YTread Logo
YTread Logo

The 1776 Report

Jun 01, 2021
Hello everyone, today I would like to talk about former President Trump's

1776

commission, which he created to promote what he called patriotic education. The

1776

commission released the 1776

report

on Jan. 18, just two days before Trump left office, incoming President Joe Biden disbanded. the commission of 1776 on the first day of his presidency and the commission's

report

was immediately removed from the white house website this short-lived patriotic education report was intended to summarize the principles of the american founding and how those principles have given shapes our country the introduction to the report states that the president's 1776 advisory commission presents this first report with the intention of cultivating better education among Americans about the principles and history of our nation and with the hope that a rediscovery of Those principles and forms of constitutional government lead to a more perfect union In the couple of days before it was removed this report was widely criticized and laughed at by a variety of historians and academics because, as an academic work of history, this report It's very silly, in fact, first of all, the 18 members of the commission did not include professional historians of US history, but they found room for former Trump staffers, conservative politicians, and Charlie Kirk.
the 1776 report
It is not clear who wrote what parts of the report There is no author or authors listed There is no bibliography There are no citations for any of its claims Some people on Twitter posted the report through the website Turnitin, a plagiarism detection service, and discovered that sections Entire parts of the report were simply copied from elsewhere, largely from earlier work, by committee members. The report has a last-minute feel overall and seems as if the committee was rushing to get something out before Trump's term ended. Overall, it's very short, but it still manages to fill a lot of space with photographs and long quotes, and several pages are simply a reprint of the declaration of independence.
the 1776 report

More Interesting Facts About,

the 1776 report...

In its entirety, any college student who has ever had to fill out a good essay to reach the page count will recognize what is happening here. Several historical facts in the report are incorrect. Widely criticized, for example, was his claim that at the end of his life he quoted George Washington. freed all the slaves on his family property, which is not really true, in addition to the historical inaccuracies, the report leaves out huge chunks of American history, for example, Native Americans are simply not mentioned at all, except of course , in the declaration of independence cited in its entirety, which refers to them, like citing the ruthless savage Indians, does speak of Americans forging communities in a vast untamed wilderness, although without mentioning the people who were already there at the time.
the 1776 report
Commenting on the report's publication, the university publishers association described it as riddled with citations. due to procedural deficiencies that would make it impossible to publish as a serious academic work, omits citation to any authority, fails to credit or note permissions for its reused content or images, and was produced without sufficient time for proper peer review, so a history work is considered as an academic work this is all quite ridiculous on the surface, especially as a report ordered by the president posted on the white house website as a comparison, if we take a look at the One America initiative report of former President Clinton on race relations published in 1997, we see that that is much longer, contains many quotes, graphs of relevant data, etc., it is a much more rigorous academic work, so we could just let Clinton's report 1776 goes down in history as a funny note at the end of Trump's term or his first term.
the 1776 report
If we live in a bad timeline - but I think we would be missing an opportunity if we did - if we simply dismiss it as a poor academic work, we risk missing that it was not intended to be a good academic work in 1776. The report It was not written to impress or convince a group of historians and academics. The authors of this report don't care if a bunch of smug college professors look down on them for not having proper footnotes or for misunderstanding basic historical facts. This was not written for them, this was written for a completely different audience, let me digress briefly here and offer an anecdote that I hope is relevant, so when I was in high school I was lucky or unlucky to change my point of view to witness a real situation.
Debate between creationism and evolution in real life, so how this came about was that an exchange teacher who was a pretty staunch religious guy somehow convinced my school to let him debate one of the science teachers on the topic. of creationism and the format was that he would talk for a while and then answer questions and then the science teacher would talk for a while and then answer questions now, instead of photographs of these two people, I am going to use photographs of two characters from the Simpson who had the same vibe. so the creationist exchange professor was very passionate about creationism and defended it effectively, he was confident in what he said, he used simple language and relatable metaphors, he smartly avoided preaching his religion too much and instead just tried to find holes in the theory. of evolution, he gave some basic critiques of evolution and followed up with some basic creationist responses to common arguments for evolution.
His arguments were aimed at his audience, easy to understand and completely wrong. I mean, any halfway intelligent adult could have pointed out the lie in everything. was saying, except he wasn't talking to half-intelligent adults, instead he was talking to a group of teenagers who were not equipped to challenge him about what he was saying and his position of authority over that group of teenagers as his teacher gave him a extra weight to what I was saying. The science teacher, on the other hand, gave a printed list of facts about evolution and then proceeded to read them in a boring manner.
Now I don't really blame her for this, it's not his job to debate. Whatever weirdo showed up at school that day looking for an argument, I got the feeling she simply drew the short straw about who would have to miss a break period to debate the creationist so we could forgive her low energy. until a certain point. Of course, all the facts on the list she gave were true, but she wasn't selling them to the audience and the creationist had already provided counterarguments for many of them; she was simply arguing for evolution, but the creationist was arguing for and against creationism.
