Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:01 Well, a good, is it morning or afternoon out? It's barely afternoon
Speaker 1 00:00:10 In the afternoon here. Well,
Speaker 0 00:00:11 It's two minutes in the afternoon here. So, uh, how are you doing
Speaker 1 00:00:17 Good. Um, I'm just floored over our topic for today and I'm excited to dive into it and discuss it. Um, but I know that longstanding listeners do like to have a weather report, so it was very sunny, um, beautiful day out here. Um, it's crazy that it's January and it just feels really good outside, but it does. And so we'll take it. What's going on? We've had weather this week. Yeah, I've heard, there's been wind,
Speaker 0 00:00:51 Uh, high winds knocked a bunch of trees down, uh, closed a lot of code vaccination sites closed a lot of other things. Uh, it's been cold. Um, I mean very cold for us, but cold for most reasonable people, a lot of rain, uh, we can see snow up on like mountain Laguna and stuff, which is not normal.
Speaker 1 00:01:13 Very exciting. Um,
Speaker 0 00:01:15 Yeah, a lot of weather, but you know, it's, we're supposed to get another big rain storm this evening, so we'll see. But, uh, yeah, we got a lot to talk to talk about today. So we're going to be talking about the, uh, 1776 commission final report. Um, should be interesting. Uh, we're going to try not to just be angry history teachers the entire time, although I think that's, that was what was filling my eyes with rage the whole time I was reading vast parts of this document, but, um, yeah, I think it should be fun. Let's jump into it. Welcome to an incomplete history. I'm Hillary and I'm Jeff and
Speaker 1 00:02:02 We're your hosts for this weekly history podcast.
Speaker 2 00:02:04 <inaudible>
Speaker 0 00:02:26 So should I give a little background about this, why this thing was produced before we even get into what it is and what it was aiming to do?
Speaker 1 00:02:36 Yeah, I think a little background on the 1619 project is an order to put this in context,
Speaker 0 00:02:42 Right? So the 1619 project is this a first of all, I found out the first people to kind of do the 1619 project, actually 1994 in Virginia, there was a group that actually started working on something like this, but the New York times really kind of brought this to prominence. Um, 16, 19 was the year the F the first time people from Africa were brought to the English colonies as enslaved people and August 16, 19, uh, near point comfort, uh, which is Virginia, uh, 20 enslaved, Africans were bought, were brought over the Atlantic and then sold the colonists. And the idea of the 1619 project, which the New York times kind of did in 2019 was to remark how the, this was the 400th anniversary of this moment that would basically stain everything the United States did afterwards. And it, you know, for many of us, you know, this is the original set of the United States, is that even before the United States is former like kind of born out of the revolution, there is slavery that's present and not just slavery, but all the legacies of slavery, uh, Jim Crow, um, all of that, even, even present day kind of, uh, unequal treatment for Doug drug offenses, um, the carceral state, all of these things, kind of the argument is emanated out of this moment in 16, 19 and the New York times, and kind of other groups that kind of grew, uh, kind of joined in character, creating this project.
Speaker 0 00:04:32 Their whole point was to kind of show how this, this web of slavery basically entangled every part of the country economically, culturally, um, even physically, right. I mean, is that a fair assessment?
Speaker 1 00:04:49 The importance of the 1619 project was it was founded in order to kind of change the narrative a bit in the way that schools are taught. Young students can, 12 are taught about history because, um, you know, we've always had this kind of nationalistic slant on our history. Um, we oftentimes discuss American history as starting in 1776. Um, and this project aimed to shed some light on the fact that the underpinnings are the foundations of this country were actually set in place for before that. And it's because this country was built on the system of chattel slavery, that our institutions are the way that they are, our government is the way that it is. And so many moments in our history, some of the most prominent and important moments in our history are all predicated on the system of slavery that we had in the United States and then in the colonies, even prior to the founding of the United States.
Speaker 1 00:05:44 And so I think this 16, 19 project has been a response in some way to our K-12 education system to say, we need to push the story back a little bit further. So that way we can truly understand the Genesis of this nation and the offer some context, really, to some of the major problems that we find ourselves in, um, in our current crises and crises, we found ourselves in, throughout our history. And so this Pulitzer prize winning, um, reporting that's been done, I'm Nicole Hannah Jones is a Pulitzer prize winning reporter who founded this 16, 19 project working for New York times magazine. Um, this, you know, the Pulitzer prize was awarded in 2020. This project was founded in 2019. Um, what we're talking about today this 1776 report is a backlash to the prominence and the success of the 1619 project.
Speaker 0 00:06:46 Well, I, so it's interesting because I think you and I, when the 16, 19 project came out, we talked about it a little bit privately. We never recorded a podcast about it. Um, but I think we talked about it and, and here's the thing, some of the critiques that were leveled against the 16, 19 project are valid. Um, one of the things I think they leave out is one of the kind of early slaveholders in Virginia actually happens to be a black man, correct?
Speaker 1 00:07:23 Yes. Um, and I think that that is like a really juicy tidbit that people like to kind of grasp at, in order to delegitimize the project. But I think that the basic underpinnings of it are really valuable in saying that there became this racial color divide that happens in the United States, that's based around slavery, um, that we can't ignore because there was an anomaly, you know, I mean, I would say that that's, that's an, you know,
Speaker 0 00:07:57 Well, but here's the thing. I mean, it's in 60 19 race is not understood the way race is understood a hundred years later, 150 or 200 years later. Right.
Speaker 1 00:08:12 Well, we we've talked about that. I think a few different times that ideas of whiteness evolve and that, you know, there was a huge difference, um, in the way that we would perceive race now, as opposed to the way they did that. Um, and I think that that's really important and valuable to discuss, but in context of the 16, 19 project, I don't think that there's a discussion. I don't think that the point of it was too intense necessarily to interrogate what the perception of race was, is more to point out that the economy of the United States was set up based on a slave system. And that the vast majority of people who were enslaved were indeed from Africa and the vast majority of those that held slaves, um, had European ancestry. That's been, what's set up long time ago.
