Great conversation as always. I have to respectfully disagree with Rajiv regarding the 1619 project. It seems to me that with India, there was an established culture that was Indian. There was an Indian people. The British came along and controlled that culture for some time, and maybe influenced it, but after India became independent, it was still India and the Indian people.
What happened, I believe, with America was the British and Dutch creating colonies in the so called new world. They disrupted and displaced Native American people, although they certainly lived alongside them for some time before that.
The war for independence was that of British people living on land as British people, but who no longer wanted to be British people and instead created America people. That point in time happened in 1776 not 1619. In 1619 it was still British and Dutch colonists living in new land but as British and Dutch people.
America was born because they no longer wanted to be part of the British rule. American people aren’t a people like Japanese etc, it’s not a homogeneous society. To paraphrase the great Victor Davis Hason: you can move to Japan but you’ll never be Japanese. You can move to France but you’ll never be French. But you can move to America and become American, because to be American is to subscribe to a set of ideas and principals that unite us. The more tribal we become, the less like citizens of a nation we become, and more like different people that just happen to share a land.
Completely different situation than that of India or many other nations, in my opinion
You realize though, that at the time it was not a consensus view to want to leave British rule. Some people did, some didn’t, some didn’t have an opinion. Wealthy land owners, with the most to gain or lose, as I understand it made the choice. I think a problem in your thinking is to say anything about “America” or “Americans” as though there was ever a time where everyone agreed. Some people learn that our country was founded on a search for religious liberty, when that is clearly and probably not the case. Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement, settled in 1607, and was a for profit venture. That doesn’t negate that many people did come to America in the 1600s for religious freedom, or more specifically to try to set up religious utopias. They are both our origin story. Mass immigration for free land or for work opportunities that happened later are also part of our origin story. I don’t see any reason why *one* origin story of the country can’t be told through the lens of slavery, it was certainly an important element of our story.
I think the saying about moving to America and becoming American is also a mixed bag. Some people for sure think that. Others do not. I can recall an uncle being upset at me being friends with someone with an Italian last name, because Italians are not white (and thus not *really* American). You can say that is not a common belief, and you may be right, but I do think saying “Americans believe” is pretty fraught.
The 1600s to 1776 is quite a long time to pass without a new and separate culture developing. Maybe not the thousands for years that India had… but it is something.
Great reply! I agree with almost everything you said. Where I differ slightly, and this may be a simple matter of definition more than anything else, is that I don’t believe we have to teach about the birth of America through a lens of slavery. I do however believe it’s important to teach about slave, warts and all.
What I mean by this is that to teach it through that lens, which is why I dislike the 1619 project, is to be much more narrowly focused and therefore skew the context. I’m from the Thomas Sowell school of thought on this, and I believe it’s important to maintain a greater context when discussing slavery, and indeed the birth of America.
If you look at it the 1619 project way, you say that slavery was how America was founded, and that we stole the land from the indigenous people. Therefore Americans, and in particular white Americans, are bad people.
If you look it from a broader perspective you say slavery is a blight upon the human race, but you acknowledge that every race on earth has enslaved every race on earth. It was so commonplace that it wasn’t even a moral question at the time. In fact, as people like Sowell, and Shelby Steele point out, what made America so unique wasn’t that it had slaves, it’s that it was one of the first countries to abolish it. We fought a huge war over it after all.
If what you mean is to teach slavery as being one aspect of many that make up the whole picture of Americas birth and growth then I am 100% on board with that. If you mean like some seem to, that we should make slavery the most important focal point and ignore historical context, then that’s what I have issue with
I don’t actually think we’re in disagreement at all. I think that as long as proper world context is given then teach all aspects. My only issue with that 1619 is that most people are ignorant of history and when things begin at that year, they assume that slavery was a uniquely American problem, when we all know it wasn’t.
I think that matters because there are a lot of people on that side of the discussion who hate America. Perhaps with some expanded historical knowledge (and knowing that slavery still happens in the world today) would let them understand that nowhere is perfect.
