When I received this submission from Ben, I was actually very back on forth on publishing it. I tend to view this whole issue more in the realm of American Values vs. Human Nature than the Evil Aspect vs. the Good Aspect of America's story. I totally agree with confronting the times we have failed to live up to our own values, but I wholly reject the 1619 project because it attempts to argue these failures are baked into the American pie while ignoring that none of these failures are unique to the American story and are, in fact, transplanted institutions of the old world that the new world eventually overcame. Because of this, I don't fully agree with either David French's or this attempt to "fuse" these approaches to understanding American history even though I agree with the spirit of it. I do, however, like this approach better than French's because it admits it's more of a thought experiment and suggests that 1776 is, in fact, the approach more based in fact and reflection of the American experiment. I went ahead and published it because I think it will make for an interesting conversation. I still think it errs in being too conciliatory to what I think is ultimately pseudo-history and anti-american animus, and I hope to find time in the next few weeks to put together my own take on this complicated and interesting topic.
When I received this submission from Ben, I was actually very back on forth on publishing it. I tend to view this whole issue more in the realm of American Values vs. Human Nature than the Evil Aspect vs. the Good Aspect of America's story. I totally agree with confronting the times we have failed to live up to our own values, but I wholly reject the 1619 project because it attempts to argue these failures are baked into the American pie while ignoring that none of these failures are unique to the American story and are, in fact, transplanted institutions of the old world that the new world eventually overcame. Because of this, I don't fully agree with either David French's or this attempt to "fuse" these approaches to understanding American history even though I agree with the spirit of it. I do, however, like this approach better than French's because it admits it's more of a thought experiment and suggests that 1776 is, in fact, the approach more based in fact and reflection of the American experiment. I went ahead and published it because I think it will make for an interesting conversation. I still think it errs in being too conciliatory to what I think is ultimately pseudo-history and anti-american animus, and I hope to find time in the next few weeks to put together my own take on this complicated and interesting topic.
Am I reading the year right on abt line 94. 18606