Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It cannot be argued that the Revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery. But it can be agreed upon by reasonable people that slavery was a significant consideration to many involved in the Revolutionary War.

So let me get this straight, here's what I've established from this conversation:

(1) You haven't read most of the thing.

(2) You rely on other people trashing it for your views, including a bunch of socialists who don't write very well but said some stuff on the internet.

(3) You actually don't have much to quibble about when the substance is laid out, except that you think there was too much hyperbole that needed to be dialed back.

(4) Let's repeat that last one, you, Sebby, the Sultan of Overstatement, the Pooba of Puffery, object to a journalist using hyperbole.

(5) Sorry, just can't stop laughing. Really? This is what it comes down to?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're slippery. I'm not anti-people who see race as important. I'm anti-Woke. The two groups are markedly different.

You literally said, "Anti-most wokeism (people insisting where race is an issue it is the primary if not only significant issue, people who think 1619 holds water)." And you call me slippery? OK, then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's well worth reading. Even if you just pick it up and read two or three articles.

If you're a history nerd, you'd probably end up with an overall view on it like the American Historical Association's editor, who was a little exasperated by the number of journalistic articles breathlessly claiming a new perspective while going through history that's been recited for a few decades in dozens of historical articles, but also a little querilous as to what the controversy was over.

If you're a fan of one or the other writers, you might find some nice nuggets there (Kevin Kruse is a lot of fun, and I've read a couple of his books, but his contribution is a nice introduction to a couple of basic themes that run through much of his stuff).

But if you're looking for a broad overview of American History that keeps slavery and African-American history in plain sight, you'll have trouble finding a more concise work or one that touches on as many different elements of American history.

Sure, like all histories, you can argue a lot of points. But it is a worthwhile read, and a couple steps above "dad" histories like McCullough. I know of no one who considers it a bible or the most scholarly thing around (sebby seems to know people like that, they really enrage him), but plenty who have enjoyed it and learned a few things.

I'm just not interested in a concise, broad overview of American History, nttawwt. Too many other things I'd rather read.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm just not interested in a concise, broad overview of American History, nttawwt. Too many other things I'd rather read.

Fair enough, but if I hear you're spending your time reading Ayn Rand or David McCullough I'm going to mutter some nasty stuff under my breath about you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You literally said, "Anti-most wokeism (people insisting where race is an issue it is the primary if not only significant issue, people who think 1619 holds water)." And you call me slippery? OK, then.

Sebby's more focused on his self-branding than his arguments.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

"What about other forms of slavery" is not even attempting to engage in the discussion, which is that slavery in the Americas was uniquely racialized and heritable.

But sure, some lefties think all of history is best understood as class struggle. What a surprise.

I think the "other forms of slavery" discussion can be fascinating as long as you are using the discussion to understand the horrors of American race slavery rather than excuse, dismiss, or minimize them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

(1) You haven't read most of the thing.

Correct.

(2) You rely on other people trashing it for your views, including a bunch of socialists who don't write very well but said some stuff on the internet.

Incorrect. That was the most comprehensive analysis I'd seen. I based my views on a combination of different things I read within 1619 itself and about 1619.

(3) You actually don't have much to quibble about when the substance is laid out, except that you think there was too much hyperbole that needed to be dialed back.

Yes. One can frame it as hyperbole, which is natural way of looking at it given my own framing of it as an argument of absolutes where an argument of degree ought to have been used.

One could also see it as an attempt to state a position that's flatly inaccurate -- that slavery and racism are the most important defining characteristics of the country. I'm happy to avoid that by moving to an argument of degree and not getting caught up in the semantics. But the criticism that such a statement is simply untrue, and not undone by a charitable allowance that the author actually meant to suggest racism and slavery are one of many important characteristics of the country, is also a valid position.

A cynic would assert that the author may have been trying to get away with a false absolute and when caught was compelled to drop back to a less severe position.

(4) Let's repeat that last one, you, Sebby, the Sultan of Overstatement, the Pooba of Puffery, object to a journalist using hyperbole.

First, see my last sentence just above this one. Second, yeah, I like lobbing missiles where hand grenades might be fine. I regularly violate Buckley's rule that if one writes too aggressively, one undoes his own point, even if his is a winner. BUT... There's naked overstatement, rhetorical fireworks which convey that the author is availing himself of considerable license, and then there's overstatement which offers itself as sincere. If Jones had written her essay in a firebrand style, she'd deserve the benefit of the doubt. But she didn't. She ran with an extreme argument dressed up as a mainstream position.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You literally said, "Anti-most wokeism (people insisting where race is an issue it is the primary if not only significant issue, people who think 1619 holds water)." And you call me slippery? OK, then.

You're confusing or conflating "important" with "the primary if not only significant." These are two very different things, as a dictionary would confirm.

1. I think race is important.

2. I do not think it is the primary or most important issue in all or even a majority of situations.

1 is not necessarily woke. One can think race is important and not be woke.

OTOH, if you believe that in any situation where it is present, race is the primary or most important issue, you're woke.

Positions 1 and 2 are not even close to mutually exclusive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think the "other forms of slavery" discussion can be fascinating as long as you are using the discussion to understand the horrors of American race slavery rather than excuse, dismiss, or minimize them.

Now we're into the serious crazy. Following 1619's release, I heard from all sorts of right wingers about how blacks enslaved other blacks, and there were all sorts of other types of slaves (usually Chinese and Irish were cited).

The Chinese and Irish toiling on the railroads were not slaves. They were more indentured servants, compelled to work and treated horribly. But not slaves.

That blacks enslaved other blacks (the black plantation argument foisted in every email thread your right wing uncle sent to you) is immaterial. Were there plantations on which black owners enslaved whites? No. That seems adequate to end that discussion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fair enough, but if I hear you're spending your time reading Ayn Rand or David McCullough I'm going to mutter some nasty stuff under my breath about you.

I have been reading some fiction by foreign authors (Kevin Barry, Mieko Kawakani, Hiroko Oyamada, Audur Ava Olafsdottir), but in the history department I recently read a solid book about the Battle of Midway, Shattered Sword, more or less from the Japanese point of view, using sources that have been available to Japanese historians for a while but had not been used by US historians. I also read A Libertarian Walks Into A Bear, which Sebby and I were posting about in December, IIRC. Funny!

And keeping it real as a Slothrop, I read an appreciation of one of Pynchon's less-liked books, Vineland Reread, the existence of which I was unaware until I took my daughter to Barnes & Noble for a manga-foraging expedition.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're confusing or conflating "important" with "the primary if not only significant." These are two very different things, as a dictionary would confirm.

1. I think race is important.

2. I do not think it is the primary or most important issue in all or even a majority of situations.

1 is not necessarily woke. One can think race is important and not be woke.

OTOH, if you believe that in any situation where it is present, race is the primary or most important issue, you're woke.

Positions 1 and 2 are not even close to mutually exclusive.

I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at the post where you said that a 44-year-old woman with a master's degree in journalism who has worked as a reporter for almost two decades, including several at the New York Times, must be confused about what "journalism" is.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at the post where you said that a 44-year-old woman with a master's degree in journalism who has worked as a reporter for almost two decades, including several at the New York Times, must be confused about what "journalism" is.

Dude, this ain't no David Brinkley. Her resume reads like social advocate as much if not more than journalist.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dude, this ain't no David Brinkley. Her resume reads like social advocate as much if not more than journalist.

How are you posting here and arguing in the senate at the same time?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dude, this ain't no David Brinkley. Her resume reads like social advocate as much if not more than journalist.

Keep digging.

You can take this however you like, but it's hard to imagine you being that condescending and dismissive of a white guy of the same age who makes a living writing about the stock market. You know, someone serious. Apparently because you disagree with her about questions of interpretation of American history -- a field in which you, like many of us, have no particular training or experience -- you're dismissing her basic qualifications. You've built a highly-leveraged position based on mood affinity rather any real familiarity with her work. You mischaracterized a few sentences that she said once, and decided it means she doesn't understand journalism. Occam's Razor, my friend.

















Predictably, you will read this and double down.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dude, this ain't no [white man]. Her resume reads like [profession I dismiss] as much if not more than [profession I associate with white dudes].

What were you saying about white people and race, again?

[Eh, scroll then post, I give Ty my proxy.]