I think the problem is that a lot of school systems don’t teach about slavery. And others over do it. Students from both think they learned the “real” history. I went to high school in Virginia, and college in Indiana. When we talked about the founding (they never learned about Jamestown) or the Civil war (they had some caricatures of the south) it was clear that we learned very different things. They learned very simple, what I would call white washed, versions of history. I took advanced classes, if I hadn’t who knows what I would have learned? I read an article ( I think in the Atlantic) by a history professor at UT Austin that a fair chunk of his (or her?) students didn’t know anything about slavery. I think a lot of these debates are based on people not really talking about the same thing!
As for hating America, I have been accused of that, personally. I don’t think that’s a fair way to characterize anyone (at least that I have ever met). If you agree that our history is one of perpetual conflict between forces, then everyone “hates” about half of our history. For example, I was against the Iraq war in 2003 and was perpetually called AntiAmerican. With perspective, that wasn’t in fact anti anything, except wasting money and lives on a mission that probably wasn’t winnable. I am distressed at the way my kids starting in middle school have become cynical about the US, with the oppressor language… however, they are young and have little perspective. In elementary school, the education is pretty whitewashed and gung ho American, I see it as a backlash to that. It is another example of battling narratives. I think we’d be better served with more neutral facts and context, and less opinion/judgement/narrative.
I’m talking specifically about the people who are burning American flags, chanting “death to America” and claiming American is systematically racist and irreparably broken
Well, fair enough. I’ve never met any of flag burning, death to America types. (Although flag code says to burn, or bury, a flag if it is destroyed and that is supposedly the origin of burning the flag as a protest). But claiming America is systemically racist and irreparably broken is pretty common in liberal circles. It doesn’t mean they hate America, it means they are disappointed in the difference between their idealistic view of America and their observed reality of it. They just want America to do better… I have heard the same (obviously not about systemic racism, instead systemic fraud, deep state, administrative state, etc) from right-wingers when they perceived that they were out of power or that the system was acting against their perceived interests.
I (potentially) agree that a lot of the rhetoric is kind of disconnected from reality…
Okay. I think you are coming from a completely defensible position. Personally, I wish we taught history with less “narrative” because I think that is really the issue. Let’s acknowledge though that now everything has to follow a narrative. To me, the 1619 project is just a narrative from the perspective of the enslaved. From the enslaved, and their descendants, America may well look to be built by slavery. My ancestors moved west with each generation, taking advantage of “new” lands (the taken from Indians). I even have an ancestor who apparently illegally squatted on Indian lands in anticipation of them becoming available to homestead a year or two later! We don’t like to think of that, but it’s true. It’s also true that so goes the story of humans, not just Europeans…
As for white people = bad. I have some experience with that. In elementary school we watched Roots and a lot of the black girls would be mean to me after. I didn’t understand why… it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t them… but they felt different. Now it’s popular amongst my liberal circles to wallow in white guilt. I find it pointless. I have no control over what my parents do/did anymore than my 10th great grandfather! I think the solution to that needs to be context. Many people don’t know that there was slavery other places and that Africans were also profiting from the slave trade and initially slaves were treated the same as white indentured servants, until it became clear that there was more profit in exploitation.
To me, the history of America is a constant struggle between opposing forces, we just always look back and call the loser “bad”. I like what my youngest’s first grade teacher said during virtual school, “America is like us, still growing and getting better. Sometimes we make mistakes — that’s okay. We try to be better in the future.” I think a little more of that narrative, or rather perspective, would help a lot.
He was trying to sidestep the core of the 1619 project by picking out one essay and elevating it. It a rhetorical technique. Acknowledge the other sides points quickly. Then move on to your views/arguments and drill down and linger there as long as possible. Ezra Klein does this a lot. He says things like “I agree there is reason to be concerned with X (your stuff) but what I really want to focus on is Y (my stuff). Rajiv did the same thing with CRT. Basically he said sure there are reasons to be concerned but let’s talk a lot about the backlash. Those people are the real problem.
