Tango01 | 08 Feb 2020 10:12 p.m. PST |
"Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership. When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
42flanker | 09 Feb 2020 12:47 a.m. PST |
|
skipper John | 09 Feb 2020 9:58 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 09 Feb 2020 3:33 p.m. PST |
|
Dn Jackson | 09 Feb 2020 11:40 p.m. PST |
What do you expect? It's written by Howard Zinn. He gives 'drivel' a bad name. |
doc mcb | 10 Feb 2020 6:21 a.m. PST |
Howard Zinn is a very dishonest "historian". |
Au pas de Charge | 10 Feb 2020 8:11 a.m. PST |
Howard Zinn is a very dishonest "historian". Oh I know what you mean, dishonest historians are the worst. But is he as dishonest as Dinesh D'Souza?:
link |
Dn Jackson | 11 Feb 2020 12:36 a.m. PST |
What has D'Souza got to do with a discussion about Zinn? |
Au pas de Charge | 11 Feb 2020 10:16 a.m. PST |
What has D'Souza got to do with a discussion about Zinn? People were saying that Zinn is dishonest and drivel and because I dont think I have ever encountered Zinn, for comparison sake, I thought I would try to see where Zinn falls on the "dirtbag historian" scale. In terms of criminally dishonest, flimsy, historical fabrication, D'Souza is the gold standard, thus I wanted to see if Zinn were as bad as that. |
Virginia Tory | 18 Feb 2020 10:50 a.m. PST |
"Oh I know what you mean, dishonest historians are the worst. But is he as dishonest as Dinesh D'Souza?:" Not even close. The scary thing is they actually use Zinn to teach undergrads. D'Souza people can take him or leave him. He's not being foisted on students like Zinn and the Plan 1619 from Outer Space garbage. |
Anton Ryzbak | 19 Feb 2020 12:23 a.m. PST |
Zinn is both a liar and an incompetent historian, he has an inexhaustible capacity to draw the wrong conclusion from any set of facts. The fact that he has been pounded into the heads of the last two decades of college students accounts for the historical illiteracy of even "history grads". D'Souza is a paragon of clarity and honesty by comparison. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Feb 2020 5:26 a.m. PST |
…the Plan 1619 from Outer Space garbage. Could you explain what this is please? Howard Zinn was an avowed Marxist and to my mind he is not a credible historian. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Feb 2020 5:30 a.m. PST |
D'Souza is a right-wing radical and is also a convicted felon. He deserves to be ignored, as does Zinn. |
Au pas de Charge | 19 Feb 2020 1:27 p.m. PST |
I dont know much about Zinn but it is a sad state of affairs that enthusiasts like us have to contend with such dishonest and whimsical historians; especially when it is hard enough trying to sort out what actually happened in the first place! |
Bill N | 19 Feb 2020 2:41 p.m. PST |
That we on this forum have to contend with them does not bother me much. Many here have the knowledge, the access to resources and the willingness that they will readily determine the true worth of the views expressed by the likes of Zinn and D'Souza. What concerns me is that people like these guys get traction out in the general population where the knowledge level is lower, or where people may accept them as gospel simply because it confirms their own biases. |
Pan Marek | 19 Feb 2020 2:56 p.m. PST |
Brechtel- The NYT has been running a series of articles about slavery, under the title "1619". 1619 being the year in which the first African slaves were brought to the 13 colonies. Some people are upset about this series. I don't know why. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Feb 2020 4:00 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the information. I don't know why people are upset either-seems like if it's historical and accurate, it should be both talked and written about. When I was teaching US history my classes certainly discussed the issue and the date. The NYT are advertising it on television also. link |
Brechtel198 | 19 Feb 2020 4:03 p.m. PST |
the Plan 1619 from Outer Space garbage. Well, VT, first you mislabel the project and then you refuse to answer questions about it. That's about as ahistorical as you can get. See the link for the correct title: link |
Virginia Tory | 20 Feb 2020 10:09 a.m. PST |
Nope. You want answers? Read up on it yourself. It's garbage. Look at the critics. Not exactly nobodies. Indeed, they are acknowledged experts in the field of US history. link |
Virginia Tory | 20 Feb 2020 10:12 a.m. PST |
But wait, there's more--in a place I wouldn't have expected. link |
Au pas de Charge | 20 Feb 2020 12:47 p.m. PST |
Alright so some historians dont like some of the details used by some of the Project 1619 authors. Is this an example of when white professors ignore black contributions or cover up white motives for generations it's "right and proper" and when some black professors write some history that contains some social stretches it's suddenly an outrage? American blacks are very scarred and obsessed by slavery/racism which can inflate the import they give to motives and reasons. I dont see this as much more of a problem than when whites dismiss minority issues as both boring and unimportant…or inconvenient. Incidentally, Newt Gingrich calling something a lie is rather like a homeless guy calling something dirty. And if it annoys him, then I support the 1619 project.
