollars of damage occurred.
The Democrat Party now denies they ever supported the anti-cop, defund the police rhetoric, and ludicrously claim Republicans did so.
Accuse Trump of working with the Russians based on misinformation bought from the Russians.
Claim BLM just cares about black lives while its rhetoric misrepresents most police use of force data, and their protests regularly devolve into property damage and riots. Ignore the anti-semitic, anti-cop, anti-white, racist rhetoric.
Claim that CRT is only being taught in universities while the American Federation of Teachers pledges to defend teaching CRT in schools.
The play is to get you to disbelieve your own eyes.
“The appropriate place to teach the 1619 Project would be a high school critical reasoning or debate class, in which the bigotry, untruths, and shaky reasoning of the paper could be examined. It would be a marvelous opportunity to teach kids how to unravel propaganda using logic and research.”
Um, the last thing they want to teach our children is how to think for themselves.
Who here has a time machine? If someone does, maybe we can go back in time and fix what was broken. Until this happens we can only learn from the mistakes of the past and not make them again.
Truth that. But if we erase that from history we do not like–which is being done on a broad scale–and fail to teach things like civics, then how are our children to learn? Frightening future. I’m glad I’m rounding the far turn and about to start into the home stretch rather than being just out of the starting gate.
You don’t need a time machine to enforce the law and to impose legal corrective action post facto. Black freed slaves must have been deported upon the issuance of the emancipation proclamation as the Naturalization Act of 1802, in full force and effect in 1863, required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” which, in turn, altered the status of black slaves from “property” to “illegal alien” requiring immediate deportation. There is currently an overabundance of idle cruise ships and airliners available for hire.
The problem with the Hannah-Jones premise is that it makes no differentiation between the then and the now. The 1619 project declares that the treatment of blacks in colonial America is the same now as it was then. 500 years ago people were slaughtered in the Arena for sport. The descendants of the ancient world have spread across the globe. Should these descendants be held eternally responsible for the actions by the uncivilized nations of the past? Should the Germans of today be held eternally responsible for the actions of the Nazi regime. Reparations were applied to the German nation for World War One. The German people felt that the repetitions were unjustified and Hitler inflamed the situation as part of the rhetoric that brought him to power. He unmercifully destroyed the lives of those who opposed him. The destruction of peoples lives today for their opinion is no different than what happened in Germany. He let it be known that his opposition would no longer be able to hide behind the newspapers. His philosophy is alive and well today. The power of the White Nationalist Party today doesn’t hold a candle to today’s keepers of the muzzles on the left. They found the muzzles from a newly discovered K-9 cache in a Wehrmacht supply depot. Professor Turley is forever the genteel debater. The time has come for calling the cancellation mob for what it is and the roots of their efforts.
Thinkitthrough, great post.
Thanks Independent Bob.
“The power of the White Nationalist Party today doesn’t hold a candle to today’s keepers of the muzzles on the left.”
Exactly
Thinkitthrough,
“ The 1619 project declares that the treatment of blacks in colonial America is the same now as it was then. 500 years ago people were slaughtered in the Arena for sport.”
It does no such thing. This is why so many keep making arguments from ignorance. Every time such claims are made not a single quote from the papers that make up CRT is cited. No links or anything. It’s purely making arguments from ignorance.
At least make an effort to link to the claim or cite an excerpt stating the claim.
-ThinkItThrough,
Great post.
The problem with the Hannah-Jones premise is that it makes no differentiation between the then and the now. The 1619 project declares that the treatment of blacks in colonial America is the same now as it was then. 500 years ago people were slaughtered in the Arena for sport.
Where?
The power of the White Nationalist Party today doesn’t hold a candle to today’s keepers of the muzzles on the left.
There is no White Nationalist Party.
Turley hammering post after post that somehow, somewhere somebody is after your free speech, and it’s a old trick. It’s really no different than there’re coming for your guns, people of color are after your jobs, and of course the big one that the youth want socialism. They are right-wing talking points that have been around for years. Is the 1619 project perfect somehow, no of course not, but at least it’s trying to correct the record of history outside of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.
Fishwings,
Turley is more opposed to the demands that someone be condemned, censured, removed, or calls to resignation. He calls this an attack on free speech, but the majority of the time it’s just a consequence of stating highly offensive speech or ideas. What Turley is really upset about is the resulting backlash. For an expert on free speech he doesn’t seem to recognize that such reactions or responses are part of the whole idea of free speech. His criticism of such responses strongly implies that the speech being offensive or wrong should be tolerated and allowed to be heard.
Because an opinion or view that is deemed wholly offensive and wrong is protected doesn’t mean it is protected from objections, derision, or calls for censure by the public. To actually censure Bergman is one thing. Mere calls to censure him or asking for a resignation is not an attack on free speech. Even if Bergman resigned or got fired he would still be able to state his opinions.
Oh I agree, I get what you’re saying, but Turley is weaponizing for talking points of the Heritage foundation and Federalist Society that they are somehow victims, because the right-wing is somehow, always victims.
Fishwings,
That IS the thing isn’t it? It’s about being a victim of something rather than acknowledge a problem. It’s about avoiding accountability on what is being said and avoiding responsibility for the consequences of exercising free speech.
FishWings:
What do you think that Turley has said that is untrue, and why?
Or do you just take issue with his speaking the truth when it undermines a narrative?
Turley cares deeply about Free Speech. He walks the walk about defending speech with which he does not agree. Anyone who values free speech should be concerned with censorship. That censorship has come from a certain direction.
I notice you never say a particular story Turley refers to is untrue. You don’t seem to be denying this censorship is happening; you just don’t want Turley or anyone else talking about it, or resisting it.
Svelaz, it’s rudimentary, but I’ll try to explain. If Slavez speaks his mind on this forum he should lose his job. If Slavez knows that he could lose his job would he be more or less likely to make his post. If fear is present the result for Slavez will be self censorship. He thinks that we should understand the consequences and the possibility of the Gulag if we step out of line. Svelaz voluntarily lifts his face to receive his muzzle in anticipation of a treat.
Thinkitthrough,
“ If Slavez speaks his mind on this forum he should lose his job. If Slavez knows that he could lose his job would he be more or less likely to make his post. If fear is present the result for Slavez will be self censorship.”
The mere call for me to lose my job because I spoke my mind is not enough to claim it is suppression of speech.
If I knew I COULD lose my job because I spoke my mind and self censored I would be the one who should recognize the risk of speaking my mind. I works still defend my position, but if I got fired because of it I still can continue to speak mind. You can get fired from a job, any job for speaking your mind. The 1st amendment doesn’t protect you from that at all.
It’s entirety different if it is a government entity like a university. Bergman is a tenured professor and his job is pretty secure. Yes he can be censured and that doesn’t mean he can’t continue to speak his mind.