Speaker 3 00:09:05 So what I'm hearing is that, is it, you agree with Eric Williams when he writes back in the 1930s, that capitalism emerges alongside slavery, that's all hand in hand that they're inextricably linked
Speaker 1 00:09:19 Inextricably linked. And this is, I mean, I did a lot of my dissertation work about this with our prison system because our prison system and slavery and capitalism are all inextricably linked. And I think that when you really dive into any institution in the United States, you will find that so many of these things go straight hand in hand with one another, our education system, um, medicine, government, you know, prisons, I mean, asylums, right? Like so many of our foundational institutions in this country are so heavily linked to the institution of slavery and capitalism. That it's almost irresponsible not to point that out because I think it's confusing for people to say, like, how did we get to where we are right now, if you don't understand slavery and you don't understand our economy and how it was built, you would be very confused as to why there's so much, uh, civil unrest at this moment in time.
Speaker 3 00:10:26 Well, I mean, it's, I think one of the issues is for decades now, um, capitalism has been kind of presented as the solution for slavery, right? It's the thing that kind of eventually pushes slavery out. Um, and even in the mid 19th century, you see some people who are abolitionist, arguing capital, they're arguing that wage labor form of capitalism is a better alternative for the nation. I'm thinking like Harriet Beecher, Stowe, uh, but that's just not the whole story. Right. And one of the things, the 1619 project does is further Amesh capitalism and slavery and say, look, the middle passage, the chattel slave trade, the trade of people from Africa into the Americas, specifically the English colonies. And then later the United States was part of capitalism. It was not something that brand parallel to it or, or an opposition to it. It was actually part of capitalism.
Speaker 1 00:11:30 Absolutely. And it wasn't something that, you know, the economy in the United States was so heavily reliant on it. Even if you had wage labor in the North, into the 19th century, in the mid 19th century, prior to the civil war, that wage labor was entirely reliant on slavery, the raw materials, the cotton, right? I mean, there was so much of capitalism was built off of slavery, that it was like slavery was slavery paved the way for capitalism, but it was also into our current capitalistic state, but they also just went hand in hand for the longest time.
Speaker 3 00:12:10 I mean, the youngest, the young women who are working in the textile mills up in new England, they they're working with slave produced goods, right. They're working with cotton, that's being grown in the deep South and the cotton belt in the South by enslaved people.
Speaker 1 00:12:25 Well, and it's why there wasn't just an outright revolt about slavery. I mean, cause people, you know, a lot of times people think, well, everyone in the North was against it, but no, they weren't because their industry relied so heavily on the raw materials. And so it wasn't necessarily just a straight moral issue. Um, you know, a lot of people were not in support of abolishing slavery. They didn't want to see it. They didn't want it in their midst. They didn't want people enslaved living, you know, in their towns and such, but they wanted to look away from it. Um, and, but it still needed to exist in order for the, um, in, in order for society to, you know, keep going and for them to keep making money. And I've said this on here before I said this to you, we do the same thing right now.
Speaker 1 00:13:15 We have not abolished slavery. We've abolished the style of slavery that we had in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but we've just relocated the problem. Well, we've hidden it we've had, because just much like the northerners didn't want to see slavery happening in the South. We don't want to see the slavery that's happening in China, where all of our goods are produced and still in Africa where all of our technology and everything is mined. It's just, it's a very similar situation. And capitalism has to rely in order for capitalism to work, you have to have unpaid labor.
Speaker 3 00:13:52 So it reminds me of a moment in Voltaire's masterpiece, Candide, where Candide who's this young kind of wide-eyed man who's fairly naive. Um, uh, I mean his name literally means like open. Um, he comes across this enslaved man who produces sugar and the man's missing some lens and kind of the man walks him through how the limbs have been cut off in the process of producing sugar because, you know, he's a slave and he wanted to run away and all these things. And it's for the first time in his life, Candide is confronted with the reality of what it takes to produce a commodity like sugar. And it takes the suffering of other human beings. And I think that's a really powerful thing is that, you know, a lot of critics of the 1619 report argue that it just denigrates any kind of idealism embedded in the founding of the United States and all this other stuff. But I think what it does kind of in a positive way is it, it makes you reconcile the far reaching extent of what you do, your choices you make and, and how you have a responsibility, um, to mitigate those.
Speaker 4 00:15:13 Yeah. And I mean, it offers us this opportunity to confront some, you know, confront the truth about our past, about our economy, about our current state, about where we, how we got to where we are, um, in an honest way, because if you can't admit it and confront it and reflect on it, you're never going to move past it. And that to me has been like one of the biggest issues in this country is like, we've never been able to properly confront our past. And so we've always been kind of stymied into moving forward from it because we just like to pretend that it didn't happen. Um, and so to me, like getting onto the topic today, the 1776 report is a knee-jerk backlash reaction to, you know, this suggestion that maybe we need to look a little deeper into our history to give us some context.
Speaker 4 00:16:09 And this report is reactionary and, um, rejecting, you know, it wants to reject this idea that we need to dig a little bit deeper rather than just be, you know, looking at things like their sunshine and rainbows all the time. And I mean, to us working in universities like this, isn't crazy, this is what we do. I mean, I think that so much of our job is to shed light on, you know, on our past. And there's nothing in the 16, 19 project that I've read that I'm just like blown away by and think, Oh my gosh, I can't believe that I had no idea. We know that we teach that we've been teaching that the whole idea is we need to disseminate this information. It needs to trickle down more to where kids are learning it really young. So that way they're not completely shellshocked when they get into college.