If you follow the development, he was not just arguing for his side, he was trying to define in the audience's mind the shape of the larger argument at hand, much more important than who was technically correct in the facts he They were not being verified. Anyway, the moment was who could best frame the discussion and then tell the most interesting story within that space. Not only was he delivering facts, but he was presenting a narrative in which a bunch of intellectual evolutionary types are far from smart and intelligent and better than you, in fact, very dumb and easy to get wrong with these very simple arguments that now tell you.
I'm going to teach and of course even if the science teacher had matched the creationist in enthusiasm and rhetorical skill with the real children in the audience, the impression would be good, I guess people disagree on this topic, it seems that is still up for debate, which would be a victory for the creationist. The fact that the debate existed and was framed as a debate gave creationist arguments an undue level of respect. won once he got the platform to spread his ideas, the science teacher's failure to properly challenge those ideas was just icing on the cake, so today I want to talk about this idea of ​​narrative framing.
I want to examine the 1776 report as a work of rhetoric, which is what it is, it is an attempt to persuade to defend a particular version of American history and it is a version of American history where the facts are not as important as the authors of this report they are trying to argue. for their version of history they are not trying to prove it to be true and that is a subtle distinction granted but it is important now, of course, the commission of 1776 was dissolved and its report was quickly academically discredited and eliminated, but the version of the Unfortunately, the story he's trying to sell and the motivations behind doing so haven't gone anywhere, so today we're going to quickly read the report and look at the story he tells and the rhetorical tricks he uses to make his case before getting to that.
We need to start by talking about the 1619 project because the 1776 report is, in many ways, even in name, a response to the 1619 project and, to quote the introduction to the project itself, the 1619 project is an ongoing initiative of the New York Times Magazine . which began in August 2019 with the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery, aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the center of our national narrative, so this It is also, without a doubt, an attempt. To frame history in a particular way is a response to those versions of history that leave out the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans.
The introductory essay to the project is written by journalist Nicole Hannah Jones, titled America Wasn't a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It So and this essay begins with the quote: "They are democracies, the founding ideals were false when they were written , black Americans have fought to make them a reality and the essay goes on to argue that when the American founders talked about freedom and equality and all that.” wasn't really true largely because they were slave owners living in a slave trading society and continues to highlight the role black Americans have played in bringing America closer to those ideals.
Other articles in the project are titled things like what is the reactionary politics of 2019 due to the politics of slavery and why American prisons owe their cruelty to slavery, etc., is directly linking modern problems in American society with its history of slavery. Now, if you want my opinion, it's my video, right? I consider the main idea behind the 1619 project to be vitally important and very necessary, but the project itself is a bit disappointing in some aspects, which is unfortunate, first of all, it is marred by a rather exaggerated case, in one case In particular, Nicole Hannah Jones's initial essay was published with the claim that one of the main reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Great Britain was that they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.
Now this makes it seem like the American colonists as a group decided to declare independence from Britain so they could keep the slave trade going, which is not true now, as far as I know the British at one point increased support for the revolutionary cause in certain areas of the colonies by offering to free slaves who crossed the lines and fought for the British. and in an early draft of the declaration of independence you even see jefferson complaining about this same offer, but it is a stretch to imply that this was a main reason for the revolt among the colonists in general and this is something with which the new York Times eventually agreed to amend the quote to say that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists.
Now this was a clarification that really shouldn't have been made. Historian Leslie M Harris wrote an article in Politico titled I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project Back in Time. He ignored me in the one stating that he disputed the exaggerated claim in question, but that the New York Times went ahead and published it anyway, and to briefly quote that article, overall, the 1619 project is a much-needed corrective to the stories of blind celebration that once dominated our understanding of past histories that wrongly suggested that racism and slavery were not a central part of American history. She worried that critics would use the exaggerated claim to discredit the entire company.
So far, that's exactly what has happened and it's an interesting article, so I'll do it. Leave a link to that below if you want to check it out, so it's pretty unfortunate, right? That aside, let me briefly pose a false dichotomy hereand mention class and I say false dichotomy because, unfortunately, in certain circles on the Internet. any mention of class during a discussion about race we will see some accusations of class reductionism and in fact any mention of race during a class discussion we will see some accusations of racial reductionism and the answer to this has always been and always will be that both issues are inextricably interconnected and need to be given time and understood together now most people understand that idea I trust so with that in mind America was not a democracy until black Americans made it into One now, this implies the United States was not a democracy at some point in the past, but it is now, but do you really know that?