|
Brechtel198 | 20 Feb 2020 1:57 p.m. PST |
Nope. You want answers? Read up on it yourself. It's garbage. Look at the critics. Not exactly nobodies. Indeed, they are acknowledged experts in the field of US history. But wait, there's more--in a place I wouldn't have expected. All well and good. Everyone and anyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. The problem I had with your posting is that you did not name the 'project' properly so that I could google it. Was that a deliberate misrepresentation? |
Au pas de Charge | 09 May 2020 8:07 a.m. PST |
Wow link Newt Gingrich must be rolling around in his grave. |
doc mcb | 09 May 2020 8:37 a.m. PST |
The 1619 Project is bad history. The Pulitzer is political. |
Au pas de Charge | 09 May 2020 8:43 a.m. PST |
Everything seems to be political these days. What does that have to do with a much sought after award? It's an award for excellence, not objectivity. And something isn't "bad history" just because you say so. Got anything to back that up that isnt also political in nature?
|
Virginia Tory | 09 May 2020 9:44 a.m. PST |
Zinn is far worse than D'Souza. |
Au pas de Charge | 09 May 2020 11:10 a.m. PST |
Well considering D'Souza is a 100% dishonest felon, that's saying something about Zinn |
greenknight4 | 09 May 2020 2:11 p.m. PST |
Amicalement Armand Do you ever take a break from posting? |
doc mcb | 09 May 2020 2:15 p.m. PST |
Minipigs, the 1619 project has been extensively critiqued by top historians. Google is your friend. |
Au pas de Charge | 10 May 2020 9:51 a.m. PST |
Yes, I see it has some detractors but it is still some observations from a little heard voice. If historians dont like it, they are free to rebut the findings. Like I said, it's a journalistic approach to a little covered historical subject matter and not an objective, clerical approach. Maybe it should spark a wave of reconstruction and analysis of what happened. McPherson makes some great points but where was McPherson when, for example, Newt Gingrich and other fanatical catholics whipped up that dishonest fantasy that the nation was never meant to separate church and state? Im not saying it is on the same level because these 1619 authors won Pulitzer prizes and Newt is in hiding like a "Crypt keeper"-esque pariah. However, i didnt see as much outrage over that self serving fabrication which is more of a danger to the history of the country than the idea that preserving slavery might have been the primary impulse to separate from Britain. At least there is some truth to the idea that certain colonial elements feared Britain's interference with slavery as opposed to the complete fabrications of the Gingrich/D'Souza methane machine. I also have to chuckle though at this criticism of the project by the NY Post, a newspaper who's byline could be "By people who cant write, for people who cant read" link I would love to see the drooling, "dumb and dumber" curriculum the NY Post would like to create for America's universities. |
Brechtel198 | 10 May 2020 10:12 a.m. PST |
MP, I completely agree with you. Perhaps it is just innate prejudice that can't stand articles/projects such as these. I recall in the Movie '1776' near the beginning when a vote was being taken in the Congress to debate the subject of independence, the Rhode Island representative when called during the roll call vote, replied that there was nothing that shouldn't be debated or talked about-or words to that effect. And as far as I can see, Newt Gingrich is no historian, but a novelist. And I don't care for Victor Davis Hanson's work either. |
Au pas de Charge | 10 May 2020 10:37 a.m. PST |
Hi Brechtel, How are you? I hope you and yours are keeping healthy and safe? "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray It's a set of author's using some shock and hyperbole to get us discussing a little examined and much avoided topic. I dont think McPherson owes anyone an apology but some of the other author's need to set the record straight instead of "just" critiquing. And perhaps they will and make the robust debate that much more…well, robust. I remember that when quite young, due to my begging, my mother bought me the Blandford Color series book on the American Revolution Uniforms. There were black soldiers illustrated in the book and my mind revolted (pun intended) at the idea that there were black people in the revolution. Everyone knew that this was impossible. Where I had gotten that idea, I cannot tell you. There was no letter stating that black people never participated and no conspiracy i wiretapped that said "we need to keep mention to Minipigs of any black people out of the revolution" and yet, everyone knew it was the case. American history was white. It took me a while but I saw that "I" was the problem and that it was time to do my own research rather than accept the tacit "white washing" (pun intended) of American American Revolutionary illustrators.
