Point: My students don't show strong knowledge of the history of slavery when they arrive at my classroom. Counterpoint: Odds are high that they don't demonstrate strong knowledge of any history. Our K-12 schooling is pretty weak.
Reason: Public Education was only intended to be a great equalizer, not, on its own, everything you need to thrive in America. Could it be better? Sure. But it's only a resource.
Good point. When John brought up John Calhoun I had to reach back into my brain files, and I went through AP America history and study it on a regular. History is amazingly complex and it's easy for someone knows more or even has a passing interest in history is going to think the average person is Ill informed.
Came here to say this. I lay the blame at the feet of the education colleges. Elementary school is the perfect time to enjoy both the classic and underdog stories of our country. Instead every middle class kid in America spends elementary school “learning how to learn”, and high school is the college board’s cliff notes called AP US History and AP World History. I love history and reveled in the challenge of those classes. They make you work hard and think you know everything. But the more trade books you read as an adult, the more you realize you know nothing.
Left out of the conversation was the banning of the importation of slaves in 1809...20 years after our founding in 1789, we banned the importation of african slaves... But a law only has the value people give it...
Or sentence construction wherein the subject and object switch places: rather than the subject acting on the object, the object of the action becomes, itself, the subject. The same is true in science writing.
Americans quite often imagine when speaking of history, Manifest destiny being taught, the those rugged individual white settlers settled the west, when it was the USA military which eliminated all competition for that land, also gov land, and monetary grants. Plenty of myths are accepted as fact
@Timothy Somerville as a historian I recognize that history is a social science and as such there are competing theories and I support any claim that has reasonable supporting evidence like was presented here, but the original thesis that asserted that the United States was founded in 1619 was hot garbage
specifically what do you consider a joke in the project? what information is wrong in the document? let's have you list the specific points of disagreement you have with each portion of the 1619 project?
I enjoyed the conversation a lot, and appreciate the respect they showed each other throughout it. This is how America should be speaking with each other.
Yes but too many people think rigorously debated subjects and rejecting absolute fallacies is tantamount to incivility. Words are the last port of call before violence.
America did not start in 1619 We were still under British rule at the time. 1776 is when we earned American independence from the crown. So you can't blame All American for what happened in 1619.
When I went to k-12 we learned about the slave trade all parts about it, the underground railroad ect.. we also learned alot about the native American cultures around the US, and the world. Also general world history. This was public school in South Dakota, it was the same curriculum across the state. So how about you deal with the crappy schools. But given all the bad that was done in this country, it was kept relevant to the times they happened in, but also the good this country has done, the sacrifices its people have made of all color for us and the rest of the world.
All of history is a series of what if's though even if it's not implied. How long was it taught that civilization began in Sumeria about 6,000 years ago? Heck I would wager the majority of people still believe this to be true and aren't aware of the Balkan civilizations that pre-date Sumer or Gobekli-Tepe. That doesn't mean the 1619 project isn't garbage, because it is.
@@googlemechuck4217 So are you basing the citizenship on the abolition of slavery? There were several blacks who were freed before then. Also, there were several whites who were slaves during this time as well. I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey by this comment...
@Truth Imperative Your a trip Bro. You actually copied and pasted the same comment on every thread?🤦🏾♂️😂🤣. You have me cracking up.. To funny 🤣. I'm not mad at cha.. 👍🏾👌🏾
When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown to Washington we became a nation... October 19, 1781....not to say that 1619 is not significant.. it just isn’t the birth of the United States .
@@chaselock6955 The fact that you can only focus on my grammar says a lot about your inability ab/or unwillingness to actually engage with content. An of course you think this makes you sound like what, intelligent? Stop trying to be the grammar police an at least try to have a mature, intelligent adult conversation. I'll wait 🤷🏾♂️
She actually makes the case against her own argument in her opening statement. There were several founding events: Columbus arriving, Jamestown settled, St. Augustine, Plymouth, even slaves arriving. Why should any of those be heralded as the founding? They shouldn't. However, in 1776, in codified text, America assembled and declared its independence and sovereignty as a nation.
It's because it's about painting the U.S. (more specifically white U.S. citizens whether they were involved or not) as racist... So it's not about factually true documents, but about demonetization.
People are getting lost in the slavery issue rather than the founding of America issue. Slavery existed before 1776 but 1776 is the founding of America. Do people think that nothing happened in Canada prior to 1867?
Well, actually, Prof. Harris’s argument is that the whole issue of The 1619 Project vs. the ordinary history of the American founding (1776) is to polemicize and problematize this history and that this actually is the stated intention of The 1619 Project- to be a teaching tool. What Prof. McWhorter takes issue with is Nikole Hannah-Jones’s claim that the central, driving claim of the American founding was the preservation of slavery. Then McWhorter says halfway through this interview that, while he gets what Prof. Harris is arguing, he both distrusts that people don’t know the extent of slavery in the United States AND (while claiming not to be a contrarian) thinks that we cannot expect most people to care too much about history, anyway; the present is more interesting to them. Prof. Harris responds that the answer to the broader issue of how much education is needed has everything to do with what this country needs in terms of educated voters. In a nutshell.
Black politicians have a vested interest in opposing the spread of McWhorters point of view. The Republican Party missed the boat when they failed to recruit more men like Senator Scott.
We need MORE FATHERS RAISING STRONG BLACK SONS. F$%K all of this idiocy. It isn't gaining jobs, infrastructure building and Pulitzer prizes are not stopping the KILLINGS OF EACH OTHER! Godddamnn!!
@@SuperOmnicronsj44 If that Community would have persisted in the culture they were exhibiting in the 60s and 70s when the two parent household rates were north of 75%. Very likely you would not be at the bottom had that culture persisted. Instead we have the rap music culture that is toxic as fuck. Top 10 country songs and go look at the top 10 rap songs. Look at the top 10 country songs are songs by people like Luke Combs where he is talking about getting the girl he had his eyes on for a long time and I mean getting as in marrying her having kids and growing old together. Lets compare that to Cardi B WAP. The culture is fucking toxic. If socio-economics were the cause of violence Appalachia would be the most dangerous place in the world for me to walk their neighborhoods but it isn't. Chicago is for everyone just like Detroit Baltimore Memphis Atlanta Oklahoma City certain parts Newark New Jersey thousands of other cities that all have a certain commonality in terms of demographics.
"There were many other interesting essays in the project..." Sure, but they didn't win Pulitzers for outlandish claims that have no basis in historical fact.
@@oppie2363 Nope... Hannah Jone's essay won the Pulitzer: www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/nikole-hannah-jones-essay-from-the-1619-project-wins-commentary-pulitzer/ In fact the project itself didn't even make the Pulitzer finalists.
@Sombre Cynic Talk about a logical fallacy... You just made one hell of a scene beating that strawman. You think critics claim of her receiving a pulitizer is due to an objection of its accuracy? Sweetheart there is more to a society and politics than whether or not a claim is objectively true. There is this thing called culture. And a culture who uses powerful institutions to grant legitimacy to propaganda is worth calling out.
Asking academic who focuses on black history whether there should be more focus on black history is like asking a beer company executive whether or not there should be more bars 😂, she's not exactly going to give you an unbiased answer
3 weeks in and I’m still genuinely baffled by the stupidity of this comment, what a fucking reach to call someone arguing a specific position in a debate biased, really grasping at straws to come up with some reason we should hate this lady lol
@@trenttrip6205 You got 3 upvotes. So, 3. I don't think that tells us much, about who is dumber between the two of you. There are more people with 85 IQs than 75 IQ's for instance. As to your original point: it's still not very good. You do not have to be biased to argue a side in a debate. Have you ever heard of a "debate club"? Members of such a club would take pride in being able to argue either side of a debate, despite where their personal opinions may lay. IIRC, one of the debaters after an IQ2 debate announced that he was, in fact, personally on the side he argued against. When you are thoroughly biased, you are unable to rigorously test your own hypothesis and theories, making you a poor overall debater. It's commonly called having 'blind spots".
@@r.b.7633 I think your critique is woefully off base. What 1619 did and does is alters the fake narrative given us for 200 years and exposes the reader to hidden in history information that inevitably alters the entire narrative promoted under the guise of pride & patriotism, exposing the horrible atrocities that actually make up the foundation and tapestry of the nation that most particularly so called White Americans would prefer to view as pristine....
@@brittanyhayes1043 the founding of United States IS 1776, and that does not refute the general substance of anything in the 1619 Project that exposes what was actually going on politically leading up to the Land-Governing-White-Male-Slave -Owning-Aristocratic-Colonists deciding to usurp the Land from the King, or the resulting horrors commited in the name of their newly taken Fiefdom for multiple Nationalities of Peoples once free & enjoying their God-given rights of sovernty, then named BLACK for the express purpose of the LEGAL rape, murder, plunder, and oppression of those newly minted Blacks under Color of Law. No, the attacks on the 1619 Project are primarily meant to pettifogger the issues so that we don't get to the bottom of the creation of WHITE as a race, which exposes the design of the so-called white elite to keep the worker classes divided for milking. The now new Land Owning White Men whom created a New Country in the Earth were not creating a Country for the common man but for the New Aristocrats and Nobility in the New World. The creation of the Legal Fiction 'White' simply solidified the American Caste System so that they could keep it, and so the lesser castes could not wrestle it away from them as they had the King
@@brittanyhayes1043 yes but there were 2 centuries of history leading up to that point. There was already a shared identity and culture that was 150 years old.
@@Grimloxz - In other words, you want them to have a dialogue with someone who's an ardent subscriber to the 1619 fallacy! I think you and your so-called expert Gerald Horne are the ones who come across as "sketchy" here.
@@Grimloxz He does not need expertise - it's an easy one to knock down. The 1619 Project is BS! Many scholars with expertise have said just what John said. So smoke that!
Well done. You picked two very capable, articulate, intelligent advocates who sincerely held the beliefs they advocated for on either side of this issue, and they maintained their decor, kindly and politely stuck to the subject, not once descending into fireworks or ad hominem attacks. A fine example of excellent idea exploration and scrutiny. Bravo!
@@jamesmorgan2064 I feel you on this. When I saw that John McWhorter was debating for 1776 against someone who was debating in favor of the 1619 Project, I got pretty excited because I thought it would be smart against pure dumb. After watching the video, I have to admit that Professor Leslie Harris's position was more moderate than I thought it would be, but I was not disappointed by John McWhorter's take down. I appreciate that teaching full context of different Americans' origins should include various facts and stories about immigration and how people came to this country, but I remain unconvinced that the 1619 Project is as worthy of the sort of attention it's getting, and I fully understand how it would be seen as revisionist history, especially in the context of all these admonitions to "dismantle" and "uproot" that Wokists are fond of dolling out.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my reply to @UCw-X_sVhoHnjUxUNqhAydJQ, @@LiquidSoul06. To clarify, I did not say that any facts shouldn't be known, nor would I.
Professor Harris makes valid points that many Americans don't know much about history... to many the past is just plain irrelevant to their current daily life. But Professor McWhorter is also correct in arguing that all the complex elements of history need to be kept in proper balance. I think Professor Harris is not in balance.
“...and it disgusts me.” Wow. I’ve heard and read McWhorter quite a bit. That’s not language he generally uses. I’m glad he got that in right up front.
I agree. That was a bold statement. I said out loud "Right on John!" when he said it. He's not pulling punches. He's already risked everything by going against mainstream academia and their insane ideology.
@@Grimloxz when you say "the colonists" before and after the Revolutionary War, and before and after the US Civil War, from what i have gathered (as a non-academic), is that from the beginning, MOST of any resistance to abolition was from southern colonial states and later, from senators and house members from South Carolina Mississippi Alabama etc. (South Carolina almost started a civil war before Lincoln took office.) In the decades before the Civil War, residents of Boston moved to Kansas in their horses and carriages, to settle in Leavenworth in order to vote in Kansas as a free state. (They were attacked by pro-slavery gangs from Missouri, in a kind of massacre, which led to people from Kansas going back and attacking towns in Missouri to get even.) In the decades after the Civil War, there were numerous civil rights bills that were proposed in The House of the Senate, year after year, but the South managed to swat that down over and over. There were lofty ideals and idealists around 1770-76, there were emerging new principles and concepts, of which individual sovereignty was very contentious, compared to the well-established Tory sovereignty of the king. Locke was described somewhat in the vein of a .. I don't want to say (democratic socialist) Bernie Sanders of his era .. possibly Noam Chomsky? Locke was focused on moral philosophy. Anyhow, the key concepts behind life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for individuals, was considered almost blasphemy. This came BEFORE any discussion about whether it could apply beyond White or English SUBJECTS of the crown, who were declaring themselves to be no longer subjects. Even the highly radical US Constitution initially did not allow men who weren't landowners to vote as full citizens. But just the idea of a republic of businessmen and farmers that wasn't a monarchy was radical enough. Jefferson owed debts, and my understanding is he would have been unable to free the slaves that were then his property, had he wanted to, and had he thought that was feasible (they would need land and capital to make a clean start). The law, and his creditors, would not allow that, any more than people living today can dispose of property they own to a family member or business partner, just before they file for bankruptcy or for Medicaid reimbursement. Therefore, in contemporary terms, such as of "me too", we are not allowed to see Sally Hemnings as a voluntary mistress, because of her legal status, even though he took her to Europe with him, seemingly as a partner. I'm sure we can probably think of parallels with illegal immigrants from Guatemala or Mexico marrying a person who is a legal US citizen, perhaps an employer. Sure, the legalistics must be considered, but that does not mean that the couple was not in a personal loving relationship which would not have commenced had there not been unequal legal status. On that last point, my understanding is that there is insufficient autobiographical information from Thomas Jefferson regarding what he thought of in his relationship with Ms Hemmings. I could be mistaken about that, and that maybe he was more crude or more of a hypocrite than I am aware, but at this point I'm not aware of that answer being proven.
@@Grimloxz I checked out Gerald Home. Without further information, it seems he suffers from the same type of myopia used by born-again Christians who can "prove" the US was founded as a Christian nation. What they do is take a small kernal of subjective truth and spin it into an entire explanation of their choosing to serve a narrow agenda.
I literally know more about slavery than I do about the constitution of the United States. I was educated in the 1980's. And I grew up in the era of Black History month in school. That should tell you how false her narrative is.
@@nealmike5490 No! Not watered down version in my schools. Don't know where you went. We watched the PBS series "Eyes on the Prize" and had intense education on what happened. Literally more on slavery than on understanding the document that contains all of our rights as citizens of the United States.
I'm 37 and slavery and black history were a part of my curriculum in grade school. I come from small town USA not the big city. I bet you find a different curriculum in big cities vs. Small towns.
You grew up in an era where a people's history was taught one month out of the year, but you know more about their enslavement than you do about the Constitution of the system they've been oppressed under? Stop the madness. Youre almost as bad as the guy saying his class watched Roots.
She's so absurd. Are we really supposed to believe that a student at northwestern, one of the most competitive universities in the world, had NEVER HEARD ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE US? Absolutely ridiculous! I've never met an American who wasn't VERY aware of slavery in our history, and i grew up in southern Indiana. If there are people who haven't heard the news, they're less than 1% of the population.
She is being completely disingenuous. Haha!! A student at a top university never heard of slavery? Wasn't taught of it in high school? Grade school? Middle school? Haha!! Yeah maybe if they were foreign exchange students from China. Slavery and extensively covered in every single school. It not only taught, it is impossible to avoid. And culturally is shoved down our throats endlessly. Movies, TV shows, book, newspapers, museums, etc.
That a black student at a university has never heard of slavery when the core of black identity (especially in Academia) has become entirely centered around historic oppression and victimhood is laughable.
Mateo you don't get it, She wants you to beg. These people are ethnic nationalists, they want to lord it over and they see anything short of that as injustice
The female professor has to read her statement. I am a well-educated man and have seen very many professors. A professor is an expert in his or her field. They can speak extemporaneously and fluently about their area of expertise. Reading from a document indicates, in my view, a lack of ability and intellectual acuity. Compare her to Professor McWhorter. Secondly, you can see that the professor of African-American history is not used to the kind of direct critique as provided by Professor McWhorter. In her real day to day life she is, no doubt, met with admiring and smiling white faces who will nod in agreement to her theories. But the small group of white Leftist elites do not represent the bukl of the nation. I daresay many black folk do not buy her narrative as well. The 1619 narrative as well as CRT combined with the fawning admirers in academia and the media will result in serious divisions along racial lines in the USA. I think we have all seen this occurring. I am very sad to see this. And these views that I write come from a white guy who, for decades, had a picture of MLK on my desk and considered himself left of center.
Leslie Harris' argument is straight up gaslighting: Yeah its not accurate, I wish we wouldn't focus on that, rather just look at the wonderful stories within. Yeah the premise is false, but you shouldnt take it literally, use 'critical thinking' instead... Do you think the kids in classrooms are going to know that the information is false and shouldnt be taken literally?
Very important point here you make. Because there's a big difference between debating the contentious and very arguably inaccurate basic thesis of the 1619 Project in Academia and public forums, and actually introducing this theory/doctrine into primary and secondary school curricula as is being proposed, to children that have neither the knowledge nor the experience to critically evaluate it.
This is how Christians and Muslims talk about the Bible and the Quran. CRT is like a religion, and has its deities and saints, its zealots and martyrs, it's heretics and blasphemers, and like every other religion out there, claims moral authority and calls for the abolishment of any alternative.
I am a teacher from Germany, teaching US social history and literature. I am following the debate with great interest. Around minute 23:00, mention is made of "Gone with the Wind". I do not understand how Professor Harris says on the one hand that the 1619 project is an "invitation to critical thinking", and therefore need not necessarily claim to be "true", while at the same time she seems to simply accept that watching "Gone with the Wind" in class seems to be something scandalous. I use parts of the movie to show how idealized and romanticized slavery was. This is exaxctly what Prof. McWorther is going against. I think it is dangerous to blacklist certain cultural artefacts without any context. Am I getting something wrong here? Would love to get some feedback. Cheers & stay safe across the pond!
Black kids in the USA are the luckiest black kids EVER born anywhere in history. Black kids need to be taught that and need to learn to thank the the great great grandparents of the white kids in class for making that happen FIRST. Then they can discuss all the great things that men of color like Jesse Owens did, and how much black men have improved the NBS, NBL and the NFL. And white kids can thank a black man, Booked T Washington! Because if it were not for that black man, peanut butter would have never been invented.
Judith Miller got the Pulizer prize for lying about evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. The Pulizer prize is awarded for promoting propaganda.
america's founding principles of life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness & all are endowed with inalienable rights is historical fiction. what we are taught in schools about columbus discovering america is historical fiction, but you still have all of these (white) italian folks fighting to maintain columbus day, so yeah, let's talk about historical fiction.
I was a math teacher for 20 years but I knew what was going on in the Social Studies curriculum. There is NOT enough time to teach everything. Social Studies includes geography, civics, US history, and world history. How many children graduate remembering geography? Just because they don’t remember something doesn’t mean they weren’t taught it.
