1619 Project in schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But this project has been shown to be full of inaccuracies and some outright falsehoods.

Nope 2 inaccuracies and 1 was the use of the word all instead of some.

Shocking! 😮

They have been corrected.

Even the critic says even with the inaccuracies that were corrected the project corrected many more inaccuracies in our current teaching of history.

The NYT had to protect a retraction.

The NYT absolutely did NOT retract it. They made 2 corrections. One was about the American Revolution and the other was to change the word all to some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

If you are learning about slavery and feeling guilty, you need to unpack that.

I’m fine with teaching kids about slavery but would prefer that it is done with the appropriate global and anthropological context.

Slavery has been practiced by the vast majority of cultures that have ever existed.

Today there are more enslaved people around the world than ever before in human history. It is widely practiced in many forms in multiple places around the world, specifically the Middle East but other places as well.

Slavery became prohibited because the white Christian men who were in power banned it.

In some twisted effort to…normalize slavery? WTF?

No, it’s appropriate to discuss slavery as it fits into the context of US history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

If you are learning about slavery and feeling guilty, you need to unpack that.

What does that even mean? It's the teachers blaming "all" the non-black students for slavery. They should make it a point of emphasis that some groups didn't participate because they weren't even there. And that they'd probably be on the slave/servant side if they had been there, anyway.

Are you a student? I'm unclear about where you are getting this information about what is and is not presented in a particular teacher's classroom.

PP is pulling it out of his arsehole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

If you are learning about slavery and feeling guilty, you need to unpack that.

What does that even mean? It's the teachers blaming "all" the non-black students for slavery. They should make it a point of emphasis that some groups didn't participate because they weren't even there. And that they'd probably be on the slave/servant side if they had been there, anyway.

How are the teachers “blaming” students exactly?

Oh wait. They aren’t. Some of these PPs are completely full of crap.

[Anonymous]

She is not a historian. Not even close. When her work has been heavily criticized by actual historians, perhaps the time would be better spent on something else.

It’s a fad. Follows the same line of thinking that brought Lucy Calkins into our schools.

[Anonymous]

My white, middle class children went to a 1619 project elementary school. It was a diverse, urban, progressive school with a large immigrant population. Demographically it was a mix of higher SES and lower SES families, and about 15% white. Many of the higher SES families were mixed race families, so race was not a good indicator of SES.

The curriculum wasn't just about race and slavery, but identity, structural inequality, social responsibility and learning. It was amazing. These young children had such a broad, mature understanding of how the world works and could have conversations so openly and honestly. I would overhear my kids and their friends (of varying races) and listening to them talk was impressive and frankly humbling.

My takeaway was that kids learned and grew together thinking the "right" way, with biases and assumptions challenged before they had a chance to take root and become ingrained. And not just about race, about people in general. Gender, disability, sexual identity, etc. Some parents may be uncomfortable with having their beliefs challenged or just disagree with the underlying philosophy, but I'm so glad my kids had those lessons when they were young and any parent from our school I ever spoke with about it agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My white, middle class children went to a 1619 project elementary school. It was a diverse, urban, progressive school with a large immigrant population. Demographically it was a mix of higher SES and lower SES families, and about 15% white. Many of the higher SES families were mixed race families, so race was not a good indicator of SES.

The curriculum wasn't just about race and slavery, but identity, structural inequality, social responsibility and learning. It was amazing. These young children had such a broad, mature understanding of how the world works and could have conversations so openly and honestly. I would overhear my kids and their friends (of varying races) and listening to them talk was impressive and frankly humbling.

My takeaway was that kids learned and grew together thinking the "right" way, with biases and assumptions challenged before they had a chance to take root and become ingrained. And not just about race, about people in general. Gender, disability, sexual identity, etc. Some parents may be uncomfortable with having their beliefs challenged or just disagree with the underlying philosophy, but I'm so glad my kids had those lessons when they were young and any parent from our school I ever spoke with about it agreed.

That’s great but it’s still not a history curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My white, middle class children went to a 1619 project elementary school. It was a diverse, urban, progressive school with a large immigrant population. Demographically it was a mix of higher SES and lower SES families, and about 15% white. Many of the higher SES families were mixed race families, so race was not a good indicator of SES.