Speaker 3 00:17:04 So let me read something really quickly. And this is from the intro to the 17 six 17, 1776 report. So this is a presidential commission is put together. Uh, this was under, uh, former president, Donald Trump's, uh, administration. Uh, the report itself was released, uh, Martin Luther King day 2020, 2021, which is such a slap in the face. When you start to look at what this document actually says
Speaker 4 00:17:33 Days ago, I want to point that out real quickly, this is 10 days ago. This report was
Speaker 3 00:17:37 It's three days, three days before his inauguration, before Biden's inauguration. Um, in the course of human events, it's like, really, that's how you're going to start this. Uh, there've been those who
Speaker 0 00:17:50 Deny or reject human freedom, but Americans will never falter in defending the fundamental truths of humid Liberty proclaimed on July 4th, 1776. We will, we must always hold these truths. Uh, I have Japanese internees. I have black people in the South. I have poor people working in most cities across the country. I have indigenous people in the great Plains who would all kind of raise their hand up and say, never like Americans will never falter in defending the fundamental truths of human Liberty. Um, and then it goes on and says, the declared purpose of the president's advisory 1776 commission is to quote, enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776, and to strive to form a more perfect union and quote. This requires a restoration of American education, which is, can only be grounded on a history of those principles that is quote, accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling and quote, and a rediscovery of our shared identity rooted in our founding principles is the path to a renewed American unity and a confident American future.
Speaker 4 00:19:06 I highlighted the exact same passage. I mean, it jumped out at me as just such a problem to even suggest that this is something that's necessary. Um, the language use, I mean, there's adjectives of, you know, this needs to be unifying and all this. I mean, the, the idea coming from that, it's like, we need to RA RA RA America. And if you don't, then you're on the wrong team and we can't be unified, but it's at the expense of people who have been enslaved at a certain point, right? It's at the expense of people who have not been granted citizenship who have been forcibly reeducated, who have been forced to abandon their languages that they spoke. Um, you know, I mean, just the list can just go on and people have been disenfranchised, right. To deny that these things have happened in for the sake of putting on a brave face.
Speaker 4 00:20:18 It's, it's literally abusive to, to force that upon people. Um, and it's kind of, you know, I think families do this a lot of times, right? Like, well, we're just going to pretend like everything's fine. And we're just going to go out into the world and everything's going to be good. It's like, that's denying a trauma, right? That's denying trauma that has occurred. And then nobody can heal unless we can move forward from this trauma. And if we're thinking about it on a macro level of this country, you, this 1776 report is saying, we're not going to heal from the, from our past because we need to go to church and make everyone think everything's chill. I mean, you know what I'm saying? Nothing's ever been wrong. It was virtuous, right? Every single founding principle was on virtue. And, um, you know, nobody who founded this country was in the wrong. And I mean, and they go forward. I mean, they do confront things like slavery, right? I mean, they, they say it outright, but they defend it. And that's, what's so troubling. It's like in 2021 to have a government document that defends slavery and slave owners is so deeply troubling to me that I was, I was reading and just going
Speaker 4 00:21:41 And buying and the kids were looking at me like, are you okay? I'm like, no, I'm not. I mean, it was, it's really troubling to read that.
Speaker 3 00:21:47 Well, here's the thing is for me, this document is so amateurish.
Speaker 4 00:21:55 That is a great way to put it to start really. I mean, we're 22 minutes in, but citations all there's no,
Speaker 3 00:22:09 They put things in quotes all the time and they don't really tell you why they're putting things in quotes. And I'm like,
Speaker 4 00:22:15 Contextualize it. They take so many things out of context.
Speaker 3 00:22:19 Oh, it is. Here's the thing. If I had a student who submitted this as a paper, it would be a C maximum because I would be like, uh, turn something in. It would be a C because they did something. That's basically
Speaker 4 00:22:36 Writing words on the paper. Yeah.
Speaker 3 00:22:39 But I want to read you the me, I knew I was in trouble with section two, which is the meaning of the declaration. And I was like, Oh God, help us. Um, they're going to tell me what the declaration of independence. I mean, they can't even be bothered to say the meaning of the declaration of independence. They just say the meaning of the declaration. And it's like, okay, whatever the United States of America is in most respect a nation like any other, it embraces the people who inhabit a territory, governed by laws, administered by human beings. Like other countries. Our country has borders, resources, industry cities, and towns, farms, and factories, homes, schools, and houses of worship. And although a relatively young country, it's people who shared a history of common struggle and achievement from carving communities out of the vast untamed wilderness to winning independence and forming a new government through Wars, industrialization, waves of immigration, technological process at progress and political change.
Speaker 3 00:23:38 In other respects. However, the United States is unusual. It is a Republic that is to say its government was designed, be directed by the will of the people, rather than, than the wishes of a single individual or a narrow class of elites. Republicanism is an ancient form of government, but one uncommon throughout history in part, because of its fragility, which has tended to make Republic, short-lived contemporary Americans tend to forget how historically rare republicanism has been in part because of the success of republicanism as are in our time, which is derived in no small part from the very example and success of America. So before I read the next one, which is a doozy as well, I mean, I want to unpack a lot going on here,
Speaker 4 00:24:21 That suitcase let's go. I, I highlighted so many things in those few paragraphs and they were so troubling to me. First of all, I, now that you kind of said, it's like a student paper. I mean, now, now I can't see it as anything other than perfect sentences. Right. We're just like saying meaningless nonsense. America is in most respects a nation like any other like that, that's your intro sentence to this. Okay.
Speaker 3 00:24:54 It reminds me of Newt Gingrich's dissertation.
Speaker 4 00:24:56 Oh my gosh. It's so troubling. And you know, what's crazy is I don't even think his name was on this report. Was it? No, because there's no historians who were on this and Newt Gingrich is technically a historian, right?
