The Left Case Against the 1619 Project - James Oakes (Full Interview)

[@atashikokoni]

All Prof Oake's talk about coalition building reminds me of the Black Panther Party, and Fred Hampton's speeches on building working class unity across racial lines.

[@alexberkowitz5897]

Whoa whoa whoa--I’d argue the opposite. Too few in the mainstream are talking about class--it’s all upper and upper middle classes people freaking the fuck out about race, gender, and nothing but, versus lower and middle class whites and Latin people reacting specifically to that in a very hostile way. That’s my loved experience at least. No one in the real world has any fucking clue what “class” is

[@alexberkowitz5897]

@lived experience

[@Cynosure01]

Every once in a while I listen to some clips of his speeches. Inspirational

[@nathanholden7735]

REST IN POWER CHAIRMAN FRED HAMPTON

[@JohnDoe-et8th]

Ain't it ironic that a murdered Black Panther sounds like a current "moderate" liberal? The identity politics types are mostly race hustlers and white academics getting their sense of superiority from self-righteous virtue-signalling (and how many have moderate-income housing in their neighborhoods?).

[@williamtell5365]

he was my professor of a history class decades ago at Northwestern. great teacher.

[@DrGlynnWix]

I hadn't heard this criticism of the 1619 project before, but his initial explanation of the issue around the American Revolution makes me rather disappointed to hear because it's very clear that the "Indian problem" was far more of a driver of the declaration of independence than slavery, which is a disappointing erasure of the issue of Indigenous people's oppression and genocide in the US. George Washington was a speculator of land west of the line drawn by King George, and many founding fathers were invested in taking that land from Indigenous people to make money. I should hope the project would review such a critical driver that has such relevance to both the issue and other people of color in the US.

[@tempestvenator9809]

That's my biggest problem with the 1619 project. It is an Afrocentric view of history that erases what other minority groups suffered at the hands of the White Supremacy to lift African Americans as the center of it all, and how "civil rights were only fought for by blacks", completely erasing the contribution of whites, Native Americans, and Latinos, in the end of Jim Crow and institutionalized racism, but this goes back to the fault in our school system, we only preach about black heroes in the Civil Rights Movement, you have to take college electives in history to learn about what happened with Native Americans, and the college classes I took were WOEFULLY lacking! I mean my Oklahoma history class had to stop at the 1930s, though that could be because of this stupid 8-week class system that my college is shoving down everyone's throats even though some of my teachers are flat out stating that this is causing more problems. So yeah, the 1619 project is basically Afrocentrism erasing the viewpoints of anyone not black and demonizing any whites along the way no matter their contribution, like how they'll crucify Lincoln for his earlier racist views even though they eventually changed during the civil war as he interacted with African Americans such as Fredrick Douglas. But no, to the woke historians its "once a racist always a racist".

[@fleetwoodcad1]

Someone should make “The 1496 Project” or “The 1823 project” the first was when John Cabot discovered North America for king Henry the seventh and his pilgrims, the second was when the Supreme Court ruled that Native American Indians can’t sue for their genocide land back using their own land title. All because England can discover / conquer land but natives weren’t considered discoverers, america can win a war against England and the conquering right is included, so goes the saying ‘Indians never had the concept of land ownership’. The DNA is still federally regulated for the red side of America it’s just the worst fear of the white side to have to qualify under the same thing even in jest because it brings up land, resource redistribution and changes in who controls culturally the mean of production. I wish my res could be free to make our own trades with China and Russia even on a limited level just to show n tell on America for its own educations sake.

[@fleetwoodcad1]

Lincoln was pro slavery and only freed some to use as troops against the Dakota in the war of 1862, 1876, 1890 on and on. This project taped onto the Lincoln project is the ultimate boutique leftist packaging for distraction politics to protect the super donors.

[@weston.weston]

@@tempestvenator9809 When I read your perspective it lands with me in the way that "all lives matter" does whenever "black lives matter" is uttered. I don't interpret Nikole Hannah Jones as being ignorant of the horrible plight of indigenous people. However, her concentration as it relates to the 1619 project (and her academic focus) is black history/African American history. Also, blacks have a very distinct history in the United States (so does native Americans). If a native American scholar tackled a project similar to 1619 project that probes the native American plight in the United States, I cannot imagine me saying "hey, why aren't you focusing on black people more," that would seem ridiculous. Can we please all agree that black people have a distinct story when it comes to the US and consequently the associated challenges they experience continue to negatively impact them to a greater degree than other groups (housing, education, health care, encounters with the criminal justice system, etc). Why is there so much me tooism when it comes to highlighting the lingering effects of enslavement on black people/African American people in the United States?

[@planetarysolidarity]

We all want the lingering effects to be highlighted and addressed. The dispute is over the direction of causality. The 1619 Project is an ethno nationalist argument that insists on a very narrow reading of history.