It wasn't when blacks and other groups were completely banned from participation, of course, but if we are using people's inability to participate in democracy to declare that the United States is not a democracy then it still isn't a democracy today many people still they cannot participate and even for those who can, their level of participation in the political process is directly dictated by their wealth and position within the black economic system. people have the right to vote, which is great, but there are hundreds of ways that their vote can be stolen perfectly legally, including gerrymandering, various forms of voter suppression, the enormous amount of money that influences the politics, etc., the problem is that the principles of democracy go against the principles of capitalism and this is the main reason why I personally find the 1619project quite disappointing when the time comes to criticize capitalism, it is not Far enough, another essay in the 1619 project is titled American Capitalism is Brutal, You Can Trace That Back to the Plantation, and that essay does what it says: it analyzes the modern economy. inequality and injustices and finds roots or comparisons for those things in the practices of the slave trade.
The essay highlights that it wasn't just racism that motivated the actions of the slave owners, but that there were systemic financial incentives for much of what they were doing, so this all sounds good on the surface, right, the problem for My point is that the essay falls short of really condemning capitalism. American capitalism is called racist capitalism or low-class capitalism and compares unfavorably to other capitalist countries that have better labor rights, higher wages, more unions. representation, etc., and this is simply taking too narrow a view of capitalism, in my opinion, it implies that what needs to happen is for the United States to abandon its racism and take the right path to capitalism, ensuring that workers get better rights and higher wages and all that's fair enough, that has to happen, but that won't solve the problems at the heart of capitalism. things can be done temporarily and locally better under capitalism, there are capitalist countries, as the essay points out, with better labor rights than the United States, but they are not operating in a vacuum, they are part of a global capitalist system and, whatever they are Whatever rights they have gained within their own borders, they still benefit from being part of an exploitative system that unfortunately denies those rights to people elsewhere.
I'll have to put aside my leftist complaints about the shortcomings of the 1619 project for the rest of the video because, although I wish the broader discussion that took place was between two groups of non-racists who only disagree on the issue of capitalism there. someone else at the table here and, annoyingly, his position distorts the boundaries of the conversation a little and so I admit that whatever my problems with the project, when we consider the traditional way in which the American history, you know, which primarily comprises of uncritical veneration of a group of white slave owners, efforts to reexamine American history to center the impact of slavery are much needed, clearly in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News on Last year, then President Trump mentioned the 1619 project when asked about his previous statements indicating that he believes schools are teaching students to hate their country, so Wallace asked him: You said our children are being taught teaches in school to hate our country, where do you see that?, to which Trump responded, I just look, I look at the school, I look. lee look at things now they want to change 1492 columbus discovered america you know we grew up you grew up we hold it we all grew up that's what we learned now they want to turn it into the 1619 project where did that come from what? represents that I don't even know and wallace points out that it's slavery that Trump responds that's what they're saying but they don't even know very strange statements there, I'm not sure what we can learn from that other than the fact that the 1619 project is clearly taking up space in what we can charitably call the president's mind, in a speech on October 6 of last year, when Trump was talking about the creation of the 1776 commission, he also discussed the 1619 report saying that it seeks to reframe the history of our nation around the idea that America is not an exceptional country but an evil one and the 1776 report itself also mentions the 1619 report directly saying that the journalists behind it have become bitter and critical, so this report is largely conservative.
Reply to the centering of slavery in the 1619 project is a response to what they see as a weakening of American exceptionalism The White House press release announcing the publication of the report reads as follows: The 1776 commission takes a historic step and academic to restore understanding of the greatness of slavery american founding the commission of 1776 composed of some of the most distinguished scholars and historians of the united states has published a report that presents a definitive chronicle of the american founding a powerful description of the effect that the principles of the declaration of independence have had in the history of this nation and the dispositive refutation of reckless attempts at reeducation that seek to reframe American history around the idea that the United States is not an exceptional country but an evil one, so that It's the same line about America being an exceptional country that is used in Trump's speech, now of course anyone who points to the principles of America's founders as the source of American exceptionalism opens themselves up to the counterargument, well, what about slavery?
Know? It is very good that the founding fathers of the United States talk about freedom and inalienable rights and that all men are created equal, but at the same time. At the same time, they owned humans, bought them, sold them, profited and tortured slaves, and there is really no way to escape this contradiction after its introduction, the first section of the 1776 report is titled the meaning of the statement and states the central claim of the statement. and the basis of the political thought of the founders is that all men are created equal from the principle of equality, the requirement of consent follows naturally if all men are equal, then no one can by right govern another without his consent, but they owned slaves, you know there is no escape. that any praise for America's founding principles must be done in the abstract, while recognizing that in reality they were selectively applied and for many people who lived in the United States for a long time were practically a hypocritical lie, anyone can talk about freedom. and equality, but those words are going to ring a little hollow coming from someone who keeps other humans in literal chains.