Speaker 3 00:25:09 Yeah. You can read his dissertation, just look it up new things. Trump's dissertation. It's hilarious. Um, because he talks, he writes his dissertation about Africa. It's basically an apology for slim, for colonialism. But anyway, um, but I mean, it's like the whole first part. It's like, Oh yes, because we have, we're like every other country. Okay, great. But we're not because
Speaker 4 00:25:32 Right. This is the American exceptionalism that we talk about all the time, this idea that Americans are exceptional and it's so damaging,
Speaker 3 00:25:42 But it's funny because then they're like people forget because there's so many republics now. And it's like, yes, because virtually every country in Europe is a Republic. Canada's a Republic of Mexico. Like most countries in the world now are in fact republics. I'm sure. Okay. The United States is I would argue it's one of three countries, maybe four that create important precedents for Republican forms of government. But they, they act like the United States is really the only one still that matters. And I mean, this gets released two weeks after a violent mob bent on subverting, the will of the people stormed the capital at the behest
Speaker 4 00:26:36 Election results at the
Speaker 3 00:26:38 Behest of the president. So the irony is the irony rich in this paragraph. Um, I just, it, and then it goes on. So it's like, so when I was reading this for the first time, I was like, okay, hopefully this is going a little better. Cause it can't get much worse. Oh, you're wrong. Did you know, tip of the iceberg, did you know, in two decisive respects, the United States of America is unique. First. It has a definite birthday, July 4th, 1776, second. It declares from the moment of its founding, not merely the principles on which its new government will be based in asserts those principles to be true in universal applicable to all men at all times, as Lincoln said, it's a lie. First of all, Abraham they're mushing stuff together to Lincoln talks about the founding documents a hundred years after the founding of the nation. Second, the declaration of independence. Sure. We've decided that's the founding of our country, but it's a long road before we actually get independence from Britain. Um, and we're not the first people to declare these things as, as true and universal, correct?
Speaker 4 00:28:01 Yes. But also to even suggest though that on July 4th, 1776, that this new nation embodied all of this is an outright lie. Well, yeah, it's an outright lie and that, and to perpetuate that, it just seems so silly. But then, so this is, what's gotten me so much about this document. Is it contradicts itself constantly? Did you notice that throughout? It will say like from the very beginning applicable to all men at all times, so I'll walk, but then it goes on to say, you know, they outlined the principles, but it just took a while for everybody to be included. But it was, you know, the intention from the beginning was to make sure that everybody, you know, was equal and it was just laid out right there. But it just took a little while for that to happen and, and like excusing it like, Oh, that was the plan all along, but then says earlier, right. That, Oh, this was just, this is from the outs, you know, from the onset, everybody was equal. It goes back and forth. Did you take note of that at all?
Speaker 3 00:29:11 Oh yeah. It, it, there is internal contradictions through, there are internal contradictions throughout. I mean, it goes on to say France and China both have birthdays, but that they were part that they were countries that had stood for long before their birthdays, which is strange. It was weird. I also loved how they threw communist in, when they talked about China. It's just like, well,
Speaker 4 00:29:37 And so if you go down, we're going to, I mean, I'm sure there's other things that we can, we can go back, but the way that it's structured was so scary to I'm laughing, but it's not funny to, I mean, um, we're going to have to go back, but I just want to point out that there are subheadings within each of these. And then so they address slavery. Um, and
Speaker 0 00:30:06 Under challenges, challenges to America's principles.
Speaker 4 00:30:10 Yes. Challenges to America,
Speaker 0 00:30:13 What the challenges are. So read what the challenges are. Yes, yes.
Speaker 4 00:30:20 Progressivism. Uh, what that, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 0 00:30:26 You read the thing, that's the thing that said eight year olds probably shouldn't be working in dangerous factories.
Speaker 4 00:30:33 What we talked about last week, right? Or was it the week before where we're talking about the progressive era ushers in change for the environment for children working in factories for women to gain the right to vote. This is the progressive era. And this, the Trump administration in the 1776 report has labeled this era that stopped children from working gave women the right to vote, et cetera, et cetera. As a niche,
Speaker 0 00:31:03 The medicines made sure medicines wouldn't kill you.
Speaker 4 00:31:06 Sure. Yeah. We'll make sure food wouldn't kill you. Right. They have labeled this era as a challenge to America's principles, closely followed progressivism and fascism. They are right in line with one another. They say progressivism challenges. America's principles, just like fascism. I blew a gasket at how irresponsible and disgusting the idea that Oh, progressive ideology that allowed me to vote is a challenge to America's very principles. I mean, I guess it is when it says all men are created equal. It doesn't say a damn thing about women. So maybe that's what they're trying to convey. What do you think?
Speaker 0 00:31:59 I think maybe they are, I mean, let's continue with what the other threats are real quick because
Speaker 4 00:32:05 My blood pressures
Speaker 0 00:32:07 Listen, though, when I was reading this, I was apoplectic. I was like, are you kidding me? So after fascism they say, communism, communism. You're like, okay, if we're okay. And then racism, you're like, Oh yeah. And then you're like, wait, what? Yeah, because those two are the same
Speaker 4 00:32:26 Racism and identity politics or a threat. I'm sorry, I didn't even finish reading the list that you asked me to. I got so pissed off. Okay. Racism and identity politics are put right together as the same thing. And they're both a threat to our founding principles. That's the last paragraph in that section. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:32:46 Yeah. I want to read really quickly. So first of all, when it talks about slavery, it misuses Frederick Douglas because it basically says Douglas that Douglas valorizes, the founding documents. And therefore he's saying, look, the founding documents are created in such a way that they eventually allow him to purge slavery out of the system. Uh,
Speaker 4 00:33:12 And, and it says here too, I'm looking for where I highlighted it. Um, it says, quote, Frederick Douglas had been born a slave, but escaped and eventually became a prominent spokesman for the abolitionist movement almost to say, you know, well, they could have escaped and been part of the abolitionists movement like Frederick Douglas. Did it see to use Frederick Douglas in that way to say, to apologize for slavery and say, well, he did it. He escaped, you know, like it rubbed me in that way as almost like a, an example of see this person just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Why didn't the rest of you? That's how I read it. Is that totally off?