Great conversation as always. I have to respectfully disagree with Rajiv regarding the 1619 project. It seems to me that with India, there was an established culture that was Indian. There was an Indian people. The British came along and controlled that culture for some time, and maybe influenced it, but after India became independent, it was still India and the Indian people.
What happened, I believe, with America was the British and Dutch creating colonies in the so called new world. They disrupted and displaced Native American people, although they certainly lived alongside them for some time before that.
The war for independence was that of British people living on land as British people, but who no longer wanted to be British people and instead created America people. That point in time happened in 1776 not 1619. In 1619 it was still British and Dutch colonists living in new land but as British and Dutch people.
America was born because they no longer wanted to be part of the British rule. American people aren’t a people like Japanese etc, it’s not a homogeneous society. To paraphrase the great Victor Davis Hason: you can move to Japan but you’ll never be Japanese. You can move to France but you’ll never be French. But you can move to America and become American, because to be American is to subscribe to a set of ideas and principals that unite us. The more tribal we become, the less like citizens of a nation we become, and more like different people that just happen to share a land.
Completely different situation than that of India or many other nations, in my opinion
You realize though, that at the time it was not a consensus view to want to leave British rule. Some people did, some didn’t, some didn’t have an opinion. Wealthy land owners, with the most to gain or lose, as I understand it made the choice. I think a problem in your thinking is to say anything about “America” or “Americans” as though there was ever a time where everyone agreed. Some people learn that our country was founded on a search for religious liberty, when that is clearly and probably not the case. Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement, settled in 1607, and was a for profit venture. That doesn’t negate that many people did come to America in the 1600s for religious freedom, or more specifically to try to set up religious utopias. They are both our origin story. Mass immigration for free land or for work opportunities that happened later are also part of our origin story. I don’t see any reason why *one* origin story of the country can’t be told through the lens of slavery, it was certainly an important element of our story.
I think the saying about moving to America and becoming American is also a mixed bag. Some people for sure think that. Others do not. I can recall an uncle being upset at me being friends with someone with an Italian last name, because Italians are not white (and thus not *really* American). You can say that is not a common belief, and you may be right, but I do think saying “Americans believe” is pretty fraught.
The 1600s to 1776 is quite a long time to pass without a new and separate culture developing. Maybe not the thousands for years that India had… but it is something.
Great reply! I agree with almost everything you said. Where I differ slightly, and this may be a simple matter of definition more than anything else, is that I don’t believe we have to teach about the birth of America through a lens of slavery. I do however believe it’s important to teach about slave, warts and all.
What I mean by this is that to teach it through that lens, which is why I dislike the 1619 project, is to be much more narrowly focused and therefore skew the context. I’m from the Thomas Sowell school of thought on this, and I believe it’s important to maintain a greater context when discussing slavery, and indeed the birth of America.
If you look at it the 1619 project way, you say that slavery was how America was founded, and that we stole the land from the indigenous people. Therefore Americans, and in particular white Americans, are bad people.
If you look it from a broader perspective you say slavery is a blight upon the human race, but you acknowledge that every race on earth has enslaved every race on earth. It was so commonplace that it wasn’t even a moral question at the time. In fact, as people like Sowell, and Shelby Steele point out, what made America so unique wasn’t that it had slaves, it’s that it was one of the first countries to abolish it. We fought a huge war over it after all.
If what you mean is to teach slavery as being one aspect of many that make up the whole picture of Americas birth and growth then I am 100% on board with that. If you mean like some seem to, that we should make slavery the most important focal point and ignore historical context, then that’s what I have issue with
I don’t actually think we’re in disagreement at all. I think that as long as proper world context is given then teach all aspects. My only issue with that 1619 is that most people are ignorant of history and when things begin at that year, they assume that slavery was a uniquely American problem, when we all know it wasn’t.
I think that matters because there are a lot of people on that side of the discussion who hate America. Perhaps with some expanded historical knowledge (and knowing that slavery still happens in the world today) would let them understand that nowhere is perfect.