You can’t go to jail for speaking your mind. You can’t be fined for speaking your mind. Those are government administered punishments. You CAN get fired for speaking your mind in the private sector. You CAN be ostracized for speaking your mind by the public and you CAN censored by the public by way of intimidation. The 1st amendment only protects you from government punishment for speaking your mind.
There are still blasphemy laws in six states which are unconstitutional.
Calls for punishment, censorship, firing, boycotts, etc have been around as long as the 1st amendment has been around. It’s not a new thing. Turley wants everyone to think so but in reality it’s been a pretty common thing in this country’s history.
FishWings, trying to correct the distortion of history with a distortion of history. As usual, the books on your bookshelf are composed of what you want to read.
fishflaps ; the only old trick here is you. Same old deflection propaganda. Critical racist theory is divisive , and does exactly the opposite of what drones like you and your talking points offer up. It’s a sad disgusting distorted history fools errand of a warped political ideology….pretty much Marxist and antithetical to common sense and morality. But you know this….. yet here you are defending such tripe. Says volumes about your ilk.
The wisest course is always to stick to facts and avoid name calling and the use of negative words. When one goes beyond stating the facts, one creates easy avenues of attacks, and the result is often that the underlying points are likely to be lost.
Steve Brown, completely agree. Bergman’s opposition to the project would have been more credible if he refrained from making personal insults and ad hominems. His colleagues were more professional and credible with their response to his letter to the district superintendents.
Oh, now the left decries the use of “negative words?” The left never uses name calling?? The left never got what it wanted through chaos and intimidation???
I call BS. This is payback.
Svelaz, you attack Professor Turley every day on a personal basis by telling us that he is a shill for Fox News. Perhaps if you took your own advice the effectiveness of your posts might be greater. Don’t you realize that your history proceeds you. You don’t only want to tell us what to say but how we should say it. Of course we understand that the rules you want to set for us won’t apply to you. Same BS different day.
Thinkitthrough,
“ Svelaz, you attack Professor Turley every day on a personal basis by telling us that he is a shill for Fox News.”
I have never called professor Turley a shill and don’t do personal attacks. I do criticism of his opinions.
There’s a difference. You have me confused with someone else.
Steve Brown, Hanah- Smith tells us that all Whites are racist bigots at our core and you complain when Bergman points out her prejudice against Whites and her depicting that all Whites are evil. You are so noble in calling for the Marquis of Queensbury Rules while one side is allowed to poke the eye out of their opponents. Stevie you play nice now. But mom Mikie is punching me in the face! I don’t care Stevie you play nice.
Thanks, Think. You put it much better than I did. I was so annoyed by the gaslighting, I could barely type.
Two ad hominem observations — Jay Bergman has a Ph.D. in History from Yale and has published three books with elite university presses (Oxford, Stanford, Cornell). To do so, he mastered Russian, spent several years studying history in graduate school, passed preliminary examinations on his field, and was trained and vetted by senior historians who were well established in his field. Kristine Larson has a Ph.D. in Physics, not History. She has published a biography with Greenwood, a good press, and her thoughts on the ‘mythologies’ of Tolkien (Hobbits) and Neil Gamon (Good Omens and other fantasies). She does not appear to be a trained historian, although she claims to be interested in the history of science, a field which requires a broad scientific expertise and a mastery of historical methodology. So it appears she is similar to the lead author of The 1619 Project and the ‘fact-checkers’ at the NYT who seem to have a rudimentary grasp of what historians do and what constitutes historical analysis, given her on-line biography, comments by Hannah-Jones, and the correspondence in this link — https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140
And a few professional observations for those who are not trained historians.
To become a historian requires being able to read at least one foreign language, mastery of historical methodology, completion of a scholarly thesis, demonstration of knowledge of up to four broad fields of history, and the endorsement of three or more senior professors. It is not a walk in the park and can take up to ten years if one has to do research in foreign archives. The rewards for most graduates are considerably less than the effort and treasure needed to obtain the degree.
To write popular history is relatively easy, if not quite as easy as to accuse someone of being a racist. To write a scholarly history requires consulting primary and secondary sources and immersing yourself in a subject for as long as it takes to master it, tasks that can take as little as two or three years and as many as five or six, depending on the subject and the sources to be consulted. It is not done by visiting the local library and doing on-line searches or reading a handful of books and consulting a few primary sources.
A journalist is not a historian; a journalist verifies a source with at most two additional sources; a historian compares scores of sources and reads hundreds of documents and as many secondary works as possible. They are different professions.
Alas, since the postmodern ‘linguistic turn’ in history, many historians have adopted the postmodern dictum that a strong argument is more important than assuring that your observations are based on verifiable sources and then comparing the sources to see which ones are most useful in understanding your subject. Consequently, serious historians are getting harder to find, but to equate a journalist’s musings to the considered opinion of a trained historian is rather like insisting that CNN’s resident physician is more qualified to diagnose what ails you than your family doctor.
A final note. I have not read The 1619 Project, nor do I intend to do so because a history that reduces four hundred years of history to an untenable cliche need not be taken seriously, and there are good histories that I have not year read.
-An Old Guy,
Thank you for a great post.
An old guy,
“ A final note. I have not read The 1619 Project, nor do I intend to do so because a history that reduces four hundred years of history to an untenable cliche need not be taken seriously, and there are good histories that I have not year read.”
And that folks is how you end up making arguments from ignorance.
In order to fully understand the scope of the debate you have the read the topics in question in order to be able to make assertion about the validity of current criticism about the project.
Turley only mentions Bergman as a “history professor” but doesn’t mention what Bergman and his colleagues readily point out. Bergman is a Russian history professor who by his own admission is not an expert on American history. That’s not his expertise and his fellow historians point this out.
Bergman makes the same mistake of making arguments from ignorance as those who have not read or actually researched what critical race theory presents and what the 1619 project does. Nobody is saying all the project’s claims are true, but Bergman already claims it is either entirely or mostly false assertions while admitting that his area of expertise is not American history.
An old guy makes the point that historians should make assertions on verifiable sources, but Bergman used sources that are not credible or are cherry picked for effect. His fellow historians who ARE experts in American history pointed out that Bergman’s claims are not credible and many are based on opinions from pundits of media that has no evidence that they have researched the topic fully and only relied on cherry picked snippets of controversial claims to falsely claim the whole project is inherently racist or seeks to upend American history.
That’s why it’s important to read the subject that you oppose in order to make a credible criticism of it.
To Upstate Farmer — thank you for the kind words, and my apology for the typo — ‘year’ should be ‘yet.’ Among the books on my shelf that I would like to read are a collection of short pieces by Jorge Luis Borjes and a history of Chinese religion.
To Svelaz — I normally do not react to criticism, but I will again note that a historian is not a physicist, and repeat that as a historian Bergman is better placed to evaluate a ‘history’ than Larson, who is a physicist and I would be happy to hear her thoughts on field theory.