Speaker 0 00:34:02 Uh, no, I th I, this is, uh, it's just, no, I think your gut reaction when you read this thing, I think is usually the right thing, because it's just, it's so blind to the reality of 250 years or 400 years. If we want to go back to 16, 19 history
Speaker 4 00:34:29 With the 1619 project. Um, the very first article that comes out of that, which was written by Nicole Hannah Jones. Um, the article was called our democracy's founding ideas were false when they were written, black Americans have fought to make them true. And that's what is going on in this section of the document about Frederick Douglas is that yes, Frederick Douglas read the constitution and read the declaration of independence and read all these founding documents and then use them to help argue his case. But this is what the 1619 project is saying that these founding documents were a lie and that it took decades and is still taking fight to make them true.
Speaker 0 00:35:20 Well, it was a lie because the people that wrote them to varying degrees, didn't actually believe they apply to everyone or, or at least on some days they thought that, I mean, Thomas services we've talked about him before. He's a fascinating guy because his ideas bounce all over the place so often, but there, you know, now the document now the 1776 report does actually get to the thing that is a little true. Um, because they quote Lincoln. When he says in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction and the public mind rested and the belief that it was in the course, I don't know why they repeated that. It's so weird was in the course of ultimate extinction it's. So it's such an odd document, which is true. A lot of people who, uh, you know, the committee of five who wrote the declaration are they're architects of the constitution. They believed some point in the early 19th century. Slavery would probably just disappear on its own.
Speaker 4 00:36:25 It was so terribly irresponsible. It was back to what this original part of this document, this original 1776 report said again, the contradictions, like they were so progressive and they so violently fought for a brand new system of government, but they didn't. They left the slavery question to be handled way down the road and created a civil war based on their cowardice. It's not Allianz.
Speaker 0 00:37:01 Well, did you? And this next section, it says, Progressive's believed America's original software. The founding documents were no longer capable of operating. America's vastly more complex hardware, advanced industrial society. That Edward, I don't know.
Speaker 4 00:37:16 You helped me understand as someone who's a little more tech savvy.
Speaker 0 00:37:20 It's funny because right before they say that they say to use a contemporary analogy. It's like, is this the best? Like this? Isn't an analogy. Cause this is weird. Like this isn't, this isn't like software and hardware because software is easy to change. Hardware is more difficult to change, which I think they got it backwards when they, they basically want to say that the situation changes, therefore progress is feel the documents need to change the way we look at the documents need to change
Speaker 4 00:37:57 Any student of history. True student of history knows that the founders intended for those documents to change once a generation generation. And we've talked about that before that many of the founders said, this should be something that's revisited. I think we talk about it in our second amendment. Right?
Speaker 0 00:38:15 Well, let me ask you, let me ask you this. So hypothetically, uh, you go back to the year, 1804 and you find the most forward thinking group of people you possibly can. And you present to them. The idea that one day a woman will be vice president United States. What would be the overwhelming reaction
Speaker 3 00:38:36 Of this very forward-thinking group? How is that possible? She'll get hysterical.
Speaker 4 00:38:46 Oh my goodness. Her uterus is wandering in her mind.
Speaker 3 00:38:49 Right. And this, and this would be the most forward-thinking group would just be like, that's ridiculous. Uh, times do change. People change Thomas Jefferson at one point believed if white people move to warm climates, they would eventually become black. Yeah. Yeah. Times change. Right? But this document is like, Nope, it's, you know what? We, we can only look at the constitution as written at the end of the 18th century, we cannot push it forward to anything because this is universally true. It is a perfect document. Um, it is not
Speaker 4 00:39:37 To their argument later.
Speaker 3 00:39:39 It is not a living constitution. It is, it is an changeable, even though the document.
Speaker 4 00:39:52 And I may be off, we have talked a lot on this podcast and past episodes about the textbook. Give me Liberty by Eric Foner, which is a staple and teaching undergraduate history. And we've discussed some of our issues with it. Did this document at times, ring a little bit. Give me Liberty <inaudible>.
Speaker 3 00:40:14 Yeah. It's one of the reasons I don't like that textbook
Speaker 4 00:40:18 Because it's this idea of like upward trajectory of progress and like slowly, everybody gains Liberty based on this amazing first founding document
Speaker 3 00:40:28 By design, by design, right.
Speaker 4 00:40:32 It was never intended.
Speaker 3 00:40:34 Here's the thing. I think the constitution is an amazing document. And I think it's the closest humans have come to a document that kind of points to a form of government that tries to deal with the issues most people have dealt with at the same time. It's not a perfect document. It bakes into itself the ability to change it.
Speaker 4 00:40:59 Well, the document, it's not about whether the documents perfect or not. Because to me, what the underlying issue is with this document is even though it espouses such a progressive form of government and ideas about Liberty and about individual importance and about equality, none of those, none of those views were actually in practice. That's the problem. It can say whatever the heck you want it to say, none of that was in practice. So to say, well, the constitution, the declaration of independence that everyone's created equal. Okay. But that was not put into practice. So what does it matter if it said it or not? That's my that's what gets me so mad about it. It's like, yeah, that's great that they wrote that down. They didn't put that into practice ever. And there's, we are still fighting for that to be put into practice.