Thank you for your service. In my educational upbringing, we were taught Social studies curriculum, but never the meaning or understanding of what Social studies actually is. It is kind of upsetting for me to look back, with what knowledge I possess now, at the lack of emphasis by the majority of the teachers on the subject. I agree that encompassing such a broad range of historical evaluation can be daunting for middle school aged children. That's especially true when the concept they're presented is that you have English or Literature, Math, and Social Studies. To add to what you said, Social studies also covered even more broad fields such as earth science with land formations (i.e. Pangea, tectonic plates, land formation etc.) as well as Political and legal systems; one-step further to that is how they effected economics and created Social classes that shape the world to as ay. Without clearly being taught how these fields all can be put together under one umbrella, I can imagine how difficult it was for the teachers to connect the dots for their pupils as well. I have a much deeper appreciation for the teachers who gave their level best at it. The amount of information isn't so much that it can't be taught and learned, in my assessment. The mindset of academia should very much in support and promotion of those subjects just as much as they do lit and math, especially so early in childhood development. It is no surprise to me that many people don't understand how our government works or operates because Social studies talked about it. Same thing with what countries are where and the continents and landforms. The biggest thing that educators can do is make the information seem relevant and necessary and my only hope is that they are really aiming to do that for every kid. Thanks again for sticking with all of us knuckle heads for 20 years. Most of us really appreciate it and never have a chance to yell you.
Lmfao “what if” “new history” sound exactly like, “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” George Orwell, 1984, To me.
Close. But she isn’t “the Party”. A more analogous situation would be “fill in the blank” political party telling you things that are patently false and recorded, but convincing half the country that they are true.
@@donharris8846 no 'one' was ever 'the party' only the -'new & improved us Bolshevik'- agenda. just like the original Bolshevik agenda inspired & 'Hitler Youth and the League of -German- Girls' agenda , the latest -'new & improved us Bolshevik'- agenda "will work this time", as they learned? the lessons well? and so dont *officially declare war* now.
@Ben Grimm ever heard of the “no taxation without representation”? Boston tea party? There is far more nuance than it just being a war over slavery. However, many countries have had slavery and continue to have it to this day. It’s a part of history that we have always learned about. 1619 project seems like it’s trying to sew hatred towards America. Maybe they should teach critical thinking and skepticism towards the government.. but they don’t.
@Ben Grimm dumbass a 3% tax was a high tax at the time.a 10% tax 200 years ago would mean a death sentence for most . there were few machines to produce an abundance of anything. life for most was short and sucked. which is exactly why anybody that got a edge used it.
Only Thomas Sowell's work on slavery needs to be taught. Start in Sumer & Egypt then Rome and so on then work up to America & tell the good & bad then the barbary pirates to China and Libya today.
Why is almost no one speaking of the slavery that existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived or how Africans were selling Africans to non-Africans? Why is almost no one speaking of slavery across the world throughout history and current slavery? Why is almost no one speaking about bondslavery?
@@chrstsm Because that's not where the money is. To your point no one seems to care about slavery in modern China, Africa or the Mid-East either. They're socialists and socialism is slavery to the state. They're not really against slavery.
@@S.J.L So sad and so true. As you mentioned with socialism, let us think too on all of the other things we can and often are enslaved to. Thanks for your reply!
After openly listening to these two educators. It's abundantly obvious they're both extremely knowledgeable on this subject. I find myself rethinking my feelings on this subject.
Make NO BONES on this. MR. S. isn't 'rethinking' their feelings on this. This soft beards feelings were already on the side of anti-truth. He just wants you to believe that a person rooted in truth could be persuaded into the anti truth of 1619. Also. MR. S. actually has no black friends.
kids aren't taught slavery in schools. they are taught a sanitized version of slavery. what is taught in american schools about slavery is a flat out joke.
This was an excellent exchange on the subject. Professor Harris, however, doesn't say much to cause disagreement from Professor McWhorter. What troubles me is that she never clarifies what the actual purpose of the project is. She only talks about how she has found it helpful for teaching purposes by taking what is true about the project and discarding what we might "take issue with". She also doesn't distinguish any purpose of the project that is different from how McWhorter and others (like myself) have interpreted and experienced it. If the purpose is to provide better context for the founding of America in 1776 and possibly make the case that, for African Americans, 1619 is where their story of America begins, I could applaud such a mission. Unfortunately, every time I've heard a reference to the 1619 Project, it was in the context of asserting a revision of history, that 1619 was the ACTUAL founding of America, not 1776. I've experienced graduate school professors, black church leaders, and SJW friends use the project in this way. Therefore, it seems to me that a major purpose of the 1619 project is to assert and fuel this ludicrous revision of history without apology. McWhorter wins this debate.
@@olewetdog6254 because many commentators on the 1619 project have been unreasonable in their public pronouncements. They have resorted to ad hominem attacks quickly when challenged.
Yes, she admitted the essay had lies. Her defense was that many historical essays have lies. Not a very good excuse, as we criticize them, as we should. Plus did the other essays, (books) have their central theme based on a lie? Did they receive fame and awards for the lie?
I came in to this as generally sympathetic to McWhorter and expecting his interlocutor to be rigidly orthodox on the left's view on race, but I found Professor Harris to be very nuanced and thoughtful.
She is, but she should have taken a more clear and fierce stand and (agree with McWhorter and) dismiss the mistake that was make. Get is out of the way so the remainder of the project can be discussed for what is worth.
@Ms. GC yes and another factor of the revolution was British housing soldiers in people’s homes. Seizing fire arms. Racing tradesmen. Controlling trade and trade routes of independent citizens. Never mind the French Indian war many colonists got drafted into. There’s a reason the Declaration of Independence is so long. Saying it was only two issues is disingenuous, also the southern colonies didn’t join until relatively late in the war. So yes slavery was a factor but not a major one.
@Ms. GC A lie based on a partial truth or an exaggerated one, is still a lie or at very best a misdirection. if your foundation is rotten, you have nothing to build on. It would be like saying WW2 was actually about saving crops and farm land to downplay the holocaust and Nazi uprising. More so, we know this is as simple as race baiting people to create conflict. To claim that anyone who does not buy this imaginary narrative is in itself racist. To teach this in school is seriously fucked up. We can not continue to deny our history, as we are repeating it currently, and we also can not afford to let others rewrite it as they see fit.
A little less time on the comics and more in an actually book that’s going to teach you something. A thesis is a statement or theory that the writer is going to prove in the essay.
Having seen a few videos with John McWhorter, I find myself frustrated with trying to figure out what's up with, what seems to me, these tortured rhetorical constructions that seem to litter the exposition of his points. For example 27:26: "There comes a point when I've often found myself wondering at what point, for example, can we say that it's not an obscure fact that there was slavery outside of the South?" I literally hit rewind and play about 6 times to try to unravel exactly what he was getting at. My response to this specific point is: As someone who had high school US history in the late 70s in Chicago, on the one hand, that was not an obscure fact, on the other hand, now in 2021, I find that the history I was presented with back then was woefully inadequate for getting at the truth of the matter. However, for schools to have presented an "adequate" history as I NOW see it probably would have caused an outrageous controversy.
Many ignore the fact that a termination date to end imports of Africans for slavery is deliberated within the Constitution. What's discussed among the slave industrialist and wholesale suppliers of enslaved people, was the plan to monopolize their enslaved investments through forced slave breeding. Mixed slaves sold for higher prices at auction. Since black women can give birth to children of all hues, whites looking people ended up being slaves, being that their mother or grandmother was black. Land speculators ran campaigns in the US and Europe that stated the American Dream was one where white men could exercise all matters of sexual perversion on black men, women and children. It was a crime to marry the women, deemed legal to rape in order to sell the children produced into slave markets. Sadistic perversions against black bodies is one of the main reasons pre-civil war families wanted the history hidden.
@@anpdm1 I hear what you're saying and believe it all to be true. I'm only pointing out that America was not a country in 1619. There are more years between 1619-1776 than 1776-1865. This woman admitted as much in the discussion.
@@alexcrixell7265 That's not the argument! The argument or position is that the state of the US wrt racism against Black Americans in America dates back to the 30 Africans from Angola brought to Jamestown, VA in 1619. For example, did Chattel Slavery end in 1776? Obviously not. That's the foundation for racial oppression against Black Americans. That's the position of the 1619 project and interwoven into the fabric of the US before it ever became a nation officially and it also highlights the struggle and triumphs that helped to shape America even though they've never were fully able to express their citizenship because of that racism.
For genuine healing & progress to take place, there has to come a point at which the past has to be, not forgotten, but not remembered and used as a reason to maintain bitterness & victimhood. No-one can claim to want unity and to move forward together if they continually hold the actions of past generations over the heads of the current generations.
Well said and I agree completely. This has to happen on both sides though and where I live I see too many confederate flags to think it's going to happen easily.
@@Dbulkss But wouldn't you say that the politics of the Confederate States was in fact predicated on slavery? The flag has nothing to do with slavery, but the actual politics of those governing bodies relied on slavery as a legal foundation for its continuing function. That in fact, put it diametrically in opposition to the Union. Governments represent government will and only rarely reflect the people they rule as a whole. I agree with you both, getting OVER the past is not the same as forgetting the past.
PREACH, I’m black but I’m center right and I can’t tell you how refreshing it is seeing someone else think this way, the left calls for “tolerance” and “unity” and proceed to divide people by every group imaginable and perpetuate anti white racism and white guilt and it’s not helping
“HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE; HE WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST” Orwell 1984 its all in the 'remembering ' which is what the 1619 project seeks to control .
I have to say, I really appreciated the discourse between these two. He seemed very honest and very genuine. They were also very respectful of the others ideas and I believe they were very clear in their messages. I really appreciated the way they discussed this.
Well said, and I agree. Rather than think about the issue as what is "right" or "wrong" I believe that a better frame is "what is best?" What do I mean by "best?" The one that acknowledges the history of slavery as a whole before African slavery on the North American continent. Slavery as part of the human experience provides better context to the narrative than African slavery in the United States starting in 1619 alone. We, the American People, of all faiths, genders, races, and creeds are responsible for these United States and like a company or brand, we are still exercising the mission declared by the Declaration of Independence. What is lost in the racial, gender, spiritual, and political unrest of today is the unification efforts. Until now, we always learned how to come together. What's "best" is to understand that the idea of freedom in America took time like executing a business plan. Amazon didn't have a distribution network like they do today overnight. Changing the course of thousands of years of social norms in less than 250 years deserves credit to everyone involved, black, white, and in-between. We did it together and every culture has a story of struggle. It is not for us to judge each other's struggle, but to embrace that being American is itself a struggle. And, if we can do that collectively then rather than there being any victims, we can each and together become victors.
I like this lady , she has a nice disposition , a lovely smile , and I can't help liking her . I am against the 1619 Project though . I am glad in hearing the debate , thank you all ...
@@popeyethepirate5473 why are you against the 1619 project? Which aspects of the project, or are you against looking at American history through the perspective of black people?
@@LiquidSoul06 Are you against teaching U.S. history from the perspective of members of the Ku Klux Klan? Why should their perspective be marginalized, they were americans too. If you are going to teach history through the lens of a specific group, you open the door to teaching history from the lens of other specific groups. Now if you want to teach any and all of those in a specific course dedicated to that specific group (African-American History as an example), thats perfectly fine. However, once you begin teaching specific groups perspectives in general history, you are definitely entering slippery slope territory.
Where are people getting ideas of his brilliance from? He's not even participating in an actual debate. His argumentation is almost entirely fallacious.
@@bradthompson5383 oh yeah I'm SO cowardly, that's what it is. Not that I'm not going to watch a video again three months later because some rando on the internet demanded answers
The years 1619 and 1776 have significance in American history. America as we know it was founded in 1776 when the founding fathers declared independence from Great Britain. There may be some inaccuracies in The 1619 Project, but it's still an important part of American history. The year 1619 was the year that slave ships arrived at the coast of Virginia from Africa. When it comes to history, historians will tend to leave out facts that don't fit their narratives which is why people must look at this discussion from both sides. Conservatives and liberals do this. America was NOT founded on slavery, but much of its economy was built on it. All nations are inherently evil. The Bible says "man has dominated man to his harm." (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Throughout the history of mankind, nations' leaders have sought to dominate and control others. Wars have been fought to expand territories, for natural resources, and in the name of religion. The United States is a good nation compared to others, but the U.S. is no exception. The European colonizers killed off the Native Americans with disease and genocide, took their land, and put them on reservations. They also brought Africans from Africa and made them slaves. This country became great off the exploitation of others.
I could listen to John Mcwhorter speak for hours. I love this guy! He expresses his thoughts so effectively. His main premise about 1619, from my opinion, is that no one wants to call out Nichole Hanna Jones, because they don't feel she is smart enough to do any better. This is the definition of the soft bigotry of low expectations. John is an example of regardless of a person's color, a person should be judged on their abilities. John is as sharp as anyone I've ever heard speak. Final note, this was a civil debate. I left liking both participants along with the host.
Judged by whom and to what consequence? Isn't that a continuation of the 1619 mistake? That wasn't only about color nor was it about freedom for all; it was about finding using vulnerable populations for personal gain whether the conditions were voluntary, consenting or not. Colonialism and slavery continue to this day by the names of capital, employment and outsourcing under the terms of banking and fiat currencies. That is by design of its perpetuators.
@Lemur Lol It's like the devil just found some tawny skin to slip into and at once he became aware of the state of his condition he decided to make an only sightly different argument in favor his new appearance. I get that. I see it in Israel too. Those people are expatriates, but the Palestinians who are being forced out are the true Semites. What's happening there is repulsive to me.
Seriously? What are you basing this claim that Hannah-Jones isn't smart on? She's been a journalist for 20 years, is very well-educated, and won a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project. McWhorter can whine about it all he wants, but at the end of the day, it's just his opinion. I can see that you haven't read the book either---in fact it sounds like McWhorter hasn't even read it himself---he's just complaining about one thing Jones wrote in her essay that he disagreed with, and he's bashing a whole book that he obviously didn't read over it, who dosen't make any sense at all. And so are you, which is really stupid. Anyway, the book is still selling, regardless of how you conservatives whine about it.
McWhorter is the only person arguing in good faith. Harris implemented motte and Bailey fallacies all day. For instance, she defends the 1619 project in total, then McWhorter calls out Jones’ fallacious claim that the revolutionary war was fought for slavery, she then shifts, avoids that topic, and tries to say “there are many other contributors than Jones in the 1619 project.” Well, missy, did Nicole Hannah Jones receive a Pulitzer Prize or no? And did those other authors get one?
I grew up in a small southern town in the Appalachians in the 60s and 70s. To say education was not a high priority in my town would be putting it mildly. Out of a group of 6 friends, I was the only one to go to college, and I certainly was not a valedictorian. I can’t speak to present day education, but I was left shaking my head when Dr. Harris said students at Emory and Northwestern didn’t know about the Transatlantic slave trade or southern slavery. All I can say is what happened to the schools? There is not a person I know in my town that was not very aware of these issues. We discussed the obvious dilemma in the Constitution of All Men Created Equal while allowing slavery. The 3/5 compromise for determining congressional representation, Dred Scott, Booker T. Washington, John Brown, Harper’s Ferry, Harriet Tubman & the underground railroad, Fredrick Douglas, the Missouri Compromise, Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, Jim Crow laws and Civil Rights movement & the 1964 Civil Rights Act all were covered in our history class. I personally don’t know one person who has not heard of the Transatlantic slave trade or southern slavery. I do know they talk of cities and high schools where students are graduating without being able to read or do math. I assume these students also do not know history. Thomas Sowell has a great youtube presentation on slavery: th-cam.com/video/VWrfjUzYvPo/w-d-xo.html . To have students get to Emory and Northwestern and not be acquainted with those topics listed above blows my mind. I was not aware of the historical significance of 1619. I think adding historical references like these and others that are important but lesser known to the general public, especially to whites, is a great idea. But an honest discussion and representation of historical events is what is needed. Saying 1619 is the birth of the nation or more important then 1776 is only going to create division because it absolutely is not true. Nor is slavery being a major driving force for the revolution or that this country was built on the back of slaves. Did they contribute? Absolutely, and that contribution should be acknowledged and celebrated, but in an honest way. Before the revolution, there was no free territory, except maybe Vermont. My understanding is that it might not have been under English control, but all land governed by England was not free. What of England’s responsibility? I saw American athletes kneel for our national anthem in England, but stand for God Save the Queen. To me, that speaks to people not knowing their history. As many problems as the Constitution has, it did set the forces in motion that would lead to the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves. I do think the South should be portrayed as traitors and not celebrated at all, but that was mostly a decision made after the war that is still causing harm today. Personally, it also sounds to me like we need honest lessons in how bad racism was and how it has improved greatly. Perfect? No, of course not. If you are going to wait till perfect to stop feeling victimized, good luck with that. Racism exists all over the world. If you think racism is stopping anyone from succeeding in this country, then you and I will just agree to disagree. If you are an educated person, white, brown, black, red, yellow, purple, I don’t care, you can make it in this country, and you will have a lot of people cheering and helping you along. If you are uneducated with no skills, then it is certainly going to limit you, but that is true for whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Whites, blacks and everybody should be watching what the Asians are doing and follow their lead. Whites are getting their asses handed to them by the Asians, but Asians should be celebrated and emulated - not scorned.
I would actually interested just in the county you got this education because we can see exactly what the curriculum is in the history of the transatlantic slave trade. 80% of people in Louisiana doesn't know who Fredrick Douglass is today, something tells me that his name wasn't mentioned once in a single class at your high school. Of course you can clear this up, just letting us know what county you are from.
@Nunya Bizness The ignorance displayed in your comment is astounding. Only 2% of Americans owned slaves in the years prior to the Civil War, and a small percentage of those slaveholders were black. Counting the "average" slaves per slaveowning household is near-meaningless. A tiny number of slaveowners owned a large number of slaves; among the few who owned any at all, most owned just one. Therefore, the _median_ number is what matters, not the average. Considering the massive amounts of immigration to this country in the last 156 years, the percentage of Americans today whose ancestors owned slaves in this country is obviously well under 1%.
43, grew up in an extremely conservative rural Ohio community that was likely over 99% white. We had a very in depth curriculum in slavery even taking field trips to important underground railroad sites and museums. I find the idea that there were a significant amount of schools that didn't go as in depth disingenuous. Especially from students that attended the school where Leslie teaches.
Gotta give credit to Professor Harris for engaging in debate with a critic. Would love to see Ibram X Kendi, Robin DiAngelo and Ta-Nehisi Coates do the same thing.
@@lennypignatello7493 You probably only love Candace Owens because she’s an immigrant black woman (that while currently claiming racism doesn’t exist but previously used the NAACP to win a discrimination lawsuit when she was younger) that says what white people want to hear black people saying. Ben Shapiro couldn’t even defend himself against Marc Lamont Hill. I’d love to see Dr. Claude Anderson take on all the people you mentioned at the same time.
@@JClass-gz2ky Ben did quite well in that debate just because he started calling Ben Shapiro names like a 12 year old child would do doesn’t mean he did well in the debate at all in fact the moment he started making it personal he lost the debate. She realize the error of her ways doesn’t matter what she has done in the past
I learned about the slave trade and Tubman and John Brown and John C. Calhoun and the Missouri Compromise and the Lincoln/Douglas debates in my (high school) freshman American history class... In 1967 In a rural school district in West Texas Whose predominant minority group was Latin (oops, sorry, Latinx) I don't know what the situation was of the student who said he'd never heard anything about it, but to imply that this is all new information which has NEVER before been mentioned in American schools is just wrong.
I, too, learned about the Lincoln-Douglas debates; Harriet Tubman; and the Underground Railroad in elementary school...back in the 60’s. The lack of knowledge is not because it isn’t being taught...it’s because there is a more sinister agenda being forced on America!
Either she's lying (which is possible) or the student in question just didn't care or pay attention in history class. I'm not as old as you obviously, but even in the early/mid-90's in Virginia we were learning about all this stuff she says students "don't learn about." We also went on field trips to plantations. We had to read books on slavery. I suspect this woman is just an idiot.
Ask yourself if schools accurately teach the brutality of slavery in places where sex ed isn't even a thing. The sanitization of the experience makes it seem as if it was just hard work for a long time. The horror of seeing your family members raped or murdered in front of you was a constant threat not to mention beatings and kidnappings. The mental conditions this put people under is often discounted as well as the high level of suicide. I don't think schools do a good job teaching about our tragedies because it would take a lot of care and teachers are often not allowed to go there. For instance Europeans engaged in cannibalism until the 1800's, lynchings were called bbqs and often involved burning people alive and keeping body parts....it was brutal.
You don't understand sir. It's not that Americans haven't been taught about slavery its that Americans haven't been taught about it in a radical and culturally Marxist way. That is what the 1619 Project and CRT is all about.
My problem is, if there is some other date in history besides 4 July 1776 to consider as America's birthday, it's not 19 August 1619. First, the Spanish, who were also involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade, had already brought slaves, African slaves, to North America -- and had already established Fort St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Second, if a written document established America's birth other than the Declaration of Independence, that honor goes to the Mayflower Compact, written in 1620, by the Puritans on the Mayflower in Massachusetts Bay. My family had 13 ancestors on that ship, including 4 of whom, who signed the Mayflower Compact. If another historical event was America's birth, then I would argue it was the reading of the answer to the Olive Branch Petition, written by Mr. Dickinson. In it, John Hancock read the king's response, written by George III, and it was the official missive that told the American colonists that they were now considered part of a rebellion, which meant that, if arrested or captured, the Founders would be tried and hung for treason. The only other event I can think of that established America was two different events: 1) The signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783; and 2) the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which was America's first national governing document. Otherwise, to get technical, America's birth would be the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1791, which was two years after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The point is, slavery was not at all what the 1619 Project claims. Slavery was incidental, ironically, because of the fact that a rough draft of the Declaration had a full paragraph written by Jefferson, which excoriated George III over the issue of slavery, in which he called the king a hypocrite for allowing the Atlantic Slave Trade to continue under his watch and governance. This original rough draft, which was not accepted by South Carolina and Virginia, was discovered in 1947 and now resides in the National Archives and the Library of Congress. This first draft, by the way, was rejected by the Founders themselves, after it was decided that unanimous unification in facing the British was more important than the idea of slavery in the Colonies. Hence, it is why slavery, and the Atlantic Slave Trade, was mentioned little or not at all in the Complaints section of the Declaration. But America was not founded on the idea of slavery, in any way, shape or form, and was the formed on two core ideas: 1) Taxation without representation, and 2) consent of the governed. Until those ideas were made firm by the various assemblies in the Colonies, everybody still, as Mr. Dickinson did, thought of themselves as British citizens. Only a few, such as Patrick Henry, thought of themselves as American, before the events of the Second Continental Congress. Even during the French and Indian War, the English still thought of themselves as British, not American. So a couple of philosophical ideals and a changed mindset are what birthed America, not slavery. Period.
I just can't take her claim seriously about the lack of education around the country regarding slavery. Even if some schools omit certain topics, it's more a criticism on public school in general and not some kind of a proof of racism throughout the country. Everyone alive knows about American Slavery, at least as much as they know about the Revolutionary War and other significant events in American history.
Did you know that whites used black children as collateral for mortgages? Did you know their potentials as enslaved laborers and producers of more slaves were bundled into stock options and sold on international stock markets? Did you know the US had no national treasury until black potential was used by the Us government for loans of metal backed currency from European bankers? Did you know that a white man couldn't get a bank loan with land collateral, he had to own at least two slaves to qualify for credit. Did you know that each state issued it own currencies that did not hold it's value across state lines? The reason black bodies were used as currency was they held value across state lines? If one doesn't know how the economies surrounding slavery built the US Treasury, then you can't understand it's importance in the founding of the US and how those dollars created a nation of white racist. The history is so heinous that two states destroyed every slave narrative taken by the WPA. The history is hidden to avoid being held accountable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity in all of mankind.
@@WinningThisOne 1st let me say that it's truly disgusting that in response to anpdm1 pointing out that cavemanben probably doesn't know the extent slavery and its impact on American's current global standing he got three snowflake whataboutisms that pretty much just amount to the white supremacist talking point of black on black crime and your beauty of a comment. 1. 'Why don't we talk about all recorded history?' I don't know . . . Is it perhaps because we are speaking on AMERICAN HISTORY? Keep up! This is not only whataboutism this is pathetically pointing a finger and going yeah we did a horrible thing but so did they as if that makes it better. 2. 'British colonialism made the abolition of slavery possible' . . . Sigh. I don't know what u r talking about here, the closest I could come to is Slavery Abolition Act, (1833). But I don't wish to insult u by assuming u want white people to get credit for "freeing" people that THEY ENSLAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. U can't be talking about that. 😑 I refuse to believe it. 3. 'Point out how insanely unlikely the abolishment of slavery was and the miracle of living in modern times where slavery is considered immoral?' What? Why was the eventual and inevitable abolishment of slavery unlikely? There were hundreds of slave revolts and thousands of abolishionist (something people would know If they taught history properly.) Also are u saying people should be happy they live in today's time and shut up about history. WHAT R U EVEN TALKING ABOUT?! 4. Lastly, saying that people of the past did not know slavery was immoral is a lie from the pits of hell and it needs to be squashed. There are so many writings from slave owners who wrote that they more than knew it was wrong. Robert E. Lee Confederate General and Slave own wrote this in 1856: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country,” Abraham Lincoln said this in 1864: "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." There is more I could paste here . . . They knew, They all knew! They did everything to convince themselves otherwise even Failed and seditious General Rober E. Lee in that same 1856 letter tried to convince himself that even though it was an evil against black people it was more of an evil to white people for . . . Reasons. Money, power, greed, and malice was what kept them owning slaves not a lack of knowledge of how evil and inhumane it was.
John was amazing in this. To be fair Harris is defending an indefensible position with the 1619 project. Johns talks with Glenn sharpened his tools with this topic. Great discussion
Good faith discussions with people you disagree with are your best whetstones for your own argument. McWhorter has easily become one of my favorite intellectuals to follow and his convos with Loury are always a gold mine for me.
The 1619 project is defensible or not based on what you think it means. If you want to claim that the 1619 project hinges on whether the American Revolution was fought over slavery and that slavery and the legacy of slavery is the single most important theme in American history, yes, you are going to have a hard time defending that. However the idea that America was founded in inequality and that there's been a constant conflict between equality and oppression is very true and easily defended.
The 1619 date is tied to the first African Americans being in America. But the date America should be founded should be 1607 when the first permanent English colony was founded in Jamestown. The year 1619 saw 4 firsts, all in Virginia - 1) first African Americans brought to America at Jamestown 2) first representative government in the colony at Jamestown 3) first women brought over as wives at Jamestown 4) first American Thanksgiving celebrated at Berkeley plantation in Virginia.
Slavery and segregation have been taught in grade school, and colleges for many decades. I learned about it throughout my education in the 1970s through the 1990s. But according to the 1619 project, I guess I've never heard about it... I'm not supposed to believe that I spent decades being taught about it.
@@TheSycaman If that's your belief, then you've fallen for their propaganda... Only a fool believes lies without searching for the truth. Try thinking for yourself for one time in your life, kid.
It's something that happened to American citizens, European Americans and Afroasiatic Americans come from nations. Black/negro and white is unconstitutional. As Americans we should move away calling ourselves colors and honor our national heritage of birth and descent that strengthen our American Unity as a nation. 🇲🇦🇺🇸☪️
Glenn Beck is interviewed by Dave Rubin and shows him a historically authentic rough draft of the constitution that all but 2 signers wanted to abolish slavery but because they didn’t have a consensus, those lines were removed. Seems like something worth seeing and including in the conversation.
I think you are referring to the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson condemned slavery in his rough draft (its probably safe to say Jefferson theoretically understood the evil of slavery even though he very much benefitted from it) and the passage was removed. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793 which made planting cotton much more profitable and kind of killed any hope that slavery would die a natural death based on economics. Before that there was some hope that slavery would die on its own.
I'm 44 , I grew up learning about all American history including slavery , Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver ( both of whom were rightly highlighted as American heroes [ no other qualifier needed]) Professor Harris may have a student or so who may be ignorant of these events and individuals, but that doesn't mean those students are the norm. Maybe those students were simply poor students and simply refused to study the subject matter. Moreover to hyper focus on 1 aspect of history could lead to more division. What happens when some students and educators decide to focus on the loyalty to sovereign state of the confederacy ? Will we glorify the southern generals? Will we insist on teaching how the southern plantation owners were oppressed by the industrialized north? What about in the future , if we focus on the hardships suffered by church goers during the corona virus ? Will we vilify the governors that allowed riots and protests ( on first amendment arguments) but prohibited in person church services despite the same first amendment should have protected them? Anyone can frame themself as a victim of oppression. Anyone can frame anyone else as a villain. The more we insist that such framings must be taught as fact, the more we become the divided States of America.
@Timothy Somerville so oppressing religious freedom isn't villainous? Economic oppression isn't villainous? And judging people by the color of their skin ( saying all white people are racist) isn't villainous? I think you have a narrow view of villainy.
@Timothy Somerville also we don't teach our kids that we created a country that had liberty and justice for all. We teach them that we created a country that strives towards liberty and justice for all. The constitution says " to form a more perfect union" . This is a continuing goal not a one off action already complete. We are to strive to do these things with every law we institute , every amendment to the constitution we propose , ever election , everything we the people do. That's what the constitution is talking about. One more thing , we are a constitutional representative republic , Not a democracy.
@Timothy Somerville Some point for their time they simply were no such thing , and its time you actual live in that matters for who knowns how those in the future will judge what today we think as acceptable.
I have great respect for both speakers. However, I would also like a follow-up discussion where two American historians debate specifics of 1619 vs 1776. There are many historians who have been critical of 1619. Bring them on for a discussion. Yet even without being a US historian, McWhorter provided excellent insights.
I'm sure it's a convenient centering point for the discussion, but it's sort of a false set of alternatives in some ways. People at the time were certainly writing about America as though it didn't spring up out of nothing at 1776. It doesn't need to have done, in order for the 1619 theses to be false.
I think it's far more interesting to have students engage with whether America was founded in 1619 or 1776 than it is to actually pick one and have that be the official or right answer. Progress and oppression have marched side by side in American history. Both are significant. Which is more so?
I learned all about slavery in high school (NOT a private or affluent school by any means) in the early/mid 90s - I don't buy this narrative that kids are not learning about slavery or black history. Her anecdote about the girl from Missouri who was shown Gone with the Wind is her evidence?
Even the claim that kids weren't taught about slavery back in the 70s is not true. "Roots" and "The Autobiography of Jane Pittman" came out in that decade, both were bestselling books and TV miniseries. Even if your particular school didn't assign these you would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of them at the time. As for the kid from Missouri - as in MIssouri Compromise? - yeah that's some BS
If it wasn't for slavery no black people would have the privilage of being in America. The Civil War was fought to liberate them. Any reconnection to Africa that Afro-Americans have tried have ended pretty quickly. It is not an easy place to reconnect with. This constant waving the chip on their shoulder in every one else's faces, including the Mexicans and Latinos, is going to lead to indifference.
Her comments about "lived reality" seem to betray a predisposition to standpoint theory, and a general academically infused acceptance of postmodern deconstructionist effort which is central to nearly every entity embracing 1619. John espouses enlightened Western liberal thought and analysis. She does not. She seems to avoid actually addressing the crux of the failing of 1619 from a factual perspective, and continually redirects with abstract assertions and rhetorical questions about society, rather than the topic.
Exactly her language is full of leftist dog whistles. That's the problem with these people, they can debate all day but they are more concerned with how they look to their base than impartial, dispassionate observers, so it never goes anywhere.
Firstly I enjoy the respectful conversation and tone. When listening to each speaker I feel like one of these points of view seeks the actual truth when looking to and through history. The other one takes a self-proclaimed "creative" approach. The second approach seems to be more a what can we make up, or find evidence for (aka tell lies about) to fit a narrative.
@@r.b.7633 They don't? But isn't history deeply entrenched in "feelings"? Every single historical document we have is biased by the writers feelings. If there are multiple accounts of an event from different perspectives, we can make an educated guess as to what truly occured; however, this isn't always the case. Sometimes we only have a one sided account. Sometimes we don't even have that. Bias, feelings, and revisionism are present in every aspect of history. I totally get your point of wanting only facts in historical education. But past a certain point, there are no facts to be had. Even widely agreed upon stances aren't bullet proof due to inaccurate/missing/biased record keeping. Really, only very modern history can be considered as reliably accurate.
Everyone should have their own history of the world based on their skin color, height, weight, sexual orientation etc. No one will agree what happened when. It will be great.
13:53 *"The phrase 'critical thinking' is central to teaching in all schools I know of"* < Critical thinking??? Absolutely _not,_ it is highly discouraged! She must be conflating it with "critical theory".
I don't think there was anything sinister like Harris implies in the timing of the 1776 history policy. The 1619 school curriculum didn't come out at the same time as the original article. There was a building resistance to the school curriculum this spring and the George Floyd incident led many schools to adopt it for the first time starting this fall. Then kids went back to school this fall and parents saw what their kids were being taught and freaked out which led to the reaction at the time that it happened. I don't think it had anything to do with a random, sinister, campaign plot. It had to do with the NYT dirty laundry being shoved in the face of millions of people that don't read the NYT or typically care to keep up with this stuff.
I don't want my child being fed this rhetoric in school. They should teach of the atrocities of slavery and the importance of African Americans brought here against their will. But this insistence on tying past wrong doings to modern day society in a way that alienates white people as the beneficiaries of 400 years of oppression is in itself racist. This new grievance culture is a cult.
@@SuperWilliamholmes I have to chime in. White people as a collective group benefited from the system. That doesn't mean that white people today are responsible for slavery or have slave-owning ancestors; it just means that they and their ancestors were in a better economic situation.
@@Rampton8810 I agree. Poor communities are NOT restricted to inner city regions. No reasonable person would argue that with you. What I said was that white people as a COLLECTIVE GROUP benefited from the system. I never said there weren't poor white people.
And everyone seems to ignore; if not forget, that there were MANY slaves of Irish and Scottish discent. They too, were often shipped out against their will to the Virginas and the Bermudas. Others were labeled as 'indentured servents, dissitents, or criminals; and these were white but not treated white for MANY years. This being addressed, it is a great possibility that the Revolutionary War may have had a lot to do with England's white slaves breaking free from European chains. This topic continues to be regurgitated in order to rekindle the embers of racism, division, and to keep us away from all the truths they can no longer hide. This is the time for truth to prevail and all division lines to disapear. The Americas was built on social status and taking from the bottom to appese the top. Let us ALL stand together to end the tyrannical governments and unveil our TRUE history and origins. It takes us all to remove the smoke screen. I love every race, culture, male and female. I stand against oppessors, instigators and perpetrators. So this would include all mass medis, all governments, all pharma, all transgendors; they are ALL after out children. The children are the only victims now; the rest od us are either surviviors or perpitrators. This should be the ONLY division line that anyone is concerned with now. I k ow I am a survivior and protector of our children; which one are you (addressed to anyone that may read this)?
My great-great-great grandfather was kidnapped from Liverpool and made to serve on a ship that sailed to "America". Once there, he was forced into indentured servitude to survive. My great-grandfather served in the Missouri Cavalry and died in the Civil War. My grandfather died in WWII. Now I get to pay a Caribbean immigrant's descendant whose family owned slaves in "America" in 1830.
I absolutely agree with your sentiment, but your timeline seems a bit odd. Your great grandfather died in the Civil War (1860's) and your grandfather died in WWII (1940's). That would make your grandfather rather old to die in WWII unless he lived in Europe as an old man.
@@wiseonwords Karrie seems to have used the description in a metaphorical manner, but that sort of description is literally true for at least tens of thousands of Americans. So it is a perfectly valid point.
I grew up in Middle Tennessee, we had lots of lessons on slavery, the slave trade, and racism when I was in elementary through High school. It wasn't until College that I found out that only about 20% of Southerners owned slaves and there were slaves used in the North too. All through grade school I thought everyone in the South back then owned slaves. I just recently read Edmund Morgan's "American Slavery, American Freedom". He says there was a pretty strong Master/servant system in the Virginia Colonies when they were first trying to establish the colonies. Mostly men and some women (white European) would sign a seven year contract to work for a Master. After seven years they were free to go and work their own land or they could sign another contract. It got to a point (I don't remember the years) where the freed servants were starting to outnumber the wealthy landowners. The wealthy landowners were always afraid of a rebellion from freed and current servants. The wealthy landowners thought it would be beneficial for them to be able to have more control over their laborers but they knew that turning them into slaves would not work because they would definitely rebel. That's when they started transitioning from servants to slaves. The Virginia colonies did not NEED slaves, to survive. That's not to say the slaves brought here did not help build this Country, but to act like this Country would have never succeeded had it not been for slaves is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. In Morgan's book, he does mention the 20 or so blacks that were brought to the Colonies in 1619 but he said there was not sufficient documentation to determine if they were in fact slaves or servants just like the white Europeans brought over.
The system in the beginning was indentured. It was the same for both black an white slaves. White an black slaves lived together, married and had children together, ran away an rebelled together. Beacons Rebellion, around 1675?)was the last Rebellion black an white slaves engaged in together. After the rebellion was put down a stradegy of divide and conquer was established to break up the natural bond and alliance black and white people had up to that point. It was from that point that it was decided going forward that free labor would only be black people. That was the beginning of a white racist system based on the concept of white supremacy.
Here's a very good article on Bacon's Rebellion.... sandiegofreepress.org/2015/02/the-origins-of-institutionalized-racism-a-system-to-control-blacks-and-whites/
No America wouldn't have survived. The brits didn't own the whole east coast. They had the french and spaniards to compete with. Wars and the cost of running a settlement caused france and spain to take losses. Because there was not enough land to produce enough crops to fund endless battles with natives, wars at home , pay a work force and still be able to send tribute to the crown and they themselves remain wealthy. The only thing that could be sacrificed was the labor. And yes whites and blacks came as indentured servants but the ruling class saw how much they accumulated from the free labor and how this kept them from succumbing to the fate of the French and Spaniards. And this is the spark that leads to slavery that leads to racism that leads to AMERICA. So to discount slavery and race is people trying to hold onto their misguided views
@@chrisdaren9994 Slavery wasn't exactly free labor, owning a slave did not come cheap, if it were, a whole lot more whites probably would have owned slaves.
I'm waay late to this party, ,but my premier thought is what the heck has gone on with education I graduated HS in 1976. We learned about the enslavement of people (black, white, brown, etc.) We learned that there were enslaved people during the colonization (though none came over on "the" Mayflower). We learned about slavery & slave holders in the South and use of slave labor in the North.(people technically free, but...) We learned about the 3/5ths Compromise and why it became part of the Constitution. We learned about the Civil War and Jim Crow laws and promises made to newly freed slaves. Growing up in the 60s & and 70s, anyone with a working brain had to see the disparities in the treatment of Black Americans. I was educated in public school. How is it that people since then haven't been taught these things? And, just gotta add, I wonder about the woman who claimed Gone With the Wind was part of her curriculum. If it was, the teacher was a complete idiot!
I'm deeply concerned regarding the Lady being told that Gone With The Wind was Historical Fact. Not calling her a liar but the movie had been around since 1939 and I know of no one that believed it as Historical "FACT". It is based in history but not "Fact".