Critical race theory is irrelevant. Any historian who is not an ideologue will tell you that applying theory in a rigid manner makes for bad history. I have read more than my share of such histories, and they are, indeed, badly flawed. The more detail, the less generalization is possible, and history is all about detail. The 1619 Project is all about promoting a particular theory about society, much like Marxism, so it is not worth my time at this point in my life. Period. I read Marx and Engels, Bernstein and Kautsky, Debs, and others on the Left when I was younger, along with Mill, Keynes, and others in the center and on the right, including Fascist, Nazis, Soviets, racists, and on and on. I have also read my share of popular histories, so I know the difference between serious scholarly works which use various models and theories to explain past events and less than serious works which use a single theory to explain the past, which is not only complex, but is vast and chaotic. Models and theory help to ‘order’ it, but as Koselleck notes, simply translating events into words distorts them. They are then further distorted by contemporaries and everybody else who chimes in on a particular topic. A conscientious historian examines the various accounts and tries to understand, compare, and reconcile. He does not pontificate or preach.
So you can believe in CRT or Marxism or Scientism or whatever you like, and you can tailor your histories to conform to your ideological preference, but you will not be writing history; you will be writing propaganda.
As for “Bergman’s claims,” they are admonitions based on what he has read, not Gospel. The problem, as Turley noted, was that rather than reconsider its decision to foist CRT on students, the administration at the school sought to discredit Bergman with his own institution, and Larson and other piled on. Those were ad hominem attacks, not discussions of The 1619 Project and the wisdom of subjecting students to what is essential ideological indoctrination.
Ignorance is not at issue here. Curriculum is.
-An Old Guy,
Yet again, another great post.
Your posts are the kind of conversations that need to be happening between parents and education boards so that they may come to a consensus of what should be taught in schools.
However, just read a report of an increase in parents choosing to homeschool as they do not believe their children are getting the education they deserve or as a reaction from CRT.
Thank you.
An old Guy,
“ A conscientious historian examines the various accounts and tries to understand, compare, and reconcile. He does not pontificate or preach.”
That is true, Bergman did not do that. He openly admitted that he is not an expert on American history and his reference that brought him to the conclusion that CRT is flawed lack credibility and as his own colleagues pointed out he cherry picked his data.
He was was being disingenuous with his arguments and included personal insults at Hannah-Jones.
He didn’t read or researched CRT. All he did was rely on the Ignorance of others “research” to come up with his own analysis by using what he DID know about European history. It was a shoddy attempt at making a credible point.
Ignorance IS the issue. Because so many claims about CRT are based on arguments made from ignorance.
So slev ; This Hannah jones is god like to you ?. She is beneath reproach ?. Can you detail her academic credentials . her great works……. oh yeah that’s right she has NONE. She is a biased journo with a rather big racist mouth. So I guess under the current left revisionist dogma that equals a PHD now ?.
Shallow and biased is your argument…and less genious so is this H. Jones femme.
phergus,
“This Hannah jones is god like to you ?. She is beneath reproach ?. Can you detail her academic credentials . her great works……. oh yeah that’s right she has NONE.”
Nope, She’s already conceded that some aspects of project 1619 need to be reviewed and is happy to correct them. Her academic credentials and great works are available for scrutiny online. Shes a pulitzer prize recipient in journalism for her work.
Having a PHD doesn’t guarantee that you are an expert on american history when your expertise is Russian history as Bergmant is. He admitted he is not to be taken at his word.
Svelaz to an old guy: “And that folks is how you end up making arguments from ignorance.” Because Old Guy does not plan to read the 1619 project.
***
Sometimes, Svelaz, a story is so absurd that the end alone is warning enough.
If someone writes 800 pages concluding the world will end next month and we need to sell or give away all of our possessions and join the author in a deep cave to survive, I don’t need to read the book. The conclusion is rubbish. The 1619 project is like that. But I will be waiting at the entrance to take a picture of you when you climb back out. Remember to smile.
Fabulous post, An Old Guy. Thanks so much for this.
In other words; “We’re mad he keeps exercising his rights!”
The Left is trying to frighten critics into silence with their cultural lynch mobs.
The Left knows that their power is coming to an end with the awakening of conservative anger at Lefty lies and bullying, so they are using this window to establish a culture of intimidation before Conservatives completely abandon the MSM, vote Lefty politicians out, and develop a coherent defense strategy.
The political pendulum always swings; Trump energized the Left; now the Left is provoking Conservatives out of their usual attitude of courtesy and tolerance.
The Left’s desperation shows: look at the shrewish vitriol of some of the Lefty posters (eg MollyG and Natacha); look at the obsessive nattering of Anonymous; look at their responses (“But Trump…”, “Turley, what about Fox…”, “Turley, you…”).
The Left is intellectually bankrupt and has only lies, insults, and intimidation left.
Monumentcolorado,
What you’re saying is not particularly true. The exaggeration and hyperbolic rhetoric is just a means to make the issue bigger that it really is.
I just spent two hours reading Bergman’s opinions and the arguments being made on the dispute revolving Bergman.
Bergman himself admitted he is not an expert on American history. He specifically stated that he shouldn’t be taken at his word. Bergman certainly has his share of controversial opinions and he is perfectly within his rights to express them. I wholly support his right to express them and will defend attempts to actually silence him.
What is lost in the controversy is mostly what he did rather than what he said.
Bergman sent the letter using his title as a history professor representing his university. Despite the fact that he didn’t directly state he was speaking on behalf of his colleagues it did leave the impression that he was speaking in his capacity as a history professor from the university. He used the credibility of his position being a “history professor” to state his opinion on why project 1619 shouldn’t be taught in K-12 schools. He wasn’t an expert on American history. His colleagues who were experts on American history risked being pigeonholed by Bergman. He didn’t take his colleagues into consideration and proceeded to make claims and insinuations that his colleagues who were actually experts on the topic knew to be false. It was unprofessional and disrespectful.
Of course the actual experts had do state that Bergman’s views did not represent the history department’s positions and explained that Bergman clearly not an expert on American history was making false assertions and engaged in personal attacks against Hanna-Jones. Bergman was making an argument out of ignorance against project 1619.
The only person Turley singled out as an issue is the astrophysics professor’s letter calling for censure. Clearly she has been around Bergman long enough to know that his personal opinions have been offensive personally and professionally. She had a right to air her grievance against Bergman’s claims. Calling for his censure itself is not an attack on his freedom of speech. Only if the censure actually occurs is what matters.
Bergman sent the letter using his title as a history professor representing his university. Despite the fact that he didn’t directly state he was speaking on behalf of his colleagues it did leave the impression that he was speaking in his capacity as a history professor from the university. He used the credibility of his position being a “history professor” to state his opinion on why project 1619 shouldn’t be taught in K-12 schools. He wasn’t an expert on American history.
No, he is an expert, much more so than his colleagues. He is enough of an expert to know who the real authorities are, and he named them.
William,
“ No, he is an expert, much more so than his colleagues.”