Speaker 0 00:41:57 All right. I completely agree. Um, and then, so then it, I mean kind of, I mean, we could spend days on this mess. Um, I mean we thought 2020 was a dumpster fire read this report. Uh, and then it goes on to fascism and it makes, and it basically says we defeat fascism, but right after that, the biggest, the rest of the 20th century is replaced by this big threat communism. And it's interesting because they start to misquote marks. First of all, they like take marks out of context. In the communist mind, people are not born equal and free they're to find entirely by their class. That is a,
Speaker 4 00:42:41 That's exactly the opposite.
Speaker 0 00:42:46 Marxists say, that's how society works, but it should be that we're all equal and free.
Speaker 4 00:42:51 Yes. I read that. And it's like, that is literally the opposite of what Marx argued.
Speaker 0 00:42:56 And you are not a communist. I have known you for years and you are not a communist. And it's just, and it's just like, I don't know why they felt they had to do this.
Speaker 4 00:43:07 What's crazy though, to go back really quickly to fascism is like this, the people who drafted this document and who were in support of our former president, um, they hate anti-fascism right. They hate Antifa, which is just some made up thing. Um, they, they don't like people to be antifascist and we haven't actually eradicated fascism because we saw it on full blown display at our Capitol on January 6th. So what is that? Why did they have that? I mean, I would almost think since this was released on January 18th, that he might've said, Hey, let's take that paragraph out or something, but you know what? He didn't read it. Number one. Well, he doesn't read no act. This is documented fact that he doesn't read people say you, if you hand them one piece of paper, he won't even read a piece of paper. So that's not just us being shady.
Speaker 0 00:44:00 So did you know, fascism and communism are ideological cousins.
Speaker 4 00:44:05 That was insane again.
Speaker 0 00:44:08 Okay. One is a right wing ideology and the other is a left wing ideology. Um, uh, uh, I don't know. And then it moves to racism and identity politics because they are identical. Um, eventually this regime of formal inequality would come to be known as identity politics. And this is a regime of equal natural rights, equal citizens and forced by the equal application of the law. We have moved towards the systemic explicit group privilege that in the name of social justice demands, equal results, that explicitly sorts citizens in a protected classes based on race and other demographic categories. Um, will we choose the truce of the declaration or will we fall prey to the false theories that have led to many nations to tyranny? It is our mission. All of us to restore a national unity by rekindling, a brave and honest love for our country. And, but that sounds like fascism to me and by raising new generations of citizens who, wow, natalizumab, that's also a fascist, right? Who not only come out of North Korea, that's the thing. It's like
Speaker 4 00:45:25 Prime American it's so unpatriotic
Speaker 0 00:45:31 Abraham Lincoln with throw up. If he read this
Speaker 4 00:45:34 Abraham Lincoln would vomit. Absolutely. I think Thomas Jefferson would too, honestly,
Speaker 0 00:45:37 I think Thomas Jefferson, first of all, I think if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would not, he, his views on many things will be very different. Um, but Oh Lord, the task of national renewal. So now we're basically, this is, this is that whole trope of, you know, things are horrible. Oh, let's make it. Uh, and what's the very first thing they do. The role of the family. It is good mothers and fathers above all, others who formed good people and good citizens does a good father, have three divorces,
Speaker 4 00:46:18 Does a good father pay a porn star, $30,000 to be quiet?
Speaker 0 00:46:24 I just, it is nothing. Yeah, it has nothing to do with this report. We're really snarky today. I love it. Um,
Speaker 4 00:46:32 Calling out hypocrisy, outlandish hypocrisy,
Speaker 0 00:46:39 Oh, this document is just rife with it. America.
Speaker 4 00:46:44 Justin, when you suggested that we talk about this document, I was against it initially because I thought, you know what? We should not even give it airtime. We shouldn't discuss it. We shouldn't download it. We shouldn't read it. But you know what? That's dangerous too. You have to understand where the minds of some of these people are. Their minds are in space. I mean, they're in, even in left field, they're on Mars or something, right?
Speaker 0 00:47:10 Talk about the American minds. Do you know what Americans yearn for? And this is a quote from this document, please timeless stories and noble heroes and inspire them to be good, brave diligent, daring, generous, honest and compassionate. Millions of Americans have devour the histories of the American revolution of the civil war and thrill to the tales of Washington, Jefferson Hamilton, Frank people thrill besides the musical Hamilton to the stories of Hamilton, Franklin Lincoln grant.
Speaker 4 00:47:41 Well by Nat Turner's rebellion, like that's pretty thrilling,
Speaker 0 00:47:44 Sojourner truth. Frederick Douglas. We still read the tails of Hawthorne and Melville, Twain and Poe and the poems of Whitman and Dickinson up. They turn another. So there are two women in that list. Are you, or do you feel empowered Hillary?
Speaker 4 00:47:57 I mean, I feel so emboldened now. I mean, you know that progressivism
Speaker 0 00:48:03 Independence day, we come John Philip Sousa stars and stripes forever and sing along to Woody Guthrie's this land is your land, a song, which doesn't mean what I think they think, I believe it means Americans applaud the loyalty, love and kindness shared by the March sisters and little women, all Revere the rugged Liberty of the Cowboys and old westerns and cheer, the adventurous spirit of young Tom Sawyer. These great works of withstood the test of time because they speak to eternal truths and embody the American spirit. Okay, sure. Americans. Yeah. Like what's the point of that?
Speaker 4 00:48:43 You know, again, it's when you said this is like a student paper, I'm just running with that now. I mean, it's like, did you have a word count you needed to meet, I want this to be 20,000 words and you just weren't quite there yet. Cause there's so many points throughout this where I'm like, what did you just say? What are you trying to say? I mean, it's like, it's just complete fluff. And if I were grading it, I would just delete, delete, delete. Like, you're not getting your point across. So your point that you're trying to get across your thesis statement is, um, gosh, I mean, what is the thesis statement that Erica and not talk about anything bad that ever happened or if you do then you're a communist.
