The 1619 Project has been back in the news lately. From what you've heard of it how accurate would you say it is? Dinesh D'souza gave some interesting responses to it.
Whatever Dinesh says is guaranteed to be wrong, regardless of subject, and Laura Ingraham ditto. But I agree with them that the 1619 Project is a gross distortion of historical reality. Several respected historians agree too. 1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not American Slavery and ‘the Relentless Unforeseen’ | by Sean Wilentz | The New York Review of Books The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times’ 1619 Project An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project A Matter of Facts Twenty slaves landed by Dutch slave traders didn't make much of a dent in the American economy, and the notion that protecting slavery was somehow a cause of the American Revolution is without rational foundation, since there were no indications at the time England would move against the institution. The cotton gin, the critical invention that made cotton king and slavery central, wasn't invented until 1765. The 1772 Somerset v. Stewart case, made much of by the NY Times authors was narrowly confined in scope to England and received little attention in the colonies. True to form, though, D'souza goes off the rails in trying to argue that Democrats are responsible for slavery and Republicans were the liberators. Historically, that may be true, but that was over a century and a half ago. In the Great Depression, FDR brought African-Americans into the Democrat New Deal Coalition, along with Southern segregationists, and in the sixties, the parties did a switcheroo on the matter of civil rights--with Democrats pushing the Civil Rights Acts. The so-called Solid South, which was once Democrats, became solid Republican after Nixon's so-called Southern Strategy to woo them. So I'd say neither the Project nor D'souza gets high marks on accuracy, since both are examples of ideology and rank political propaganda.
Aren't you acknowledging what Dinesh said here about the Democrat's connection to slavery was true since you said "historically,that may be true"?
Curiosity question. How much were most rich people in the western hemisphere connected to slavery in the 1700's and 1800's? Was it possible to find a rich person in the western hemisphere in 1840 whose wealth wasn't connected to slavery in some way? I was wondering about how widespread was the economic influence of slavery back then?
Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia First enslavements Main article: Slavery among Native Americans in the United States In 1508, Ponce de León established the Spanish settlement in Puerto Rico, which used the native Taínos for labor. The Taínos were largely exterminated by war, overwork and diseases brought by the Spanish. In 1513, to supplement the dwindling Taíno population, the first enslaved African people were imported to Puerto Rico. Indian slavery was abolished in Spanish territories in 1542 with the New Laws.[7] British colonists conducted enslaving raids in what is now Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and possibly Alabama.[8] The Charleston slave trade, which included both trading and direct raids by colonists,[9] was the largest among the British colonies in North America.[10] Between 1670 and 1715, between 24,000 and 51,000 captive Native Americans were exported from South Carolina—more than the number of Africans imported to the colonies of the future United States during the same period.[11][12] Additional enslaved Native Americans were exported from South Carolina to Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.[11]The historian Alan Gallay says, "the trade in Indian slaves was at the center of the English empire's development in the American South. The trade in Indian slaves was the most important factor affecting the South in the period 1670 to 1715"; intertribal wars to capture slaves destabilized English colonies, Florida and Louisiana.[11] First continental African enslaved people Main article: Slavery in the colonial history of the United States The first Africans enslaved within the continental United States arrived via Santo Domingo to the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón in 1526.[13]The ill-fated colony was almost immediately disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the enslaved people revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans. De Ayllón and many of the colonists died shortly afterwards of an epidemic and the colony was abandoned. The settlers and the enslaved people who had not escaped returned to Santo Domingo.[13] On August 28, 1565, St. Augustine, Florida was founded by the Spanish conquistador Don Pedro Menendez de Aviles and he brought three enslaved Africans with him. During the 16th and 17th centuries, St. Augustine was the hub of the trade in enslaved people in Spanish colonial Florida and the first permanent settlement in what would become the continental United States to include enslaved Africans.[14] The first birth of an enslaved African in what is now the United States was Agustin, who was born there in 1606.[15] Black slave owners Slave owners included a comparatively small number of people of at least partial African ancestry, in each of the original thirteen colonies and later states and territories that allowed slavery;[344] in some early cases black Americans also had white indentured servants. An African former indentured servant who settled in Virginia in 1621, Anthony Johnson, became one of the earliest documented slave owners in the mainland American colonies when he won a civil suit for ownership of John Casor.[345] In 1830 there were 3,775 black (including, mixed race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves, which was a small percentage of a total of over two million slaves held in the South.[346] 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. There were economic and ethnic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and the Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most living in New Orleans and Charleston. In particular, New Orleans had a large, relatively wealthy free black population (gens de couleur) composed of people of mixed race, who had become a third social class between whites and enslaved blacks, under French and Spanish colonial rule. Relatively few non-white slaveholders were substantial planters; of those who were, most were of mixed race, often endowed by white fathers with some property and social capital.[347] For example, Andrew Durnford of New Orleans was listed as owning 77 slaves.[346]According to Rachel Kranz: "Durnford was known as a stern master who worked his slaves hard and punished them often in his efforts to make his Louisiana sugar plantation a success."[348] In the years leading up to the Civil War, Antoine Dubuclet, who owned over a hundred slaves, was considered the wealthiest black slaveholder in Louisiana.
Technically accurate but intentionally, majorly misleading--which is the equivalent being false. That was then, this is now. The Democrats are no longer the enemy of African-Americans and Retrumplicans are certainly not their friends. The South is still solid, but in a Retrumplican direction.
To expand it a little more, we might include the facts that most of these black slaveowners were of mixed race--takin' after their pappies. One drop made a person black back in the day. A large number were from the creole class established under Spanish and French rule. But as historian Ira Berlin remarked: "Their acceptance was grudging, as they carried the stigma of bondage in their lineage and, in the case of American slavery, color in their skin." Generations of Captivity, p. 9.
There is no link to the book. It's a book, most likely not accessible by internet. But the book is referred to in your Wikipedia link. My point was to provide a more complete picture of "black slave owning". Your wikipedia source also brings out that in most cases the slaves owned by blacks were relatives, purchased for benevolent purposes, since it was difficult to free a slave in this country after 1810. African-American "slaveowners" had to maintain the fiction that the relatives they purchased were their slaves! Kinda puts it in a different light. As for the New Orleans sugar planter, Andrew Durnford, in your post, who worked his slaves hard, he was the son of a rich Englishman and a free woman of color back in the days when Louisiana was first Spanish, than French, and more liberal about race that Americans. He became a U.S. citizen at the time of the Louisiana Purchase. Antoine Dubuclet, that other rich planter you mention, was again a a product of Louisiana culture under the French. He inherited his plantation from his freedman father who inherited it in turn from his father about whom nothing is known racewise. From Dubuclet's photographs, it is obvious he had a caucasian somewhere in the family tree.
In case the audience isn't familiar with the credentials of Dinesh D'souza, he's a guy Trump pardoned from a federal felony conviction for campaign violations. He is a rather notorious right wing political operative sleazeball, best known for spreading conspiracy theories and lies. A Look at Dinesh D’Souza, Pardoned by Trump (Published 2018) Read Dinesh D’Souza And The Decline Of Conservatism Online Dinesh D’Souza: A Charlatan’s Comeuppance Why Conservatives Believe Obama Has Declared a Secret War on Their Heroes Get a Rare Glimpse of Dinesh D’Souza’s Life After Conviction Right-Wing Pundit's Attempt To Whitewash The Capitol Insurrection Backfires | HuffPost Dinesh D'Souza Dragged Due to Dumb Drivel [COMMENTARY] Dozens of Historians Have Debunked Dinesh D'Souza's Work Dinesh D’Souza gets a history lesson on Twitter. Princeton historian Kevin Krause compiled a list of 52 historains who debunked D'Souza's writings, including many from prestigious universities. Dozens of Historians Have Debunked Dinesh D'Souza's Work Thread by @KevinMKruse: "A few days ago, someone in my mentions suggested I put together a thread of all the *other* historians who've debunked @DineshDSouza on Twit […]"
Dinesh D'Sousa is an inveterate liar and Fascist propagandist. Ever since the conception of Barry Goldwater's (Republican) "Southern Strategy", which sought to capitalize upon segregationist angst over Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (passed by a Democratic administration) by encouraging White supremacist "Dixiecrats" to defect en masse to the Republican Party (good fucking riddance), which was further refined and perfected by Richard Nixon (Republican) in 1968 and 1972 and Ronald Reagan (Republican) in 1980, White supremacy has become increasingly the sole purview and an integral plank of the Republican platform. Arguably, it's now metastasized to become their sole raison d'être. Today's Republican Party is not "the party of Lincoln", and hasn't been for fifty years. D'Sousa bloody well knows this, but bets that you don't. That said,Nikole Hannah-Jones is a liar and the worst of historians, who has committed what should be the most mortal of academic sins; she has attempted to weave into our common historical narrative not the truth, but a sophomoric fantasy which she fervently wishes were true, despite copious well-documented historical evidence to the contrary (as if America's history of slavery, racism, and oppression wasn't heinous enough unembellished). A pox on all of them.
I'm also wondering how the 1619 Project addressed the role of African involvement in the slave trade? Correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't Europeans get the majority of their slaves from Africans who had captured their rivals and then sold them to Europeans? An interesting video:
it isn't the news that is fake, its the white supremist version of history that has been taught to children in schools for well over a century. an honest history would stop denying that its positive values were widely held by indiginous cultures long before the european "white" invasion of the western hemsiphere. a 1491 project would be more likely to get it right, depending of course, if its purpose and intention were to do. 1690 whatever wasn't the beginning of anything. it is not tyranny that has ever been the default natural condition but one that had to be created and maintained, and unfortunately it begain, well even before the beginnings of agriculture. and the desire to find ways of preventing it, didn't suddenly invent itself some time in the last few hundred years. several things that made matters worse did. there was a papal doctrine of discovery, befor columbus, and then columbus himself, or the expedition he led, who's goal was anything other then peaceful exploration. both of those before 1600 whenever. and i don't mean to make lite of what happened to persons of african ancestry in the u.s., brought here in chains, their ancestors, but it is part of a larger, just as evil picture, that as children we've been lied to, that america's independence began as a totally pure and holy thing that somehow made everything right.
