Sigh. OK, so my 2c on the 1619 project. It seems like most of the disagreement is two sides talking past each other (surprise). 1/
Conservatives are largely talking about the rollout theme, that 1619 is the actual founding of America. Libs are talking about the essays, which . . . don't always do such a great job of supporting the rollout theme. 2/
Like, from the essays I've read, the actual theme is more "slavery and race are really important, and touches aspects of America in ways you wouldn't think about." Some are more radical than others, but for an example. 3/
the Kevin Kruse essay on traffic in Atlanta probably shouldn't be all that controversial on its own terms. There's not a whole lot of doubt that racial considerations played a large role in how interstates were laid out, 4/
although, as with most things, that is tied in with other concerns like class, land cost, preserving traditional neighborhood integrity, etc. Also not too controversial that race plays a role in public transportation; see, e.g., the lack of a metro stop in Georgetown. 5/
I also very much doubt that Kruse blames Atlanta traffic on slavery. It might affect the specific form traffic takes and some of the severity, but traffic congestion is pretty much the norm in cities of Atlanta's size. So why would people interpret it that way? 6/
I come back to the framing. The Times rollout suggested an argument that slavery is the most important factor in America, so the priors were set a certain way. I think by-and-large the essays didn't even try to deliver on that, but I do think that's why we're where we are. 7/7
(it didn't help that a lot of these contentions are controversial, and only one side was presented, but I don't think its inherently problematic for a magazine to do a symposium with an express point of view) 7/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