Speaker 0 00:49:32 Well, here's the thing. So we joked about giving this thing a C so it looks like it's a 45 page document, but it's actually only a 20 page document because the bulk of it is taken up with appendices because they've got the declaration of independence, uh, faith and America's principles, which I don't even understand what this is like. It's got these weird appendices that aren't attributed to anybody.
Speaker 4 00:50:02 That's crazy as the last, I think it's the last section before the conclusion is called reverence for the laws. And once again, the fact that this was published a week and a half after the Capitol insurrection just blows my mind that the person who commissioned this report has a section on being reverent toward the law. When this same person incited a violent mob riot to try to overturn the results of a fair and free democratic election. Like the levels of insanity to that are deep. I mean, it's like Dante's Inferno. I mean, we're in like circle of hell right now trying to figure that out again. And it's the contradiction
Speaker 5 00:50:55 Harvey got very angry. He's mad about it too.
Speaker 0 00:50:58 Um, I mean, let me, before we kind of run out of time, uh, for someone to throw this in the commission, I forget at the very end of the document, it does have the commission list, which is different than telling us who actually wrote these things. So Larry PRN as the chair, Carol Swain, as the vice chair and Matthew Spalding is the executive director. Then it's got this whole list of people. Um, Is there a problem that we don't know who actually wrote, which parts
Speaker 4 00:51:31 Oh, hugely problematic. And it also goes to the point to where, you know, they have all these appendixes, but it's like, can you point your sources for me? Can you give me references as to where you've pulled this? I would love to see some footnotes, um, like education, right? Well, authentic knowledge sharing. I mean, it's like the it's, it's abandoning the very principles of like a peer reviewed. Can you imagine this going through peer review?
Speaker 0 00:52:03 Oh, well it would be it's garbage. It's trash. It's like, it is the it, so here's some, the last thing I'm going to quote directly, probably maybe I dunno, uh, under the, the teaching Americans about their country, which is for as an historian who also teaches, this is the worst part of it. The whole thing for me, the misuse of history, I'm like, Oh, okay. To begin such an education, we must first avoid an all too common mistake. Uh, okay. It is wrong to think of history by itself as a standard for judgment. Okay. That's fair. Sure. The standard is set by unchanging principles that transcend history. Uh, no, because for the vast majority of human history of written history, since humans started writing things down, we felt it was okay to enslave other people. And we believe that women were fundamentally unequal to men.
Speaker 5 00:53:00 Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:53:02 Up until very recently. And so fighting, I would say so we can't combat anything that's happened. I don't know. We aim for progress because progress is seen as, um, antithetical to our founding documents. That any form of progress is antithetical. Because to me what that is when they say they want to make America great again, I mean, I think they want to bring slavery back and I think they want to stop having women the right to vote. And I think that they want only white male landowners to be able to vote and participate because that's what was the case, no matter what, no matter what it said on the document in practice, that's what was happening. And they seem to be quite celebratory of that moment in time.
Speaker 0 00:53:51 Well, I mean, whoever wrote this as a really bad historian as well, I mean, whoever historian,
Speaker 4 00:53:56 Number one,
Speaker 0 00:53:58 I wonder if an a story and didn't participate though, because it's just, but it's at one point they say this so-called glorious revolution, which is 1688, which is, which is a glorious revolution because it's the parliament in England basically saying the Monarch now has, is subservient to parliament permanently from now on. And we can remove it.
Speaker 4 00:54:18 We were the first people to ever say that we're not subservient to a Monarch. That's what the report
Speaker 0 00:54:24 I know, but it's just like, they're ignoring Jacques Rousseau. They're ignoring Locke. They're ignoring David Hume. They're ignoring Hobbes. They're ignoring all of these people who build this idea. This is the thing, the, the, you know, the 17th and 18th century, these ideas are written down and created and formulated and postulated and kind of eventually at the end of the 18th century, put into, put into practice in three distinct spaces in relatively quick succession, right? The English colonies in North America, which becomes the United States, France, which becomes a Republic before Napoleon takes it over and changes it, something else and Haiti and, and the reason those three emerged at the time they did is they capitalized on ideas that had just been written,
Speaker 4 00:55:21 Right? Because the thing is, is it's not isolated to this region, right? There is different political philosophical thought that is circulating in these spaces for a long time. And the founders of the United States capitalized on this. You know, I mean, they, they took those ideas. It was like popular ideas of the moment. And guess what? Those were progressive ideals of the moment. So again, radical, radical, radical ideas, radical. And, and also the American revolution itself was a rebellion, right? Uh, against this, you know, foreign government or against their own government, which we've talked about. But th the whole idea though, too, of just stamping out anybody who had a role or anybody's thoughts or intellectual contribution to any of it, just stamping it all out. And pretending that these ideas just came out of thin air is disgusting, it's disgusting and wrong. And then one of the quotes that makes me so mad in this too, is reemphasizing this myth of America as this vast untamed wilderness.
Speaker 4 00:56:39 That is a quote quote, although a relatively young country, it's people have shared a common history of struggle and achievement from carving communities out of a vast untamed wilderness. The idea that there was no here before nobody lived here, nobody had these ideas. They came raining from the heavens into the brilliant minds of Thomas Jefferson and other founders. It's stupid, it's irresponsible, it's false. And all of it is to propel this myth, this myth of American exceptionalism, the myth of the American frontier is empty. The myth of, um, you know, manifest destiny, all these myths that historians have been working decades to unravel and say, Hey, let's think a little harder about this. He publishes this report to say, screw all your research and everything, you know, and everything you've written, we're making shit up now, deal with it. Well,
Speaker 3 00:57:47 And it's so, and one of the things they point to the education thing is you can look at these, uh, timeless works and they argue that the timeless works are self-evident that it's not hard to identify them. And I love this. No honest, intelligent survey of human civilization could deny the unique brilliance of Homer or Play-Doh Dante or Shakespeare. Okay. I teach humanities. You got, yeah, you got me. Yeah. I love all four of those Washington or Lincoln or Washington. And then, I mean, Lincoln wrote some speeches, but like Washington, Washington, right? What did he write? I mean, he wrote some salacious letters to Alexander Hamilton, Melville or Hawthorne. It's just like, why did they throw those two in there?