Now conservatives like those behind the 1776 report don't like slavery being mentioned in this context. This is where there is a lot of talk. about children being taught to hate their country comes from right slavery is evil America made slavery therefore America is evil so to put ourselves in the shoes of the authors of the 1776 report Here, how do we deal with this? How do we say it? The story of the founding of the United States in a form of patriotic celebration without getting bogged down in discussions of the evils of slavery. Well, what we do is we simply don't mention slavery at all during its introduction and two opening sections on the founding of the United States. mention slavery or the slave trade in the text, they speak of the drafters of the constitution who sought to ensure equal natural rights and prevent the resurgence of tyranny, but equal natural rights for those who, although they mentioned the participation of the people in the political process not to mention that by people they do not mean people as in the people who lived there they mean white people or more often simply white male owners if the draft of 1619 was a centering of slavery in history American this is a decentering of slavery, to put it mildly, to tell a patriotic version of the founding of America, slavery is simply written out of history in American Exceptionalism's version of events, slavery is kicked under the carpet, but the authors of the report have to deal with the issue of slavery that they themselves realize that they cannot get away with not mentioning it at all, so, having removed slavery from the history of the founding of In the United States, they relegate it to a section of the report titled Challenges to American Principles, where it is included along with things like fascism and communism. -categorized as an antagonistic foreign force that must be defeated by the United States rather than an inherent part of the United States that has cordoned off slavery from the rest of American history, the 1776 report attempts to make excuses for this and these excuses are very telling and lead to Saying that many Americans labor under the illusion that slavery was somehow a uniquely American evil, it is essential to insist from the beginning that the institution be seen from a much broader perspective.
The unfortunate fact is that the institution of slavery has been more the rule than the exception. throughout human history, so this is the first excuse, slavery was not a uniquely American evil, so slavery is evil to begin with. That's good, at least they got there, but it's not exclusive to the United States. Slavery is more the rule than the exception or put another way. slavery wasn't exceptional now, this excuse reveals why they had to separate slavery from the broader story of the American founding because it blows a huge hole in their argument for American exceptionalism and this should be obvious really, but if you're trying to defend Because America is exceptional, you can't excuse its flaws by claiming it's not exceptional, that's trying to have it both ways.
America's good qualities are used to indicate that it is special, unique, and exceptional, while its bad qualities are used to indicate nothing, it simply is. products of the era so that we can excuse them, the report at one point states that all the good things we see around us, from physical infrastructure to our high standards of living and our exceptional freedoms, are direct results of unity, stability and justice of the United States, all of which rests on the foundation of our founding principles, so it says that the good things and only the good things that Americans see today are directly traceable to its founding, but the report charges that The 1619 project does what comes closest to mirroring this, stating that many of America's current inequalities and flaws also have roots in its early history, so we have to ask ourselves why this is the case.
Why can only the positive qualities of America be traced from its history in this way? It's quite convenient, isn't it, the report says. I go on to highlight some of the founders' anti-slavery sentiments and present their commitments to slavery as simply a practical political movement, but this only tells part of the story. We cannot defend the founders as a group by saying that certain individuals personally disagreed with slavery and simply committed to it because we have to ask who they committed to. They are not arguing with aliens who threaten to blow up the Earth unless the United States keeps the slave trade.
Were they making compromises with other slave owners and with other slave traders? support the founders and by commitments I mean that they made real legal commitments a provision of the constitution at the time of its ratification prohibited any restriction on the importation of slaves for 20 years certain founders did not agree with the slave tradeof slaves, that is true, but as a group they not only preserved it, but protected it, the report states that it is important to remember that, as a matter of practical policy, no lasting union could have been formed without a compromise between the states on the issue of slavery, but of course no lasting union was formed in what history continued to demonstrate was that no lasting union could continue to exist with those compromises.
Now the authors of the 1776 report could still be right about this issue of American exceptionalism if the United States had been unique in its abolition of slavery or the slave trade, or perhaps it was particularly early to abolish it or something, but it wasn't. So. The report says the founding of our republic planted the seeds of the death of slavery in America. So why might we ask if the United States took longer to legally ban the slave trade? and slavery that the tyrannical British Empire surely America's exceptional founding principles of liberty and equality should have meant that they were able to outlaw slavery before the empire ruled by a monarch there really is no way around the contradiction at the heart of the american founding the founders proclaimed freedom and equality while keeping other people in slavery, regardless of their individual opinions on the slave trade, whatever the political situation was at the time, the sum of their actions led to the continuation of a system of slavery that is simply the truth that can.
It can't be ignored or excused and it can't be removed from the story, so let's step back for a second and ask what the problem really is here. What is the problem with focusing on slavery for the authors of the 1776 report? Well, I think it has to do with how you see the purpose of history education: we shouldn't learn from history in its entirety, with its moral complexities, its good and bad parts, understand its participants as human beings with human flaws and flaws, What we should do is look at history for patriotic and moral values. instruction that understands its participants as heroes to emulate or villains to defeat This is history as a parable It is supposed to show us how to live better and that is why conservatives often combine discussions about their country's historical crimes with a attack on history In general, of course, one could say that if those crimes have not been reported or explored, then bringing them to light is inarguably expanding history and deepening our understanding of it, but I would only say that if If you were really interested in learning from history rather than considering it as a source of patriotism, we teach children about our historical models so that they love their country by highlighting its crimes or failings, therefore, you should want children to hate their country. country in the section that teaches America, the report states that educators must convey a sense of enlightened patriotism that equips each generation with a knowledge of America's founding principles, a deep reverence for its freedoms, and a deep love for your country, and I'd like to compare that to another quote later in the same section when they say States and school districts should reject any curriculum that promotes one-sided partisan views, activist propaganda or partisan ideologies that degrade America's heritage, They dishonor our heroes or deny our principles.
One might think that this contradicts what is correct. Educators should not teach one-sided partisan opinions, but rather teach children to be patriotic and love their country. That doesn't make sense, right? because those are one-sided opinions, but if we take a closer look, this is not a contradiction, it is worded very specifically, schools should reject any curriculum that promotes one-sided partisan opinions, activist propaganda, or factional ideologies that degrade heritage of the United States because, of course, one-sided partisan opinions that celebrate America's heritage are fine, what we don't want are biased and one-sided opinions that say that the United States is bad, but biased and one-sided opinions that say that the United States is bad. okay, okay, brilliant now, before we go any further, I just want to highlight one important thing about this mindset. of looking at history as a source of patriotism and the fact is that people who think this way assume that others also do the same with them.
We all think that the supposed greatness of the United States has its roots in its founding principles and the characteristics of its founders, it is just that Some of us want to use that information for evil and it's just a short jump from where we are now to get into the real conspiracy theorizing these attempts to undermine and destroy American society by teaching people about history, what if they don't? Were they simply the actions of some? The lone wolf, America, hates academic types, what if it's an organized conspiracy? Appendix 3 of the 1776 report is titled Identity Politics or Created Equality and contains a subsection titled Intellectual Origins of Identity Politics and which shares the conspiracy theory that is Cultural Marxism, so Cultural Marxism simply cites wikipedia here to be brief is a far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that claims that Western Marxism is the basis for continued academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.
Conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values ​​of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the liberal cultural values ​​of the 1960s counterculture and theory of The conspiracy is here in the 1776 report named by Frankfurt School critical theory intellectuals Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuza, the division of society into oppressed and oppressor groups, the creation of a counterculture that seeks to destroy established culture, etc., now, to the uninitiated, this might seem like a run-of-the-mill grumpy old man complaining that society is changing in a way that doesn't make sense to conservatives like those behind this report, they think the United States America and Americans are exceptional, so when Americans do things they consider unexceptional or un-American, usually things like wanting an adequate healthcare system, this doesn't make sense to them, this couldn't. be arising within our own society this has to be some sort of organized external antagonistic force kids nowadays are more interested in listening to rap music than reading the constitution am I that out of touch?
No, it's cultural Marxist brainwashing or something, but this is Not just idols complaining, this is some far-right Nazi stuff just with a few euphemisms here and there. One of the reasons the Wikipedia article calls this an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is that cultural Marxists are often criticized simply as surrogates for the Jewish people. and of course, the Nazi party itself had its own variant of the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory which they called cultural bolshevism. When I read the intellectual origins of identity politics, it reminded me of something else I had read before, and that is the historical roots of identity politics. correction, which is another introduction to cultural Marxist conspiracy theory and a strikingly similar piece of writing right down to the title, and if we look at the historical roots of political correctness, it's all here again, we have the Frankfurt school, there is critical theory, Antonio Gramci. and herbert marcuse the division of society into oppressed and oppressor groups the creation of a counterculture and so on this passage is taken from the manifesto written by andersbearing breivik the norwegian far-right terrorist who killed 77 people in 2011. that manifesto is titled a european declaration of independence now this should be concerning right the white house website is posting blatant white supremacist propaganda it usually only posts veiled white supremacist propaganda and i want to make two points about this first of all this kind of things is one of the reasons why the more direct academic fact-checking debunking route doesn't much affect the type of audience that is the target of this garbage, you know, of course, those academics and historians are going to say that the report is factually wrong that they are all part of a Marxist cultural conspiracy.
Universities in the United States today are often hotbeds of anti-American slander and censorship. They are just liars, you can't listen to what they say, they are involved in a conspiracy to destroy Western civilization, after all, they will say anything, so you can't listen to them, just listen to me, this is of course part of it too. from a broader trend of conservative anti-intellectualism generally aimed at branding academics and experts as people you know who might know what they're talking about as mere partisan activists; Their proximity to any topic at hand, rather than conveying expertise, is used as evidence of bias and taking this worldview to its logical conclusion, the most trustworthy person is therefore the person who knows the least, but the report of 1776 does not only treat academics this way.