Of course now variety is the spice of life but I cant stop remembering that back then, the idea of black soldiers helping in the revolution was offensive. It seemed important to me then; I couldnt explain why that was the case now. Thus, kudos to that British publication to open up my mind to investigate the truth which might have taken me much longer to stumble upon. It taught me not to have a callow, knee jerk reaction to something I didnt like and pretend that my emotions and prejudices were the same as facts and responsible analysis of the events as they occurred. Analyses which necessarily include deducing intentions even in the absence of a "smoking gun". Similarly, this 1619 project will cause people to look at things differently and do their own research on a much glossed over and inconvenient element of our history. |
Brechtel198 | 10 May 2020 2:22 p.m. PST |
Hi MP, We're all safe and healthy in the household including the three dogs. The discussion/debate on the subject most certainly need to be robust-too much gets ignored to my mind. And yes it is agenda driven and there is hyperbole involved. The author, though is a graduate of Notre Dame University as well as Chapel Hill/UNC. And more research does need to be done. And to many people it is an 'inconvenient' chapter to US history. I remember in the not-too-distant past the furor over the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings issue. She was the half-sister of Jefferson's dead wife, so what does that tell us? I also remember when my family and I went to Montecello when I was in the 5th grade in 1964. Taking the tour of the house there was a portrait big as life of Sally Hemmings in the foyer of the house. I wonder where it ended up? Too many people get upset over things they shouldn't and that hampers the study of history. Be safe and be well. |
doc mcb | 11 May 2020 8:40 a.m. PST |
On separation of church and state: that was an Enlightenment cause, and thta part of the Revolution that was informed by the Enlightenment (e.g. jefferson) subscribed to it. But First Amendment only forbad a nATIONAL established church (because they'd never have been able to agree on which one). States could and did keep established churches for decades. So as usual, it in COMPLICATED. |
Bill N | 11 May 2020 10:56 a.m. PST |
"Like I said, it's a journalistic approach to a little covered historical subject matter and not an objective, clerical approach." That sounds more like a condemnation of the current state of American journalism than a defense of the series. It is undoubtedly true that past American histories have ignored much and the full story should be told. What I find objectionable about historical revisionism isn't the idea of telling the full story, but rather the replacement of one historical myth with another myth. |
Brechtel198 | 11 May 2020 2:00 p.m. PST |
That depends on which type of revisionism you are referring to. There are two, one legitimate and the other not. If new historical material comes to light on a particular subject or subjects, that is valid revionism, changing material in the light of new material. On the other and more sinister side, publishing material that negates what is proven and accepted that negates it without doing the research and changing the historical record to fit an agenda of any type is revisionism of the work kind. To which are you referring? |
Brechtel198 | 11 May 2020 2:02 p.m. PST |
All of the Founders were children of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, not just Jefferson. Which states kept established churches? And what do you mean by that? In general, all churches that are organized are 'established.' Do you mean that they were sponsored by individual states and the citizens of those states were forced to worship in that specific religion? link |
Bill N | 11 May 2020 10:39 p.m. PST |
My comment about historical revisionism generally long predates the 1619 project. In looking at the letter from the Civil War scholars to the New York Times I was struck by their own similar language: "The remedy for past historical oversights is not their replacement by modern oversights." That applies not just to the 1619 project. It applies to Zinn's article as well. To answer your question Kevin, I believe Connecticut had an official state religion until after the War of 1812. Not sure if any others survived longer. |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 3:55 a.m. PST |
Massachusetts had an established church until thw 1820s, iirc. |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 3:58 a.m. PST |
"History is what the present finds useful to remember about the past." So as the present changes, so will its view of the past. This is normal as well as unavoidable. |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 4:04 a.m. PST |