@curtis martin all caucasians? Whence then came the abolitionist movement? Is it your understanding that nobody high in early government or even among the founding fathers considered black people human?
@David Lentzner yeah I'd agree with that. But my contention was with the statement that white people didn't consider blacks human. And as you pointed out there certainly were some. It just annoys me when people dig about a centimeter down on any subject and find something they like to repeat and go no further.
As a Biologist this whole conversation is annoying. Race does not exist genetically, scientifically or factually. This is why the dividing lines change with cultural norms. Those who dwell on it are bigots. While the U.S.A., UK and France did more to end slavery throughout the world then all other countries, the US seldom gets any credit. Slavery still exists in 15 countries. Libya is the most recent one to make slavery legal again. Where is their condemnation? Thy declared since Elijah Mohammed loved Slavery nothing bad can be said of it. Slavery is still not a criminal offense in 94 countries. So why this revisionist history? Bigots will be bigots irregardless of science or facts
That's the complete opposite of what's happened in the US. A white person with no skills is held in higher regard simply because of skin color. The mostly highly skilled group of Americans laborers were Black people. After Reconstruction, white folks spent 100 years trying to kill off all those black people.
@@anpdm1 thats a complete lie. A white person with no skills would be homeless. You think a white person with no skills would be a homeowner or have a job??
I was often confused on what Leslie Harris was trying to say and the point she was trying to make..... Sounded like she was trying to take a position on one side of the argument but doesn't have a good reason why we should be on that side
you have to keep in mind most of what she said in response to john was actually directed at her base, so she was using lots of dogwhistles and referencing all of their favorite literature rather than directly addressing any of McWhorter's points. Lots of whataboutism as well. McWhorter tells us fixating on this aspect of history isn't helpful, and we're generally ignorant about history. She responds by saying yes, we're ignorant, that's why we need more fixation!
WW1 was the most important event in modern history and carries far larger importance than the history of slavery. School history classes just gloss right over WW1 and absolutely hammer home slavery. The idea that we need a bunch more history focus on slavery, while more important and consequential history doesn't deserve focus is absurd to me.
True. In elementary school, we studied slavery, triangular trade, all that. I admit full ignorance to how ww1 even started prior to secondary education
@bxsmash actually our primary natural resource was timber and minerals, not cotton or other agricultural goods. Said resources were disproportionately valuable due to it being the age of sail. Hamilton elaborated on this in the federal papers as being THE main reason for the revolution. We were sitting on a political and financial gold mine. The US would still have grown, particularly in light of its expansion. That said while, I agree that slavery is abhorrent, we judge historical figures based on the norms of their time. George Washington? All things considered, a solid guy. Gengis Khan? Still a bastard by his own times standard
@bxsmash I pointed to the strategic market that genuinely gave the united states its financial and political power at such a young age. I don’t recall employing “what aboutism” and your very claim can be characterized as “ommittance, anger, exaggeration, and accusation.” The argument that of slavery is Americas roots, an argument typically leads to a staked demand for financial reparations and the cultural denigration of men whose ideals planted the seeds for the end of slavery in the western world. I pay it little respect. I grant you the value of rum, however that was mostly imported into the united states. The Bahamas owned that game. Its clearer then that the threat to wallstreet was not as great as initially perceived, as they recovered nicely in spite of the Union torching its way through the south.
As a US history teacher, I can say from my experience I always taught from the Mezoamerica, through the Spanish Conquistadors, Native Americans, 1607, the slave trade through the true reasons for the Civil War both social which fed the economical. The contributions of many Africa-Americans. I don’t know where this isn’t being taught, except with maybe a lot of lazy Social Science teachers
The Civil War wasn’t really a Civil War. The south was not fighting for control of the government. The Civil War was really the second American revolution. We are not one country, the way, France, England, Germany, Japan, etc. our countries. We are called the United States for a reason because we are 50 autonomous Sovereign states that formed a union, and there was nothing in the constitution originally that would prevent a state from succession. Lincoln knew, and understood that which is why he suspended the supreme court, because he knew if the south sued the federal government, the federal government would probably lose. Jefferson himself predicted this what happened because of the cultural and economic differences. Most people up north were just as racist as the south. It wasn’t even racism by our standards today. That’s what people don’t understand. People want to apply today’s morals and values with those of the past which is ridiculous. Slavery has existed as long as man has existed. Yet somehow people in America want to make this a uniquely American black versus white concept which is utterly ridiculous. Slavery is actually still widespread globally today. The reality is Africans were used because they had the ability to withstand the heat and humidity and malaria. It had nothing to do with race. It was basic science. Another truth is that slaves were very expensive to buy, and they were expensive to keep because you had to feed them clothe them give them shelter, maintain their health, so they could work. All of that was expensive. That’s why only a tiny percentage of people actually owned slaves, and the majority of those people had three or less and they were more like cooks and housecleaners gardeners. The reality is most people up north were not abolitionists and didn’t really care one way or the other. Slavery didn’t end up north because of morality. Slavery ended up north because immigrants were coming from Europe with nothing but the clothes on their back and they would work for pennies a day and the factory owner, or whoever hired them didn’t have to pay for their food or their clothing or their medical care, and if they got sick or got hurt, they would simply fire them and get someone else because they were people willing to work for pennies a day. That’s where the term slave wages comes from. Also, pretty much most of the newspapers up north we’re not in favor of a war. The population of North overwhelmingly was not in favor of a war. Lincoln instigated the Civil War by sending a supply ship into Charleston harbor, knowing that it would get fired upon because that happened under Buchanan before Lincoln was inaugurated. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing, and the south fell for the trick. It gave Lincoln an excuse for being the aggressor and sending troops into the south. The war was not about slavery. Slavery was a key point of succession, but slavery was not the reason for the war. Lincoln wanted to force the south back into the union. That’s why he instigated the war. His friend Horace Greeley wanted Lincoln to make slavery a bigger part of the war, and Lincoln responded back that if he could win the war and not free a single slave he would. That alone tells you everything you need to know. The emancipation proclamation did not free, a single slave, and the overwhelming majority of people in America. Do not even realize that there were states that remained in the union that had legal slavery during the entire Civil War. Slavery did not end until six months after the war, with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. One of them ended slavery the other Actually did make it unconstitutional or legally much more difficult for a state to secede. So the southerners were not traitors the white people like to claim, but the people in California that want to secede they would be traitors because of the changes made to the constitution. Everything people I thought about Lincoln and the Civil War is a lie a fabrication or miss representation. Lincoln is considered a great president when he’s actually the first president to crap all over the constitution. He suspended habeas corpus he suspended a Supreme Court he put politicians to disagreed with him in jail on and on and on. Lincoln is a far left wing progressives wet dream of a president. The left in America today can only dream of crapping on the constitution. The way Lincoln did. Academics do not dispute this. They simply say the ends justify the means or that he did it for the right reasons. I’m pretty sure every single founding father would vehemently disagree with that. Shitting on the Constitution to save the Constitution is patently absurd that’s exactly what Lincoln did.
Having been a high school teacher of US history and the constitution here in Florida I found that some teachers at different schools here in Florida and around the country have lost consistency in US history and the constitution. Now many states and many teacher's have moved away from teaching true Us history and also distort the teaching of the constitution. We desperately need to get back to teaching the facts with out any distortions.
I really have a hard time believing that school teachers she spoke to did not "know" about the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Sure some schools in the south maybe decided not to teach it but don't claim the teachers didn't know it. I find that hard to believe.
I live in Texas and my kids' school books are FULL of info about slavery, the civil rights struggle, and abolition. Their fiction stars people of many different races and backgrounds. This is in the deep south lol.
It’s not hard to believe right now schools have curriculum teaching black students about hitler and Jews. Why is that more important than the trans Atlantic slave trade.
I strongly agree. I've been bombarded with the history of slavery ever since I stepped into school 68 years ago. I can't believe that somebody didn't hear about it. I can't give her part of the conversation any credit at all because I think she was just making s*** up. I think McWhorter said that in his own way when he said that what she said was "not his experience". I've used that. What it really means is "you're full of **it.", But because he has too much dignity to use those terms and doesn't want to completely destroy the other person, he doesn't say that
I wonder if the moderator, having been educated in a Catholic school, was taught about all the anti-Catholic rhetoric etc. of the late 1800's. There was rum, Romanism and rebellion, anti Papacy etc. Catholics in some places were not allowed to attend public schools. Why is there no mention of the French Indian was that resulted in the Stamp Act which ultimately caused the revolutionary war. If the French would have won I doubt if there would even be a 1619 project.
Im white and from Tulsa and we were taught about the trans Atlantic slave trade and of course we knew about slavery in the south. But I admit there are suppositions about the Tulsa race riots. I mean there are accounts of there being quite less black people killed than is guessed at and there were actually more white people killed. I do know it is a fact that black men shot first and it is reported on the news things like they think they found mass black graves but the problem is they are excavating a cemetery. Not that I don't feel for what black slaves had to endure but I also look at the sacrifice they made for future generations. I personally believe most of them would have been glad their future generations would have so much more opportunity and freedom here than anywhere else in the world! We have grown leaps and bounds and I personally don't want to see that growth either retarded or actually even decline!
Isn't kind of funny that people only talk about slaves from African decent. Slavery was common practice for thousands of years. Also funny how the 1619 doesn't talk about rival tribes in Africa selling captured people to the dutch and English
People usually refer to the Atlantic slave trade because it’s justification was different and it was much worse. Slaves were treated less then animals in the Atlantic slave trade and people only captured blacks and they believed they were inferior to the white race. And yes slavery has been taking place for thousands of years way before the Atlantic slave trade started and even after it. But for the most part slaves outside the Atlantic slave trade were treated better and were offered freedoms much sooner. And it wasn’t based on a race idea. Like in Egypt slaves did more housework and labor was saved more for poor Egyptian
@@amoebavirus1508 I think your failing to understand the point why would they teach about the Arab slave trade in America schools? About American history? Also the Atlantic slave trade was much much worse then the Arab even though the Arab one was like serval times longer
@@amoebavirus1508 your still not understanding the point. If you learn about American history you won’t start all the way back with the Stone Age you start with the discovery of the Americas. Unless your talking about world history taught in school then they do teach slavery happens in other parts of the world. But it still doesn’t change the fact that Atlantic slavery was one of the worst type of slavery probably the worst type.
There is no way that any college student in the US doesn't have any foundational education about slavery. If so, they weren't paying attention in high school history classes. This argument is completely disingenuous.
@@fabbeyonddadancer Sure, a lot of people may not know particular details about any one place but nobody who was paying attention in high school history anywhere in the US any time in the last 40 years doesn't have a foundational knowledge about slavery. The argument is the epitome of disingenuous. "The system" is "covering up the truth". Nah. Having been in the education profession myself, it just doesn't wash.
If what Dr Harris claimed in her opening statement was true and was what the 1619 Project was attempting then this discussion wouldn’t have happened. It wouldn’t have happened because no reasonable person would dismiss 1619 as a significant date, an important milestone like many others in US history. It would have been a fairly uncontroversial attempt to focus on a moment that you could argue is somewhat overlooked in the path of American history. But it wasn’t the Project’s aim, as JMcW pointed out. It seems to a bit of Motte & Bailey argument, given that any credible scholar must know that what NHJ is claiming doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
A milestone never emphasized in the textbooks is the acquisition of the slave trade monopoly by England after Queen Anne’s war in 1713. Hard living conditions in the colonies, and the decimation of the indians by disease had made laborers scarce in the colonies. But after a hundred years the British peoples had learned to acclimate to the New World. The lifespans of blacks as well whites became to increased after 1713 and a great population boom occurred. Slave importation increased but natural increase more. After 1750, its became something of a burden for the Cheasapeake colonies, although even more necessary for the colonies in the South. In the North it began to fade away. the net effect, however was that by 1776, a fifth of the population was black.
As Thomas Sowell points out, slavery was common place in the world for thousands of years prior to 1619. It’s not that we had slavery. It’s that we, along with the British, ENDED slavery around the world.
I am 40 years old and I remember the day we talked about the slave ship Amistad in history class, must have been 2nd or 3rd grade. There was only one black kid in my class, a kid named Jordan, I remember the way he ducked his head in shame during the whole lesson. It was so painful because we were just little kids five minutes before but after that it felt like there was an unmovable ocean suddenly between us. Like he saw differently and we probably did too. But either way we were all just stained by something none of us had done to each other. I think that shit is so sad. Maybe we should have framed it in a wider discussion about the history of Slavery. Romans enslaving Celts for hundreds of years etc.. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss our past mistakes, but should we be approaching it in this way?
The presentation of the material was done poorly in your case. The lesson of atrocious events that shape society shouldn't make people feel guilt or shame. It's an acknowledgement of the way those events have moved society to where it is today. If any feelings are to be had it should lead to collective appreciation of how far we can go and not to how wrong we have been. You at 7 or 8yrs old should not have had the feeling of separation from Jordan and he should not have been made to feel shame. Your teacher did your class a disservice then.
I think if you are going to teach slavery in it's entirety....you have to teach slavery from it's the beginning in the Cradle of Civilization. Slaves were spoils of war and how empires grew economically. Everything was done by hard labor.
I've never heard before that anyone watched Gone With The Wind and thought it was a historical documentary. I don't think one student believing that is significant.
Gone with the Wind was used in classrooms as a historical film until the late 60's. Images of the film was in my high school text book into the late 70's.
Point: My students don't show strong knowledge of the history of slavery when they arrive at my classroom.
Counterpoint: Odds are high that they don't demonstrate strong knowledge of any history. Our K-12 schooling is pretty weak.
Reason: Public Education was only intended to be a great equalizer, not, on its own, everything you need to thrive in America. Could it be better? Sure. But it's only a resource.
Good point. When John brought up John Calhoun I had to reach back into my brain files, and I went through AP America history and study it on a regular. History is amazingly complex and it's easy for someone knows more or even has a passing interest in history is going to think the average person is Ill informed.
Came here to say this. I lay the blame at the feet of the education colleges. Elementary school is the perfect time to enjoy both the classic and underdog stories of our country. Instead every middle class kid in America spends elementary school “learning how to learn”, and high school is the college board’s cliff notes called AP US History and AP World History. I love history and reveled in the challenge of those classes. They make you work hard and think you know everything. But the more trade books you read as an adult, the more you realize you know nothing.
Left out of the conversation was the banning of the importation of slaves in 1809...20 years after our founding in 1789, we banned the importation of african slaves... But a law only has the value people give it...
How many students know about 9/11 or ww2?
To make a valid and historical point, it is best not to use the word "imagine".
Not imagining and making up shit is racist!
“Let’s imagine” to be more specific.
Retard
Or sentence construction wherein the subject and object switch places: rather than the subject acting on the object, the object of the action becomes, itself, the subject. The same is true in science writing.
Americans quite often imagine when speaking of history, Manifest destiny being taught, the those rugged individual white settlers settled the west, when it was the USA military which eliminated all competition for that land, also gov land, and monetary grants. Plenty of myths are accepted as fact
The 1619 project is a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone in the historical profession
@Timothy Somerville as a historian I recognize that history is a social science and as such there are competing theories and I support any claim that has reasonable supporting evidence like was presented here, but the original thesis that asserted that the United States was founded in 1619 was hot garbage
The Jamestown Commission should be made to bury this drivel.
Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one
Because you actually read it all shit for brains.
specifically what do you consider a joke in the project? what information is wrong in the document? let's have you list the specific points of disagreement you have with each portion of the 1619 project?
I enjoyed the conversation a lot, and appreciate the respect they showed each other throughout it. This is how America should be speaking with each other.
Well, part of it is that are both relatively moderate by today's standards, plus they know each othwr already.
Yes but too many people think rigorously debated subjects and rejecting absolute fallacies is tantamount to incivility. Words are the last port of call before violence.
I am grateful that as black people they did not fight about their differences on here. I respect that greatly. Thank you. ❤️
@@ladybugauntiep Black people Overwhelmingly Voted for the Racist Biden and Giggles Harris in 2020
"New histories"
1984
* A I R S T R I P O N E *
Another Howard Zinn production?...a Marxist rewriting of history?
America did not start in 1619
We were still under British rule at the time.
1776 is when we earned American independence from the crown.
So you can't blame All American for what happened in 1619.
When I went to k-12 we learned about the slave trade all parts about it, the underground railroad ect.. we also learned alot about the native American cultures around the US, and the world. Also general world history. This was public school in South Dakota, it was the same curriculum across the state. So how about you deal with the crappy schools. But given all the bad that was done in this country, it was kept relevant to the times they happened in, but also the good this country has done, the sacrifices its people have made of all color for us and the rest of the world.
It’s better than teaching nothing TBH history teachers these days don’t know anything
"What ifs" are not history. Its a thought experiment. Using history "creatively" is to create a hypothetical alternative history
my black american acenstors weren't american until 1865-1866 when we became
Counterfactuals are sort of what ifs are they not?
But yes if your doing what ifs in a shallow way , I agree
All of history is a series of what if's though even if it's not implied. How long was it taught that civilization began in Sumeria about 6,000 years ago? Heck I would wager the majority of people still believe this to be true and aren't aware of the Balkan civilizations that pre-date Sumer or Gobekli-Tepe.
That doesn't mean the 1619 project isn't garbage, because it is.
@@googlemechuck4217 So are you basing the citizenship on the abolition of slavery? There were several blacks who were freed before then. Also, there were several whites who were slaves during this time as well. I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey by this comment...
@@googlemechuck4217 That does not change that fact that nation was founded in 1776 not 1619.
Assess history creatively… that one statement saids it all.
@Truth Imperative Your a trip Bro. You actually copied and pasted the same comment on every thread?🤦🏾♂️😂🤣. You have me cracking up.. To funny 🤣. I'm not mad at cha.. 👍🏾👌🏾
When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown to Washington we became a nation... October 19, 1781....not to say that 1619 is not significant.. it just isn’t the birth of the United States .
@@TheDangerous123dan your grammar is awful 🤣🤣🤣 maybe yall should focus on English and stop trying to twist history 👏🏿
@@chaselock6955 The fact that you can only focus on my grammar says a lot about your inability ab/or unwillingness to actually engage with content. An of course you think this makes you sound like what, intelligent? Stop trying to be the grammar police an at least try to have a mature, intelligent adult conversation. I'll wait 🤷🏾♂️
@@TheDangerous123dan I like to copy/paste relevant stuff as well.
She actually makes the case against her own argument in her opening statement. There were several founding events: Columbus arriving, Jamestown settled, St. Augustine, Plymouth, even slaves arriving. Why should any of those be heralded as the founding? They shouldn't. However, in 1776, in codified text, America assembled and declared its independence and sovereignty as a nation.
Truth.
I thought the exact same thing!
It's because it's about painting the U.S. (more specifically white U.S. citizens whether they were involved or not) as racist... So it's not about factually true documents, but about demonetization.
People are getting lost in the slavery issue rather than the founding of America issue. Slavery existed before 1776 but 1776 is the founding of America. Do people think that nothing happened in Canada prior to 1867?
Well, actually, Prof. Harris’s argument is that the whole issue of The 1619 Project vs. the ordinary history of the American founding (1776) is to polemicize and problematize this history and that this actually is the stated intention of The 1619 Project- to be a teaching tool. What Prof. McWhorter takes issue with is Nikole Hannah-Jones’s claim that the central, driving claim of the American founding was the preservation of slavery. Then McWhorter says halfway through this interview that, while he gets what Prof. Harris is arguing, he both distrusts that people don’t know the extent of slavery in the United States AND (while claiming not to be a contrarian) thinks that we cannot expect most people to care too much about history, anyway; the present is more interesting to them. Prof. Harris responds that the answer to the broader issue of how much education is needed has everything to do with what this country needs in terms of educated voters. In a nutshell.
We need more John McWhorters
Black politicians have a vested interest in opposing the spread of McWhorters point of view. The Republican Party missed the boat when they failed to recruit more men like Senator Scott.
And less and less woke.
We need MORE FATHERS RAISING STRONG BLACK SONS. F$%K all of this idiocy. It isn't gaining jobs, infrastructure building and Pulitzer prizes are not stopping the KILLINGS OF EACH OTHER! Godddamnn!!
@@SuperOmnicronsj44 Less criminals. More civilians.
@@SuperOmnicronsj44 If that Community would have persisted in the culture they were exhibiting in the 60s and 70s when the two parent household rates were north of 75%.
Very likely you would not be at the bottom had that culture persisted.
Instead we have the rap music culture that is toxic as fuck.
Top 10 country songs and go look at the top 10 rap songs. Look at the top 10 country songs are songs by people like Luke Combs where he is talking about getting the girl he had his eyes on for a long time and I mean getting as in marrying her having kids and growing old together. Lets compare that to Cardi B WAP.
The culture is fucking toxic. If socio-economics were the cause of violence Appalachia would be the most dangerous place in the world for me to walk their neighborhoods but it isn't. Chicago is for everyone just like Detroit Baltimore Memphis Atlanta Oklahoma City certain parts Newark New Jersey thousands of other cities that all have a certain commonality in terms of demographics.
"There were many other interesting essays in the project..." Sure, but they didn't win Pulitzers for outlandish claims that have no basis in historical fact.
Edit: My mistake.
@@oppie2363 Nope... Hannah Jone's essay won the Pulitzer: www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/nikole-hannah-jones-essay-from-the-1619-project-wins-commentary-pulitzer/ In fact the project itself didn't even make the Pulitzer finalists.
@Sombre Cynic Talk about a logical fallacy... You just made one hell of a scene beating that strawman. You think critics claim of her receiving a pulitizer is due to an objection of its accuracy? Sweetheart there is more to a society and politics than whether or not a claim is objectively true. There is this thing called culture. And a culture who uses powerful institutions to grant legitimacy to propaganda is worth calling out.
Asking academic who focuses on black history whether there should be more focus on black history is like asking a beer company executive whether or not there should be more bars 😂, she's not exactly going to give you an unbiased answer
Thats why there’s another guy arguing the opposite point. How do u think a debate works man?
3 weeks in and I’m still genuinely baffled by the stupidity of this comment, what a fucking reach to call someone arguing a specific position in a debate biased, really grasping at straws to come up with some reason we should hate this lady lol
@@trenttrip6205 seems like 119 people disagree with you 😎
@@MRGDUDE70 “look how many people are just as dumb as me”
@@trenttrip6205 You got 3 upvotes. So, 3. I don't think that tells us much, about who is dumber between the two of you. There are more people with 85 IQs than 75 IQ's for instance.
As to your original point: it's still not very good. You do not have to be biased to argue a side in a debate. Have you ever heard of a "debate club"? Members of such a club would take pride in being able to argue either side of a debate, despite where their personal opinions may lay. IIRC, one of the debaters after an IQ2 debate announced that he was, in fact, personally on the side he argued against.
When you are thoroughly biased, you are unable to rigorously test your own hypothesis and theories, making you a poor overall debater. It's commonly called having 'blind spots".
When you give a student a good and honest overview of history, it is the responsibility of the student to explore the minutia.
The Founding of America is 1776
@@r.b.7633 I think your critique is woefully off base. What 1619 did and does is alters the fake narrative given us for 200 years and exposes the reader to hidden in history information that inevitably alters the entire narrative promoted under the guise of pride &
patriotism, exposing the horrible atrocities that actually make up the foundation and tapestry of the nation that most particularly
so called White Americans would prefer to view as pristine....
@@brittanyhayes1043 the founding of United States IS 1776, and that does not refute the general substance of anything in
the 1619 Project that exposes what was actually going on politically leading up to the Land-Governing-White-Male-Slave
-Owning-Aristocratic-Colonists deciding to usurp the Land from the King, or the resulting horrors commited in the name
of their newly taken Fiefdom for multiple Nationalities of Peoples once free & enjoying their God-given rights of sovernty,
then named BLACK for the express purpose of the LEGAL rape, murder, plunder, and oppression of those newly minted
Blacks under Color of Law.
No, the attacks on the 1619 Project are primarily meant to pettifogger the issues so that we don't get to the bottom of the
creation of WHITE as a race, which exposes the design of the so-called white elite to keep the worker classes divided for milking.
The now new Land Owning White Men whom created a New Country in the Earth were not creating a Country for the common man
but for the New Aristocrats and Nobility in the New World. The creation of the Legal Fiction 'White' simply solidified the American Caste System so that they could keep it, and so the lesser castes could not wrestle it away from them as they had the King
@@brittanyhayes1043 United States. If there's no America before 1776, who are all those people and what are their complaints.
@@brittanyhayes1043 yes but there were 2 centuries of history leading up to that point. There was already a shared identity and culture that was 150 years old.
She lost me at “what if”
@@Grimloxz Maybe he was busy??
"What if" was a complete cop out! What if grasshoppers had machine guns? lol
how so?
@@Grimloxz - In other words, you want them to have a dialogue with someone who's an ardent subscriber to the 1619 fallacy! I think you and your so-called expert Gerald Horne are the ones who come across as "sketchy" here.
@@Grimloxz He does not need expertise - it's an easy one to knock down. The 1619 Project is BS! Many scholars with expertise have said just what John said. So smoke that!
Well done. You picked two very capable, articulate, intelligent advocates who sincerely held the beliefs they advocated for on either side of this issue, and they maintained their decor, kindly and politely stuck to the subject, not once descending into fireworks or ad hominem attacks. A fine example of excellent idea exploration and scrutiny. Bravo!
Articulate in fantasy and revisionist history.
@@jamesmorgan2064 I feel you on this. When I saw that John McWhorter was debating for 1776 against someone who was debating in favor of the 1619 Project, I got pretty excited because I thought it would be smart against pure dumb. After watching the video, I have to admit that Professor Leslie Harris's position was more moderate than I thought it would be, but I was not disappointed by John McWhorter's take down. I appreciate that teaching full context of different Americans' origins should include various facts and stories about immigration and how people came to this country, but I remain unconvinced that the 1619 Project is as worthy of the sort of attention it's getting, and I fully understand how it would be seen as revisionist history, especially in the context of all these admonitions to "dismantle" and "uproot" that Wokists are fond of dolling out.
@@sivacrom why is it not worthy, have you actually read any of the essays? If you have which essay and the fact contained shouldn't be known?
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my reply to @UCw-X_sVhoHnjUxUNqhAydJQ, @@LiquidSoul06. To clarify, I did not say that any facts shouldn't be known, nor would I.
@@sivacrom ok so why do you not believe the 1619 project is worthy of getting the attention it is getting
Professor Harris makes valid points that many Americans don't know much about history... to many the past is just plain irrelevant to their current daily life. But Professor McWhorter is also correct in arguing that all the complex elements of history need to be kept in proper balance. I think Professor Harris is not in balance.
I too grew up learning a lot about slavery & its heritage. And I went to high school in the 1970s.
“...and it disgusts me.” Wow. I’ve heard and read McWhorter quite a bit. That’s not language he generally uses. I’m glad he got that in right up front.
I agree. That was a bold statement. I said out loud "Right on John!" when he said it. He's not pulling punches. He's already risked everything by going against mainstream academia and their insane ideology.
@@Grimloxz when you say "the colonists" before and after the Revolutionary War, and before and after the US Civil War, from what i have gathered (as a non-academic), is that from the beginning, MOST of any resistance to abolition was from southern colonial states and later, from senators and house members from South Carolina Mississippi Alabama etc. (South Carolina almost started a civil war before Lincoln took office.)
In the decades before the Civil War, residents of Boston moved to Kansas in their horses and carriages, to settle in Leavenworth in order to vote in Kansas as a free state. (They were attacked by pro-slavery gangs from Missouri, in a kind of massacre, which led to people from Kansas going back and attacking towns in Missouri to get even.)
In the decades after the Civil War, there were numerous civil rights bills that were proposed in The House of the Senate, year after year, but the South managed to swat that down over and over.
There were lofty ideals and idealists around 1770-76, there were emerging new principles and concepts, of which individual sovereignty was very contentious, compared to the well-established Tory sovereignty of the king. Locke was described somewhat in the vein of a .. I don't want to say (democratic socialist) Bernie Sanders of his era .. possibly Noam Chomsky? Locke was focused on moral philosophy.
Anyhow, the key concepts behind life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for individuals, was considered almost blasphemy. This came BEFORE any discussion about whether it could apply beyond White or English SUBJECTS of the crown, who were declaring themselves to be no longer subjects.
Even the highly radical US Constitution initially did not allow men who weren't landowners to vote as full citizens. But just the idea of a republic of businessmen and farmers that wasn't a monarchy was radical enough.
Jefferson owed debts, and my understanding is he would have been unable to free the slaves that were then his property, had he wanted to, and had he thought that was feasible (they would need land and capital to make a clean start). The law, and his creditors, would not allow that, any more than people living today can dispose of property they own to a family member or business partner, just before they file for bankruptcy or for Medicaid reimbursement.
Therefore, in contemporary terms, such as of "me too", we are not allowed to see Sally Hemnings as a voluntary mistress, because of her legal status, even though he took her to Europe with him, seemingly as a partner. I'm sure we can probably think of parallels with illegal immigrants from Guatemala or Mexico marrying a person who is a legal US citizen, perhaps an employer. Sure, the legalistics must be considered, but that does not mean that the couple was not in a personal loving relationship which would not have commenced had there not been unequal legal status.
On that last point, my understanding is that there is insufficient autobiographical information from Thomas Jefferson regarding what he thought of in his relationship with Ms Hemmings. I could be mistaken about that, and that maybe he was more crude or more of a hypocrite than I am aware, but at this point I'm not aware of that answer being proven.
@@Grimloxz I checked out Gerald Home. Without further information, it seems he suffers from the same type of myopia used by born-again Christians who can "prove" the US was founded as a Christian nation. What they do is take a small kernal of subjective truth and spin it into an entire explanation of their choosing to serve a narrow agenda.
@@Grimloxz well its been 5 days and no response
He's getting tired of racists calling other people racists for using facts and logic. He's not the only one.
I literally know more about slavery than I do about the constitution of the United States. I was educated in the 1980's. And I grew up in the era of Black History month in school. That should tell you how false her narrative is.
water down version..diluted hour class for 400 years of slavery thats why slavery and racism talk will NEVER END
@@nealmike5490 No! Not watered down version in my schools. Don't know where you went. We watched the PBS series "Eyes on the Prize" and had intense education on what happened. Literally more on slavery than on understanding the document that contains all of our rights as citizens of the United States.
I'm 37 and slavery and black history were a part of my curriculum in grade school. I come from small town USA not the big city. I bet you find a different curriculum in big cities vs. Small towns.
You grew up in an era where a people's history was taught one month out of the year, but you know more about their enslavement than you do about the Constitution of the system they've been oppressed under? Stop the madness. Youre almost as bad as the guy saying his class watched Roots.
That was the part that had a little fakeass ringy dingy.
She's so absurd. Are we really supposed to believe that a student at northwestern, one of the most competitive universities in the world, had NEVER HEARD ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE US? Absolutely ridiculous! I've never met an American who wasn't VERY aware of slavery in our history, and i grew up in southern Indiana. If there are people who haven't heard the news, they're less than 1% of the population.
She is being completely disingenuous. Haha!! A student at a top university never heard of slavery? Wasn't taught of it in high school? Grade school? Middle school? Haha!! Yeah maybe if they were foreign exchange students from China. Slavery and extensively covered in every single school. It not only taught, it is impossible to avoid. And culturally is shoved down our throats endlessly. Movies, TV shows, book, newspapers, museums, etc.
That a black student at a university has never heard of slavery when the core of black identity (especially in Academia) has become entirely centered around historic oppression and victimhood is laughable.
@@killa3x That depends on where you went to school
Mateo you don't get it,
She wants you to beg.
These people are ethnic nationalists, they want to lord it over and they see anything short of that as injustice
Lol she never said that. You can disagree with her without lying in order to bolster your point.
SMH
The female professor has to read her statement. I am a well-educated man and have seen very many professors. A professor is an expert in his or her field. They can speak extemporaneously and fluently about their area of expertise.
Reading from a document indicates, in my view, a lack of ability and intellectual acuity. Compare her to Professor McWhorter.
Secondly, you can see that the professor of African-American history is not used to the kind of direct critique as provided by Professor McWhorter. In her real day to day life she is, no doubt, met with admiring and smiling white faces who will nod in agreement to her theories. But the small group of white Leftist elites do not represent the bukl of the nation. I daresay many black folk do not buy her narrative as well.
The 1619 narrative as well as CRT combined with the fawning admirers in academia and the media will result in serious divisions along racial lines in the USA. I think we have all seen this occurring.
I am very sad to see this. And these views that I write come from a white guy who, for decades, had a picture of MLK on my desk and considered himself left of center.
Leslie Harris' argument is straight up gaslighting: Yeah its not accurate, I wish we wouldn't focus on that, rather just look at the wonderful stories within. Yeah the premise is false, but you shouldnt take it literally, use 'critical thinking' instead... Do you think the kids in classrooms are going to know that the information is false and shouldnt be taken literally?
Very important point here you make. Because there's a big difference between debating the contentious and very arguably inaccurate basic thesis of the 1619 Project in Academia and public forums, and actually introducing this theory/doctrine into primary and secondary school curricula as is being proposed, to children that have neither the knowledge nor the experience to critically evaluate it.
This is how Christians and Muslims talk about the Bible and the Quran. CRT is like a religion, and has its deities and saints, its zealots and martyrs, it's heretics and blasphemers, and like every other religion out there, claims moral authority and calls for the abolishment of any alternative.
@@galanis38 Exactly! Any contentious theory like 1619, CRT etc. must stay in academia and as far away from kids as possible.
they say critical rational thinking is a white dominant trait. so you shouldn't think critically
Even the teachers won’t point that out knowing fully well 1619 is bs! So they misguide the kids
I am a teacher from Germany, teaching US social history and literature. I am following the debate with great interest. Around minute 23:00, mention is made of "Gone with the Wind". I do not understand how Professor Harris says on the one hand that the 1619 project is an "invitation to critical thinking", and therefore need not necessarily claim to be "true", while at the same time she seems to simply accept that watching "Gone with the Wind" in class seems to be something scandalous. I use parts of the movie to show how idealized and romanticized slavery was. This is exaxctly what Prof. McWorther is going against. I think it is dangerous to blacklist certain cultural artefacts without any context. Am I getting something wrong here? Would love to get some feedback. Cheers & stay safe across the pond!
I agree.
Black kids in the USA are the luckiest black kids EVER born anywhere in history. Black kids need to be taught that and need to learn to thank the the great great grandparents of the white kids in class for making that happen FIRST. Then they can discuss all the great things that men of color like Jesse Owens did, and how much black men have improved the NBS, NBL and the NFL. And white kids can thank a black man, Booked T Washington! Because if it were not for that black man, peanut butter would have never been invented.
@@adennagruetzmacher5622 sorry I do not understand.
@@christianfischer9340 Sometimes sarcasm is its own reward.
@@adennagruetzmacher5622 LOL.
I was under the impression that the Pulitzer prize was for journalistic work, not historical fiction.
Judith Miller got the Pulizer prize for lying about evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. The Pulizer prize is awarded for promoting propaganda.
Remember Duranty
The NY Times won a Pulitzer for writing about "Russian Collusion" in 2016 that had as much non-factual basis as the Iraqi WMDs.
Pulitzer prize has become a joke except for those in the bubble containing the prize winners.
america's founding principles of life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness & all are endowed with inalienable rights is historical fiction. what we are taught in schools about columbus discovering america is historical fiction, but you still have all of these (white) italian folks fighting to maintain columbus day, so yeah, let's talk about historical fiction.
I was a math teacher for 20 years but I knew what was going on in the Social Studies curriculum. There is NOT enough time to teach everything. Social Studies includes geography, civics, US history, and world history. How many children graduate remembering geography? Just because they don’t remember something doesn’t mean they weren’t taught it.
Thank you for your service. In my educational upbringing, we were taught Social studies curriculum, but never the meaning or understanding of what Social studies actually is. It is kind of upsetting for me to look back, with what knowledge I possess now, at the lack of emphasis by the majority of the teachers on the subject. I agree that encompassing such a broad range of historical evaluation can be daunting for middle school aged children. That's especially true when the concept they're presented is that you have English or Literature, Math, and Social Studies. To add to what you said, Social studies also covered even more broad fields such as earth science with land formations (i.e. Pangea, tectonic plates, land formation etc.) as well as Political and legal systems; one-step further to that is how they effected economics and created Social classes that shape the world to as ay. Without clearly being taught how these fields all can be put together under one umbrella, I can imagine how difficult it was for the teachers to connect the dots for their pupils as well. I have a much deeper appreciation for the teachers who gave their level best at it. The amount of information isn't so much that it can't be taught and learned, in my assessment. The mindset of academia should very much in support and promotion of those subjects just as much as they do lit and math, especially so early in childhood development. It is no surprise to me that many people don't understand how our government works or operates because Social studies talked about it. Same thing with what countries are where and the continents and landforms. The biggest thing that educators can do is make the information seem relevant and necessary and my only hope is that they are really aiming to do that for every kid. Thanks again for sticking with all of us knuckle heads for 20 years. Most of us really appreciate it and never have a chance to yell you.
Lmfao “what if” “new history” sound exactly like,
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell, 1984,
To me.
WE LOVE BIG BROTHER
@@rodverap I am sure u do. U r so comfortable being lied to. U can be caucasian.
Close. But she isn’t “the Party”. A more analogous situation would be “fill in the blank” political party telling you things that are patently false and recorded, but convincing half the country that they are true.
@@donharris8846 no 'one' was ever 'the party' only the -'new & improved us Bolshevik'- agenda.
just like the original Bolshevik agenda inspired & 'Hitler Youth and the League of -German- Girls' agenda , the latest -'new & improved us Bolshevik'- agenda "will work this time", as they learned? the lessons well? and so dont *officially declare war* now.
That the idea! Leftists want to rewrite history!
NYC public school from 1996-2007, and we NEVER STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT SLAVERY, JIM CROW & WW2.
@Ben Grimm No revolutionary war? Elaborate, I dare you.
@Ben Grimm ever heard of the “no taxation without representation”? Boston tea party? There is far more nuance than it just being a war over slavery. However, many countries have had slavery and continue to have it to this day. It’s a part of history that we have always learned about. 1619 project seems like it’s trying to sew hatred towards America. Maybe they should teach critical thinking and skepticism towards the government.. but they don’t.
@Ben Grimm dumbass a 3% tax was a high tax at the time.a 10% tax 200 years ago would mean a death sentence for most . there were few machines to produce an abundance of anything. life for most was short and sucked. which is exactly why anybody that got a edge used it.
@Ben Grimm also the British empire didn’t get rid of slavery til 60 some years after Americas independence so this claim about slavery is false
@Ben Grimm I think you need to turn off the internet permanently. You are falling down the leftist rabbit hole.