I think the problem is that a lot of school systems don’t teach about slavery. And others over do it. Students from both think they learned the “real” history. I went to high school in Virginia, and college in Indiana. When we talked about the founding (they never learned about Jamestown) or the Civil war (they had some caricatures of the south) it was clear that we learned very different things. They learned very simple, what I would call white washed, versions of history. I took advanced classes, if I hadn’t who knows what I would have learned? I read an article ( I think in the Atlantic) by a history professor at UT Austin that a fair chunk of his (or her?) students didn’t know anything about slavery. I think a lot of these debates are based on people not really talking about the same thing!
As for hating America, I have been accused of that, personally. I don’t think that’s a fair way to characterize anyone (at least that I have ever met). If you agree that our history is one of perpetual conflict between forces, then everyone “hates” about half of our history. For example, I was against the Iraq war in 2003 and was perpetually called AntiAmerican. With perspective, that wasn’t in fact anti anything, except wasting money and lives on a mission that probably wasn’t winnable. I am distressed at the way my kids starting in middle school have become cynical about the US, with the oppressor language… however, they are young and have little perspective. In elementary school, the education is pretty whitewashed and gung ho American, I see it as a backlash to that. It is another example of battling narratives. I think we’d be better served with more neutral facts and context, and less opinion/judgement/narrative.
I’m talking specifically about the people who are burning American flags, chanting “death to America” and claiming American is systematically racist and irreparably broken
Well, fair enough. I’ve never met any of flag burning, death to America types. (Although flag code says to burn, or bury, a flag if it is destroyed and that is supposedly the origin of burning the flag as a protest). But claiming America is systemically racist and irreparably broken is pretty common in liberal circles. It doesn’t mean they hate America, it means they are disappointed in the difference between their idealistic view of America and their observed reality of it. They just want America to do better… I have heard the same (obviously not about systemic racism, instead systemic fraud, deep state, administrative state, etc) from right-wingers when they perceived that they were out of power or that the system was acting against their perceived interests.
I (potentially) agree that a lot of the rhetoric is kind of disconnected from reality…
Okay. I think you are coming from a completely defensible position. Personally, I wish we taught history with less “narrative” because I think that is really the issue. Let’s acknowledge though that now everything has to follow a narrative. To me, the 1619 project is just a narrative from the perspective of the enslaved. From the enslaved, and their descendants, America may well look to be built by slavery. My ancestors moved west with each generation, taking advantage of “new” lands (the taken from Indians). I even have an ancestor who apparently illegally squatted on Indian lands in anticipation of them becoming available to homestead a year or two later! We don’t like to think of that, but it’s true. It’s also true that so goes the story of humans, not just Europeans…
As for white people = bad. I have some experience with that. In elementary school we watched Roots and a lot of the black girls would be mean to me after. I didn’t understand why… it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t them… but they felt different. Now it’s popular amongst my liberal circles to wallow in white guilt. I find it pointless. I have no control over what my parents do/did anymore than my 10th great grandfather! I think the solution to that needs to be context. Many people don’t know that there was slavery other places and that Africans were also profiting from the slave trade and initially slaves were treated the same as white indentured servants, until it became clear that there was more profit in exploitation.
To me, the history of America is a constant struggle between opposing forces, we just always look back and call the loser “bad”. I like what my youngest’s first grade teacher said during virtual school, “America is like us, still growing and getting better. Sometimes we make mistakes — that’s okay. We try to be better in the future.” I think a little more of that narrative, or rather perspective, would help a lot.
He was trying to sidestep the core of the 1619 project by picking out one essay and elevating it. It a rhetorical technique. Acknowledge the other sides points quickly. Then move on to your views/arguments and drill down and linger there as long as possible. Ezra Klein does this a lot. He says things like “I agree there is reason to be concerned with X (your stuff) but what I really want to focus on is Y (my stuff). Rajiv did the same thing with CRT. Basically he said sure there are reasons to be concerned but let’s talk a lot about the backlash. Those people are the real problem.