Speaker 4 00:58:36 Because it's all grounded in this myth. It's all it's, it's none of it is steeped. In fact, all of it is emotive, right? So much of this as emotion, we want to have heroes and then it says it right? Like Americans need and want heroes. It's like, you're weak. You are weak. If you need to have a hero to look at all the time, go watch a Marvel movie. We're not heroes.
Speaker 3 00:59:05 People do want that. But I mean, it's so here's where it gets a little, right. Here's where it gets a little complicated for me. I do think one of its points is correct. Civics education has dropped out of curriculum for K through 12 students. And I think that is a problem that civics really isn't taught as its own distinct thing, because I think civics does allow you, here's the thing to critique the system and the way it's organized. I think you have to have an awareness of what that system is and how it fits.
Speaker 4 00:59:40 Yes. But only if you actually have that awareness and you're not being brainwashed by documents like this, because to have the understanding steeped in this information is a disservice.
Speaker 3 00:59:51 But I mean, that's the thing is I think students need to learn how the government is intended to function and then they can have critical discussions about when it doesn't function the way it's supposed to be. Like there was this last week, there was an interesting conversation that took place in the Senate about filibuster, whether or not they were going to continue it or not. And I think, I think high school students by their senior year should be able to understand what a filibuster is, what the Senate is and what the pros and cons of having a filibuster present are. And I think for the overwhelming majority of Americans, they have a dim awareness of any of those things I just said,
Speaker 5 01:00:34 Do we want to talk about the filibuster next week?
Speaker 3 01:00:37 I, I don't. Well, I mean, I, what I'd like to do for the entire month of February in response to 1776 commissioners report is really talk about slavery and the emergence of an African-American culture and kind of the legacy, uh, kind of think of it as a four-part class on African-Americans.
Speaker 5 01:01:08 Okay. I think I would really like
Speaker 3 01:01:10 To do that because I think it's this thing, this document is so, um, I mean, and here's another part of me, I'm a big free speech advocate. And, um, and at the same time, I also liked the idea of putting bad ideas as you know, out for people to see, because you know, the purifying effects of daylight on bad ideas I think is true. Um, I don't like the fact that this was removed completely from the white house's website. Um, you can still download it. Wikipedia is the easiest place. If you want to download the 1776 commissioner report, just go to Wikipedia and look for it, you'll find it, um, because it is bad ideas, but I think it represents the way a not insignificant portion of America's population views the world.
Speaker 5 01:02:10 Would you agree with that? Yes.
Speaker 4 01:02:14 Yes. I would agree with that.
Speaker 3 01:02:16 So I think it's, I think if you are, obviously, if you're listening to our podcast, I'm, you're interested in history. I think you owe it to yourself to take a look at this thing, to see,
Speaker 4 01:02:27 You know, I, I think it's important. Free speech is fine. Like I get what you're saying, but like it's not helpful to just publish myths and, and then, and then sanctioned in on a government website and say like, yes, our United States government stands behind this document. I mean, that's, but I think would be the salts.
Speaker 3 01:02:53 Right. But then I think when people read it, then we can have a discussion about it. And I was thinking, well, here's here are the problems with it. Um,
Speaker 4 01:03:01 The fact that we're even giving it a platform, I think is it's a trouble. I mean, what I will say is like, again, I had this knee-jerk reaction to say, I don't even want to talk about it because I don't think that we should give it any sort of, you know, we shouldn't add fuel to the fire. It is important to understand where other people's thinking is. And so for that reason, yes, I do. Do you think that, and I think maybe I would like to challenge myself perhaps to assign it in class, alongside the 16, 19 project one time that would only do it in class.
Speaker 3 01:03:37 I would only do it in an upper div class
Speaker 4 01:03:39 Only. Yeah. Only upper division, for sure. And because this document will, it can poison your ideas. Right? I mean, so I think it's important to examine, but I do not think it belongs on a government website. I will say that.
Speaker 3 01:03:58 Well, I mean, here's the thing, it was produced by presidential commission. So it needs to be somewhere on a governmental website because it is a product of the Trump administration. And I think it's, it's, uh, it is, I think it encapsulates a lot about Trumpism that a lot of us miss understood back in 2016 or minimize
Speaker 4 01:04:25 It could, it could help us answer a lot of questions about this moment and it can help us answer a lot of questions about our fellow Americans. It can help us answer a lot of questions about this over 70 million people who inhabit this country with us. Um, I think, yes, I I'm willing to say that, but I'm also just so depressed that this is a product of 2012.
Speaker 3 01:04:50 Yeah. I know I are right.
Speaker 4 01:04:53 Free is not an upward progress. Right. Like that's not all the time, there's an ebb and flow to these things and this is a great example of it.
Speaker 3 01:05:01 Yeah. All right. Well, great conversation. Um, we're not going to post a copy of this. We had talked about it, but we're not going to, if you do want to rate it, go to Wikipedia, you can download a copy of it there. Um, and I think if you're really interested in this conversations, how history is taught, I think it is an important document personally, that you maybe want to look at because it presents a certain perspective on that, that I don't think any professionally trained historian would agree with at all. Um, but anyway, so, uh, uh, looking forward to February, it should be fun. Um, as we kind of figure out how we're going to break up how we're going to do kind of this four-part series on African-American history. Um, but thanks for joining us today. I'm Hillary and I'm Jeff till next time
Speaker 2 01:05:56 <inaudible>.