"All the Founders were children of the Enlightenment and Age of reason, not just Jefferson." Oh my. No. Or if yes, then only in the sense that the Enlightenment was going on while they were alive. The decades before the political revolution -- 1740s and 50s -- saw the first Great Awakening, which was to a great extent a reaction AGAINST the Enlightenment -- and split the colonies down the middle, internally. Then, as soon as the political revolution was resolved, the SECOND Great Awakening breaks out. It would be hard to argue that the political revolution, being framed by those powerful religious movements which were reactions against Enlightenment rationalism, was somehow influenced only by Reason. That is not even close to being so. McClay's LAND OF HOPE does a good job (for a short text) on the religious dimensions of 18th century America. |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 4:07 a.m. PST |
"Esstablished" means government, taxpayer supported. In Virginia, as a typical example, the Anglican church handled all of the widows-and-orphans types of assistance for the government. The Anglican priest for the county could preach freely; others required his permission. (This occasioned some fierce controversies during the 1st GA.) |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 4:10 a.m. PST |
Jefferson the deist was widely accused of atheism during his life. He is probably the LEAST typical of the Founders in terms of religious views. |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 4:42 a.m. PST |
Ben Franklin the deist admired greatly, and was friends with, George Whitefield, the great evangelist. It is COMPLICATED, and you have to immerse yourself in the writing of the period to get any real idea of HOW complicated. |
doc mcb | 12 May 2020 4:47 a.m. PST |
Whitefield preached to many thousands of people in all the colonies over an extended period. The Great Awakening Comes to Weathersfield, Connecticut: Nathan Cole's Spiritual Travels In the 1730s and 1740s many rural folk rejected the enlightened and rational religion that came from the cosmopolitan pulpits and port cities of British North America. Instead, they were attracted to the evangelical religious movement that became known as the Great Awakening. The English Methodist George Whitefield and other itinerant ministers ignited this popular movement with their speaking tours of the colonies. In this account farmer Nathan Cole described hearing the news of Whitefield's approach to his Connecticut town, as fields emptied and the populace converged: "I saw no man at work in his field, but all seemed to be gone. " Like many others during the Great Awakening, Cole achieved an eventual conversation by focusing not on intellectual issues but on emotional experience. Cole took away an egalitarian message about the spiritual equality of all before God, a message that confronted established authorities. "Now it pleased God to send Mr. Whitefield into this land; and my hearing of his preaching at Philadelphia, like one of the Old apostles, and many thousands flocking to hear him preach the Gospel, and great numbers were converted to Christ; I felt the Spirit of God drawing me by conviction, longed to see and hear him, and wished he would come this way. And I soon heard he was come to New York and the Jerseys and great multitudes flocking after him under great concern for their Souls and many converted which brought on my concern more and more hoping soon to see him but next I heard he was at Long Island, then at Boston, and next at Northampton. Then one morning all on a Sudden, about 8 or 9 o'clock there came a messenger and said Mr. Whitefield preached at Hartford and Weathersfield yesterday and is to preach at Middletown this morning [October 23, 1740] at ten of the Clock. I was in my field at Work. I dropt my tool that I had in my hand and ran home and run through my house and bade my wife get ready quick to go and hear Mr. Whitefield preach at Middletown, and run to my pasture for my horse with all my might fearing that I should be too late to hear him. I brought my horse home and soon mounted and took my wife up and went forward as fast as I thought the horse could bear, and when my horse began to be out of breath, I would get down and put my wife on the Saddle and bid her ride as fast as she could and not Stop or Slack for me except I bad her, and so I would run until I was much out of breath, and then mount my horse again, and so I did several times to favour my horse, we improved every moment to get along as if we were fleeing for our lives, all the while fearing we should be too late to hear the Sermon, for we