Download Mobi 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project By Peter Wood
Download PDF 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project By Peter Wood
Download PDF 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Read READER Sites No Sign Up - As we know, Read READER is a great way to spend leisure time. Almost every month, there are new Kindle being released and there are numerous brand new Kindle as well.
If you do not want to spend money to go to a Library and Read all the new Kindle, you need to use the help of best free Read READER Sites no sign up 2020.
Read 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Link MOBI online is a convenient and frugal way to read 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Link you love right from the comfort of your own home. Yes, there sites where you can get MOBI "for free" but the ones listed below are clean from viruses and completely legal to use.
1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project MOBI By Click Button. 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project it’s easy to recommend a new book category such as Novel, journal, comic, magazin, ect. You see it and you just know that the designer is also an author and understands the challenges involved with having a good book. You can easy klick for detailing book and you can read it online, even you can download it
Ebook About When and where was America founded? Was it in Virginia in 1619, when a pirate ship landed a group of captive Africans at Jamestown? So asserted the New York Times in August 2019 when it announced its 1619 Project. The Times set out to transform history by tracing American institutions, culture, and prosperity to that pirate ship and the exploitation of African Americans that followed. A controversy erupted, with historians pushing back against what they say is a false narrative conjured out of racial grievance.This book sums up what the critics have said and argues that the proper starting point for the American story is 1620, with the signing of the Mayflower Compact aboard ship before the Pilgrims set foot in the Massachusetts wilderness. A nation as complex as ours, of course, has many starting points, most notably the Declaration of Independence in 1776. But the quintessential ideas of American self-government and ordered liberty grew from the deliberate actions of the Mayflower immigrants in 1620.Schools across the country have already adopted the Times’ radical revision of history as part of their curricula. The stakes are high. Should children be taught that our nation is a four-hundred-year-old system of racist oppression? Or should they learn that what has always made America exceptional is our pursuit of liberty and justice for all?Book 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Review :
The 1619 Project is about politics, not history. The truth of that period of history is quite different. Peter Wood does an excellent job of refuting the nonsense and power-play of the 1619 Project with this new book. Revising American history to try to fit a political agenda is never a good idea.This book will tell you the truth about this critical time in American history. Almost all historical scholars on the left or right dispute the inaccurate and ugly concept that America was founded only to protect the worldwide institution of slavery. The primary concept of America's founding was freedom of religion and speech. But that doesn't work as well for some people with a political agenda to preach.We need truth in history, not politics, and Peter Wood gives us the true story. If you want to know how wrong the 1619 Project is, this is an excellent rebuttal by a wonderful writer. “If the 1619 Project were a term paper, any knowledgeable, fair-minded teacher would give it an F and be done with it. It demonstrates not only incompetence in handling basic facts, but also a total disregard for the importance of using reliable sources.”This is the conclusion of Peter W. Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, after an examination of the central claims of The New York Times’ widely celebrated initiative to reframe American history around slavery. The initiative is the brainchild of Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer for the Times. The project was launched in the August 18, 2019 special issue of The New York Times Magazine. Its basic premise is that the true founding of America was not 1776 with the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but 1619 with the arrival of the first African slaves brought to Virginia. It was this event, Hannah-Jones argues, that expressed the real founding ideals of America. “America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began.”Wood examines these claims in his recently released 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2020). He begins by helpfully summarizing the Project’s origin, contributors, content, and goals (pp. 1-14), while noting,"The 1619 Project offers the fullest and most vigorous exposition of the view that America is a racist, oppressive country. Fringe groups of black nationalists take an even grimmer view, but the 1619 Project has taken ideas that a few years ago were exclusively fringe a good way into the realm of mainstream opinion. The idea, for example, that the American Revolution was a pro-slavery event once circulated only among conspiracy minded activists with comic-book-style theories of history. The 1619 Project has brought it from the playground into the classroom, to the consternation of serious historians everywhere." (p. 5)Consternation, because (among other things) “the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, who makes some of the most audacious claims, cites no sources at all: the project as presented in the magazine contains no footnotes, bibliography, or other scholarly footholds.” (p. 6) In addition, historians have found the project to be “marred by an astonishing number of errors, misstatements, and omissions. And for a project that purports to cover the world ‘in all its complexity,’ 1619 gives us a just-so story of simplistic generalities – slavery has shaped everything in America.” (p. 53) Further, “When the editors responsible for the 1619 Project have been confronted with the errors and contradictions of the Times’ portrayal of history, they have retreated into a postmodern claim that it is all a matter of interpretation.” (p. 39)The project has also caused consternation among historians because Hannah-Jones, although claiming to want a “dialogue” on the claims presented in the project, seems to only talk with those who agree with her."Hannah-Jones had been challenged on what might be called matters of journalistic integrity. The speaking invitations gave her an open-ended opportunity to debate with her critics, or short of that, at least to offer refutations of their points. But this is not what happened. Although faced with criticism from such eminent historians as Gordon Wood, James McPherson, James Oakes, Richard Carwardine, Clayborne Carson, and Sean Wilentz, Hannah-Jones has found no reason to respond to them. Her agent...appears to have been extraordinarily successful at booking her exclusively in venues where audiences greet her as a hero, a prophet, or a “genius”...This is, of course, freedom of speech in action. The Times and Hannah-Jones are well within their rights to ignore their critics and to create a bubble in which everyone appears to agree with their views. But this approach nullifies any real claim to intellectual seriousness. We seek the truth through pointed examination of the evidence and careful review of the arguments, not through grand pronouncements before worshipful audiences." (pp. 56, 57)As Wood points out, she even ignored an otherwise sympathetic scholar consulted by a Times fact-checker to vet her most audacious claim, that the colonists sought independence from Britain because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery from British attempts to abolish it. The scholar, Leslie M. Harris, is an African-American professor of history at Northwestern University specializing in American urban history, the African diaspora, and African-American history. Her faculty page lists her principal research interests as “Pre-Civil War African-American Labor and Social History; History and Historiography; History of Women, Gender and Sexuality.” (pp. 74-76) Harris told the Times that the claim was false. She tells her story in a Politico essay, “I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored me.”Wood observes that “The 1619 Project isn’t all bad. It is just wrong in crucial places.” (p. 69) Historians have focused their attention on five of the Project’s most egregious claims:1. The American Revolution was fought to protect American slave owners from the threat of abolition by the British authorities2. Lincoln was a racist whose primary intent was to keep blacks and whites separate3. Hannah-Jones’ claim that “for the most part, black Americans fought back alone”4. Plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism5. The entire project of the nation’s history is best understood as a struggle by American blacks against white supremacyWood examines each of these claims except the third, that “for the most part, black Americans fought back alone.” This, he says, "simply ignores the abolition movement, created and sustained for a century by white Americans. It likewise ignores the huge role of white Americans in the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, and in the civil rights movement. Contrary to what Hannah-Jones contends, black Americans were never alone in their fight against racial injustice. Her declaration on this is the most transparently false of all of her many falsehoods." (p. 69)He deals with the first claim, that the American Revolution was fought to protect slave owners from the threat of abolition by British authorities, in chapter 5; the second, that Lincoln was a racist whose primary intent was to keep blacks and whites separate, in chapter 9; the fourth, that plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism, in chapter 8; and the fifth, that the entire project of the nation’s history is best understood as a struggle by American blacks against white supremacy, he rebuts throughout as reductionistic.Wood identifies a cast of supporting characters of the project, including the National Education Association, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Zinn Education Project, the D.C. Area Educators for Social Justice, Teaching for Change, Rethinking Schools, Black Lives Matter at School, and the Pulitzer Center (not to be confused with awarders of the Pulitzer Prizes), among others. As Wood observes, “With these groups, we are in the cultural Marxist, radical anti-American end of the pool, where the goal is to indoctrinate American children with a hatred of their country” (p. 107).The title of each chapter is simply a date in our nation’s history or in the publication and promotion of the 1619 Project itself. The latter are interspersed with the former, and most of the dates are out of chronological order. The final chapter is entitled “The Future.” Wood organizes his material this way because of how he chooses to examine the project’s claims, but I think it would have helped the reader better navigate the material if he had dealt with events in historical order and given each chapter a more descriptive title.Wood chose the title "1620" for his own book, he says, “mainly as a riposte to the claim that the arrival of slaves in Virginia was the real founding of America.” (p. 6) It was in 1620, of course, that the Mayflower landed in what is now Massachusetts. Before disembarking, the passengers signed the Mayflower Compact, probably drawn up by William Brewster and William Bradford, two leaders of the small band of Pilgrims (as they came to be called). The Compact formed “a civil body politic” for the new community, composed of both Pilgrims and Strangers (i.e., non-Pilgrim settlers). “By penning the Compact,” Wood says, “they planted a seed. The document sketched, for the first time in European settlement of the New World, an ideal of self-government based on justice. And it is very important that the leaders invited servants and underage men to sign it as well.” (p. 26)If one had to choose an event prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence as the founding of America, I would agree with Wood that the signing of the Mayflower Compact in 1620 has a better claim than the arrival of the first African slaves to Virginia in 1619. This is not to say their arrival was not significant. It surely was. But it was incidental to the founding, not essential to it. The Mayflower Compact, however, in its effort to establish the groundwork for a self-governing community, was an important precursor to the Declaration. As Wood writes, “The circumstances differ so greatly between 1620 and 1776 that it is easy to lose sight of these connections. But the connections are real, not coincidental...” (pp. 31-32). He adds, “The Compact was not the actual American founding, but a crucial pre-founding, informing the beginning of the American republic.... [I]t has rightly been seen as the moment when an idea of true self-government began to take root.” (p. 33)In chapter 12, Wood gives a brief overview of how slavery has been treated in U.S. history textbooks. Prior the 1960s, the treatment ranged from virtual neglect to minimizing its evils to outright bigotry and racism. In some instances, the way the subject was covered was influenced by salability. “[P]ublishers, ever alert to the danger of losing a market in the South, played down the nastiness of slavery, emphasized the problems in Reconstruction, and ignored all but the most banal aspects of African-American history since.” (p. 190) However, "By the early 1960s, civil rights activists both within and outside the black community were demanding changes in the textbooks and gaining political clout. A major correction was due, and textbook publishers attempted to comply with the demands. But the need was also addressed by writers...who published independent works that presented views of the African American past that had little scholarly warrant. This vein of fanciful pseudo-history complicates the picture to this day, and it is part of the 1619 Project." (p. 199)“A major correction was needed,” he says, but “the 1619 Project carries the reaction into the realm of radical overreaction. It tells us, in effect, that we live in the land of the unfree, and it replaces the effort to tell a truthful history of America, with its failures as well as its achievements, with a story of nothing but failure.” (p. 200)It is easy to agree with Wood when he says, “The 1619 Project as a whole is myth-making aimed at intensifying identity politics and group grievance. It doesn’t aim, as it says, to tell ‘our story truthfully.’ It aims to tell it with falsehoods and deceptions for the purpose of instilling resentment.” (p. 217) Read Online 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Download 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project PDF 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Mobi Free Reading 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Download Free Pdf 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project PDF Online 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Mobi Online 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Reading Online 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project Read Online Peter Wood Download Peter Wood Peter Wood PDF Peter Wood Mobi Free Reading Peter Wood Download Free Pdf Peter Wood PDF Online Peter Wood Mobi Online Peter Wood Reading Online Peter WoodRead Online La casa de los espíritus (Spanish Edition) By Isabel Allende
Read The Dead Zone By Stephen King
Best Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost By Michael C. Bender
Best Always Hers By Bel Blackwood
Read Online I'll Be Watching You By M. William Phelps
Read Infinite Income: The Eight-Figure Formula for Your Online Business By Tanner Chidester
Download Mobi SOLIDWORKS 2019 for Designers, 17th Edition By Prof. Sham Tickoo Purdue Univ.
Comments
Post a Comment