"1619 rightly understood" Topic

link

This is a review of "David Hackett Fischer's magnificent and deeply researched new book, ­African Founders, which in a saner and better climate than the present one would be the starting point for any reflection on the enduring African ­influence on the formation of American national ideals. In a saner climate, too, this book would be at the center of our national discussion, for it is manifestly one of the most important works of history published in the past twenty-five years."

I'll definitely order this one from an acknowledged historian who whose work is far superior to that of the author of the 1619 project.

Kevin, yes. ALBION'S SEED is a great work. Bill McClay does a lot with DuBois' essay on Negro Spirituals in the Teachers Guide and the Student Workbook to his LAND OF HOPE. We include primary documents with each chapter and were having a hard time choosing something for the chapter on slavery. What he ended up using was the lyrics to three or four of the spirituals together with DuBois' analysis. (Which in turn inspired me: in the new YOUNG READER'S edition there are/will be songs of the western movement, the "Hunters of Kentucky", Civil War songs including a contrast of Battle Hymn and Dixie, railroading songs, songs of boom and bust, and songs of the Sixties. (This is aimed at middle school.)

I'm reading African Founders now. It's much more complete than 1619 and provides context across the board. It does a much better job of showing African contributions to America.

Essentially African Founders is a mirror to the author's book, Albion's Seed. Albion's Seed tracks the regions in the UK from which our original thirteen colonies were created, and discusses how they transplanted those cultures into the various regions making up the original United States and how they affected the development of our nation.

African Founders essentially does the same thing. Fischer identifies the regions in Africa from which African slaves came and to which colonial regions they went. He examines the different regions of the US and from where they received slaves. In some cases, different regions preferred slaves from specific regions. Fischer also looks at how the two cultures affected each other and developed.

Fischer also does a better job of showing how Africans contributed to America without descending into a glorification of victimhood.

If you really have an interest, I'd read both books, starting with Albion's Seed. But you have to be devoted. Fischer has a more academic writing style and a much better handle on factual methodology than the 1619 project.

Yes. The problem for educators is that in a survey course, or in a single chapter in a textbook, it is only possible to give highlights -- and of course summaries are exceedingly difficult to write' it is too easy to misrepresent or to unbalance opposing factors, etc. Both these are works I would want the teacher to have read -- good luck with THAT -- and then try to give students just the key points and maybe enough to tempt them to read further on their own.

A former prof always said a short book is much harder to write than a long one. BUT the best book to read was a short one in which a master historian, who knows everything about his subject, compresses it down to "just the good stuff."

A former prof always said a short book is much harder to write than a long one. BUT the best book to read was a short one in which a master historian, who knows everything about his subject, compresses it down to "just the good stuff."

This the truth!

It's much more complete than 1619…

I'm shocked…😁

Fischer also does a better job of showing how Africans contributed to America without descending into a glorification of victimhood.

Fischer is a historian, where the author of the 1619 project is not-at least she does not appear to be.

Fischer has a more academic writing style and a much better handle on factual methodology than the 1619 project.

Fischer knows what he's talking about and has done the research. The 1619 Project is agenda-driven, not research-driven. Historical Inquiry was obviously not employed…

Civil War songs including a contrast of Battle Hymn and Dixie…

'Dixie' was used by both sides of the argument, which is interesting…

Yes, the 1619 project was done by an activist/journalist.

As to Dixie, we use the story of Lincoln declaring it one of his favorites and asking the band to play it, just after the fall of Richmond, saying the Attorney General had assured him that it was fairly captured and a lawful prize.

AFter giving both songs' lyrics: (This will be in the Student Workbook and teacher's Guide.)

Contrasting the "Battle Hymn" and "Dixie"

Both songs were written by white northerners, and both refer to African-Americans, slaves, in some manner. Dixie, performed originally as part of a black-face minstrel show, is from the perspective of a slave, but the object of ridicule is a white woman ("Old Missus") who acts foolishly out of love. Yet the song was instantly and widely accepted by the white south as its own. Why?

In the Battle Hymn, the only direct references to slaves are "contemners" (third verse) and "to make men free" (last verse). "Contemn" means to treat or regard with contempt and "contemner" is an archaic noun form, which here seems to mean those held in contempt, i.e. the lowly. It is not clear whether the "serpent" (the evil one in the temptation of Eve in Genesis) refers to slavery or to secession; it may well be both. It is indeed a hymn, asserting a Heavenly purpose in the war, to bring judgement and retribution to evil-doers.

Dixie is humorous in tone and might be termed unserious, contrasting sharply with the Battle Hymn in those respects. What is there in it that would make Dixie suitable as a "national anthem" (if that is what it was)? (Answer: the chorus is what matters; it is a celebration of home and the defense of home: In Dixie's Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.)