had twelve miles to ride double in little more than an hour and we went round by the upper housen parish. And when we came within about half a mile of the road that comes down from Hartford Weathersfield and Stepney to Middletown; on high land I saw before me a Cloud or fogg rising. I first thought it came from the great river [Connecticut River], but as I came nearer the Road, I heard a noise something like a low rumbling thunder and presently found it was the noise of horses feet coming down the road and this Cloud was a Cloud of dust made by the Horses feet. It arose some Rods into the air over the tops of the hills and trees and when I came within about 20 rods of the Road, I could see men and horses Sliping along in the Cloud like shadows, and as I drew nearer it seemed like a steady stream of horses and their riders, scarcely a horse more than his length behind another, all of a lather and foam with sweat, their breath rolling out of their nostrils in the cloud of dust every jump; every horse seemed to go with all his might to carry his rider to hear news from heaven for the saving of Souls. It made me tremble to see the Sight, how the world was in a Struggle, I found a vacance between two horses to Slip in my horse; and my wife said law our cloaths will be all spoiled see how they look, for they were so covered with dust, that they looked almost all of a colour coats, hats, and shirts and horses. We went down in the Stream; I heard no man speak a word all the way three miles but every one pressing forward in great haste and when we got to the old meeting house there was a great multitude; it was said to be 3 or 4000 of people assembled together, we got off from our horses and shook off the dust, and the ministers were then coming to the meeting house. I turned and looked towards the great river and saw the ferry boats running swift forward and forward bringing over loads of people; the oars rowed nimble and quick, every thing men horses and boats seemed to be struggling for life; the land and banks over the river looked black with people and horses all along the 12 miles. I saw no man at work in his field, but all seemed to be gone. When I saw Mr. Whitefield come upon the Scaffold he looked almost angelical, a young, slim slender youth before some thousands of people with a bold undaunted countenance, and my hearing how God was with him every where as he came along it solumnized my mind, and put me into a trembling fear before he began to preach; for he looked as if he was Cloathed with authority from the Great God, and a sweet solemn solemnity sat upon his brow. And my hearing him preach gave me a heart wound; by Gods blessing my old foundation was broken up, and I saw that my righteousness would not save me; then I was convinced of the doctrine of Election and went right to quarrelling with God about it, because all that I could do would not save me; and he had decreed from Eternity who should be saved and who not. Source: George Leon Walker, Some Aspects of the Religious Life of New England (New York: Silver, Burnett, and Company, 1897), 89–92. |
Tango01 | 12 May 2020 12:50 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement Armand
|
Brechtel198 | 14 May 2020 6:00 a.m. PST |
The Founders (and that isn't everyone in the colonies during the period) based their beliefs, political and philosophical, on the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason as stated in the Declaration of Indepdence, and this continued through the writing and passing of the Constitution and the founding principles of the American republic. To deny that is to ignore the lessons of the Founders and the basis of what they wanted to accomplish. |
doc mcb | 14 May 2020 6:56 a.m. PST |
link You haven't addressed my point about the Revolution being framed by the Great Awakenings. No question that Enlightenment rationalism was a major influence, and dominant in some Founders like Jefferson. It should be pointed out that the revolution was mainly political, and so Christians could be relatively indifferent to the decisions reached as long as religious freedom was guaranteed. The Bible doesn't give much guidance about uni- or bicameral legislatures, or how long a representative should serve. But to the extent that the Revolution was more than just political, it was based on Christian beliefs and values. Again, those were not seen as being direly threatened; a conservative revolution. |
doc mcb | 14 May 2020 6:58 a.m. PST |
To deny that is to ignore the lessons of the Founders and the basis of what they wanted to accomplish. I'm interested in what you see as those lessons, and what they wanted to accomplish? Are you speaking of republican virtue? |
doc mcb | 14 May 2020 7:00 a.m. PST |
|