Only Thomas Sowell's work on slavery needs to be taught. Start in Sumer & Egypt then Rome and so on then work up to America & tell the good & bad then the barbary pirates to China and Libya today.
👍🏻
👍
Why is almost no one speaking of the slavery that existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived or how Africans were selling Africans to non-Africans? Why is almost no one speaking of slavery across the world throughout history and current slavery? Why is almost no one speaking about bondslavery?
@@chrstsm Because that's not where the money is. To your point no one seems to care about slavery in modern China, Africa or the Mid-East either. They're socialists and socialism is slavery to the state. They're not really against slavery.
@@S.J.L So sad and so true. As you mentioned with socialism, let us think too on all of the other things we can and often are enslaved to. Thanks for your reply!
After openly listening to these two educators. It's abundantly obvious they're both extremely knowledgeable on this subject. I find myself rethinking my feelings on this subject.
The subject of bullshit you realize a theory means they do not have enough information or evidence to claim that this is based on facts
Gimme a break ...
Make NO BONES on this. MR. S. isn't 'rethinking' their feelings on this. This soft beards feelings were already on the side of anti-truth. He just wants you to believe that a person rooted in truth could be persuaded into the anti truth of 1619. Also. MR. S. actually has no black friends.
@@undignified2843 OK yeah 1619 is a lie it’s a bullshit theory. Anti-truth I’m not even sure that’s a fucking word
She's straight up lying about students not being taught slavery in school. How do you debate something like this? Watch McWhorter do his thing.
She is saying kids are not taught about the NEW DISHONEST version of slavery. Her version of slavery. These people want to rewrite history.
kids aren't taught slavery in schools. they are taught a sanitized version of slavery. what is taught in american schools about slavery is a flat out joke.
Yup, big surprise coming from the controlled leftist accademia.
Worked at an Ivy league for 4 years, they're disgusting
@@Dbulkss No my friend; history has been rewritten.
I can’t believe anyone from the 1619 project was dumb enough to go up against John
This was an excellent exchange on the subject. Professor Harris, however, doesn't say much to cause disagreement from Professor McWhorter. What troubles me is that she never clarifies what the actual purpose of the project is. She only talks about how she has found it helpful for teaching purposes by taking what is true about the project and discarding what we might "take issue with". She also doesn't distinguish any purpose of the project that is different from how McWhorter and others (like myself) have interpreted and experienced it.
If the purpose is to provide better context for the founding of America in 1776 and possibly make the case that, for African Americans, 1619 is where their story of America begins, I could applaud such a mission. Unfortunately, every time I've heard a reference to the 1619 Project, it was in the context of asserting a revision of history, that 1619 was the ACTUAL founding of America, not 1776. I've experienced graduate school professors, black church leaders, and SJW friends use the project in this way. Therefore, it seems to me that a major purpose of the 1619 project is to assert and fuel this ludicrous revision of history without apology. McWhorter wins this debate.
I think John Mcwhorter clearly did better, but I also think she was more reasonable than I anticipated going into the video.
Why would you think she would be unreasonable? And what does that even mean?
@@olewetdog6254 because many commentators on the 1619 project have been unreasonable in their public pronouncements. They have resorted to ad hominem attacks quickly when challenged.
@Mike Smith Boy, that's a long exposition to refute a point I didn't even make.
@@olewetdog6254 I thought it was relevant .. why do you feel so
Yes, she admitted the essay had lies. Her defense was that many historical essays have lies. Not a very good excuse, as we criticize them, as we should. Plus did the other essays, (books) have their central theme based on a lie? Did they receive fame and awards for the lie?
I came in to this as generally sympathetic to McWhorter and expecting his interlocutor to be rigidly orthodox on the left's view on race, but I found Professor Harris to be very nuanced and thoughtful.
She is, but she should have taken a more clear and fierce stand and (agree with McWhorter and) dismiss the mistake that was make. Get is out of the way so the remainder of the project can be discussed for what is worth.
This man is a saint for having to sit through this patiently and not completely lose his stuff.
So yes the thesis is a lie but we should focus more on the other parts of the essay and project? Why?
@Ms. GC yes and another factor of the revolution was British housing soldiers in people’s homes. Seizing fire arms. Racing tradesmen. Controlling trade and trade routes of independent citizens. Never mind the French Indian war many colonists got drafted into. There’s a reason the Declaration of Independence is so long. Saying it was only two issues is disingenuous, also the southern colonies didn’t join until relatively late in the war. So yes slavery was a factor but not a major one.
@Ms. GC A lie based on a partial truth or an exaggerated one, is still a lie or at very best a misdirection. if your foundation is rotten, you have nothing to build on.
It would be like saying WW2 was actually about saving crops and farm land to downplay the holocaust and Nazi uprising.
More so, we know this is as simple as race baiting people to create conflict. To claim that anyone who does not buy this imaginary narrative is in itself racist. To teach this in school is seriously fucked up.
We can not continue to deny our history, as we are repeating it currently, and we also can not afford to let others rewrite it as they see fit.
@@hitandruncommentor who said it was only about two issues? Why do folk make mess up in order to bolster their point
Exactly.
A little less time on the comics and more in an actually book that’s going to teach you something. A thesis is a statement or theory that the writer is going to prove in the essay.
John is right on.
Right on the rhetorical fallacy train. He's not debating, he's grandstanding.
@@pmberkeley
What did he say that was wrong tho?
Having seen a few videos with John McWhorter, I find myself frustrated with trying to figure out what's up with, what seems to me, these tortured rhetorical constructions that seem to litter the exposition of his points. For example 27:26: "There comes a point when I've often found myself wondering at what point, for example, can we say that it's not an obscure fact that there was slavery outside of the South?" I literally hit rewind and play about 6 times to try to unravel exactly what he was getting at. My response to this specific point is: As someone who had high school US history in the late 70s in Chicago, on the one hand, that was not an obscure fact, on the other hand, now in 2021, I find that the history I was presented with back then was woefully inadequate for getting at the truth of the matter. However, for schools to have presented an "adequate" history as I NOW see it probably would have caused an outrageous controversy.
I enjoyed the sincerity of both professors and their willingness to share their opinions!
She called the Constitution our founding documents. Freudian slip?
Facts. She just admitted that 1619 is trash.
Many ignore the fact that a termination date to end imports of Africans for slavery is deliberated within the Constitution. What's discussed among the slave industrialist and wholesale suppliers of enslaved people, was the plan to monopolize their enslaved investments through forced slave breeding. Mixed slaves sold for higher prices at auction. Since black women can give birth to children of all hues, whites looking people ended up being slaves, being that their mother or grandmother was black. Land speculators ran campaigns in the US and Europe that stated the American Dream was one where white men could exercise all matters of sexual perversion on black men, women and children. It was a crime to marry the women, deemed legal to rape in order to sell the children produced into slave markets. Sadistic perversions against black bodies is one of the main reasons pre-civil war families wanted the history hidden.
Bingo
@@anpdm1 I hear what you're saying and believe it all to be true. I'm only pointing out that America was not a country in 1619. There are more years between 1619-1776 than 1776-1865. This woman admitted as much in the discussion.
@@alexcrixell7265 That's not the argument! The argument or position is that the state of the US wrt racism against Black Americans in America dates back to the 30 Africans from Angola brought to Jamestown, VA in 1619. For example, did Chattel Slavery end in 1776? Obviously not. That's the foundation for racial oppression against Black Americans. That's the position of the 1619 project and interwoven into the fabric of the US before it ever became a nation officially and it also highlights the struggle and triumphs that helped to shape America even though they've never were fully able to express their citizenship because of that racism.
For genuine healing & progress to take place, there has to come a point at which the past has to be, not forgotten, but not remembered and used as a reason to maintain bitterness & victimhood. No-one can claim to want unity and to move forward together if they continually hold the actions of past generations over the heads of the current generations.
Well said and I agree completely. This has to happen on both sides though and where I live I see too many confederate flags to think it's going to happen easily.
@@olewetdog6254 confederate flags is not Strictly about slavery. It was a vision about state hood being able to stay free against the union.
@@Dbulkss But wouldn't you say that the politics of the Confederate States was in fact predicated on slavery? The flag has nothing to do with slavery, but the actual politics of those governing bodies relied on slavery as a legal foundation for its continuing function. That in fact, put it diametrically in opposition to the Union. Governments represent government will and only rarely reflect the people they rule as a whole. I agree with you both, getting OVER the past is not the same as forgetting the past.
PREACH, I’m black but I’m center right and I can’t tell you how refreshing it is seeing someone else think this way, the left calls for “tolerance” and “unity” and proceed to divide people by every group imaginable and perpetuate anti white racism and white guilt and it’s not helping
“HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE; HE WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST” Orwell 1984 its all in the 'remembering ' which is what the 1619 project seeks to control .
I have to say, I really appreciated the discourse between these two. He seemed very honest and very genuine. They were also very respectful of the others ideas and I believe they were very clear in their messages. I really appreciated the way they discussed this.
Well said, and I agree. Rather than think about the issue as what is "right" or "wrong" I believe that a better frame is "what is best?" What do I mean by "best?" The one that acknowledges the history of slavery as a whole before African slavery on the North American continent. Slavery as part of the human experience provides better context to the narrative than African slavery in the United States starting in 1619 alone. We, the American People, of all faiths, genders, races, and creeds are responsible for these United States and like a company or brand, we are still exercising the mission declared by the Declaration of Independence. What is lost in the racial, gender, spiritual, and political unrest of today is the unification efforts. Until now, we always learned how to come together. What's "best" is to understand that the idea of freedom in America took time like executing a business plan. Amazon didn't have a distribution network like they do today overnight. Changing the course of thousands of years of social norms in less than 250 years deserves credit to everyone involved, black, white, and in-between. We did it together and every culture has a story of struggle. It is not for us to judge each other's struggle, but to embrace that being American is itself a struggle. And, if we can do that collectively then rather than there being any victims, we can each and together become victors.
Exactly Brian, neither of them went into a "jocking" mode to be RIGHT, The respectful way they both presented was indeed refreshing.
I like this lady , she has a nice disposition , a lovely smile , and I can't help liking her . I am against the 1619 Project though . I am glad in hearing the debate , thank you all ...
The devil doesn't come in through the back door with horns and a cape, he comes boldy through the front door as everything you ever dreamed of
I found her smile forced
@@popeyethepirate5473 why are you against the 1619 project? Which aspects of the project, or are you against looking at American history through the perspective of black people?
@@LiquidSoul06 "perspective of black ppl" implying that all black ppl think the same and have the same life experience.
@@LiquidSoul06 Are you against teaching U.S. history from the perspective of members of the Ku Klux Klan? Why should their perspective be marginalized, they were americans too.
If you are going to teach history through the lens of a specific group, you open the door to teaching history from the lens of other specific groups. Now if you want to teach any and all of those in a specific course dedicated to that specific group (African-American History as an example), thats perfectly fine. However, once you begin teaching specific groups perspectives in general history, you are definitely entering slippery slope territory.
Very good, civil discussion. Appreciated both participants viewpoints
John is a brilliant guy. Well said, John.
Where are people getting ideas of his brilliance from? He's not even participating in an actual debate. His argumentation is almost entirely fallacious.
@jhan bass give me a single example.
@@bradthompson5383 who do you think you are? You're late. I'm not rewatching this to fulfill your demand.
@@bradthompson5383
@@bradthompson5383 oh yeah I'm SO cowardly, that's what it is. Not that I'm not going to watch a video again three months later because some rando on the internet demanded answers
The years 1619 and 1776 have significance in American history. America as we know it was founded in 1776 when the founding fathers declared independence from Great Britain. There may be some inaccuracies in The 1619 Project, but it's still an important part of American history. The year 1619 was the year that slave ships arrived at the coast of Virginia from Africa. When it comes to history, historians will tend to leave out facts that don't fit their narratives which is why people must look at this discussion from both sides. Conservatives and liberals do this. America was NOT founded on slavery, but much of its economy was built on it. All nations are inherently evil. The Bible says "man has dominated man to his harm." (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Throughout the history of mankind, nations' leaders have sought to dominate and control others. Wars have been fought to expand territories, for natural resources, and in the name of religion. The United States is a good nation compared to others, but the U.S. is no exception. The European colonizers killed off the Native Americans with disease and genocide, took their land, and put them on reservations. They also brought Africans from Africa and made them slaves. This country became great off the exploitation of others.
How would you define "founded?" What does "founded" mean and who gets to determine what something means for other people?
I could listen to John Mcwhorter speak for hours. I love this guy! He expresses his thoughts so effectively. His main premise about 1619, from my opinion, is that no one wants to call out Nichole Hanna Jones, because they don't feel she is smart enough to do any better. This is the definition of the soft bigotry of low expectations. John is an example of regardless of a person's color, a person should be judged on their abilities. John is as sharp as anyone I've ever heard speak.
Final note, this was a civil debate. I left liking both participants along with the host.
You can. Check out John Mcwhorters lectures in The Great Courses audio series regarding language history and linguistics
Judged by whom and to what consequence? Isn't that a continuation of the 1619 mistake? That wasn't only about color nor was it about freedom for all; it was about finding using vulnerable populations for personal gain whether the conditions were voluntary, consenting or not. Colonialism and slavery continue to this day by the names of capital, employment and outsourcing under the terms of banking and fiat currencies. That is by design of its perpetuators.
@Lemur Lol It's like the devil just found some tawny skin to slip into and at once he became aware of the state of his condition he decided to make an only sightly different argument in favor his new appearance. I get that. I see it in Israel too. Those people are expatriates, but the Palestinians who are being forced out are the true Semites. What's happening there is repulsive to me.
@@wj3186 actual enslavement still exists in the form of sex trafficking and debt repayment in third world Africa and India.
Seriously? What are you basing this claim that Hannah-Jones isn't smart on? She's been a journalist for 20 years, is very well-educated, and won a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project. McWhorter can whine about it all he wants, but at the end of the day, it's just his opinion. I can see that you haven't read the book either---in fact it sounds like McWhorter hasn't even read it himself---he's just complaining about one thing Jones wrote in her essay that he disagreed with, and he's bashing a whole book that he obviously didn't read over it, who dosen't make any sense at all. And so are you, which is really stupid. Anyway, the book is still selling, regardless of how you conservatives whine about it.
Fantastic to see a good faith discussion on this topic love it
I would add that it is almost amazing' 'to see a good faith discussion'.
This isn't worth discussing. The United States was objectively founded in the 1770s
Lies
@@McCarthy1776 Exactly lol. The very fact that this is on the table to discuss is a sign of far our society has declined.
McWhorter is the only person arguing in good faith. Harris implemented motte and Bailey fallacies all day. For instance, she defends the 1619 project in total, then McWhorter calls out Jones’ fallacious claim that the revolutionary war was fought for slavery, she then shifts, avoids that topic, and tries to say “there are many other contributors than Jones in the 1619 project.” Well, missy, did Nicole Hannah Jones receive a Pulitzer Prize or no? And did those other authors get one?
What a class act John. McWorther is!
You mean what a "good boy" he is?
I grew up in a small southern town in the Appalachians in the 60s and 70s. To say education was not a high priority in my town would be putting it mildly. Out of a group of 6 friends, I was the only one to go to college, and I certainly was not a valedictorian. I can’t speak to present day education, but I was left shaking my head when Dr. Harris said students at Emory and Northwestern didn’t know about the Transatlantic slave trade or southern slavery. All I can say is what happened to the schools?
There is not a person I know in my town that was not very aware of these issues. We discussed the obvious dilemma in the Constitution of All Men Created Equal while allowing slavery. The 3/5 compromise for determining congressional representation, Dred Scott, Booker T. Washington, John Brown, Harper’s Ferry, Harriet Tubman & the underground railroad, Fredrick Douglas, the Missouri Compromise, Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, Jim Crow laws and Civil Rights movement & the 1964 Civil Rights Act all were covered in our history class.
I personally don’t know one person who has not heard of the Transatlantic slave trade or southern slavery. I do know they talk of cities and high schools where students are graduating without being able to read or do math. I assume these students also do not know history. Thomas Sowell has a great youtube presentation on slavery: th-cam.com/video/VWrfjUzYvPo/w-d-xo.html . To have students get to Emory and Northwestern and not be acquainted with those topics listed above blows my mind.
I was not aware of the historical significance of 1619. I think adding historical references like these and others that are important but lesser known to the general public, especially to whites, is a great idea. But an honest discussion and representation of historical events is what is needed. Saying 1619 is the birth of the nation or more important then 1776 is only going to create division because it absolutely is not true. Nor is slavery being a major driving force for the revolution or that this country was built on the back of slaves. Did they contribute? Absolutely, and that contribution should be acknowledged and celebrated, but in an honest way.
Before the revolution, there was no free territory, except maybe Vermont. My understanding is that it might not have been under English control, but all land governed by England was not free. What of England’s responsibility? I saw American athletes kneel for our national anthem in England, but stand for God Save the Queen. To me, that speaks to people not knowing their history.
As many problems as the Constitution has, it did set the forces in motion that would lead to the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves. I do think the South should be portrayed as traitors and not celebrated at all, but that was mostly a decision made after the war that is still causing harm today.
Personally, it also sounds to me like we need honest lessons in how bad racism was and how it has improved greatly. Perfect? No, of course not. If you are going to wait till perfect to stop feeling victimized, good luck with that. Racism exists all over the world. If you think racism is stopping anyone from succeeding in this country, then you and I will just agree to disagree. If you are an educated person, white, brown, black, red, yellow, purple, I don’t care, you can make it in this country, and you will have a lot of people cheering and helping you along. If you are uneducated with no skills, then it is certainly going to limit you, but that is true for whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Whites, blacks and everybody should be watching what the Asians are doing and follow their lead. Whites are getting their asses handed to them by the Asians, but Asians should be celebrated and emulated - not scorned.
Excellent comment. Unfortunately, it was so damn long I doubt too many people read it.
I would actually interested just in the county you got this education because we can see exactly what the curriculum is in the history of the transatlantic slave trade. 80% of people in Louisiana doesn't know who Fredrick Douglass is today, something tells me that his name wasn't mentioned once in a single class at your high school.
Of course you can clear this up, just letting us know what county you are from.
@Nunya Bizness
The ignorance displayed in your comment is astounding. Only 2% of Americans owned slaves in the years prior to the Civil War, and a small percentage of those slaveholders were black.
Counting the "average" slaves per slaveowning household is near-meaningless. A tiny number of slaveowners owned a large number of slaves; among the few who owned any at all, most owned just one. Therefore, the _median_ number is what matters, not the average.
Considering the massive amounts of immigration to this country in the last 156 years, the percentage of Americans today whose ancestors owned slaves in this country is obviously well under 1%.
43, grew up in an extremely conservative rural Ohio community that was likely over 99% white. We had a very in depth curriculum in slavery even taking field trips to important underground railroad sites and museums. I find the idea that there were a significant amount of schools that didn't go as in depth disingenuous. Especially from students that attended the school where Leslie teaches.
Gotta give credit to Professor Harris for engaging in debate with a critic. Would love to see Ibram X Kendi, Robin DiAngelo and Ta-Nehisi Coates do the same thing.
Amen. I think it is important to defend one's ideas.
Yeah I’d love to see those aforementioned phony Educators that you just mentioned take on Ben Shapiro Candace Owens for Tucker Carlson
@@lennypignatello7493 You probably only love Candace Owens because she’s an immigrant black woman (that while currently claiming racism doesn’t exist but previously used the NAACP to win a discrimination lawsuit when she was younger) that says what white people want to hear black people saying. Ben Shapiro couldn’t even defend himself against Marc Lamont Hill. I’d love to see Dr. Claude Anderson take on all the people you mentioned at the same time.
@@JClass-gz2ky Ben did quite well in that debate just because he started calling Ben Shapiro names like a 12 year old child would do doesn’t mean he did well in the debate at all in fact the moment he started making it personal he lost the debate. She realize the error of her ways doesn’t matter what she has done in the past
@@JClass-gz2ky What do you think. I’m saying the 1619 project is bullshit
Finally a measured and civil discussion between opposite viewpoints that doesn't devolve into talking points and rhetoric. Subscribed.
Is that my book there in the book case behind McWhorter????
Same. Although it's a shame this channel has so few subscribers. Says something about our culture 😠😠
so you don't think John didn't using talking points and rhetoric? were you listening? do you know what the talking points and rhetoric?
Nicest most polite debate I’ve ever heard. 😊
I would like to have John McWhorter's bookshelves. That is all.
bruh . . I think those are CDs on the left side of the screen. whoa.
And I'd like to look as good as you do, just male.
Lol
Here’s 10k likes
I learned about the slave trade and Tubman and John Brown and John C. Calhoun and the Missouri Compromise and the Lincoln/Douglas debates in my (high school) freshman American history class...
In 1967
In a rural school district in West Texas
Whose predominant minority group was Latin (oops, sorry, Latinx)
I don't know what the situation was of the student who said he'd never heard anything about it, but to imply that this is all new information which has NEVER before been mentioned in American schools is just wrong.
I, too, learned about the Lincoln-Douglas debates; Harriet Tubman; and the Underground Railroad in elementary school...back in the 60’s. The lack of knowledge is not because it isn’t being taught...it’s because there is a more sinister agenda being forced on America!
Either she's lying (which is possible) or the student in question just didn't care or pay attention in history class. I'm not as old as you obviously, but even in the early/mid-90's in Virginia we were learning about all this stuff she says students "don't learn about." We also went on field trips to plantations. We had to read books on slavery. I suspect this woman is just an idiot.
Ask yourself if schools accurately teach the brutality of slavery in places where sex ed isn't even a thing. The sanitization of the experience makes it seem as if it was just hard work for a long time.
The horror of seeing your family members raped or murdered in front of you was a constant threat not to mention beatings and kidnappings. The mental conditions this put people under is often discounted as well as the high level of suicide.
I don't think schools do a good job teaching about our tragedies because it would take a lot of care and teachers are often not allowed to go there.
For instance Europeans engaged in cannibalism until the 1800's, lynchings were called bbqs and often involved burning people alive and keeping body parts....it was brutal.
You don't understand sir. It's not that Americans haven't been taught about slavery its that Americans haven't been taught about it in a radical and culturally Marxist way. That is what the 1619 Project and CRT is all about.
We retain knowledge when we learn facts, not emotionally drive narratives!
This is tacitly false. People retain and are convinced to far more information that is driven emotionally than purely factually
@@jacobnussbaum2309 and that's the problem lol
@@jacobnussbaum2309 the problem is that the 1619 project contains no facts at all. Whatsoever
@@jacobnussbaum2309 You don't get it.
My problem is, if there is some other date in history besides 4 July 1776 to consider as America's birthday, it's not 19 August 1619.
First, the Spanish, who were also involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade, had already brought slaves, African slaves, to North America -- and had already established Fort St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565.
Second, if a written document established America's birth other than the Declaration of Independence, that honor goes to the Mayflower Compact, written in 1620, by the Puritans on the Mayflower in Massachusetts Bay. My family had 13 ancestors on that ship, including 4 of whom, who signed the Mayflower Compact.
If another historical event was America's birth, then I would argue it was the reading of the answer to the Olive Branch Petition, written by Mr. Dickinson. In it, John Hancock read the king's response, written by George III, and it was the official missive that told the American colonists that they were now considered part of a rebellion, which meant that, if arrested or captured, the Founders would be tried and hung for treason.
The only other event I can think of that established America was two different events: 1) The signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783; and 2) the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which was America's first national governing document. Otherwise, to get technical, America's birth would be the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1791, which was two years after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
The point is, slavery was not at all what the 1619 Project claims. Slavery was incidental, ironically, because of the fact that a rough draft of the Declaration had a full paragraph written by Jefferson, which excoriated George III over the issue of slavery, in which he called the king a hypocrite for allowing the Atlantic Slave Trade to continue under his watch and governance. This original rough draft, which was not accepted by South Carolina and Virginia, was discovered in 1947 and now resides in the National Archives and the Library of Congress. This first draft, by the way, was rejected by the Founders themselves, after it was decided that unanimous unification in facing the British was more important than the idea of slavery in the Colonies. Hence, it is why slavery, and the Atlantic Slave Trade, was mentioned little or not at all in the Complaints section of the Declaration.
But America was not founded on the idea of slavery, in any way, shape or form, and was the formed on two core ideas: 1) Taxation without representation, and 2) consent of the governed. Until those ideas were made firm by the various assemblies in the Colonies, everybody still, as Mr. Dickinson did, thought of themselves as British citizens. Only a few, such as Patrick Henry, thought of themselves as American, before the events of the Second Continental Congress. Even during the French and Indian War, the English still thought of themselves as British, not American. So a couple of philosophical ideals and a changed mindset are what birthed America, not slavery. Period.
A very respectful debate! So refreshing to see disagreement without animosity.
I just can't take her claim seriously about the lack of education around the country regarding slavery. Even if some schools omit certain topics, it's more a criticism on public school in general and not some kind of a proof of racism throughout the country. Everyone alive knows about American Slavery, at least as much as they know about the Revolutionary War and other significant events in American history.
Did you know that whites used black children as collateral for mortgages? Did you know their potentials as enslaved laborers and producers of more slaves were bundled into stock options and sold on international stock markets? Did you know the US had no national treasury until black potential was used by the Us government for loans of metal backed currency from European bankers? Did you know that a white man couldn't get a bank loan with land collateral, he had to own at least two slaves to qualify for credit. Did you know that each state issued it own currencies that did not hold it's value across state lines? The reason black bodies were used as currency was they held value across state lines? If one doesn't know how the economies surrounding slavery built the US Treasury, then you can't understand it's importance in the founding of the US and how those dollars created a nation of white racist. The history is so heinous that two states destroyed every slave narrative taken by the WPA. The history is hidden to avoid being held accountable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity in all of mankind.
@@anpdm1
So? Do you know black were slave owners? And black sold other blacks?
@@anpdm1 Did you know that slavery is still a thing in Africa to this very day?
lol
@@WinningThisOne 1st let me say that it's truly disgusting that in response to anpdm1 pointing out that cavemanben probably doesn't know the extent slavery and its impact on American's current global standing he got three snowflake whataboutisms that pretty much just amount to the white supremacist talking point of black on black crime and your beauty of a comment.
1. 'Why don't we talk about all recorded history?' I don't know . . . Is it perhaps because we are speaking on AMERICAN HISTORY? Keep up! This is not only whataboutism this is pathetically pointing a finger and going yeah we did a horrible thing but so did they as if that makes it better.
2. 'British colonialism made the abolition of slavery possible' . . . Sigh. I don't know what u r talking about here, the closest I could come to is Slavery Abolition Act, (1833). But I don't wish to insult u by assuming u want white people to get credit for "freeing" people that THEY ENSLAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. U can't be talking about that. 😑 I refuse to believe it.
3. 'Point out how insanely unlikely the abolishment of slavery was and the miracle of living in modern times where slavery is considered immoral?' What? Why was the eventual and inevitable abolishment of slavery unlikely? There were hundreds of slave revolts and thousands of abolishionist (something people would know If they taught history properly.) Also are u saying people should be happy they live in today's time and shut up about history. WHAT R U EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!
4. Lastly, saying that people of the past did not know slavery was immoral is a lie from the pits of hell and it needs to be squashed. There are so many writings from slave owners who wrote that they more than knew it was wrong. Robert E. Lee Confederate General and Slave own wrote this in 1856: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country,”
Abraham Lincoln said this in 1864: "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." There is more I could paste here . . . They knew, They all knew! They did everything to convince themselves otherwise even Failed and seditious General Rober E. Lee in that same 1856 letter tried to convince himself that even though it was an evil against black people it was more of an evil to white people for . . . Reasons. Money, power, greed, and malice was what kept them owning slaves not a lack of knowledge of how evil and inhumane it was.
John was amazing in this. To be fair Harris is defending an indefensible position with the 1619 project.
Johns talks with Glenn sharpened his tools with this topic.
Great discussion
Good faith discussions with people you disagree with are your best whetstones for your own argument. McWhorter has easily become one of my favorite intellectuals to follow and his convos with Loury are always a gold mine for me.
@@LetsGo6009 10000000% agree. Well said. Harris was nice to listen to also. Good faith is the perfect word
I give Harris credit for at least doing a decent job defending an indefensible position. More conversations like this would be good.
The 1619 project is defensible or not based on what you think it means. If you want to claim that the 1619 project hinges on whether the American Revolution was fought over slavery and that slavery and the legacy of slavery is the single most important theme in American history, yes, you are going to have a hard time defending that. However the idea that America was founded in inequality and that there's been a constant conflict between equality and oppression is very true and easily defended.
The 1619 date is tied to the first African Americans being in America. But the date America should be founded should be 1607 when the first permanent English colony was founded in Jamestown. The year 1619 saw 4 firsts, all in Virginia - 1) first African Americans brought to America at Jamestown 2) first representative government in the colony at Jamestown 3) first women brought over as wives at Jamestown 4) first American Thanksgiving celebrated at Berkeley plantation in Virginia.
I appreciate this. People brought together to debate openly and honestly. This is what we need as a nation.
Slavery and segregation have been taught in grade school, and colleges for many decades. I learned about it throughout my education in the 1970s through the 1990s.
But according to the 1619 project, I guess I've never heard about it... I'm not supposed to believe that I spent decades being taught about it.
I doubt you learned anything
@@TheSycaman If that's your belief, then you've fallen for their propaganda...
Only a fool believes lies without searching for the truth.
Try thinking for yourself for one time in your life, kid.
It's something that happened to American citizens, European Americans and Afroasiatic Americans come from nations. Black/negro and white is unconstitutional. As Americans we should move away calling ourselves colors and honor our national heritage of birth and descent that strengthen our American Unity as a nation. 🇲🇦🇺🇸☪️
@@TheSycaman "See for yourself" - never uttered by a Democrat in the last 10 years.
Glenn Beck is interviewed by Dave Rubin and shows him a historically authentic rough draft of the constitution that all but 2 signers wanted to abolish slavery but because they didn’t have a consensus, those lines were removed. Seems like something worth seeing and including in the conversation.
I think you are referring to the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson condemned slavery in his rough draft (its probably safe to say Jefferson theoretically understood the evil of slavery even though he very much benefitted from it) and the passage was removed.
Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793 which made planting cotton much more profitable and kind of killed any hope that slavery would die a natural death based on economics. Before that there was some hope that slavery would die on its own.
@@philibusters The cotton gin automated the process making slave labor less necessary.
@@philibusters
You are correct that it was the Declaration, not the Constitution.
Great discussion and production on this topic!
I'm 44 , I grew up learning about all American history including slavery , Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver ( both of whom were rightly highlighted as American heroes [ no other qualifier needed]) Professor Harris may have a student or so who may be ignorant of these events and individuals, but that doesn't mean those students are the norm. Maybe those students were simply poor students and simply refused to study the subject matter. Moreover to hyper focus on 1 aspect of history could lead to more division. What happens when some students and educators decide to focus on the loyalty to sovereign state of the confederacy ? Will we glorify the southern generals? Will we insist on teaching how the southern plantation owners were oppressed by the industrialized north? What about in the future , if we focus on the hardships suffered by church goers during the corona virus ? Will we vilify the governors that allowed riots and protests ( on first amendment arguments) but prohibited in person church services despite the same first amendment should have protected them? Anyone can frame themself as a victim of oppression. Anyone can frame anyone else as a villain. The more we insist that such framings must be taught as fact, the more we become the divided States of America.
@Timothy Somerville so oppressing religious freedom isn't villainous? Economic oppression isn't villainous? And judging people by the color of their skin ( saying all white people are racist) isn't villainous? I think you have a narrow view of villainy.
@Timothy Somerville also we don't teach our kids that we created a country that had liberty and justice for all. We teach them that we created a country that strives towards liberty and justice for all. The constitution says " to form a more perfect union" . This is a continuing goal not a one off action already complete. We are to strive to do these things with every law we institute , every amendment to the constitution we propose , ever election , everything we the people do. That's what the constitution is talking about. One more thing , we are a constitutional representative republic , Not a democracy.
@Timothy Somerville Some point for their time they simply were no such thing , and its time you actual live in that matters for who knowns how those in the future will judge what today we think as acceptable.
I have great respect for both speakers. However, I would also like a follow-up discussion where two American historians debate specifics of 1619 vs 1776. There are many historians who have been critical of 1619. Bring them on for a discussion. Yet even without being a US historian, McWhorter provided excellent insights.
I'm sure it's a convenient centering point for the discussion, but it's sort of a false set of alternatives in some ways. People at the time were certainly writing about America as though it didn't spring up out of nothing at 1776. It doesn't need to have done, in order for the 1619 theses to be false.
I love you!
I think it's far more interesting to have students engage with whether America was founded in 1619 or 1776 than it is to actually pick one and have that be the official or right answer. Progress and oppression have marched side by side in American history. Both are significant. Which is more so?
I learned all about slavery in high school (NOT a private or affluent school by any means) in the early/mid 90s - I don't buy this narrative that kids are not learning about slavery or black history. Her anecdote about the girl from Missouri who was shown Gone with the Wind is her evidence?
Even the claim that kids weren't taught about slavery back in the 70s is not true. "Roots" and "The Autobiography of Jane Pittman" came out in that decade, both were bestselling books and TV miniseries. Even if your particular school didn't assign these you would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of them at the time. As for the kid from Missouri - as in MIssouri Compromise? - yeah that's some BS
If it wasn't for slavery no black people would have the privilage of being in America.
The Civil War was fought to liberate them.
Any reconnection to Africa that Afro-Americans have tried have ended pretty quickly. It is not an easy place to reconnect with.
This constant waving the chip on their shoulder in every one else's faces, including the Mexicans and Latinos, is going to lead to indifference.
Civil War was fought over secession
Her comments about "lived reality" seem to betray a predisposition to standpoint theory, and a general academically infused acceptance of postmodern deconstructionist effort which is central to nearly every entity embracing 1619.
John espouses enlightened Western liberal thought and analysis. She does not. She seems to avoid actually addressing the crux of the failing of 1619 from a factual perspective, and continually redirects with abstract assertions and rhetorical questions about society, rather than the topic.
Exactly her language is full of leftist dog whistles. That's the problem with these people, they can debate all day but they are more concerned with how they look to their base than impartial, dispassionate observers, so it never goes anywhere.
@@quidnunc01 standpoint theory is garbage, we don't need right wingers to tell us that.
Finally someone who speaks English
Firstly I enjoy the respectful conversation and tone. When listening to each speaker I feel like one of these points of view seeks the actual truth when looking to and through history. The other one takes a self-proclaimed "creative" approach. The second approach seems to be more a what can we make up, or find evidence for (aka tell lies about) to fit a narrative.
@@r.b.7633 They don't? But isn't history deeply entrenched in "feelings"? Every single historical document we have is biased by the writers feelings.
If there are multiple accounts of an event from different perspectives, we can make an educated guess as to what truly occured; however, this isn't always the case. Sometimes we only have a one sided account. Sometimes we don't even have that.
Bias, feelings, and revisionism are present in every aspect of history. I totally get your point of wanting only facts in historical education. But past a certain point, there are no facts to be had. Even widely agreed upon stances aren't bullet proof due to inaccurate/missing/biased record keeping. Really, only very modern history can be considered as reliably accurate.
Everyone should have their own history of the world based on their skin color, height, weight, sexual orientation etc. No one will agree what happened when. It will be great.
13:53 *"The phrase 'critical thinking' is central to teaching in all schools I know of"* < Critical thinking??? Absolutely _not,_ it is highly discouraged! She must be conflating it with "critical theory".
Exactly!
Left wing intellectuals are very proud of how well they think about thinking.
McWhorter is brilliant!
I don't think there was anything sinister like Harris implies in the timing of the 1776 history policy. The 1619 school curriculum didn't come out at the same time as the original article. There was a building resistance to the school curriculum this spring and the George Floyd incident led many schools to adopt it for the first time starting this fall. Then kids went back to school this fall and parents saw what their kids were being taught and freaked out which led to the reaction at the time that it happened. I don't think it had anything to do with a random, sinister, campaign plot. It had to do with the NYT dirty laundry being shoved in the face of millions of people that don't read the NYT or typically care to keep up with this stuff.
I don't want my child being fed this rhetoric in school. They should teach of the atrocities of slavery and the importance of African Americans brought here against their will. But this insistence on tying past wrong doings to modern day society in a way that alienates white people as the beneficiaries of 400 years of oppression is in itself racist. This new grievance culture is a cult.
@@SuperWilliamholmes I have to chime in. White people as a collective group benefited from the system. That doesn't mean that white people today are responsible for slavery or have slave-owning ancestors; it just means that they and their ancestors were in a better economic situation.
@@Rampton8810 I agree. Poor communities are NOT restricted to inner city regions. No reasonable person would argue that with you. What I said was that white people as a COLLECTIVE GROUP benefited from the system. I never said there weren't poor white people.
HERE WE GO. I am the biggest John McWhorter fan!!
I think John McWhorter was on point. I totally agree with everything he said.
He's not a historian.
@@crhu319 he doesnt need to be a historian to know what hes talking about historically
And everyone seems to ignore; if not forget, that there were MANY slaves of Irish and Scottish discent. They too, were often shipped out against their will to the Virginas and the Bermudas. Others were labeled as 'indentured servents, dissitents, or criminals; and these were white but not treated white for MANY years. This being addressed, it is a great possibility that the Revolutionary War may have had a lot to do with England's white slaves breaking free from European chains. This topic continues to be regurgitated in order to rekindle the embers of racism, division, and to keep us away from all the truths they can no longer hide. This is the time for truth to prevail and all division lines to disapear. The Americas was built on social status and taking from the bottom to appese the top. Let us ALL stand together to end the tyrannical governments and unveil our TRUE history and origins. It takes us all to remove the smoke screen. I love every race, culture, male and female. I stand against oppessors, instigators and perpetrators. So this would include all mass medis, all governments, all pharma, all transgendors; they are ALL after out children. The children are the only victims now; the rest od us are either surviviors or perpitrators. This should be the ONLY division line that anyone is concerned with now. I k ow I am a survivior and protector of our children; which one are you (addressed to anyone that may read this)?
Nope
1776 cuz thats when we were an independent recognized nation.
Why not 1789?
My great-great-great grandfather was kidnapped from Liverpool and made to serve on a ship that sailed to "America". Once there, he was forced into indentured servitude to survive. My great-grandfather served in the Missouri Cavalry and died in the Civil War. My grandfather died in WWII. Now I get to pay a Caribbean immigrant's descendant whose family owned slaves in "America" in 1830.
I absolutely agree with your sentiment, but your timeline seems a bit odd. Your great grandfather died in the Civil War (1860's) and your grandfather died in WWII (1940's). That would make your grandfather rather old to die in WWII unless he lived in Europe as an old man.
@@Ryan....... - Just a scenario.
@@Ryan....... - That's because karrie wick is simply lying! What karrie wick has written is complete and utter BS!
@@wiseonwords Karrie seems to have used the description in a metaphorical manner, but that sort of description is literally true for at least tens of thousands of Americans. So it is a perfectly valid point.
@@Ryan....... or me meant great-grandfather died in the civil war
I grew up in Middle Tennessee, we had lots of lessons on slavery, the slave trade, and racism when I was in elementary through High school. It wasn't until College that I found out that only about 20% of Southerners owned slaves and there were slaves used in the North too. All through grade school I thought everyone in the South back then owned slaves. I just recently read Edmund Morgan's "American Slavery, American Freedom". He says there was a pretty strong Master/servant system in the Virginia Colonies when they were first trying to establish the colonies. Mostly men and some women (white European) would sign a seven year contract to work for a Master. After seven years they were free to go and work their own land or they could sign another contract. It got to a point (I don't remember the years) where the freed servants were starting to outnumber the wealthy landowners. The wealthy landowners were always afraid of a rebellion from freed and current servants. The wealthy landowners thought it would be beneficial for them to be able to have more control over their laborers but they knew that turning them into slaves would not work because they would definitely rebel. That's when they started transitioning from servants to slaves. The Virginia colonies did not NEED slaves, to survive. That's not to say the slaves brought here did not help build this Country, but to act like this Country would have never succeeded had it not been for slaves is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. In Morgan's book, he does mention the 20 or so blacks that were brought to the Colonies in 1619 but he said there was not sufficient documentation to determine if they were in fact slaves or servants just like the white Europeans brought over.
The system in the beginning was indentured. It was the same for both black an white slaves. White an black slaves lived together, married and had children together, ran away an rebelled together. Beacons Rebellion, around 1675?)was the last Rebellion black an white slaves engaged in together. After the rebellion was put down a stradegy of divide and conquer was established to break up the natural bond and alliance black and white people had up to that point. It was from that point that it was decided going forward that free labor would only be black people. That was the beginning of a white racist system based on the concept of white supremacy.
Here's a very good article on Bacon's Rebellion.... sandiegofreepress.org/2015/02/the-origins-of-institutionalized-racism-a-system-to-control-blacks-and-whites/
No America wouldn't have survived. The brits didn't own the whole east coast. They had the french and spaniards to compete with. Wars and the cost of running a settlement caused france and spain to take losses. Because there was not enough land to produce enough crops to fund endless battles with natives, wars at home , pay a work force and still be able to send tribute to the crown and they themselves remain wealthy. The only thing that could be sacrificed was the labor. And yes whites and blacks came as indentured servants but the ruling class saw how much they accumulated from the free labor and how this kept them from succumbing to the fate of the French and Spaniards. And this is the spark that leads to slavery that leads to racism that leads to AMERICA. So to discount slavery and race is people trying to hold onto their misguided views
@@chrisdaren9994 Slavery wasn't exactly free labor, owning a slave did not come cheap, if it were, a whole lot more whites probably would have owned slaves.
@@TheDangerous123dan Yes, the wealthy Masters used White Supremacy to keep whites and blacks separate, to prevent another Bacon's rebellion.
I'm waay late to this party, ,but my premier thought is what the heck has gone on with education
I graduated HS in 1976. We learned about the enslavement of people (black, white, brown, etc.)
We learned that there were enslaved people during the colonization (though none came over on "the" Mayflower).
We learned about slavery & slave holders in the South and use of slave labor in the North.(people technically free, but...)
We learned about the 3/5ths Compromise and why it became part of the Constitution.
We learned about the Civil War and Jim Crow laws and promises made to newly freed slaves.
Growing up in the 60s & and 70s, anyone with a working brain had to see the disparities in the treatment of Black Americans.
I was educated in public school. How is it that people since then haven't been taught these things?
And, just gotta add, I wonder about the woman who claimed Gone With the Wind was part of her curriculum. If it was, the teacher was a complete idiot!
I'm deeply concerned regarding the Lady being told that Gone With The Wind was Historical Fact. Not calling her a liar but the movie had been around since 1939 and I know of no one that believed it as Historical "FACT". It is based in history but not "Fact".
Yeah that one is pretty far fetched imo
First black woman to win an Oscar: Hattie McDaniel, for Gone WithThe Wind.
Gone With The Wind is entirely fiction.
Rewriting history won’t work out well!
@curtis martin all caucasians? Whence then came the abolitionist movement? Is it your understanding that nobody high in early government or even among the founding fathers considered black people human?
@David Lentzner Never said it didn't, and that has nothing to do with what I said besides.
@David Lentzner yeah I'd agree with that. But my contention was with the statement that white people didn't consider blacks human. And as you pointed out there certainly were some. It just annoys me when people dig about a centimeter down on any subject and find something they like to repeat and go no further.
There’s no future when liars continue to tell the same lies without caring about the truth. TRUTH is an absolute it shames the demons of lies
Yes, what's done in the dark will eventually come to light.
The only absolute truth is jesys Christ!!!!! And I look forward to his return!!!!!
@@partoftheway4235 don’t think it’ll be long now
When?
@@scottwmackey
We are in that era
As a Biologist this whole conversation is annoying. Race does not exist genetically, scientifically or factually. This is why the dividing lines change with cultural norms. Those who dwell on it are bigots. While the U.S.A., UK and France did more to end slavery throughout the world then all other countries, the US seldom gets any credit.
Slavery still exists in 15 countries. Libya is the most recent one to make slavery legal again. Where is their condemnation? Thy declared since Elijah Mohammed loved Slavery nothing bad can be said of it. Slavery is still not a criminal offense in 94 countries.
So why this revisionist history? Bigots will be bigots irregardless of science or facts
Amen!
It's all Leftists have got ......
"the bigotry of low expectations" cannot be embraced!
That's the complete opposite of what's happened in the US. A white person with no skills is held in higher regard simply because of skin color. The mostly highly skilled group of Americans laborers were Black people. After Reconstruction, white folks spent 100 years trying to kill off all those black people.
??? THE BIGOTRY OF LOW EXPECTATIONS ???
??? HUH ??? THAT'S ONE OF NONSENSICAL TALKING BLAH BLAH BLAH !!!
@@anpdm1 thats a complete lie. A white person with no skills would be homeless. You think a white person with no skills would be a homeowner or have a job??
This woman is a lunatic… and is completely wrong about why people vote
@@anpdm1 I guess that’s why there are no homeless or poor white people.
I was often confused on what Leslie Harris was trying to say and the point she was trying to make..... Sounded like she was trying to take a position on one side of the argument but doesn't have a good reason why we should be on that side
you have to keep in mind most of what she said in response to john was actually directed at her base, so she was using lots of dogwhistles and referencing all of their favorite literature rather than directly addressing any of McWhorter's points. Lots of whataboutism as well. McWhorter tells us fixating on this aspect of history isn't helpful, and we're generally ignorant about history. She responds by saying yes, we're ignorant, that's why we need more fixation!
She likely was paid for her efforts a sort of Affirmative Action low expectations performance.
WW1 was the most important event in modern history and carries far larger importance than the history of slavery. School history classes just gloss right over WW1 and absolutely hammer home slavery.
The idea that we need a bunch more history focus on slavery, while more important and consequential history doesn't deserve focus is absurd to me.
100% agree. WW1 was the catalyst for the modern world. Its a shame that its glossed over because it wasn't neat and clear cut like WW2.
True. In elementary school, we studied slavery, triangular trade, all that. I admit full ignorance to how ww1 even started prior to secondary education
@bxsmash actually our primary natural resource was timber and minerals, not cotton or other agricultural goods. Said resources were disproportionately valuable due to it being the age of sail. Hamilton elaborated on this in the federal papers as being THE main reason for the revolution. We were sitting on a political and financial gold mine. The US would still have grown, particularly in light of its expansion. That said while, I agree that slavery is abhorrent, we judge historical figures based on the norms of their time. George Washington? All things considered, a solid guy. Gengis Khan? Still a bastard by his own times standard
@bxsmash I pointed to the strategic market that genuinely gave the united states its financial and political power at such a young age. I don’t recall employing “what aboutism” and your very claim can be characterized as “ommittance, anger, exaggeration, and accusation.” The argument that of slavery is Americas roots, an argument typically leads to a staked demand for financial reparations and the cultural denigration of men whose ideals planted the seeds for the end of slavery in the western world. I pay it little respect. I grant you the value of rum, however that was mostly imported into the united states. The Bahamas owned that game. Its clearer then that the threat to wallstreet was not as great as initially perceived, as they recovered nicely in spite of the Union torching its way through the south.
@bxsmash In other words...if history were different, it wouldn't be the same.
As a US history teacher, I can say from my experience I always taught from the Mezoamerica, through the Spanish Conquistadors, Native Americans, 1607, the slave trade through the true reasons for the Civil War both social which fed the economical. The contributions of many Africa-Americans. I don’t know where this isn’t being taught, except with maybe a lot of lazy Social Science teachers
The Civil War wasn’t really a Civil War. The south was not fighting for control of the government. The Civil War was really the second American revolution. We are not one country, the way, France, England, Germany, Japan, etc. our countries. We are called the United States for a reason because we are 50 autonomous Sovereign states that formed a union, and there was nothing in the constitution originally that would prevent a state from succession. Lincoln knew, and understood that which is why he suspended the supreme court, because he knew if the south sued the federal government, the federal government would probably lose. Jefferson himself predicted this what happened because of the cultural and economic differences.
Most people up north were just as racist as the south. It wasn’t even racism by our standards today. That’s what people don’t understand. People want to apply today’s morals and values with those of the past which is ridiculous. Slavery has existed as long as man has existed. Yet somehow people in America want to make this a uniquely American black versus white concept which is utterly ridiculous. Slavery is actually still widespread globally today.
The reality is Africans were used because they had the ability to withstand the heat and humidity and malaria. It had nothing to do with race. It was basic science.
Another truth is that slaves were very expensive to buy, and they were expensive to keep because you had to feed them clothe them give them shelter, maintain their health, so they could work. All of that was expensive. That’s why only a tiny percentage of people actually owned slaves, and the majority of those people had three or less and they were more like cooks and housecleaners gardeners. The reality is most people up north were not abolitionists and didn’t really care one way or the other. Slavery didn’t end up north because of morality. Slavery ended up north because immigrants were coming from Europe with nothing but the clothes on their back and they would work for pennies a day and the factory owner, or whoever hired them didn’t have to pay for their food or their clothing or their medical care, and if they got sick or got hurt, they would simply fire them and get someone else because they were people willing to work for pennies a day. That’s where the term slave wages comes from. Also, pretty much most of the newspapers up north we’re not in favor of a war. The population of North overwhelmingly was not in favor of a war.
Lincoln instigated the Civil War by sending a supply ship into Charleston harbor, knowing that it would get fired upon because that happened under Buchanan before Lincoln was inaugurated. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing, and the south fell for the trick. It gave Lincoln an excuse for being the aggressor and sending troops into the south.
The war was not about slavery. Slavery was a key point of succession, but slavery was not the reason for the war. Lincoln wanted to force the south back into the union. That’s why he instigated the war. His friend Horace Greeley wanted Lincoln to make slavery a bigger part of the war, and Lincoln responded back that if he could win the war and not free a single slave he would. That alone tells you everything you need to know.
The emancipation proclamation did not free, a single slave, and the overwhelming majority of people in America. Do not even realize that there were states that remained in the union that had legal slavery during the entire Civil War. Slavery did not end until six months after the war, with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. One of them ended slavery the other Actually did make it unconstitutional or legally much more difficult for a state to secede. So the southerners were not traitors the white people like to claim, but the people in California that want to secede they would be traitors because of the changes made to the constitution.
Everything people I thought about Lincoln and the Civil War is a lie a fabrication or miss representation. Lincoln is considered a great president when he’s actually the first president to crap all over the constitution. He suspended habeas corpus he suspended a Supreme Court he put politicians to disagreed with him in jail on and on and on. Lincoln is a far left wing progressives wet dream of a president. The left in America today can only dream of crapping on the constitution. The way Lincoln did. Academics do not dispute this. They simply say the ends justify the means or that he did it for the right reasons. I’m pretty sure every single founding father would vehemently disagree with that. Shitting on the Constitution to save the Constitution is patently absurd that’s exactly what Lincoln did.
Having been a high school teacher of US history and the constitution here in Florida I found that some teachers at different schools here in Florida and around the country have lost consistency in US history and the constitution. Now many states and many teacher's have moved away from teaching true Us history and also distort the teaching of the constitution. We desperately need to get back to teaching the facts with out any distortions.
I really have a hard time believing that school teachers she spoke to did not "know" about the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Sure some schools in the south maybe decided not to teach it but don't claim the teachers didn't know it. I find that hard to believe.
I live in Texas and my kids' school books are FULL of info about slavery, the civil rights struggle, and abolition. Their fiction stars people of many different races and backgrounds. This is in the deep south lol.
You know they know of the TAST, only an ignorant fool would say that.
It’s not hard to believe right now schools have curriculum teaching black students about hitler and Jews. Why is that more important than the trans Atlantic slave trade.
I strongly agree. I've been bombarded with the history of slavery ever since I stepped into school 68 years ago. I can't believe that somebody didn't hear about it. I can't give her part of the conversation any credit at all because I think she was just making s*** up. I think McWhorter said that in his own way when he said that what she said was "not his experience". I've used that. What it really means is "you're full of **it.", But because he has too much dignity to use those terms and doesn't want to completely destroy the other person, he doesn't say that
Brilliant back and forth by two intelligent, thoughtful, yet polite people!
I wonder if the moderator, having been educated in a Catholic school, was taught about all the anti-Catholic rhetoric etc. of the late 1800's. There was rum, Romanism and rebellion, anti Papacy etc. Catholics in some places were not allowed to attend public schools.
Why is there no mention of the French Indian was that resulted in the Stamp Act which ultimately caused the revolutionary war. If the French would have won I doubt if there would even be a 1619 project.
Im white and from Tulsa and we were taught about the trans Atlantic slave trade and of course we knew about slavery in the south. But I admit there are suppositions about the Tulsa race riots. I mean there are accounts of there being quite less black people killed than is guessed at and there were actually more white people killed. I do know it is a fact that black men shot first and it is reported on the news things like they think they found mass black graves but the problem is they are excavating a cemetery.
Not that I don't feel for what black slaves had to endure but I also look at the sacrifice they made for future generations. I personally believe most of them would have been glad their future generations would have so much more opportunity and freedom here than anywhere else in the world!
We have grown leaps and bounds and I personally don't want to see that growth either retarded or actually even decline!
Isn't kind of funny that people only talk about slaves from African decent. Slavery was common practice for thousands of years. Also funny how the 1619 doesn't talk about rival tribes in Africa selling captured people to the dutch and English
People usually refer to the Atlantic slave trade because it’s justification was different and it was much worse. Slaves were treated less then animals in the Atlantic slave trade and people only captured blacks and they believed they were inferior to the white race. And yes slavery has been taking place for thousands of years way before the Atlantic slave trade started and even after it. But for the most part slaves outside the Atlantic slave trade were treated better and were offered freedoms much sooner. And it wasn’t based on a race idea. Like in Egypt slaves did more housework and labor was saved more for poor Egyptian
They never mention the Arab slave trade either?
@@amoebavirus1508 I think your failing to understand the point why would they teach about the Arab slave trade in America schools? About American history? Also the Atlantic slave trade was much much worse then the Arab even though the Arab one was like serval times longer
@@umaryusuf537 History starts at source not just cherry picking the highlights.
@@amoebavirus1508 your still not understanding the point. If you learn about American history you won’t start all the way back with the Stone Age you start with the discovery of the Americas. Unless your talking about world history taught in school then they do teach slavery happens in other parts of the world. But it still doesn’t change the fact that Atlantic slavery was one of the worst type of slavery probably the worst type.
There is no way that any college student in the US doesn't have any foundational education about slavery. If so, they weren't paying attention in high school history classes. This argument is completely disingenuous.
The argument is sound . For example most new Yorkers dont know much about slavery in New York
@@fabbeyonddadancer Sure, a lot of people may not know particular details about any one place but nobody who was paying attention in high school history anywhere in the US any time in the last 40 years doesn't have a foundational knowledge about slavery.
The argument is the epitome of disingenuous. "The system" is "covering up the truth". Nah. Having been in the education profession myself, it just doesn't wash.
@Timothy Somerville Avoided by whom and to what purpose?
@Timothy Somerville Given what you are putting in quotes, I'm not sure if this is a serious or sarcastic reply. Hard to tell on the net these days.
@@robinbeers6689 I would say even foundational basic is not completely grasp .
If what Dr Harris claimed in her opening statement was true and was what the 1619 Project was attempting then this discussion wouldn’t have happened. It wouldn’t have happened because no reasonable person would dismiss 1619 as a significant date, an important milestone like many others in US history. It would have been a fairly uncontroversial attempt to focus on a moment that you could argue is somewhat overlooked in the path of American history.
But it wasn’t the Project’s aim, as JMcW pointed out.
It seems to a bit of Motte & Bailey argument, given that any credible scholar must know that what NHJ is claiming doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
A milestone never emphasized in the textbooks is the acquisition of the slave trade monopoly by England after Queen Anne’s war in 1713. Hard living conditions in the colonies, and the decimation of the indians by disease had made laborers scarce in the colonies. But after a hundred years the British peoples had learned to acclimate to the New World. The lifespans of blacks as well whites became to increased after 1713 and a great population boom occurred. Slave importation increased but natural increase more. After 1750, its became something of a burden for the Cheasapeake colonies, although even more necessary for the colonies in the South. In the North it began to fade away. the net effect, however was that by 1776, a fifth of the population was black.
As Thomas Sowell points out, slavery was common place in the world for thousands of years prior to 1619. It’s not that we had slavery. It’s that we, along with the British, ENDED slavery around the world.
So, I guess it’s alright to be a slave then; since everybody does it!!! Maybe you’re volunteering for the position???
I am 40 years old and I remember the day we talked about the slave ship Amistad in history class, must have been 2nd or 3rd grade. There was only one black kid in my class, a kid named Jordan, I remember the way he ducked his head in shame during the whole lesson. It was so painful because we were just little kids five minutes before but after that it felt like there was an unmovable ocean suddenly between us. Like he saw differently and we probably did too. But either way we were all just stained by something none of us had done to each other. I think that shit is so sad. Maybe we should have framed it in a wider discussion about the history of Slavery. Romans enslaving Celts for hundreds of years etc.. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss our past mistakes, but should we be approaching it in this way?
The presentation of the material was done poorly in your case. The lesson of atrocious events that shape society shouldn't make people feel guilt or shame. It's an acknowledgement of the way those events have moved society to where it is today. If any feelings are to be had it should lead to collective appreciation of how far we can go and not to how wrong we have been. You at 7 or 8yrs old should not have had the feeling of separation from Jordan and he should not have been made to feel shame. Your teacher did your class a disservice then.
I think if you are going to teach slavery in it's entirety....you have to teach slavery from it's the beginning in the Cradle of Civilization. Slaves were spoils of war and how empires grew economically. Everything was done by hard labor.
I've never heard before that anyone watched Gone With The Wind and thought it was a historical documentary. I don't think one student believing that is significant.
Nowadays They watch "Get Out" and call it history.
Gone with the Wind was used in classrooms as a historical film until the late 60's. Images of the film was in my high school text book into the late 70's.
Yeah, it’s one ancedote. Truly insignificant.
You can't learn about history without learning about slavery because slavery was a major part of the building of America.