I want to go ahead now and think about the way the report treats black people, the first essay of the 1619 project is broadly about the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism and the contributions of black people to the civil rights over the years, etc., but it's also about how contemporary black people relate to that historical right. the author talks about her own family's experiences living with racism and segregation and her own relationship with American history and patriotism and for the 1776 report this is a problem now, of course, when teaching American history to a group of American children, some of those children are inevitably we will recognize that the story contains people with the same skin color as them being bought, sold and enslaved for no other reason than to have the same skin color as them, which of course means that They, as a group, will relate to that story differently.
True, they are going to have a different understanding than the white majority who see their own skin color represented by historical figures who are often taught that they were brave, wise and heroic and that they also owned other people, which which is a whole problem in itself. but regardless what I mean is that different groups will relate to history in different ways, this for the authors of the 1776 report is a matter of national unity because Americans are not supposed to have different interpretations of United States history United, they all have different interpretations. We're supposed to understand it the same way now, of course, the report acts as if group identities were just invented and imposed on people by cultural Marxists and partisan activist academics, etc., they have no understanding of structural systemic racism For them, a racism worthy of being. organized contra ended in the 1960s with the passage of the civil rights act, but we all know that is not the case.
A purely patriotic version of American history can be taught to all children equally, regardless of their background, but when those children encounter the job market or have experiences. with the police or trying to buy a house or any of hundreds of other examples like this, will be treated differently due in part to those same group distinctions that once labeled some people as slaves and others not, no matter how colorblind we pretend. be society. It is now that different racial groups are technically legally equal. The status quo views these group identities and are treated differently. The divisions in American society arise from inequalities within American society.
They are not injected by some outside force. We see here. the other side of the coin To cultural Marxist conspiracy theory anti-Semitism because it requires not only imaginary Jewish manipulators but also a black American population that is unable to adequately identify shared injustices, betrays a tremendous distrust of black people to dismiss their reactions to their own experiences as mere inventions of outside agitators anyway, leaving all that aside, how does the 1776 report, with its singular version of American history deliberately not open to interpretation, treat blacks because, As the 1619 report highlights, blacks have often been at the forefront of drives tosocial change in the United States and therefore have often been some of the most vocal critics of America's failures and the report addresses this by playing a rhetorical trick and let's first talk about its presentation of Martin Luther King Jr. include photographs of king, of course, a great space. filling in images but they also quote it like here when they include an excerpt from his I Have a Dream speech in which King praises the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and they quote this passage again in the section titled Racism and Identity. politics when talking about the reforms introduced by the civil rights movement but all is not well it finally seemed that America's nearly two-century effort to fully realize the principles of the declaration had reached its culmination, but the heady spirit of the original civil rights movement whose leaders forcefully cited the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the rhetoric of the founders and lincoln proved short-lived, the civil rights movement almost immediately turned to programs that ran counter to the lofty ideals of the founders, the ideas that drove this changes have been growing in the United States for decades and distorted many areas of politics in the half century that followed.
Among the distortions was the abandonment of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in favor of group rights not unlike those proposed by Calhoun, who is John C. Calhoun the Seventh. vice president of the united states and a strong supporter of slavery there and his followers, the justification for reversing the promise of colorblind civil rights was that past discrimination requires present effort or affirmative action in the form of preferential treatment to overcome stark and long-standing inequalities and all of this means that identity politics makes it less likely that racial reconciliation and healing can be achieved by pursuing martin luther king jr's dream for america, so oh, no civil rights movement, you were doing it So good, right?
But then you went and took it too far, how can you? We will achieve Martin Luther King's dream for America if you continue to push outlandish ideas like affirmative action, certainly Martin Luther King would not have supported that, however, a year after his I Have a Dream speech, King wrote the following every time it was discussed of this compensation issue o Preferential treatment for blacks is proposed. Some of our friends recoil in horror. The black should be granted equality. They agree, but he shouldn't ask for anything more. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but it is not realistic because it is obvious that if a man enters the market. starting line of a race 300 years after another man (the first would have to perform some incredible feat to catch up to king) is quoted elsewhere as saying that a society that has done something special against the black for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro and in 1965 King was interviewed by the writer Alex Haley who, referring to King's support for an employment program for black youth, asked him if he thinks it is fair to request a multimillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro or for any other minority group to which the king responded: "Indeed, can any impartial citizen deny that the black has been deprived?
Few people reflect that for two centuries the black was enslaved and stripped of any wages, accumulated potential wealth that would have been the legacy of his descendants." All of America's current wealth could not adequately compensate its blacks for their centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as the one I propose would certainly cost much less than any calculation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accrued interest. So what is going on? Here then the authors of the 1776 report appear to be misrepresenting the views of Martin Luther King Jr. If you can believe such a thing now, I would like to make it clear here that I have not caught the authors of the 1776 report making an inadvertent error here. they know exactly who the king was and what his views were they know he supported affirmative action they know he was a vocal critic of capitalism they know he supported a radical redistribution of economic power and they hate him that's why they absolutely despise him, but conservatives do too We know that the king is today a widely popular and beloved figure, so a frontal attack of the kind that the king would be subjected to if he were alive today, you know, calling him a traitor communist cultural Marxist and all that would be counterproductive, so the conservative tactic regarding to the king.
It's selective quoting, they overemphasize a single line from one of his speeches and then pretend that's all he said. If you got all the information about Martin Luther King Jr. from this report, you'd think he showed up in 1963 to say racism sure is bad and then just fell off the ground or something. Now the goal of this tactic is twofold: first, it weakens the king, it turns him into a simplistic storybook character who just quotes the founding fathers and says it's bad to be racist and that's all he does, but the other goal here is using this version of king as a straw man as a standard against which other blacks can be negatively judged. "To praise King before going on to criticize, for example, those who support affirmative action programs, is to give the impression that King would not support affirmative action programs.
Of course, the real Martin Luther King Jr. did support affirmative action programs. affirmative action programs, but that doesn't matter. We're not talking about him, we're talking about Martin Luther King Jr.'s storybook and he wouldn't support affirmative action programs. He would quote the founding fathers and say it was bad to be racist and that's all I would do. This is not a made up tactic. with the 1776 reports, I would like to make it clear so that it doesn't give the impression that they are somehow being inventive in their lives, this is an old conservative tactic to deal with with the radical activist Martin Luther King Jr, who spoke about economic equality and criticized American imperialism. and was arrested and imprisoned for his views they simply make a new Martin Luther King Jr at the head of a toothless civil rights movement that he saw as his goal final legal equality but it did not demand anything else martin luther king jr is not the only black person in the 1776 Report to receive this treatment, they also quote Frederick Douglas, they close the main text of the report with a quote from Frederick Douglass actually and which reads as follows: the declaration of independence is the bolt in the chain of your nation's destiny, so in fact I consider it, the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles, respect those principles, be faithful to them on all occasions , in all places, against all enemies and at any cost, so that's another black social reformer singing the praises of the declaration of independence completely out of context. no further analysis is needed, right, Frederick Douglass said the declaration of independence was good, that's it, that's the end of the point, but let me quote the same speech from which the 1776 report was taken, so this is one version abridged from a speech by Douglas. titled what is the 4th of july for the slave now I'm not going to be able to do it justice obviously but here we go so after praising the declaration of independence and its principles douglas goes on to say fellow citizens forgive me let me ask why I have to speak here today.
What do I or those I represent have to do with your national independence? They are the great principles of political freedom and natural justice incorporated in that declaration of independence that has been extended to us. and ours that an affirmative answer can sincerely be given to these questions, but that is not the state of things. I say this with a sad feeling of disparity between us. I am not included within the limits of this glorious anniversary. Its high independence only reveals. the immeasurable distance between us the blessings in which you rejoice this day are not enjoyed in common the rich heritage of justice freedom prosperity and independence bequeathed by your parents is shared by you not by me this fourth of July is yours not mine I will see this day in its popular characteristics from the point of view of the slaves there identified with the American slave, making their errors my own, I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never seemed blacker to me than on this 4th of July. , whether we turn to the declarations of the past or the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation appears equally appalling and repugnant.
America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly pledges to be false to the future. The American slave is your Fourth of July. I respond on a day that reveals to him more than all the other days of the year the grave injustice and cruelty of which he is a constant victim. Your celebration is a farce. Your vaunted freedom and your impious license. puffed-up greatness vanity your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless your denunciations of tyrants brazen-browed impudence your cries for freedom and equality hollow mockery your prayers and hymns your sermons and thanksgivings with all your religious parade and solemnity are to him mere grandiloquence fraud deceit impiety and hypocrisy a thin veil to cover up crimes that would disgrace a nation of savages there is not a nation on earth guilty of more gruesome and bloody practices than the people of these united states at this very hour, go where you can, search wherever you want. wander through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world travel through South America look for every abuse and when you have found the last one put your facts next to the daily practices of this nation and you will say with me that by disgusting barbarism and shameless hypocrisy the United States reigns without rival fellow citizens I will not expand further on its national inconsistencies.