[@AdrienLegendre]

Galileo challenged the religious indoctrination of the Pope in 1633 , and James Oakes challenges the political indoctrination of the 1619 project in 2022. Speak truth to power!

[@ajra4626]

Oakes is correct that the most important thing about the abolitionists is their commitment to end slavery. However, contemporary preoccupation with racism among abolitionists is not reducible to historical idealism. The lack of so-called “ideological purity” among abolitionists did not ultimately get in the way of emancipation. But the abolitionists’ collective failure to follow through on the implications of abolitionism meant that they lacked commitment to a post-emancipation politics that would have brought about social and economic democracy rather than an era characterized by colonialism, robber barons, spectacle lynching, and generations of Jim Crow social relations. In fact, there were those among the abolitionists who believed that getting rid of slavery would actually make the United States morally fit to snatch the reins of “global leadership” from Europe.

[@cerberusthall9151]

Agreed. The utilitarian task of "keeping the union together" was paramount to abolition, at least in the timeframe it was executed, but then we see all the subsequent failures you mentioned. I don't think it can be argued that happened for any other reason except for lack of actual commitment to an equality beyond some of the negative rights in the constitution. Which of course were often weakly, or not even enforced at all, due to the same ridiculous constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. If they'd ripped it up and started again that may have been a decent foundation.

[@pauljackson1709]

AJRA "there were...abolitionists who believed...getting rid of slavery would...make the [U.S.] morally fit to snatch the reins of 'global leadership' from Europe." Advance thanks for quoting an abolitionist who says that.

[@claborn79]

Yes, I think this is the reason historians distinguish between "Republicans" and "radical Republicans". The radicals were intent on seeing through a radical Reconstruction agenda that included full equality but Andrew Johnson blocked the radical agenda; more moderate Republicans were not committed to equality (Andrew Johnson is the worst president in U.S. history, imo).

[@pauljackson1709]

@@cerberusthall9151 "The utilitarian task of 'keeping the union together' was paramount to abolition"? Not clear what you mean...You do know the election of Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform is what triggered the South's break and attack on the North...don't you?

[@jlabbe1]

@@cerberusthall9151 True of many white abolitionists but Frederick Douglass and plenty other black abolitionist never gave up the fight. Abolitionists were an interracial movement but this interracialism broke down in the 1860s and 1870s. We need to get out of the habitat of thinking the abolitionist movement as a bunch of white christians... As Manisha Sinha elaborates in her movement history "The Slaves Cause" the movement was spanned whites, blacks, free and enslaved.

[@charliebarton]

And it might be mentioned that the British created cotton production in Egypt where there was no slavery, just good old feudalism.

[@ZenBen_the_Elder]

Thanks for this necessary corrective to the neoliberal race reductionist perspective of the authors of the 1619 Project. That will not be the definitive narrative of American history.

[@WxkR]

Like most Americans, this historian included, you’re submerged in deep ignorance about world’s history. The notion that slavery by Spanish and Portuguese colonizers spurred industrialization in England is consensus for historians in Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. Spanish demand for goods increased exponentially with the gold and silver they accumulated. They did not industrialize themselves because, among many reasons, kept it as financial instrument for the huge banks that they still have.

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

"neoliberal race reductionist perspective" The rampant misuse of the term "neoliberal" as a synonym for 'things I don't like' is reaching new heights I see.

[@lukas9138]

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict nah he's right here. The neoliberal agenda is the main strain of anti-enlightment ideology since the second half of the 20th century. Including progressive neoliberalism and its abstract negatory form of post-modernism. They all share the same anti-universalistic and moralistic convictions/believes. The 1619 approach of moral individualism as a proxy for politics and the idea to sell reparations as a moral good is perfectly in line with neoliberal believes of irrational collectivity (there is a collective "black" interest because people think so and this intetest is what the most powerfull of the group model it to be - the group itself can't be changed) and the benifit of individual advantage seeking (paying reparations is positive for society). Hate it or love it, but it works with the mont pelerin consensus.

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

@@lukas9138 "The neoliberal agenda is the main strain of anti-enlightment ideology since the second half of the 20th century. Including progressive neoliberalism and its abstract negatory form of post-modernism" You are guilty of the same act I pointed out from the other commentator. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with anti-enlightenment or progressivism, and it particularly has no connection whatsoever with "irrational collectivity".

[@lukas9138]

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict sure it dose. Its main ideas come from the german strain of the school of "historical right" namely carl from savigny and british positivism in the firm of a somewhat bastardised comte whom both are in line with a counter enlightment tradition. "Society cant be understood completely therefor it can't be changed rationally" is what this line boils down to in neoliberal counter enlightment. According to this tradition neoliberalism promotes the idea that the generation of information through state enforced market structures are the best way to realise human freedom after the advent of the integratef nationstate (hayek openly calls that a matter of faith and ludwig erhard even calls market infrigments sins). It is therefor a irrational set of dogmas (not a philosophy). From here on out neoliberal thought collectivs defends traditional structures as long as they are able to realise the re-regulation of societal structures along market principles. This makes it a strong defender of any irrational power structure (family, community, tribe, nation etc.) for functionalistic and philosophical reasons. Its appeal to hyper individualism only ever appears within the context of given power structures. That problem is basically the reason for its inception. The colloque walther lipmann was gatherd precisely because the individual subject of the liberal period was swallowed by the ever growing state structures with no way back so they were searching for a way to safe individuality from disappearing.

[@dumupad3-da241]

1:48 - ' "I'm not so sure about some of the claims of the 1619 project, but ... I don't want to be seen as impugning the work of Black journalists" - all of which I think are legitimate and fair concerns.' WTH? 'John says that 2 + 2 = 5, but I don't want to object, because he's black' - this is 'legitimate and fair'?! This is bloody madness! How people don't see that you can't have a healthy public discourse on such terms, and that it's patronising to black people as well is beyond me.

[@srs-swooz]

I'd add..."journalists" and not "historians". Journalism manifesting into propaganda allows people to get away this.

[@dumupad3-da241]

​@Mythic Tip: the 'apostrophes' (I'd call them 'inverted commas') are due to the same reason as my saying 'bloody madness'.

[@carltwelve2170]

A positive with releasing the flawed 1619 is it has generated valuable conversation about the ACTUAL history. Being conservative, I enjoyed the conversation.

[@thisopinionwillexpire]

Great to see John Malkovich finally getting into politics!

[@ManicMovesDrowsyDreams]

Yep now we've got John Malkovich and Steven Spielberg!

[@commontater1785]

I just saw the best movie, 'Being James Oakes'. It was mind blowing.

[@thisopinionwillexpire]

@@commontater1785 hahhaha

[@AllPeopleUnite]

I think that understanding the role of slavery within the development of Capitalism and underdevelopment of the regions it dominated rests on understanding the role of production, i.e. plantation production of cash crops. Cotton production expanded after the Civil War, the post war settlement of sharecroppin and tenant farming in the plantation belts spread into the majority White upcountry areas alongside the expansion of cotton production. The underdevelopment and continued peripheralisation of the American Southeast should be evident when looking at conditions 50 years later in the 1920s and 30s. It can also be seen in other areas of the world where cash crop production has expanded, without slavery. The production of cash crops for sale on the world market is of course a component of capitalism and the production of many goods, but is not a source of huge wealth and productive capacity in and of itself (despite some people getting rich of off it).

[@NotoriousSRG]

Have on one of the historians involved with the 1619 project.

[@TheReasonWeLearn]

You'd have to find one first.

[@Strawn149]

People have tried but they won’t do interviews that involve pushback.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

They weren't historians to begin with. They were partisan activist journalists.

[@finisterfoul]

Excellent interview

[@oleeb]

Thank God for the professor pointing out that amateur historians don’t do good history. Amateurs historians like those who produced the 1619 Project do produce good point of view polemic but that does not equal good historical work that illuminates rather than indoctrinates. Slavery is a subject many actual professional historians have spent their lifetimes studying. They are black, white, men, women, American, European, African and Asian historians. Pop history is not very good at giving people a nuanced and full understanding of slavery and racism here and around the world or any other subject for that matter. Like life and history of all kinds: it is very complicated, fascinating and important to understand not simply for use in today’s politics but to bring a full and more comprehensive understanding of what was going on in the times and places under study so we can understand how we got where we are today.

[@pauljackson1709]

oleeb Well...Oakes does advance an instrumental, broadly polemical lesson from the vantage of his professional study of history - the impurity of abolitionist coalitions vs. what he argues is the divisive, politically futile 'Americans in the present inherit the original sin of slavery and racism in the past' current of the present 1619 project...

[@jimlabbe8258]

Some non-academic historians do very good history. That was his point in a particular not a general sense.

[@pauljackson1709]

@@jimlabbe8258 Yes - Oakes uses his professional knowledge to criticize 1619, but he does not browbeat the 1619-ers with his professional authority - is not generally defending the citadel of 'professional,' high-minded American history from the instrumental, popular uses of history by some 'journalistic rabble.'

[@NeillGuitars]

I gotta disagree with him on one of his last points, and I think I'm a bit qualified to rebut this as someone else with a history degree with a focus on race in America (given MA coursework focused more on the intersectionality of race, gender, and labor in the early 20th century). He said that Ted Cruze was able to skewer Democrats on whether or not voter ID is racist because it's more about a power grab than it is about race. And that is technically true, but it's a power grab specifically because Republicans know Black people tend to vote more Democratic and they want to stop that to get a better chance at winning elections. And I don't think systematically trying to stop Black people from voting so you can win elections can be defined at "not a racist policy."

[@mimonkey3]

The policy definitely attacks black people disproportionately, because black people disproportionately vote for Democrats. But it targets them because they vote for Democrats, not because they are black. Also, the Republicans who push these policies might well be personally racists, but they don’t need to be to support these policies. They just need to want to win in the electoral contest between their pro-capitalist party that doesn't do shit for black people, and the other pro-capitalist party that also doesn't do shit for black people.

[@NeillGuitars]

@@mimonkey3 that's exactly what I'm saying. We can say they're doing it because they vote democrat, not because they're black and that's probably true. But I do not think you can see the utter disregard for the rights of Black people for personal gain, regardless of reason, and say "but that's not racist." I would argue the vast majority of racist attitudes are actually a result of wanting to get something and I don't think saying "they're targeting Black people because they vote Democrat" as equating to "there's no racism involved here."

[@areallyboredguy5825]

This is my problem with some of these guests... they try to play the game of racial erasure, it's a worse version of "I don't see colour" They're willing to sabotage white voters because they'll hurt more black voters, plain and simple. Akin to how whites during segregation shut down pools when they became integrated, in spite of the fact there was only often ONE POOL that therefore also hurt whites, but the point was they also got to fuck over the blacks.

[@mimonkey3]

@@NeillGuitars "Racism" against blacks can be defined in different ways. It can be defined as in terms of (1) conscious and unconscious attitudes, like wishing to harm black people, holding negative stereotypes, etc., or as (2) acting in a way that causes harm, irrespective of attitude. Certainly voter suppression is racist under def'n (2), and they are obviously bad and undemocratic, because they deprive people (not just blacks but also whites likely to vote Democratic) of their civil liberties. In one way it doesn't even matter whether the people pushing voter suppression policies are also racist by def'n (1)... and I would tend to assume they are. But in another way it *does* matter, because if you think these policies are based on racist attitudes, then the solution is racial sensitivity training along the lines of Robin DiAngelo.

[@mimonkey3]

@@areallyboredguy5825 If you think it's racial animus (desire to harm black people... just because) that motivates these policies, and winning elections is just an accidental byproduct, then the solution is racial sensitivity training. Good luck with that!

[@williamfortune9954]

I think the thing to keep in mind is the Unions policy from the beginning was to preserve the Union and to do that the north was willing to provide guarantees for non involvement in slavery some even proposed the 1st 13th amendment to make slavery permanent in the constitution. Northern feeling changed drastically after Blacks fought and contributed to ending the war.

[@williamfortune9954]

I am very interested in James work. I think he highlights important history the fact that there was a thriving abolitionist movement that was pushing the country towards emancipation supported by white voters. However I see in his work as well I’m interested to read that The Union fought the war from the beginning to frees slaves I believe is overstated. You can find succession documents stating the are living to protect slavery but not one Union military document stating we are fighting to free slaves.

[@ZealothPL]

That didn't last long after the war ended though, did it? Reconstruction was a massive failure and freed slaves were left hanging dry

[@williamfortune9954]

@@ZealothPL reconstruction failed due to the Union allowing the the people the fought to take over again. But I think that’s another good point to show how overstated this person’s position is.

[@charles8854]

Excellent !!!

[@conwittyconway6134]

What academics miss is a simple idea like this : if at its peak in North America the amount of enslaved Africans totaled 4 million, how is it possible that in 2014 after approximately 150 years of abolishment there are 2.3 mil incarcerated people of African decent. There are not a lot of reasons available to a common person to understand this except to conclude that that the end of slavery was not the end of slavery. It was simply a name change. When you wash a leopard it does not loose its spots however hard you may try. This is why the 1619 project takes the point of view that it does. Sure this may not be a true equivalency by ratios of population but it's still very very immoral. Its evil.

[@GQLewis]

I would love to hear a debate between @GregCarr and @JamesOakes. The altruism Oakes argues does not exist today, let alone 150 years ago.

[@CarlRoberts-h2v]

There is still the problem of the natives land development promises after all these years 😢😢

[@industrial-arts]

This comment section is buzzing! Is it too simple to mention the 13th amendment didn't abolish slavery, but merely shifted it's realm of legality? And Mr Oakes speaking of mass incarceration only being a thing after Clinton ignores that fact? Honestly the comments are more compelling than the interview...

[@tmsphere]

When you say “slavery wasnt really abolished” you sound unhinged. Prison labor isnt slavery & was mainstream in most prisons around the world especially prisons belonging to socialist regimes is still practiced.

[@tempestvenator9809]

@@tmsphere I barely know of any country that doesn't use prison labor in some way. Even being sentenced to community service can count as prison labor.

[@zephsmith3499]

If prison labor is the same as slavery, then the race being most frequently enslaved today are whites. Or just maybe it's a distorted reframing.

[@zephsmith3499]

@@loadishstone I do indeed have some understanding of statistics, but it is unclear what aspect of "population statistics" you have in mind. One guess would be that you could be referencing "portion of a total population group" versus "absolute numbers". Each of these is an important statistic, whose relative utility and relevance depends on context. My assertion was that in absolute numbers, there are more white prisoners and thus more "legal white slaves" in the US (if you accept the proposition that prison = slavery). I did not assert that a higher proportion of whites were imprisoned (aka "enslaved"). However, we never see anybody bemoaning the greater numbers of white "enslaved" prisoners in the US; I have never even seen them mentioned.

[@zephsmith3499]

@@loadishstone I'll make it simple: Prison is bad, but in the US it is not slavery, much less chattel slavery. Those trying to say that slavery continues today so long as some prisoners work are distorting the truth for demagogic purposes. One of the distortions is pretending that prison is slavery, but only in regard to Black prisoners, not for Asian, white or Hispanic prisoners. I support prison reform, but not because I believe that prisoner are literally slaves.

[@johnlavers3970]

oakes seems to not understand the triangular trade of the british empire which depended on slavery and which was the basis for the wealth that created the demand he says spurred the american economy. moreover the idea that capitalism would have developed without slavery ignores the essential nature of british world wide capitalism which shaped the capitalism of the time and the capitalism that exists now, and that capitalism was so dependant on slavery that when they abolished slavery they immediately had to substitute the coolee system for free and forced labour. his view of economic growth under the the british and american military capitalism was independant of slavery ignores that we are talking about the quality of the economy. that quality was shaped and permanently marked by militarism and slavery and still is. i wonder if he is a leftist at all. hesounds like an american capitalist apologist. in addition he sees no conflict with whites over race??? he should read batalora's work on how america invented white people. american need for forced labour and hence the need to divide and conquer the forced labout so they won't unite and rebel again(as they did in the 1640's bacon rebellion) so as to keep the elite class in control. in short this looks like obfuscation to me.

[@planetarysolidarity]

How could you possibly imagine that this historian doesn't know about Bacon's Rebellion? That event shows the importance of looking at class *and* race. It was a coalition opposed to enslavement. The laws distinguishing black bondage from white followed Bacon's Rebellion.

[@AdrienLegendre]

You make an assertion that cannot be falsified. This means your statement is ideology or pseudoscience.

[@mattg3789]

@johnlavers3970 wrote 1 year ago: "oakes seems to not understand the triangular trade of the british empire which depended on slavery and which was the basis for the wealth that created the demand he says spurred the american economy. moreover the idea that capitalism would have developed without slavery ignores the essential nature of british world wide capitalism " That is not accurate. 9:52 The slave economy was of minor significance to northern colonies until the 19th century; after Capitalism was already established. Oakes correctly points out that Spain and Portugal established the triangular slave trade and saw no economic benefit. The significant wealth gained by slavery and the cotton mill began in the 19th century, after the rise of Capitalism. In fact, cotton manufacturing increased after slavery abolition and the end of the Civil War.

[@ZealothPL]

While some valid points are made, the overall tone of the comments by the professor seem to completely ignore utter failure of reconstruction and how freed slaves were left without protections soon after the war...

[@QuatMan]

They ALWAYS want to leave out the part where ALL white people in the USA benefitted from slavery.

[@CarlRoberts-h2v]

Get stephen smithburg 1916 croyology to be shown on you tube it was shown about five years ago. Replay it again so those that miss it will be able to judge for their self ❤❤❤

[@bradmorse6320]

Glad to see some measured pushback against this project. Calling slavery America's original sin is a clumsy attempt to sanctify its victims, but the term clearly does not apply. Slavery is so endemic to humans that it is still practiced in over 30 countries as we speak. It is, very sadly, a species-level problem. To center slavery as the defining event in American history is to ignore the many ways America is unique.

[@tempestvenator9809]

@Mythic You have no fucking idea what was going on in Latin America during that time do you?

[@zephsmith3499]

@@tempestvenator9809 Yes, it's likely that mythic has no idea that only 4% of the abominable trans-Atlantic slave trade ended up on territory which was or later became the US. In the US, 388,000 slaves imported from Africa have grown to 37 million American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) today, approximately a 100 fold growth (roughly half that expansion took place under slavery and half afterwards).

[@DavidParket-g1h]

Mass incarceration started even with JFK and LBJ to more forcefully with Nixon, and Reagan.

[@gregsimmons3323]

Fantastic

[@charleslawrence429]

Very disappointing. Somehow the realities of Jim Crow, segregation etc basically are passed over. Likewise any serious coming to grips with Capitalism The focus on Emancipation allows everyone in this video to pat themselves on their backs, ignoring the tragedies of the post-civil war period and our continued failures to deal with racism.

[@zephsmith3499]

So Jim Crow (not to mention slavery) was largely defeated before I was born, and statistics about race have changed dramatically during my lifetime. Institutional racism has been outlawed by legislatures and dismantled by the courts. We've had affirmative action for two generations. Measure of racist attitudes have improved substantially in my lifetime, reaching an all time low. But you characterize all that as a "continued failure to deal with racism". Perhaps you mean "failure to completely eliminate racism", which is true. Many decades of successful efforts to reduce racism have not yet completely eliminated it - and likely will never succeed 100% any more than we can ever completely eliminate crime or people making stupid choices. At most we can make racism a minor factor, and we've been making progress at that.

[@ElectricChaplain]

The antebellum American South was essentially a banana republic.

[@ghostsethrich7306]

Oh 100%. Just swap out the bananas for cotton / sugarcane / tobacco.

[@johnsorrelw849]

Except that this comparison misses the power of the enslaver class in the South over the U.S. Federal government. The South was not subservient to the North in the way Central and South America was the U.S. But true, economically the South had a similar dependecy position as supplier of agricultural raw materials to the industries of the North.

[@CarlRoberts-h2v]

Request stephen smithburg croyology 1916 d v d to see all the events from thanks given onwards to be shown you tube as it was done before about five years ago ❤❤❤❤

[@ericdecker2914]

That’s dope.

[@darylstephens1391]

People the 1619 Project was a history of Black Americans in the history of America. This has nothing to do about white people or Native Americans. We were told that only whites discover America.(Columbus 1492)(John Smith1607)(1620 Mayflower), what part of that history don't we understand? This went on for two centuries. Native Americans practice slavery against Black Americans. Blacks practice slavery against Black Americans. This was the LAW in America for almost 90 years. The enslaved never was paid. But, Irish and Italian were indenture servants for a period of 5 or 7 years, until America said they were white. People this was just a waste of tape and time. Again, this was about making white people feel good about something that their country did to a group of people based on their race, by the LAWS OF AMERICA. 1. Blacks fought for America during the Revolutionary War. Only to have their guns taken and place back in slavery after a promise to set them free. 2. Civil War Black men fought and won that war for the North. Do the research. Yet, you want to talk about people who wanted to keep the institution of enslavement. Then, America goes right back to SEMI-SLAVERY or segregation, for almost 100 years and what they done to one group by LAW. So, please stop this, anytime a Black person writes about their ancestors or their personal experiences with the country of their BIRTH for over 400 years, THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE GOOD WHITE PEOPLE. I don't understand, please make it make sense.

[@colint7743]

CANADA - Don't know how you disambiguate slavery causing Industrialization other than to say Capitalism predates both. Eric Williams' analysis of all three still stands.

[@AdrienLegendre]

You ask a question that has no answer. No one can go back in time, change history, delete slavery, thus create a controlled experiment and observe the impact on industrialization.

[@NelsonLikestoTalk]

Its been my understanding that the end of slavery didn't happen after the civil war, it continued under a different name as Douglas A. Blackmon wrote about.

[@daveharrison84]

The 1619 Project doesn't say "white people bad". Did this guy even read the thing he's arguing against? The 1619 Project mostly isn't about slavery, despite its name, it's about black American history and most of it is about events in the 20th century.

[@jamesoakes1819]

"How could anyone think Donald Trump is racist? He said so himself that he's not"

[@QuatMan]

This is what happens to them when confronted with what they did🤣

[@benpholmes]

​@@QuatManAnd what is it exactly that they (the people on the show) actually did?

[@QuatMan]

@@benpholmes Guess you better watch the show to find out...

[@sebastianhama5624]

first rule of world problems: it's always england's fault

[@babadabdianogo]

"The Right-Wing Case for Jacobin"

[@johnsorrelw849]

I give this a C- as critique. He may know the civil war but doesn't have deep insight into capitalism. He's right to point out the idealist perspective of much anti-racism today, but he discounts too much of how racism as an ideology built by slavery morphed into attitudes that reinforced the systemic racism and its real material consequences.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Capitalism ended slavery and continues to reduce poverty to this day. Cope, get a job, and enjoy.

[@AdrienLegendre]

I would disagree that slavery generates (builds) racism. Racism precedes and persists during slavery.

[@liedersanger1]

She should introduce Mr. Prescod.

[@ericb4127]

How is it that proving who you are when it comes time to vote is somehow going to overthrow democracy?

[@JB-vb6dh]

I’m all for bringing someone in to critique 1619, but this ain’t it. Oakes has the credentials, but seems to validate the point of the project. History needs to focus more on the resistance efforts of black Americans. Our history is full of white assistance, but not enough focus on Black agency. Disappointing interview. Still like the channel though 👍🏾

[@DinoCism]

Does that mean that we should pretend the slaves emancipated themselves because it would be a more progressive story than what actually happened?

[@warnerbasement1628]

There you go! That's a valid critique grounded in a neo marxist framework. In a modernist framework with a serious intent to further examine the complexities of the issues related to white allyship. Butbthe 1619 Project is none of that. It's a Francoix Lyotardian post modernist framed bunch of made up bullshit expressing a univariate "analysis" of an inordinately complex social systems and country's history spanning centuries. The 1619 Project is garbage and it has done damage to necessary conversations grounded in modernist frameworks of seriousness and academic rigor that neither make shit up nor hide the ugly while never denying the biases looking at history always involves. Fuck post modernist frameworks.

[@4235Duke]

Grandpa is wrong on this

[@Urm0mz]

How do you push back on a project by REGURGITATING THE ALREADY KNOWN HISTORY....🤦🏾‍♀️ We need to analysis and reassess history in order to support the learning of NEW historic evidence. You can't argue "water is wet" and explain it being so by saying "because for hundreds of years scholars have agreed water is wet. It just is". Or you could use research and evidence to prove what wet means and why water would be considered wet. I mean.....damn

[@warnerbasement1628]

Post modernist much? So we'll just allow people to make stuff up as long as those narratives are fighting subjectively ascribed "systems of oppression" indeed why trust vaccines? I mean vaccine deniers "feel" they cause autism? Why trust the history of vaccines. The big lie is justified at all costs huh?

[@insightdesignusa]

❤

[@protitikhan3861]

Ok, but whether a historical assertion about policing deriving from slave patrols is "helpful to your argument" vs. Is TRUE or not is a very different answer! I don't care if it's helpful, the question was, is it true? Is there evidence? As a scientist, I can't stand listening to historians on this channel always rambling on about their opinions and losing track of the damn question they were asked. Noam Chomsky is the worst for this. I find a lot of leftist intellectuals seem to lose their trains of thought when yapping about their vast wealth of knowledge. Good for you, but seriously, it's hard to have a constructive conversation with such a fettered mind.

[@TPubbie]

He explains why it's not true in the video.

[@commontater1785]

I think the female presenter would do well to improve her presentation by conscientiously remove the following filler words from her vocabulary, 'like, sort of, kind of, um, so, just, you know'. I, myself am a much poorer presenter, so I shouldn't criticize. I would be much more nervous and completely stumble over my words. Still, I think she would greatly benefit from avoiding these.

[@AdrienLegendre]

Agree. She should pause, generate a clear sentence, then speak.

[@normankelley]

I've have said to myself and others that if you read the 1619 Project opening essay that it is essentially a black nationalist re-interpretation of US history. In other words, right year but wrong nation: 1619 is the beginning of the " black nation."

[@janosmarothy5409]

Is your argument that slavery was therefore a progressive precondition for the formation of a Black nation in the US? There's a dark, ugly truth to it, but jeez one couldn't ask for a more unenviable way of framing it

[@janosmarothy5409]

@@phs170600 I actually agree totally. Setting the politics of why a Black Belt theory was put forward the CP, at a purely formal level you have to make some pretty weird moves to make it all fit -- my reply was made in that "so let's see where the rabbithole takes us" spirit

[@normankelley]

@@janosmarothy5409 Excuse me, I was commenting on James Oakes's comment that Nicole Hannah-Jones's opening 1619 essay as a black nationalist re-interpretation of US history. Oakes, as a historian, saw what Hannah-Jones what she was doing.

[@normankelley]

@@phs170600 I don't know why you seem so upset. I didn't assume anything. I merely agreed with Oakes's observation that at NHJ was trying to pull a fast one, ignoring that abolitionism was a movement that involved all who were against slavery which included whites and black, free people and enslaved.

[@janosmarothy5409]

@@normankelley Sure, thanks for clarifying. And I think that's an accurate call, so we're back to square one although I doubt she's willing to go all the way with her own line of thought and give the devil his due XD

[@ceceliawight7059]

What happened to Black historians? There were none to be booked, Jacobin?

[@ajra4626]

They should have called Gerald Horne. I know he would have picked up.

[@vitogulla]

Adolph Reed is on like once a month. Where you been?

[@srs-swooz]

I knew some stupid identitarian would say something along these lines. Do you feel superior?

[@areallyboredguy5825]

@@srs-swooz Well so far all the segments against 1619 haven't included a black historian. And all the guests have erased slavery focussing on non-racial based issues. Even though there were indeed racial based issues at the time...

[@mimonkey3]

Touré Reed has been on several times.

