Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ayo Hirschman's avatar

>we are not in the end bound by a single ethnic background or historical memory. History is never going to provide a single, stable source of unity for the American people. We just have to accept that pluralism and even a certain degree of conflict are the inevitable price of living in our democratic society.

Yeah

Expand full comment
norbert hornstein's avatar

“But I think everyone knows that the controversy is really about the ideological and symbolic foundation point of the nation rather than the factual details.”

Actually, no. Some historians I know who are perfectly happy acknowledging the deep racist foundations of the US were very upset by the shoddy history. Ideological and symbolic foundations are buttressed by empirical claims. In this case the claims seem false. Moreover, the whole 1619 project was developed by the NYT for political reasons, as Banquet made clear. It was developed after the Russia gate fiasco was finally acknowledged and was IN PART motivated by the desire to hit Trump (and his racist working class voters) over the head. None of this means that the US does not have deep racist roots. It does, but facts matter, which is why it was good that Jones and the NYT was called out on their distortions.

Last point: slavery was/is a sin. But it is not the original sin. The ground for slavery was prepared by a concerted campaign of genocide agains the original inhabitants. This sin seems to have disappeared from all reckoning of the early history of the country. And though we can find some founding fathers who were better and worse as regards the slavery question, there were zero heroes with regard to Indian genocide. This policy was supported by everyone consistently and vigorously.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts