"The 1619 Project"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“The ‘1619 Project’”

September 9, 2019

“The goal of the 1619 Project is to reframe American history,

making explicit how slavery is the foundation on which this country is built.”

                                                                                                New York Times

                                                                                                Sunday, August 18, 2019

“In August 1619, the first enslaved Africans in the English colonies arrived in Virginia.

It was the beginning of a barbaric trade in human lives. Today, in honor, we remember

 every sacred soul who suffered the horrors of slavery and the anguish of bondage.”

                                                                                                President Donald J. Trump

                                                                                                July 30, 2019

                                                                                                Williamsburg, VA

Slavery is barbaric, but to argue that it was the “foundation”on which our country was built is hyperbole and disingenuous. In 1619, Virginia was a colony of Britain. It would be 157 years before the American colonies revolted, and they did so to be free and independent. In that year 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal,” words, as we know, that did not capture the truth of slavery, but which suggested a road map for the banning of international slave trade, which was done in 1808; the freeing of slaves in 1863 under the Proclamation Emancipation, and for the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 and 1965. One might argue that 188 years is too long, but keep in mind slavery has been in existence since before written history. Also, remember, in 1776 slavery existed in all thirteen colonies and throughout Europe. And it persists today, enslaving forty million people, particularly in Asia, Africa and Central Asia.

To suggest that American history be “reframed,” as the New York Timesdid, is the way of totalitarian regimes. Liberal democracies do not re-write history. Certainly, there are, and there have always been, different interpretations of historical events and people. Victors and survivors write post-war histories. Successful and educated nations write histories, not the poor and illiterate. Liberalism recognizes those aberrations, so scholars can better interpret the past. Totalitarianism prefers the narrative to the facts. 

Slavery was a blight on our new Republic’s beginnings and its conscience. Of that there is no question. But history can only be understood within the moral, legal and accepted standards of the time. To apply today’s standards, as the New York Times is wont to do, promotes a narrative and ignores inconvenient facts. In the early 19^thCentury, according to David P. Forsythe, professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, “an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will, either in some form of slavery or serfdom.” The ubiquity of slavery at the time, however, does not (and did not) justify it, but it provides a framework to better understand this scourge. 

To read and believe the Time’s piece is to accept the notion that slavery existed solely in the American colonies and only involved black Africans. The truth is that slavery was so pervasive four hundred years ago I would venture that there are few of us today who do not descend from someone who was, at one point, a slave or an indentured servant. If the New York Timesis successful in adding the ‘1619 Project’ to high schools’ curriculum, will students be taught that slavery was a curse dating back thousands of years, and involved all races as masters and slaves? Will they condemn African traders who captured and sold fellow Africans to European traders? Will they learn that slaves were first brought to Brazil almost a hundred years before they were transported to Jamestown? Will they be taught that over 90% of African slaves carried across the Atlantic went to Mexico and Central and South America? Will students who study the ‘1619 Project’ learn about the enslaving of an estimated one million white, European Christians by Muslims between 1530 and 1780? Will today’s students confront and condemn slavery where it exists now – in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and parts of Africa? It has only been in the past hundred years that slavery was outlawed in much of Africa (Kenya, Northern Nigeria, Botswana, the Sudan, Cameroon, Mauritania, Morocco and Ethiopia), the Middle East (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman) and parts of Asia (Myanmar, Nepal, Hong Kong, British Malaya and Thailand). The editors of the Times assuredly know this, but will high school students a generation from now?

As any student of history knows, the United States is far from perfect, but, as any student of history also knows, no other country in the world has done as much for liberty, whether providing the rights we citizens have that are embedded in our Bill of Rights or the sacrifices Americans have made in defending liberty in foreign lands. There is a reason why emigrating to the United States is the goal of so many in dictatorial and poor parts of the world. It is not benefits proffered; it is opportunities offered. 

In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley wrote: “Liberals want to harp on how blacks have been treated, but a focus on how they have progressed in earlier eras, notwithstanding that treatment, would be of far greater use to today’s black underclass.” Examples abound of American men and women who overcame the slavery into which they were born, to succeed as free men and women: Richard Allen, minister, writer and educator, was born a slave in 1760. Frederick Douglass, writer, orator and abolitionist, was born in 1818. Harriet Tubman, abolitionist and political activist, was born circa 1830. Booker T. Washington, educator, author and advisor to Presidents, was born in 1856. Others born after slavery ended but during the Jim Crow period would include Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, James Baldwin, Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winfrey and dozens more. Consider sports stars like Michael Jordan and Serena Williams; entertainers like Mariah Carey and Jay-Z; businesspeople like Sheila Johnson and Herman Cain; academics like Thomas Sowell and Henry Louis Gates, Jr.; and politicians like Barack Obama, Edward Brooke, Tim Scott and Kamala Harris. As an opinion writer, Mr. Riley belongs among that pantheon. 

Harriet Tubman, who escaped the chains of slavery around 1849, once wrote, “Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember you have within you the strength, the patience and the passion to reach for the stars, to change the world.” In his autobiography Up from Slavery, Booker T. Washington wrote: “I have learned that success is measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life, as by the obstacles he has overcome.” Should we not today celebrate the courage, determination, intellect and will of those who overcame the anguish of bondage and the discrimination of bigots?

Should not those who succeeded in overcoming servitude, segregation and humiliation serve as paragons to be emulated? Is it not better to view life through the positive lens of aspiration and opportunity than through a negative optic of defeat and victimhood? While real victims deserve our sympathy and empathy, we should not assume they have no will or self-motivation to fight back. As well, we blur the distinction between those who truly have been victimized and those who claim to have been.

The ‘1619 Project’ arose because the ‘Russian collusion’ story failed. Executive editor of the Times Dean Baquet admitted the new focus: “To write more deeply about the country, race and divisions.”His message not only does not conform to the Times’ motto, it cannot compete with the optimism and hope offered by Harriet Tubman and Booker T. Washington, former slaves who overcame obstacles that the editors of the New York Timescannot even imagine. Yet they rose to prominence from chains of bondage, and they did so with a belief in God and in themselves, while bearing a positive view of what was possible.

"Murder in the U.S.A."

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Murder in the U.S.A.”

August 12, 2019

“Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind…”

                                                                                    John Donne

                                                                                    “No Man is an Island”

Devotions from Emergent Occasions, 1624

New Hampshire’s White Mountains, with their rugged, natural beauty and the sense of peace that whispers through the Pines, Hemlocks and Spruce that comprise their forests, seemed a long distance from the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton, as well as the never-ending killing of – mostly – young, Black, inner-city males. But this is a big country and it holds people of every ethnicity, nationality and religion – most all who are good, but a few who are evil. When united, we are morally strong; when divided we are vulnerable. 

What unites us is the idea of America. At our core, we love what America represents – the freedom it gives us and the opportunities it provides. Among our freedoms are those that allow us to speak up when we disagree, to protest policies that are at odds with ours. We can, in fact, insult our President. It is this personal freedom and the opportunities for social and economic advancement that attract so many to our shores.

What divides us has been the rise of extremism, driven by a sense of being ignored and by politicians who find compartmentalization of the electorate – by gender, race, religion and sexual orientation – politically opportunistic. The result is a culture that promotes identity politics and victimization; hatred is their progeny. In an August 6 op-ed for the New York Times, David Brooks wrote: “The struggle between pluralism and anti-pluralism is one of the great death struggles of our time, and it is being fought on every front.” What he wrote I believe to be true, but he did not connect anti-pluralism with politics of identity. Pluralism is preferred by those who believe in integration, not just of race, gender and religion but of ideas. It was what drove Martin Luther King, while Anti-pluralism is a consequence of those who thrive on politics of identity – be it white nationalism, Antifa, BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, LGBTQ, or neo-Nazis. These lead to politics of hate and, thence, to acts of terror. We would be wise to heed David Brooks’ call for pluralism. After all, it is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States – e Pluribus Unum.

Politics, it has been said, is a blood sport. This is particularly true during elections, a cycle that today never ceases. Extremism did not originate with the election of 2016. “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff in 2009.  Extremism did not originate with President Obama either. Consider how mocked was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and how sullied was Bill Clinton. Time white-washes some of the vitriol, but it was there. Politicians claim to abhor the consequence of this hatred, but they fail to take responsibility for the role they have played in its genesis. In dividing us, they have found benefit in addressing specific concerns for specific groups, but they have failed to foresee the unintended consequences of pushing people into segregated compartments. We have become, with their help – and abetted by the media – divided. We are like the Jets and the Sharks in “West Side Story.” We promote victimhood and then wonder at its deadly consequence. 

Democrat candidates were quick to blame President Trump for the murders in El Paso, for his alleged condoning of white nationalists, but were more subdued regarding the Dayton shooter Connor Betts and his support for Elizabeth Warren. The El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius, has admitted to targeting Mexican immigrants. And, until this past week, President Trump had not singled out white nationalists as carriers of hate, but neither had Democrats condemned Antifa or those in the entertainment world who have called for Mr. Trump’s assassination. The hatred for President Trump exceeds anything our history offers. It is a hatred that knows no bounds. It is not limited to the Left. It has blurred the vision of publications like the National Reviewand individuals like George Will. When President Trump first spoke after the tragedies, he called for unity, but has been given no credit. The headline in the first edition of the New York Timesthe next day read: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.” But that was too much for biased readers. The headline over the same story in the second edition read: “Assailing Hate but not Guns.” In their sanctimonious hypocrisy, the media enflames the division. In an editorial on the causes of the tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, the Times referred to “white nationalists” fourteen times. They also mentioned “white supremacy” and “white extremists.” To ensure their opinion was not muddied, they added: “white nationalism has attained new mainstream legitimacy during Mr. Trump’s time in office.”

There was no mention in the Times editorial of the role played by mental health, identity politics, or the part played by a lack of moral teachings in families and in schools. No mention was made of politicians who have adopted political correctness as their mantra and who bow to union leaders, in a mutually symbiotic relationship. The editorial was not balanced with discussion of violent left-wing extremists like Antifa. There was no mention of those in the entertainment world who have publicly called for Mr. Trump’s assassination. All blame lay on the President and those who support him. While extremist talk is common in elections, we have reached a point that would be unrecognizable to prior generations. Both Patrick Crusius and Connor Betis should have been red-flagged, by parents, teachers and society.

Members of both parties must own up to and condemn extremists in their parties. In a passage attributable to Aristotle, it has been said we cannot change human nature, so a successful governing body must include concepts of virtue and compromise. We are a myriad people, representing different religions and races. We are conservatives and progressives, extremists and moderates. We come from different socio and economic backgrounds. We are not equal, nor can we ever be. Some of us are athletes, others are intellectuals. We range the spectrum in terms of abilities and aspirations. We are men, women, tall, short, heavy and thin. We are individuals, yet we are part of the greatest country the world has ever known. We are blessed, but only if we recognize the redeeming necessity of compromise. Out of many, one. Pluralism, as David Brooks reminded us, had better be our future. 

While mass shootings command our attention, thousands more get gunned down on city streets, with cities like St. Louis and Baltimore leading the way in urban murders. We need to talk about gun ownership, especially the ownership of assault weapons, while recognizing that restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun violence, as can be seen in cities like Hartford, CT. Nevertheless, we need to discuss universal gun registration and intelligent, thorough background checks. We need to do something about the danger represented by extremists, whether on the right like white nationalists or on the left like Antifa. We need to understand the role played by mental health and to red-flag those who might be at risk. We need to address the anti-social consequences of violence in movies and video games. We need to celebrate marriage and reflect on the cultural downside of single-parent families, a decline in church attendance and an abandonment of community memberships, and the loss of virtue mentioned by Aristotle. We need to dowse the heated rhetoric, whether coming from the President’s Tweets, political candidates or members of the media and entertainment communities, recognizing that one unintended consequence of social media is that what you say, do or write will follow you the rest of your days. We need to think of the damage done to the goal of pluralism by identity politics, and the hatred it spawns. We must regain the ability to laugh at ourselves. We are all, conservatives and progressives alike, as John Donne’s words remind us, “involved in mankind.” Every death affects us.

This essay was completed back in Essex, Connecticut, along the estuary of the Connecticut River. On Saturday, following the Connecticut River south from Brattleboro, Vermont, I thought of it as a metaphor for our nation. A river reflects the woods, fields, farms, towns and cities through which it passes.  It carries myriad objects, natural and man-made; and I thought of how man can pollute it, but also of how it provides enjoyment, employment and enriches and cleanses the land through which it and its tributaries pass. Diversity, like that in the river, is our strength. United we rise. Divided we fall.

"Words and Phrases - Fake or Twisted?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Words and Phrases – Fake or Twisted?”

July 9, 2018

“But no one was interested in the facts. They preferred the invention,

Because this invention expressed their hates and fears so perfectly.”

                                                         James Baldwin

                                                                         Notes of a Native Son, 1955

“The media are less a window on reality, than a stage on which

officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions.”

                                                                                                Thomas Sowell

The Vision of the Anointed: Self    Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy

1995

As the two rubrics show, the concept of“fake” or“twisted” news is not new. The media has long been used for purposes of disinformation, propaganda and deceit. Aesop’s fable of the boy who cried wolf tells a story of deception gone wrong. The Federalist Paperswas written to persuade the undecided to support the Constitution. Lenin argued that capitalists bought up newspapers to control what was printed. Hitler employed Joseph Goebbels as his minister for propaganda. Using words to coax and prod others is the province of politicians, columnists, bloggers and essayists, including yours truly. What is distressing today is that editorializing has seeped into the news room, so that news is comingled with opinions. That does not mean we should be a nation of cynics, but skepticism is healthy. For whom or for what is the writer or speaker an advocate? 

One example: The front-page, top right-hand column of the July 2, 2018 New York Timeswas headlined, “Curbs on Unions Likely to Starve Activist Groups.” The article by Noam Scheiber, in reference to Janus v. AFSCME, read: “The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees forgovernment workers was not only a blow to unions…” Why did Mr. Scheiber use the word “for”? The fees are not forworkers; they are paid byworkers. They are for union leaders, certainly not for workers who disagree as to how money is spent. The editors of The New York Timeare scrupulous in words they choose; the use of “for” had to have been deliberate. One subtle example of editorializing on the front page.

Another example is the hue and cry over abortion, in regard to the replacement of Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Reality tells us that the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade is remote. It was handed down forty-five years ago. It is embedded in law and social norms. Besides, conservatives’ respect precedent. Nevertheless, the law should not be confused with culture. Culture comprises the milieu. Law defines the boundaries. Law is – or should be – created through legislative bodies, affirmed by courts and executed by the Executive. Culture is a construct of religion, tradition, values and learning. It responds to whimsical winds of change. Yet, whenever a Republican President nominates a candidate for the nation’s highest Court, the cry goes forth – Republicans want to ban abortions. We are provided the specter of returning to back-alley doctors, dirty operating rooms and metal coat hangers.

Reactions by the Left to the prospect of a “conservative” Court have been eviscerating. They include the twisting of history and the substituting of fear for facts. Thirty-one years ago (before the “borking” of Robert Bork), Justice Kennedy was subjected to the same accusations when he was nominated by President Reagan. In 1986, Antonin Scalia demurred when asked by Senator Ted Kennedy if he would vote to overturn Roe: “I do not think it would be proper for me to answer that question.” Justice Scalia lamented the Roe decision, not because of its finding, but because the decision was based on a few Justices imposing their cultural values and not a result of a vote by state legislators. Could a nominee to the Court today be as forthcoming as Justice Scalia? No candidate for the Court should be asked to opine about cases that may or may not come before them. Such questions, in a vacuum, cannot be answered sincerely. Have we so politicized the process that straight-forward honesty is no longer possible? Should not wisdom and equanimity, along with knowledge of and respect for the Constitution – its declarations, amendments, precedents and limits – be the characteristics we should want in a Supreme Court Justice?

“Diversity” is a word whose definition focuses on what is politically correct – race, religion and sexual orientation – and ignores ideas that are deemed unacceptable. Consider a recentNew York Timesarticle about the reaction of summer residents in Martha’s Vineyard – an exclusive enclave of the liberal rich – to Alan Dershowitz, former professor at Harvard Law School. Because his defense of the Constitution has meant, at times, defending President Trump, he has become persona non grata on, “an island that prides itself on civility and diversity,” to quote the Times. The irony embedded in that sentence appeared lost to the reporter. For there was nothing civil about the treatment of Mr. Dershowitz, when his conditioned support for Mr. Trump did not conform to what was considered socially acceptable. When they are accused of being neither fair nor civil, nobody hates with the intensity and venality of the Left. 

“Equality” has lost its meaning. Are we speaking of opportunities or results? We are not equal and never can be. Is it fair that I am not equal to my neighbor in terms of wealth? Was it fair that when I was in high school the tall, blond football player ended up with the best-looking girls? We possess different abilities and bear different aspirations. We are individuals. We have different tolerances for risk. We will never be equal in aptitude, education or wealth. But we are, and we should be, equal as citizens under the law. Each individual should have equal opportunities to succeed? We should each strive to do our best and take responsibility for our deeds and words. We should acknowledge and celebrate our differences, not lament what cannot be. We should be civil and respectful of others, not use inequality as a political sledgehammer. 

“Victimization” is a word whose meaning has become diluted by overuse. It is used by universities to countenance “safe (segregated) places,” and by politicians to justify compartmentalizing (segregating) voters into easily accessible units. 

Ironically, it has been Donald Trump, often portrayed as linguistically-challenged, who has proved to be a master of words. He intentionally enflames his antagonists. He knows what he is doing when he exasperates “Never Trumpers,” “Trump Haters” and “Resisters.” His opponents, like Maxine Waters, snap at the bait. They sound and react like extremists. They suggest he is a Nazi or a fascist. They call for impeachment and even his assassination. If he were a true threat to democracy, such actions might be excusable. But, the consequences of his actions – not his words – have been to limit the reach of government, not expand it, through cuts in regulations and reductions in taxes. It is the Left that desires a more powerful executive, an enervated Congress and a compliant Judiciary. It was they who politicized the IRS and the FBI.

It is too much to ask in this age of social media, but it would be nice if we could receive our news from unbiased sources – with facts laid out, without opinion or nuance – allowing the reader or viewer to develop his or her own opinion. But we can’t, or we won’t. So, we must endure the Twittering, blogging, biased reporting, and late-night TV comedians and hosts. To counter this wealth of propaganda, we must therefore read as widely as possible, to become as informed as we can and to then make decisions that suit our own, educated interpretation of events.