The curriculum wasn't just about race and slavery, but identity, structural inequality, social responsibility and learning. It was amazing. These young children had such a broad, mature understanding of how the world works and could have conversations so openly and honestly. I would overhear my kids and their friends (of varying races) and listening to them talk was impressive and frankly humbling.

My takeaway was that kids learned and grew together thinking the "right" way, with biases and assumptions challenged before they had a chance to take root and become ingrained. And not just about race, about people in general. Gender, disability, sexual identity, etc. Some parents may be uncomfortable with having their beliefs challenged or just disagree with the underlying philosophy, but I'm so glad my kids had those lessons when they were young and any parent from our school I ever spoke with about it agreed.

That’s great but it’s still not a history curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My white, middle class children went to a 1619 project elementary school. It was a diverse, urban, progressive school with a large immigrant population. Demographically it was a mix of higher SES and lower SES families, and about 15% white. Many of the higher SES families were mixed race families, so race was not a good indicator of SES.

The curriculum wasn't just about race and slavery, but identity, structural inequality, social responsibility and learning. It was amazing. These young children had such a broad, mature understanding of how the world works and could have conversations so openly and honestly. I would overhear my kids and their friends (of varying races) and listening to them talk was impressive and frankly humbling.

My takeaway was that kids learned and grew together thinking the "right" way, with biases and assumptions challenged before they had a chance to take root and become ingrained. And not just about race, about people in general. Gender, disability, sexual identity, etc. Some parents may be uncomfortable with having their beliefs challenged or just disagree with the underlying philosophy, but I'm so glad my kids had those lessons when they were young and any parent from our school I ever spoke with about it agreed.

That’s great but it’s still not a history curriculum.

No it’s not. It’s a supplement that extends the District’s approved history curriculum and teaches critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My white, middle class children went to a 1619 project elementary school. It was a diverse, urban, progressive school with a large immigrant population. Demographically it was a mix of higher SES and lower SES families, and about 15% white. Many of the higher SES families were mixed race families, so race was not a good indicator of SES.

The curriculum wasn't just about race and slavery, but identity, structural inequality, social responsibility and learning. It was amazing. These young children had such a broad, mature understanding of how the world works and could have conversations so openly and honestly. I would overhear my kids and their friends (of varying races) and listening to them talk was impressive and frankly humbling.

My takeaway was that kids learned and grew together thinking the "right" way, with biases and assumptions challenged before they had a chance to take root and become ingrained. And not just about race, about people in general. Gender, disability, sexual identity, etc. Some parents may be uncomfortable with having their beliefs challenged or just disagree with the underlying philosophy, but I'm so glad my kids had those lessons when they were young and any parent from our school I ever spoke with about it agreed.

That’s great but it’s still not a history curriculum.

No it’s not. It’s a supplement that extends the District’s approved history curriculum and teaches critical thinking skills.

How many other supplemental history sources use fake history facts to teach critical thinking? This is very concerning. Plagiarism and cheating are huge problems in schools and in higher education; using a source that fabricates data seems counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

Let's assume this is true . . . it sounds like your proposed solution is a curriculum that ignores crucial information because teachers "always seem" use it to make white "kids like [yours] . . . feel guilty." Otherwise why would you wonder why schools are "still teaching this stuff?" Sometimes teaching history "responsibly" means that someone might feel uncomfortable, sad, frightened, or even "guilty," if by that you mean aware of atrocities in the past committed by people who look like them. So what?

We're not white. That's the point. All non-AA are lumped together when they use an us vs them argument by both white and AA teachers. The teacher should make it a point to distinguish this fact unambiguously. Non-whites don't need to share the blame or made to feel guilty.

Uh... neither do white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

If you are learning about slavery and feeling guilty, you need to unpack that.

I’m fine with teaching kids about slavery but would prefer that it is done with the appropriate global and anthropological context.

Slavery has been practiced by the vast majority of cultures that have ever existed.

Today there are more enslaved people around the world than ever before in human history. It is widely practiced in many forms in multiple places around the world, specifically the Middle East but other places as well.

Slavery became prohibited because the white Christian men who were in power banned it.

When we are teaching about our own history in the US, it cannot be accurately portrayed or analyzed without acknowledging and understanding exactly how it worked here and what its repercussions were (and are.)

