Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D. Profile picture
Aug 19, 2019 35 tweets 6 min read Read on X
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.
Key point:
Another good thread on the same thing...

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D.

Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @neoavatara

Jun 24
My problem with Biden's response to the vast surge in antisemitism on his watch is that his statements have been fine, but followed up with almost zero specific action by his administration. He has done as little as Trump did after Charlottesville.
Frankly, Biden and AG Merrick Garland have acted far, FAR more aggressively against conservative groups.

See how they responded to critics of schools. They were right to do this...but we've seen nothing of the sort against anti-semites. Why?

apnews.com/article/educat…
Let's see Garland's 'memo' targeting anti-semitic groups, largely pro-Palestinian ones, and then I might believe they are treating this threat reasonably.

We've seen no such response.

Again, I rhetorically ask the question: Why?

We all know why.
Read 9 tweets
Jun 17
Democrats are really, truly going to be stupid enough to let Donald Trump win, aren't they?

They are completely oblivious and trying to lose.

Let me count the ways:
1. Biden's age.

This is pretty obvious at this point. They are denying the reality of Biden's physical and mental decline. Voters see it.
2. Polling

Biden himself has said that the polls 'were wrong'. They aren't wrong. They are probably relatively accurate. Best case scenario, Biden is tied with a convicted, impeached opponent. Worst case, he is losing to that same clown.
Read 8 tweets
Jun 15
The problem is that Biden is always wandering. This is not a unique moment. The media knows this, but since they are so dishonest, they have no credibility at all.

We are not having an honest discussion about Biden's health, period. washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/…
Again, which major publication has talked about this?

Certainly not @washingtonpost .

Read 4 tweets
Jun 13
They still can't admit they 100% got it wrong. They weren't even a little bit correct. They were as wrong as calling the Earth flat. Image
"The issue was always whether the material was part of a foreign effort to influence the election — as had occurred four years before."

Um, no.

The issue was whether the media including @pbump and @washingtonpost would investigate it properly.

They didn't. They failed.
"The issue at the time of the New York Post report was in part that the material might not be authentic."

But they didn't report "Oh, it MIGHT be inauthentic."

They reported it was LITERALLY INAUTHENTIC, and then used Democrat liars to back that up.
Read 12 tweets
Dec 17, 2023
I think one thing a lot of people don't realize is Palestine isn't alone as a British protectorate that was never an independent country before the Brits left.

India ALSO DID NOT EXIST BEFORE PARTITION IN 1947. There was no 'India', in any real terms.
India was divided by numerous British protectorates or provinces. There was no 'India', as a nation. This was basically true of Palestine as well...there was no independent Palestine before division. Image
Lets note that Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, opposed the name India all together. “He [Jinnah] was under the impression that neither state (India or Pakistan) would want to adopt the British title of ‘India’."

indianexpress.com/article/explai…
Read 9 tweets
Nov 17, 2023
I think this article largely misses the point. The reason that they are struggling is that this undermines what they've taught about racism and bigotry for 50 years.

Why Colleges Are Struggling To Crack Down on Antisemitism via @politicopoliti.co/3ucgtsE
Reality is that it was always easy: Whites and those in power were the bigots. Those that were 'Almost White' (Jews, Asians) were lumped in.

But in this episode, its largely 'brown' people like myeslf that are the bigots, and their targets are Jews (who are viewed as White).
In short, this up ends half century of liberal/progressive theology on racism. And colleges, run by those that run that theology, are struggling to face the fact that they've largely been wrong for 50 years.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(