The existence of slavery in this country qualifies its republicanism as a farce, its humanity as a vile pretense, and its Christianity as a lie. Call it silly, he really gave it to her. So what's my point here? Well, although it was created to counter the claim that America is not an exceptional country but an evil one, the 1776 report closes with a quote from a speech in which the speaker very forcefully and repeatedly declares that America is the most evil place. of the world, which is quite funny, isn't it, but again, this is not a mistake. Both king and douglas praised the founding principles of the United States, but then continued to say that the United States was betraying them. principles that do not live up to them, proving that they are practically lies the 1776 report cuts the criticism and presents only the praise now we could do the same with the 1619 report that also praises the principles of the United States before criticizing it for not being live up to them For example, here is a quote taken out of context here In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson sat at his portable desk in a rented room in Philadelphia and wrote these words: We hold these truths to be self-evident: all men They are created equal and gifted. by its creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the past 243 years, this fierce affirmation of humanity's fundamental and natural rights to liberty and self-covenants has defined our global reputation as a land of freedom.
So there we go, stripped of all context from all the following criticisms of the accusation that, while these ideals are noble in spirit, they are not being fulfilled, stripped of the fact that these words now appear only as a thoughtless celebration of the United States and its founding principles. It is precisely what was done with the speeches of king and douglas, it turns out that what conservatives like those behind the 1776 report appreciate most about figures like martin luther king jr and frederick douglass is that they are dead and cannot defend themselves when Their words and ideas are misappropriated in life, they criticized America, but now they are dead and therefore cannot correct us when we select lines from their speeches so that they are safe, we reduce them to just being reciters of words of white men now. the authors of the 1619 draft are alive and their arguments are contemporary their criticisms must be addressed the authors of the 1776 reports cannot disagree that the institution of slavery was evil and unacceptable and contrary to the supposed ideals of the United States , which is true, but they cannot accept this. the criticism of its origin because it comes from black people to the authors of this report the crimes of the United States, if they are to be recognized, must be recognized by white men when the time comes not pointed out by black people who speak out of turn What What matters here is white control of the conversation.
If living blacks criticize America, we compare them unfavorably to the mythological cartoon version of figures like King and Douglas, the respectable blacks we say we love.They did right after we whitewashed them, that is. By picking and choosing which black people have legitimate things to say and who are simply ideologically motivated partisan activists, we are affirming that white people have the right to decide that this American story is the story of a white man, we insist that black people can observe. and the mouth along with the words if they wish, but they are not allowed to complain and they are certainly not allowed to direct after their death, we can graciously acknowledge that they had some role in history, but only because they were inspired by the ideas of men whites now, of course, the big victory for the 1776 report is that they published this garbage.
Trump gave them a platform to share their racist conspiracy nonsense and they used it. His report was quickly discredited and removed, but it will always have been published. on the white house website and that gives his arguments seriously undue legitimacy the report was quickly deleted, sure, but that it existed means his particular brand of patriotic education can serve as a model texas lawmaker reveals plans for the project 1836 to commemorate the independence of the state of mexico a texas legislator has revealed plans for a committee that would promote patriotic education in the state's schools, parks and museums.
Rep. Tan Parker is pushing for the creation of Project 1836, named after the year Texas gained independence from Mexico, under legislation introduced Monday, the lawmaker said in a news release over the past few years. We have witnessed the destruction of historical monuments as many attempt to rewrite the past. Too many of our children are taught to denounce Texas history and do not understand what it means to be a virtuous citizen. Now I feel some sympathy for all of you. Americans in this case, as here in the UK we have recently dialed in our own particular brand of patriotic nonsense.
Our revered historical figure who should not be insulted is Winston Churchill, the man who, as we all know, single-handedly defeated the entire military force. of Nazi Germany and he was definitely not a eugenicist or an open white supremacist. Oh, conservatives here don't get criticism of Churchill or the various crimes of the British empire in the same way that criticism of the American founders gets there now. I'd like to not worry about all of this and see it simply as the latest, desperate scourges of an increasingly irrelevant conservative mentality that's simply trying to pass itself on to the next generation as people from previous generations do everything they do more and more well. the world, unfortunately I don't.
Don't think that this is something that will disappear on its own, all this patriotism, nationalism, racism and so on, it is not just a generational issue nor does it arise solely from individual defects, it also has an economic purpose if you are a capitalist. I want your workers to see immigrants and foreigners as competition, not as co-workers, which is what they are. If you can't keep people divided and unequal, they will come together and demand equality, as long as there are gains in keeping people divided, attempts to divide people. It will persist so these things need to be actively addressed, you can't just wait for your parents to die, that was the point of this video.
I guess there we go, we find it. Thank you so much for watching everyone and, as always, a special thank you to everyone. My lovely supporters on Patreon, some of whom should be scrolling right now, as always, patrons get early access to preview versions of my new videos with various errors in which they very helpfully point out and mock me, and I'll leave a Link to my Patreon page below if you want to check it out. Well, that's all from me today, friends, see you next time.

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact