Dr. Smoots, thank you for this thoughtful refutation of the 1619 project. It in no way resembles a truthful academic work, but instead serves as a vehicle to promote hatred of one group of people for another. " Love the Lord your God with all your heart,soul,mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself." The 1619 Project does just the opposite.
In general I agree with your position but not with all your facts. You do speak from an American First perspective which is problematic. Your revolution was and is depicted as the basis for the revolution but that is not totally true
The “America” that developed out of the English/British colonies had a much freer structure than that is Britain. There was no upward status opportunity in Britain, but there certainly was in North America.
That said, the colonies disliked two aspects of British policy, one being their approach to the native population and the other their approach to Quebec. The British limited westward expansion, hoping to engage the indigenous population. The locals did not like this as it restricted their access to some of the best land. They also did not like the inclusion of Catholics as co-owners with full rights. These were the fundamental issues, as local representation had been available for some time.
If you present the warts with the good, it presents you as human and not godly, because you are certainly not godly.
Dr. Smoots, thank you for this thoughtful refutation of the 1619 project. It in no way resembles a truthful academic work, but instead serves as a vehicle to promote hatred of one group of people for another. " Love the Lord your God with all your heart,soul,mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself." The 1619 Project does just the opposite.
Your comments are right on target.
In general I agree with your position but not with all your facts. You do speak from an American First perspective which is problematic. Your revolution was and is depicted as the basis for the revolution but that is not totally true
The “America” that developed out of the English/British colonies had a much freer structure than that is Britain. There was no upward status opportunity in Britain, but there certainly was in North America.
That said, the colonies disliked two aspects of British policy, one being their approach to the native population and the other their approach to Quebec. The British limited westward expansion, hoping to engage the indigenous population. The locals did not like this as it restricted their access to some of the best land. They also did not like the inclusion of Catholics as co-owners with full rights. These were the fundamental issues, as local representation had been available for some time.
If you present the warts with the good, it presents you as human and not godly, because you are certainly not godly.