He wasn’t an American history expert. He admitted it himself. His colleagues had more expertise on the subject because they were the experts on American history. It is an important distinction.
You’re a moron. He PROVED he was an expert by identifying the real experts. If you know who the experts are, YOU ARE AN EXPERT!
William_JD,
” He PROVED he was an expert by identifying the real experts. If you know who the experts are, YOU ARE AN EXPERT!”
No, he proved he was an “expert” by identifying opinion pieces based on ignorance and cherry picked data to “prove” he is an…expert. But, he admitted himself that his is NOT an expert on American history. He was being ignorant, For a PhD that is pretty bad.
Rain this morning so I’ll chime in, got nothing to do at the moment.
To me this all serves no purpose. This fixation with “righting wrongs of the past” has become such a national obsession, ruining lives of men and women because of something they said or did 30 years ago, rewriting history over and over until real history will be hard to identify as various factions present their historical narrative based on their ideological viewpoint. The one thing with history you cannot do is research it with a “goal” in mind, to “prove a point”. All you get then is tainted research. I can’t speak to the 1619 project beyond what I’ve read here and elsewhere online, but it appears obvious its history with a predefined point to make. This notion all of the people we descended from were these evil hand-wringing racists, like the bad guy on Scooby Do is beyond absurd. Its hubris, and racist itself. The people who founded this country were people like anyone else. They didn’t get up in the morning saying “gee lets keep slavery going”, they got up and went about the process of living, caring for their families, doing their daily chores and work and dealing with the hardships of life. That it was a different sociological order than we have today with different values, more’s and morals, is moot. All cultures have advanced from more primitive barbaric states. That’s why we advance.
The problem right now is this constant looking back. Not to learn. None of these historical rewrites is about learning. Its about finding people to blame. Its about pointing fingers, and trying to incite payback for ancient injustices that were neither perpetrated by the accused nor suffered by the accusers. And in so doing it neither extracts any form of justice nor elevates the ones seeking it. All it does is create more of a division, further the victim mentality of the accusers and what’s most “remarkable” as Prof Turley would say, it in no way defeats racism, it merely redirects it to another race of people.
So now this generation growing up, can hear vitriol and demonization of white people as a whole as they grow up, and given the majority demographics are shifting with minority numbers projected to equal and outgrow the majority population soon, w can soon have a future generation of oppressed white people, restricted by nothing more than their skin color because the coming adult generations were taught as children that they were evil.
We’re never going to defeat racism by merely demonizing a different race. And while we do need to learn from history, and learning about slavery, the holocaust, etc is imperative so as to avoid repeating them, or at least have been taught to know better. But these sorts of historical “research projects” that begin with an ax to grind, the intention to prove some point, controversial or otherwise, are not doing that, they’re presenting ideological and even emotional content sculpted to fit their own given narrative or agenda, and the fact that this one has been already demonstrated to have questionable research and conclusions by apparently sufficient numbers of the academic community to warrant a second look, yet they’re shoving it into the schools, giving the author glorified tenured status and if I read that right giving it or gave her a Pulitzer of this apparently somewhat flawed research, is disheartening. It says we haven’t learned much.
If you want to get away from something, you need to look forward, not back all the time. You need to look out the windshield and down the road. Keep looking in the rearview mirror for the way out and you’re just gonna wind up in the ditch, spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.
-Chris Weber,
Thank you for that well thought out, insightful post.
Bluebird sky where I am, but still making a little time to read Prof. Turley’s posts today and the excellent comments of people like yourself, Chris Weber, and An Old Guy. Thanks much.
“ Many still support the Project, including historians. For her part, Hannah-Smith has acknowledged errors but insisted that they do not change the thrust of the research. ”
Turley as usual is being disingenuous with his characterization of the historians he claims are heavily critical of project 1619. Even professor Sean Wilentz and the signatories of the letter Turley cited also support the project. In fact the only criticisms they have are in regards to a few claims that Hanna-Jones was more than happy to correct. Wilentz doesn’t dispute the overal point of project 1619, he encouraged further discussion of it. Turley gives the wrong impression that Wilentz and the rest of the signatories in his letter are opposed to the entire premise of the project.
Liberals (this means you) as usual are trying to and succeeding at being ignorant trolls…
Wilentz doesn’t dispute the overal point of project 1619
Because he is true to his proffession, he has nothing to say about an opinion. The 1619 project is an opinion. Based on supposition, and twisted “facts”. Here is a fact. The Nation did not start in 1619. It started in 1776.
The settlers in 169 did not base their culture on slavery. Some might be construed that way, but that is raw unsourced opinion. More accurately, The vast majority came to the New Land to escape religious persecution. This is born out by the fact that the formation of the 13 colonies organized largely around Christian Denominations. And some of the first States that formed the United States had State a sponsored Church. Something modern day denizens of SCOTUS ignore when considering religious freedom violation. (yes I know 15th amendment. Between that and the commerce clause SCOTUS is gutted the Republic given us)
“The letter contains over-heated rhetoric (like calling Hannah-Smith an “anti-White bigot”) as well as characterizations of supporters that are insulting and gratuitous.”
The professor is a pussycat compared to the unvarnished truth. Any truly-honest statement about the reverse racism of the 1619 Project would be unprintable.
I’m actually grateful to Professor Bergman. The more controversy the better; otherwise, nobody will notice what a blatant fraud Hannah-Jones is. Sometimes, there really is no such thing as bad publicity. Professor Turley’s efforts, as polite and earnest as they are for free speech, are easy for the mainstream media to bury. Professor Bergman and the Loudon County parents may have done more good than the rest of us combined.
Finally, I would add the left never got what they wanted by being polite. NEVER. They made us miserable until we relented. Maybe these Stalinists need a taste of their own medicine.
It is obvious to me that before WWII both the Nazi and Communist parties vied for acceptance in American culture and politics. The Communist s won. Their major victory before WWII was after multiple times declaring Unions unconstitutional finally succumbed to FDR’s threats to increase the size of SC and made unions constitutionality legal. The Nazis were discredited but the communists went under ground and permeated our Educational system, corrupted it until we have today communism openly promulgated to first grade students.
From the Nazis braying Jew privilege to the neo-Nazis braying White privilege, critical racists’ theory presumes an insidious diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, under a Rainbow (i.e. political congruence) banner of inclusive exclusion.
“As have previously discussed the 1619 Project which has been heavily criticized by historians and others for some of its sweeping historical claims over slavery being a motivation for the American Revolution and labeling figures like Abraham Lincoln as racists.”
Turley again tries to shape the narrative with his version of pretty much anything. Slavery was “a motivation for the American Revolution” as has been noted by many other authors before Nikole Hannah-Jones. The Southern colonies in particular joined with the North out of fear they would have to forego slavery due to changes in British law.
https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/slave-nation/
As for Lincoln being racist, he was many things and did ultimately reach make the Emancipation Proclamation which was far more about weakening the Southern economy, keeping Britain and France from aligning with the South than freeing slaves. The Proclamation only applied to states that seceded from the Union and left those in the North and territories that didn’t secede alone. If you can’t believe Lincoln is racist, try reading the actual text of the lauded Lincoln-Douglas debates.