Which is why it should be kept a black vs white thing, and not include others in the frame. Slavery was bad. White people were evil. Blacks were dehumanized then disenfranchised. Other groups of people didn't exist in this space so don't include them in the guilt-blame game. Very simple.

I'm a public historian who works at sites of enslavement, and a parent of elementary schoolers. I'm half white, half Middle Eastern (so yes, one side of my family is immigrant as well). I don't tell visitors to the sites, or my children, that they should feel guilty or responsible for slavery, or that white people are evil. I tell them that the laws and economy of slavery shaped our country in really important ways that are still visible today. I tell them that segregation existed here and racism still exists. I also tell them about the black and white leaders of the abolition movement and civil rights. I tell them that people in the past all had choices on whether to accept racism or fight it, and that they will also have these choices. Guilt is not the right message to take from history or the 1619 project.

If that’s all you are telling them, then you are doing them a real disservice. Do you also tell them about the millions of people worldwide who are enslaved today? Or just provide the false and misleading impression that the US was uniquely evil?

Including the role of Arab traders?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

If you are learning about slavery and feeling guilty, you need to unpack that.

I’m fine with teaching kids about slavery but would prefer that it is done with the appropriate global and anthropological context.

Slavery has been practiced by the vast majority of cultures that have ever existed.

Today there are more enslaved people around the world than ever before in human history. It is widely practiced in many forms in multiple places around the world, specifically the Middle East but other places as well.

Slavery became prohibited because the white Christian men who were in power banned it.

When we are teaching about our own history in the US, it cannot be accurately portrayed or analyzed without acknowledging and understanding exactly how it worked here and what its repercussions were (and are.)

When we are teaching about our own history in the US, it cannot be accurately portrayed or analyzed with the acknowledgement and understanding exactly how it was among the first places ever in human history to ban slavery, and how unique and exceptional that makes the US and Western Europe that originated and first implemented abolitionism.

So we should instead be patting ourselves on the back for having stopped doing something really sh*tty (only after fighting a civil war over it), after which we continued to treat an entire group as legally less than for decades and decades?

So exceptional, here’s the guilt-free head pat!

No head pats, but it is worth remembering that this civilization is an extreme anomaly historically.

Was systemic racism an injustice that needed to be rectified? Of course. Is there anywhere else in the world today that all races of people flock to in order to improve their lives? Also no.

I understand that most people struggle with contextualizing their place in history, you are not alone there.

You’re joking about the bolded, right?

Speaking of missing context…

Tell us about the racial utopias that all of these immigrants are coming from...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD came home yesterday with a reading packet, which included an essay from the 1619 Project.

Are many schools still teaching this stuff?

What did you think of the essay? Who wrote it? What else was in the packet? What is the specific topic being studied?

Typical MAGA reactionary response without bothering to read the assignment.

I don't have a disagreement with teaching any history responsibly. The problem that I have is that the teachers always seem to have an "us vs them" approach to teaching it when people such as Hispanics and Asians were not involved. We've had black and white teachers teach pre-colonial history, plantation history, and civil war history and the take was always that kids like mine were somehow made to feel guilty as part of the enslavers by both slightly angry AA or white apologists. Somehow there always seems to be extra room in the guilt trip party for contemporaneously non-existing groups to be implicitly blamed. And this has happened several times in different years.

If you are learning about slavery and feeling guilty, you need to unpack that.

I’m fine with teaching kids about slavery but would prefer that it is done with the appropriate global and anthropological context.

Slavery has been practiced by the vast majority of cultures that have ever existed.

Today there are more enslaved people around the world than ever before in human history. It is widely practiced in many forms in multiple places around the world, specifically the Middle East but other places as well.

Slavery became prohibited because the white Christian men who were in power banned it.

In some twisted effort to…normalize slavery? WTF?

No, it’s appropriate to discuss slavery as it fits into the context of US history.

No, this does not normalize slavery. It shows that the American experience was part of a long history, not some uniquely evil institution. Most people don't know that only a fraction of slaves from the Middle Passage came to British North America/United States, and that millions died in the much harsher conditions of the Caribbean and Brazil.

That they should appreciate the fact that Enlightenment ideals caused the burgeoning focus on individual rights in the American Revolution and that ultimately these led to the current day. It is OK for history classes to focus on the positive aspects as well as the negative aspects.

[Anonymous]

+1