Thread by @neoavatara

I actually think honoring the 400th anniversary of the arrival of slaves is a very critical thing for America to acknowledge and educate.

I wish more people would spend time on it.

Not totally sure the 1619 project at the Times fully does it service though.

This isn't because of any 'bias' from the Times. Each of their editorialists have a viewpoint worth hearing from, and their views are worthy of contemplation and debate.

I think the bigger problem is the people (not all of them, mind you) that frame EVERY political issue of today around slavery.

That..simply isn't all that accurate.

For example...the piece on the US not having universal health care because of repercussions of slavery is...well, to be kind...downright. melodramatic, and not really all that based in evidence of why our health care system is the way it is.

Also, the piece on the 'brutality' of capitalism.

In many ways, segregation and the aftermath of slavery would have been well served with MORE capitalism. The government in many ways restricted the free market to blacks (in businesses, housing, etc, etc).

Govt obstruction of free market practices in professions that are heavily minority dominated is another reason for poverty and wealth disparity in this country, TO THIS DAY.

Look at the recent opposition by some quarters to loosening occupational licensing standards...

I think the other part of its failure is to admit how much we have truly advanced over the years.

I know people hate to admit this...but racism, bigotry, and hate crimes are generally progressively decreasing.

And none of this even talks about how African Americans now in many ways dominate our entertainment industry, etc.

That is not a sign of an oppressive racial regime.

Neither is one that elected Barack Obama.

That does not at all absolve the country for its past. That past will ALWAYS be with us. It is part of who we are.

But the question really is, will we use it to learn and advance, or divide and regress.

Anyway, after my riff...I still highly recommend reading the essays. Some are likely to annoy you, some will anger you, but it is still worth it to see points of view that you might otherwise never be faced with.

One afterthought: Some are getting angry because they disagree, or think these writers are being dishonest, or whatever.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But I still think trying to understand their viewpoint, right or wrong, is worthwhile.

I read this piece again, because it kind of bothered me. I couldn't put my finger on why...

nytimes.com/interactive/20…

Lets note that this is a beautifully written piece. Most of the historical anecdotes are, as far my recollection, accurate.

I keep coming back to the assertion that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

This is both true...but not totally accurate.

From the time of the Founding, leaders had been debating, both publicly and with themselves, how much they were willing to sacrifice for the 'slavery issue'.

It was a major issue of debate throughout the Founding.

The hypocrisy often cited about Jefferson was emblematic of the problem.

And in many ways, was emblematic of the country. They knew this was a sin; but didn't know how to solve it. To their own detriment.

For example, he states one of the primary reasons for independence was to maintain Slavery.

But Britain wanted to end the slave trade, but was MORE than happy to deal with slave states. Even at the time of the Civil War, Britain seriously considered siding...with the South.

Thus, even Britain, who allowed slavery in the first place, and then had doubts after the institution was ingrained in Southern American society, was hypocritical on the issue.

There were no clean hands anywhere.

That said, was slavery such a non-issue by the time of the Civil War...that it wasn't a reason the war was fought?

I think that is being dishonest.

Lincoln would have sacrificed that issue to stop the war...but many who joined the war effort did so because of slavery.

Furthermore, if slavery was not the crux of the issue, then after the war...why did they outlaw slavery?

I mean, there was no reason in 1865 to believe the South would peacefully accept abolition.

But still...the North forced it.

I think my point (and I admit I am rambling, so bear with me) is that the original sin of this nation is slavery, and will always be slavery.

But in very small, incremental ways, we've been trying to deal with that sin from the beginning.

The Founders didn't know how to, but they did start the concept of 'natural rights'.

Lincoln was forced to by war and blood, but every leader would have abolished slavery the way he did.

His death slowed racial progress for a half century.

It took another CENTURY for the country to seriously confront racial injustice. And that was a travesty, and a hard fought victory.

But it eventually happened.

The real question is twofold:

1. How many of our problems of our African American brothers and sisters are directly related to slavery? And how do we confront that?

2. And how do we solve the other problems?

If EVERY problem is slavery based...then reparations would solve it, and then, following that, we would never have to talk about it again.

But we know that is ridiculous.

The alternative is that...its complicated.

There are clearly echoes of the slavery issue, but there are new issues that had nothing really to do with slavery that have arisen in the 150 years since the end of the Civil War.

For example:

Is the massive increase in nonmarital birth rates from the 1960s onward...a Slavery issue?

If so, how?

Again, these are things I'd love for the NY Times writers to talk about...and then, I'd love for them to argue AGAINST their preconceived notions, to see where that takes them.

A good thread here.

Good piece from @CatoInstitute

cato.org/blog/1619-proj…

Key point:

Another good thread.

More here...

Another good thread on the same thing...

A pretty good podcast.

And...another good thread.