“What next? 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. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/have-you-actually-read-the-content-of-the-lincoln-douglas-debates-ba0a96232b0d
Anybody who gives credence to Zinn is a lost cause.
Zinn didn’t create the material, the book and many others covering the same material was written by others. You are dismissing a segment of American History because you don’t like what it is, Zinn is your excuse.
Zinn was like chicken little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. I’ll wager more white people have been eaten by black people than blacks eaten by whites since 1610.
You have officially gotten too stupid to respond to.
Zinn was an anti-intellectual, Marxist, revisionist “historian” who detested capitalism and America. What he wrote — what he chose to include and to exclude — was vicious propaganda disguised as ‘history.”
Choosing what to include and exclude sounds just like American History books. Did you learn about George Washington’s wooden teeth that were actually dentures created from teeth pulled from the mouths of living slaves? I’m not defending Zinn, if it makes you feel better here’s the same source with no mention of Zinn.
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Nation-Colonies-American-Revolution/dp/1402206976?asin=1402204000&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
Enigmainblackcom, you attribute your claim to Washington’s teeth being made from the teeth of slaves. To give more consideration to your claim I ask that you reference the individual passage in your source and whether the source for your information can be found in writing by any of his dentist. Until then I must rely on Wikipedia. Please not the Wikipedia assertion that Washington’s teeth may have been made from the teeth of slaves. May have been is far from a definitive phrase. Just as your claim is very far from definitive.
Modern (i.e. ancient) philosophy, not limited to modern jurisprudence, is guided by plausible (e.g. witch hunts, warlock judgments) rather than probable cause motivated by diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), inequity, and exclusion exploited for leverage. Baby Lives Matter
You know his actual teeth exist and photos are available as well. Your denial knows no bounds.
https://medium.com/the-aambc-journal/why-we-need-a-white-history-month-5db5b08c93ce?source=friends_link&sk=6d742894205313fbd1d9920d06bee2e3
Enigma, where is your evidence of where his teeth came from? So far you have zero evidence so you have no knowledge of the circumstances. At the time teeth came from various sources including one’s own pulled teeth, teeth of cows and horses, dead people and other people, including slaves and criminals.
By the way, where do you think American’s in need of kidney transplants get their kidneys from?
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/health/washingtons-teeth/george-washington-and-slave-teeth/
Most kidney transplants come from willing donors. Of course there are those who are killed to harvest their organs. You won’t believe any source I give you, if you have any questions, do your own research.
Enigma, if you provide a credible source, I add that to the evidence like anyone else. The problem is you make statements of fact when you have no proof. This problem is not a rare thing. The lack of evidence when opposite explanations exist destroys your credibility.
For example, you talked about the fear of the British forcing an end to slavery motivated the American Revolution when the dates of Britain ending slavery in its own country was long after 1776 while its colonies practiced slavery long after that. You didn’t respond to the dates I provided, which also hurts your credibility.
Do you know when the United States ended slavery? Give me a date and I’ll prove you wrong. You just ignored the receipt where Washington paid for the teeth of enslaved people (he paid the dentist not the slaves). I gave you the dentist, something else you demanded. Nobody can prove anything to you.
Enigma said a mouthful about S.Meyer:
“Nobody can prove anything to you.”
Truer words were never spoken! Give up. Save yourself! I beg you…
Jeff Silberman
I have to take months off from Allan to break free from an endless loop of illogic, distraction, and switching topics. He can satisfy himself in never knowing he’s lost an argument and “proving” he’s right about everything he says not worth responding to.
Enigma, I love people that accuse others of illogic and distraction after what they have said has been disproven and sent to the dust heap. Virtually every question you ask I answer. You don’t like to deal with facts and data. That is typical of ideologues of the left.
Jeff, nobody like you or Enigma “can prove anything to you.”
Neither of you is willing to deal with facts and proof. You are a lawyer, so you should know better, but to date I see your endless arguments where empty rhetoric is placed at the highest levels while facts and data don’t exist.
“Do you know when the United States ended slavery?”
Enigma, my assumption is that slavery might still be occurring in the US today in small numbers. You have concerns over slavery, as we all should. Unfortunately, you don’t worry about the sex trafficking and slavery coming from our southern border. You don’t worry about the slavery seen all over the world, even in Africa.
On the other hand, we do know when laws were passed and recorded. The actual law ending slavery in Great Britain was in 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act. That is 57 years after the American Revolution. I don’t expect you to be scholarly on the subject, me neither. However, for 1619 to be taught in the schools it needs to be pertinent and scholarly. Instead, though it says some very true things, it is a total piece of junk.
“You just ignored the receipt where Washington paid for the teeth of enslaved people (he paid the dentist not the slaves). I gave you the dentist, something else you demanded. ”
Enigma, I did no such thing. In fact, I addressed where teeth came from at the time. You did not provide any proven link that Washington’s teeth came unwillingly from a slave or even from a slave. If you are correct and I am wrong, you should show the person from whom the tooth came, link it to the dentist, and then link that tooth to Washington’s dentures. You didn’t do that, so you have proven nothing.
However, I don’t know where all his teeth came from. That is why I provided a statement where such teeth, in general, came from. That statement follows.
“Enigma, where is your evidence of where his teeth came from? So far you have zero evidence so you have no knowledge of the circumstances. At the time teeth came from various sources including one’s own pulled teeth, teeth of cows and horses, dead people and other people, including slaves and criminals.”
You’re just embarrassing yourself now. Time to ignore you again for an indefinite period.
Enigma, If I were embarrassing myself, you would provide the proof. You can’t, and that frustrates you because your entire being on this blog is based on victimhood.
I know from personal experience what racism means, so I am very attuned to racist attitudes, but when one does as you do, and calls everything racist, one eliminates the chance of ever ending racism.
Here is one place:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/04/us/women-kidney-donors-husbands-trnd/index.html
Thank you Prairie, but somehow, somewhere Enigma will find evidence of racism. Great picture and story.
Enigmainblackcom
The 1619 project, and all of the anti-white rhetoric and practices of today, not just by some blacks, but also by elitist white liberals),are destroying the very fabric of society in America, and one day may very well backfire on those who push these lies and half truths. Dividing us by skin color and not by content of character, is a mistake that will live on in infamy.
Our children and grandchildren will suffer from what we adults do to them today. This indoctrination must stop, or we will all be destroyed by our enemies in the world, who help stoke the fires of racism and fear, and division.
Are you equating truth with anti-white rhetoric? America was divided by skin color long before the 1619 project came along. It seems like your position is that everything in it is lies and half-truths. I submit that lies and half-truths fill the history books being taught today.
Maybe it isn’t possible to teach history accurately without making white people look bad? That doesn’t mean change the history, how about learning from it and doing better.
I have no problem viewing the Founders, and all that came after by the content of their character. Their character is demonstrated by their deeds which you would rather hide than discuss. Dismissing the 1619 project, CRT (which is barely taught and even then at the college and graduate school level) and continuing to teach a false history that doesn’t make white people feel bad does what to bring people together?
Give it a rest. Well over 90% of white Americans never owned slaves. Holding on to history in order to perpetual play the victim is disgusting. No black person living today was enslaved in America. As an Italian American my ancestors were enslaved too. White Slavery went on for thousands of years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slavery). Of course perpetual victims don’t like when this FACT is brought up, they’d rather play the victim ad nauseum. You see, only black slavery was bad…
A large minority of Christians and conservatives affirmatively opposed, and their unPlanned Posterity still do, slavery, and, separately, diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), inequity, and exclusion.
I feel sorry for you and all who live here and don’t consider themselves as children of God first, proud American second, and use incidental skin color to divide us. I am proud of our diversity. I challenge anybody to name a people outside of Eskimos who don’t have a murderous past.AA
So you are overlooking all of American history and present to claim that it is I using skin color to divide us? Good luck with that.
Exactly, diversity [dogma] is an insidious belief founded on color or low information judgments. Critical racists’ theory presumes diversity [dogma].
From Jew privilege to White privilege,
from final solution to wicked solution,
from great leap to social progress, social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
That said, Baby Lives Matter.
“A leader cannot get too far ahead of his people.”
If you’d like to read an account of a different Lincoln/Douglass debate:
https://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-meets-frederick-douglass.htm
An excerpt:
“Douglass,” Lincoln said as his guest departed, “never come to Washington without calling on me.”
Douglass left with a new fondness for Lincoln: “I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.”
Four months later, Douglass addressed an abolitionist group in Philadelphia. “Perhaps you may want to know how the President of the United States received a black man at the White House,” Douglass said. “I will tell you how he received me— just as you have seen one gentleman receive another, with a hand and a voice well-balanced between a kind cordiality and a respectful reserve. I tell you, I felt big there!”
The two men met twice more. Their final encounter occurred at a White House reception after Lincoln’s second inauguration. Policemen stopped Douglass at the door and told him that blacks were not allowed to enter. Douglass protested, then sent word to the president that he was outside. Within minutes, he was admitted.
“When Mr. Lincoln saw me, his countenance lighted up,” Douglass recalled, “and he said in a voice which was heard all around: ‘Here comes my friend Douglass.’””
I grant you Lincoln was pragmatic, so was Fredrick Douglass. Their “friendship” was one on necessity. Name any of Lincoln’s other Black friends? It doesn’t take away from Lincoln’s words and beliefs. Relatively speaking he could have been worse, he was still racist unless you have some other definition.
Please give me your definition of racism
John ; just like that “author” with the fake name Kendi he can’t define racism without making a complete donkey of himself like fake name kendi did recently. To these CRT fascists , truth is not amongst this dogma , it is conjured up to be divisive. Marxism under a different title.
As an observant and learned man, I am sure Frederick Douglass knew the LIncoln/Douglas debate quite well. In spite of that, he found Lincoln to be a good man and held him in esteem. He gave Lincoln grace.
” We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States. Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect, let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.” – Fredrick Douglass
Still sounds like Douglass held him in esteem, in some ways even higher esteem than most since “while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.” – Fredrick Douglass
To deliver people from bondage practically makes him a Moses. Indeed, Douglass most certainly gave him grace and then some.
There may well have been some respect. But he also recognized him as the white man’s President and pointed out multiple instances of racism. That Lincoln was ten times better than the man who followed is a given. Still a racist, which Turley has told you he isn’t.
Is all that you strive for …I mean simply everything you go on about is racism …you see everything through “color”…..a quite lopsided monochrome like POV. If you read garbage from people using fake names writing pure trash like “how to be an antiracist” and think it is relevant let alone coherent you have to expect people of all colors doubting the veracity of most of what you say.
I served in the Army many years ago – and as a troop we all got along as brothers in arms and complete the missions as AMERICANS. We did not see color , just brothers . But currently with the infectious vomit of CRT even our political generals are forcing this divisive screed upon our armed forces. This outright and venal “wokeness” has turned many a young man from joining the armed forces and a few too many to exit. Critical racist theory is divisive to our armed forces , to our children and our society. It is a cancer , it’s lies are a cancer to our society…. every bit as much as Marxism is a cancer the USA is currently inflicted with.
I am correcting the lie Turley fed you. Our armed forces are filled with white supremacists, some former and active duty of which attacked the capital. The military is supposed to do something to weed them out, you won’t. I can tell by your screed you have no knowledge of CRT, not that it’s being taught much anywhere. Have you ever been taught CRT? What was the curriculum? I will address the lies, if you want me to stop talking about racism, stop lying.
“Douglass,” Lincoln said as his guest departed, “never come to Washington without calling on me.”
Douglass left with a new fondness for Lincoln: “I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.”
https://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-meets-frederick-douglass.htm
I’ve sent yopu a portion of what Douglass said in his last remarks about Lincoln. He worked with Lincoln, it was to his advantage to be “close” to the President of the United States. They needed each other. Douglass still knew he was a racist, “the white man’s President,” and said so on many occasions.
Black people could not vote, so of course he was “the white man’s president”.
The quote was preceded and followed by a description that everything he did was solely in the interest of the white man. Of course. You can’t see yourself justifying his racism can you?
“under his [Lincoln] wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood.
I guess Enigma you wish Lincoln were not that man but another who would never have lifted the slaves into “the heights of liberty and manhood.” Then you could complain even louder.
Mayor Shin, do you want to see Mr. Lincoln tarred and feathered?
https://youtu.be/sH-D1Al-ous
Mayor Shinn has two n’s in his name. I wouldn’t have mentioned Lincoln except Turley dismissed the whole 1619 project based on two things he said were lies that are true. Slavery was A cause of the American Revolution and Lincoln wasn’t a racist. Everything I’ve said since has been in response to people denying those truths. Your example of Douglass saying nice things about him is more than rebutted by Douglass’s own words and writings. You can continue to believe Lincoln wasn’t racist if you like. Just don’t expect me to agree.
I’m not going to focus on that part. I won’t tear down a good man. He was a man of his time and a far better one than most, by Douglass’ own estimation. “I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.” Is racism an immutable characteristic? I do not think so. A lot of water passed under the bridge between the Lincoln/ Douglas debate and the Lincoln/Douglass debate.
I am not inclined to speak ill of the dead.
Nor am I generally inclined to see the glass as half empty when it comes to people.
Lincoln’s actions spoke well of him. Douglass felt Lincoln had treated him with the same cordiality he would with any man.