[@mooreholistic]

bs

[@weston.weston]

Oh my goodness, I am a progressive who is new to Jacobin and find the content here disturbing. Wow. I did not realize the extent to which the left-left is divided in this way. This historian is saying that prominent academics Nikole Hannah Jones and Matthew Desmond get it wrong but HE gets it right. Okay, after a few days exploring Jacobin I realize it won't be one of my primary sources of progressive perspectives on world events.

[@benp4877]

?

[@iranjohn]

This is something intellectually dishonest about this Oaks guy. Give me direct examples from her writing of what she’s done wrong. I will look at it, the citation, and judge for myself. However, I’ve watched a few episodes of this show, and she always seems to pick somebody who says, “Oh, I’m an authority, so you know----. “ Hell, I have dismantled the textbook citations in front of my professors before. Especially in communications, a class I am glad I’m out of because the textbook entirely mischaracterized real-world events.

[@tylerhackner9731]

✊🏼✊🏼

[@yonisgure7348]

I can imagine the next article in Jacobin will be something like, "Why does the DSA have such low African-American membership?" or something.

[@areallyboredguy5825]

For real. This plus the video months ago about the black panthers during black history that belittled their actions and progress.

[@vitogulla]

Lol. Like anybody gives a shit about this argument about the 1619 project.

[@RB-jl8gj]

@@areallyboredguy5825 You guys are so afraid and disdainful of Black people that you think that criticizing an ultra minoritarian political movement that failed is going to cut every single Black American to the core and stop them from joining a movement that treats them like human beings and fights for the future of the majority. It's pathetic. Try asking Adolph Reed about being black in the DSA... and getting censored and "canceled" by fucking loser grad students on a power trip, who happened to be black too. You think that criticizing the false academic work of a few bourgeois Black people in America's foremost imperial rag is somehow an insult to socialist blacks. Just get fucked, you have no place coming and criticizing the Jacobin show for their supposed insults to your racist little grad student idea of black people.

[@areallyboredguy5825]

@@RB-jl8gj Do you mean that because it's Jacobin they are beyond being criticised? Do you somehow now assume that I am "not black" because I criticised Jacobin? You made this claim of "cutting to the core" no... but it can DISCOURAGE do you know what that word means and how it works? because it doesn't require "cutting to the core" You can criticise the work, but Jacobin has done very little to talk about the role of slavery in the revolution, instead they pivot entirely to just talk about how the 1619 project is flawed and instead of informing us well what role "did" slavery play then. They ignore it and speak about class struggles. Are class struggles real? Yes, in fact class struggles are WHY WE HAD chattel slavery as the land-owning elites sought to discourage black slaves and white indentured working together, thus inventing chattel to stratify the groups. And seriously? You're telling me to "get fucked" because I had a fucking criticism? I have no place? Tell me what makes you think I have no right to criticise Jacobin? The fucking point of leftist in general IS TO CHALLENGE AND LISTEN TO EACH OTHER, not form a band of non-thinking fucking zombies like every other fucking traditional political party. Do you think critical thinking is a virtue or a sin? Do you think you should have maybe came up with a serious ARGUMENT instead of just saying "get fucked"? Do you think your comments saying GET FUCKED to leftists who have some concerns over Jacobin in this regard, would push them away from Jacobin or bring them closer to Jacobin to have discussions?

[@RB-jl8gj]

@@areallyboredguy5825 I don't care if you're black, it really doesn't have any weight in what you're saying. And it's good that you're all for challenging and listening, not sure why you're standing up for the original comment though, because that's the exact opposite of what's going on there. That kind of race baiting twitter-lord horseshit is the exact opposite of dialectical criticism.

[@dapm36]

Wow more nonsense by pseudo intellects.

[@janineschaefer1364]

Is this white replacement fear? Tone of speakers is so personal. Very fascinating.

[@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052]

Maybe. If you only focused on tone and ignored content.

[@pauljackson1709]

@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 "tone" is the last refuge of true scoundrels.

[@jimlabbe8258]

Personal? Can you be more specific? I heard strong disagreement with a particular line of idealist reasoning that Oakes finds ahistorical and not useful for dismantling the racist neoliberal policies of the present. That is not the "white replacement fear" of right wing commentators that denies the legacies of slavery and the racism of recent and current policies.

[@AmandaFromWisconsin]

"Tone of speakers is so personal." How do you mean?

[@cuantrail]

So and ad hominem? Guess that's what people resort to when they have no counter argument.

[@britishmgtow7251]

Brexit is Perfect

[@deathmagneto-soy]

Absolutely. Tiocfaidh ár lá

[@britishmgtow7251]

@@deathmagneto-soy please comment in English only

[@ganazby]

Yeah, probably the dumbest act of self sabotage ever.

[@britishmgtow7251]

@@ganazby yes but it is of the self, not an external force, not a dictatorship Brexit is perfect

[@deathmagneto-soy]

@@britishmgtow7251 - Please educate yourself. Erin go bragh