Thank heavens you didn’t give his eulogy! It seems to me you’d only focus on his flaws and failings as a person. Are you a perfectly good person, or, are you closer to 80/20?
“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time”
I see Lincoln closer to this sort of description.
Lincoln had some good points as well, but it isn’t okay for Turley to dismiss history by claiming it is wrong because it claims Lincoln was a racist. He was! Finding historical figures blameless means finding their actions blameless. If all that was left in the past that would be one thing but we are still governed by the Constitution which was racist (and sexist) and current Supreme Court Justices that insist on originalist thought. We are go verned today to some degree by what the Founders intended which was by and large racist. I could pick some that were better than others. John Jay, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and some others. Lincoln might be somewhere in the middle of the pack. Were it left to him, Black people would have been shipped off after slavery ended. I don’t ask you to speak ill of the dead, donm’t ask me to treat him as if he were not racist and sit quiet while Turley uses Lincoln as a reason to deny truthful history.
Slavery was not the cause of the Revolutionary War.
On the second item, racism, your definition of racism is so broad as to be entirely useless. All people have biases (You probably would prefer me to say all white people), so in Enigmaspeak, all people are racists.
You have destroyed the useful meaning of the word racist, so now you have to live with the fact that racism exists in all humanity white, black, yellow, red and brown.
“Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model…He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men… though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future,
***under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood.” *** ___Frederick Douglas 1876
Why rehash and reframe everything to make yourself feel worse about history that you have no control over? I mean, assume you want to make yourself feel worse. How does this continual victimization fulfill your life?
I didn’t bring it up. I am responding to Turley dismissing the 1619 project because it says slavery wasn’t a cause of the American Revolution (it was) and Lincoln wasn’t racist (he was). Consider what I’m doing enlightening others who not only don’t know better but refuse to accept the truth.
It is rehashing. And you are wrong about the American Revolution. You are not “enlightening others” about anything but your continual need to divide us and feel sorry for yourself.
How am I wrong about “a” cause of the American Revolution not being the South wanting to maintain enslavement?
“In 1772, a judge sitting in the High Court in London declared slavery “so odious” that it could not exist at common law and set the conditions which would consequently result in the freedom of the 15,000 slaves living in England. This decision eventually reached America and terrified slaveholders in the collection of British colonies, subject to British law. The predominantly southern slave-owners feared that this decision would cause the emancipation of their slaves. It did result in some slaves freeing themselves.
To ensure the preservation of slavery, the southern colonies joined the northerners in their fight for “freedom” and their rebellion against England. In 1774, at the First Continental Congress John Adams promised southern leaders to support their right to maintain slavery. As Eleanor Holmes Norton explains in her introduction, “The price of freedom from England was bondage for African slaves in America. America would be a slave nation.”
Just maybe, you and Turley are wrong in denying slavery had anything to so with the American Revolution. I am more than willing to document my case. All you are doing is saying I am wrong.
Well, I went back to the Declaration of Independence, and fail to find slavery mentioned
You don’t find it mentioned in the Constitution either but it’s all over it. Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Do you think he really believed all men were created equal while he owned over 600 during his lifetime? (They only mention the 400 the worked at Monticello if you go there and take the tour). If you need help in finding slavery and racism in any of our documents, just ask? Don’t look in a Texas school book though.
Jefferson regretted his participation in slavery. The national charter under a constitutional framework does not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism , ageism), inequity, and exclusion. It’s unfortunate that with social progress, these beliefs are promulgated with an insidious mutation of our philosophy (e.g. legal) and institutions (e.g. systemic). The clarion call was the establishment of the Pro-Choice religion that denies a woman and man’s dignity and agency, and human lives on an unprecedented scale.
Jefferson was the worst of the worst. He is on the record with his concerns about slavery while all the while perpetuating the forced breeding of slaves to aid Virginia plantation owners. He personally worked twenty years to abolish the international slave trade, not toend slavery but as a protectionist means to increase the value of domestic bred (forcibly raped) slaves. Jefferson freed less than a handful of slaves during his lifetime, all relatives of the girl he repeatedly raped, a promise he made to get her to return from Paris.
https://medium.com/discourse/thomas-jefferson-did-more-to-promote-domestic-slavery-and-slave-breeding-than-any-other-president-363d02e2fae7
He also had the young enslaved boys that worked in the nailery at Monticello beaten to improve productivity. A fact covered up by historians because it might diminish the legend.
https://democracyguardian.com/edwin-betts-the-man-who-literally-changed-history-d5e9674ad6fd
Enigmainblackcom,
What you are presenting is EXACTLY why CRT exists. These obscure facts about Jefferson and the revolution are things that serious historians know. What is sad is that the history that we are taught is only the bare minimum with the bare minimum of details.
It’s the lack of intellectual curiosity that dooms many to the disease of ignorance that is fueling this fear about what CRT or project 1619 is really about. I’m actually more intrigued by what you mentioned on Jefferson and the issue of slavery in England.
I’m afraid most of the people here have no interest in knowing anything about history that differs from their beliefs. They have a desperate need for history to be what they want, overriding any desire to understand what history is. If you begin with the premise that the Founders were heroes, you have to make everything they did heroic, and dismiss everything that conflicts with those beliefs.
enigmainblackcom,
I wholeheartedly agree. History is written by those who stand to benefit from it the most. Take the issue of learning about slavery in the south. It is acknowledged, but when you get to the awful details it becomes visibly uncomfortable. I watched a short documentary about a plantation museum in the south where there were no black people playing the role of slaves. When asked about why there are no actors to play the roles. The staff become visibly uncomfortable and unable to explain just what being a slave really entailed. It was interesting to say the least, but it clearly shows how history is sanitized for their protection. The museum is portrayed as in idyllic plantation where wholesome work and nostalgic notions are emphasized without the reality of what having slaves on site. Our history books in schools seem to be created with the same idea.
I had the same experience visiting St. Augustine, FL. Because I’m me, I wrote about it.
https://medium.com/an-idea/when-other-people-tell-your-history-f34c438c1e9?sk=3a4bc839d43a7e88d3dbca083e6abf1e
You might have missed this part that was included in Jefferson’s first draft.
“He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.”
The Revolution was carried out in part to oppose slavery, but also diversity, inequity, and exclusion.
The American Revolution was only partly about slavery but it was to support it not oppose it. You seem to have a great need to believe something that just isn’t true.
Enigmainblackcom,
“ In 1772, a judge sitting in the High Court in London declared slavery “so odious” that it could not exist at common law and set the conditions which would consequently result in the freedom of the 15,000 slaves living in England.”
It’s points like these that bring up a perspective that certain raises a lot of questions about how we portray history. This isn’t something that is commonly known. And I certainly appreciate the snippets of reasoning behind the general idea about what the revolution really was about.
That excerpt certainly piques my curiosity about the subject. Thank you.
He didn’t dismiss it, he put it in context. All things in history have to be put in perspective. Lincoln supported excluding slavery from territories with the failed Wilmot Proviso in the 1840s. His 1850s activism was in reaction to the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act designed by rival, Illinois’s senator Stephen Douglas.
Slavery was an economic motive for a minority. People of color (i.e. racist designation) slavery socially progressed with diversity, inequity, and exclusion (e.g. African institutions and practices) and a liberal calculus that reduced human life to property (e.g. Pro-Choice religion) that was opposed by Christians and conservatives, then formally through the organization of the Republican party. Lincoln was concerned about assimilation and integration. Baby Lives Matter
“Lincoln was concerned about assimilation and integration.”
Lincoln believed no such thing, he believed the races would never get along and proposed shipping all the freed slaves to first Africa and then Central America.
Wait. e-nig speaking the truth with facts? Say it ain’t so! At some point, the truth of the law requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” in full force and effect upon the issuance, without legal basis, of the unconstitutional, property-confiscating emancipation proclamation, will be revealed, forcing this charlatan to acknowledge the requirement for the immediate deportation of freed slaves. Crime doesn’t pay…or does it? The lonnnnnnnng arm of the law must grasp the criminals now.
You’ve been telloing them for years George what Lincoln truly intended for Black people. Please share.
Slavery is still with us…oddly in Africa and the middle east. So CRITICAL RACIST theory IS A FLAWED BIASED THEORY , period. Factually incorrect and pushed for politics as it is a manifesto , and not actual history. Yet REAL slavery is still with the world , but these CRT nutcases are still worried about 160 years of no slavery in the north American continent. It’s political for political means and ends. In any field when any person is chosen for CRT means over quality and or content of character we ALL lose. That is obvious.
“Slavery was “a motivation for the American Revolution” as has been noted by many other authors before Nikole Hannah-Jones. The Southern colonies in particular joined with the North out of fear they would have to forego slavery due to changes in British law.”
Jones had to change her original statement from (paraphrasing), was the motivation, to was part of the motivation. That the former was initially included in her 1619 Project demonstrated her mindset and biases. After such a statement is made, it becomes exceedingly challenging to trust what follows. The editor of the introduction to 1619 also had to change what he said as well. The 1619 Project is not a serious attempt at scholarship.
As far as the statement of the Southerners “fear they would have to forego slavery due to changes in British law.” This statement requires serious historical knowledge, something Hannah Jones and the NYT do not seem to have.
1776 was the date of the revolution, and Great Britain probably didn’t end slavery within its borders until ~1800. At that time slavery was widespread in its colonies. That makes one question the entire premise of the 1690 Project.
Enigma, because you linked to Zinn, I looked up the dates two of the British laws on slavery were passed.
The Act to Abolish the Transatlantic Slave Trade 1807
Slavery Abolition act 1833
These laws were enacted well past the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It makes one question Hannah Jones’ basic premise.
S. Meyer,
“Jones had to change her original statement from (paraphrasing), was the motivation, to was part of the motivation. That the former was initially included in her 1619 Project demonstrated her mindset and biases. After such a statement is made, it becomes exceedingly challenging to trust what follows. The editor of the introduction to 1619 also had to change what he said as well. The 1619 Project is not a serious attempt at scholarship.”
What you don’t get is that they ARE willing to make corrections based on new evidence. That is what she admitted to be open to. Yet those critical of CRT or the project keep making false claims that they are seeking to change American history.
“As far as the statement of the Southerners “fear they would have to forego slavery due to changes in British law.” This statement requires serious historical knowledge, something Hannah Jones and the NYT do not seem to have.”
No, but as you proved yourself they are willing to correct their claims based on advise of other historians. Unlike others, they are at least willing to make changes.
“What you don’t get is that they ARE willing to make corrections based on new evidence. “
They are not willing to make corrections. The correction was forced upon her because what she said was ludicrous and indefensible. Additionally, her correction was not based on new evidence. I don’t know where you get these ideas. The 1619 Project is accepted by the Woke, not by the intelligent.
SM
“Yet those critical of CRT or the project keep making false claims that they are seeking to change American history.”
America was built on an *idea* — the concept of individual rights. (An idea that was used, eventually, to eradicate slavery.) With that idea came, for the first time in human history, the conviction that government exists to serve and to protect the individual.
When you attempt to bury those historical facts under a garbage heap of racism, as CRT does, you are “seeking to change American history.” And you are attempting to change America from a country of individualists, into warring factions of tribalists.
Some on the Right put CRT in the same category as Marxism. They are partly correct: Both have a materialist view of history. Both are based on collectivism. Both promote the fiction of an “oppressed” class versus an “oppressor” class. Both believe that capitalism and America are evil. However, CRT is *worse* because it is intellectually lower. it dispenses with the entire realm of ideas, and reduces man to a mindless creature driven by racial instincts.
You are your economic class (Marxism) is irrational. You are your racial class is wicked.
Sam, you are very clear, so I thank you for that clarity.
One of the reasons many can’t see the relationship between Marxism and CRT is that Marxism has two parts. In the first part, Marx and Engels say that one can reach the second part through different means that might even be contradictory. CRT can be used similarly to reach the final Marxian world he fancifully created. You were spot on, “Both promote the fiction of an “oppressed” class versus an “oppressor” class.”
Unlike you and a few others, most do not understand what Marx said, nor do they realize that Marxist theory spreads over three volumes. Marx only wrote the first volume.
Engels wrote what Marx hoped would be a rebuff to all writers who criticized him. Marx may have planned volume one, so the following volumes intended for earlier publication would entrap others into statements he intended to dispel with his further works.
For some reason, Marx did not complete the other volumes. He was said to be ill but lived almost 20 years after he published volume one. I wonder if in such a time span despite his writings that continued Marx never had an answer to a lot of questions raised. Perhaps that is why he didn’t complete the book himself. I think that because the Marxist conclusion is nothing but a dream.
By that time volume three was published by Engels, many economic opinions were firmly entrenched because a quarter of a century had passed.
—
The take away point is what you said:”Both promote the fiction of an “oppressed” class versus an “oppressor” class.”
Academia — the battles are so vicious because the stakes are so low.
Liberty2cnd, the strange thing is, Slaves that made it to North America, were far better off than slaves taken to other shores, and better off than most Africans left in Africa. A continent where slavery was far more common.
As is usual, those in opposition to Prof Bergman, refuse to enter into an analysis of Prof. Bergman’s fact based history, supporting his objection to using a politically crafted syllabus called the 1619 Project. If teaching materials are factually wrong, why would anybody support teaching from them?
We are one step closer to Jonestown.
I will pass on consuming the purple Kool-Aid, thank you.
All the people seized as slaves in Africa have a right to be sent back. None are alive but their ancestors have a right to be sent back. Instead of “reparations'”. Send em back. They don’t like America. They think that only their lives matter.
Tru be dat, playa!