https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiFNnSILFiI

Your example was an irrelevant one, as I said. It doesn’t address the point.

This entire post is a report by me on what Dinesh D’Souza said was in it or not in it, coupled with other summaries I’ve read about it. The reason I tried so hard to get the D’Souza video into the post was that it provided the documentation on the Times’ 1619 Project’s recent publication and what it said and didn’t say. You or anyone else are perfectly free to criticize D’Souza’s analysis and statements and provide examples of how the Times discussed “the fact that the Democrats were the party of slavery as well as the party of Jim Crow and segregation, and the Republicans were the anti-slavery party.” It is an extremely salient fact and should have been a major focus of the 1619 Project. You have failed to provide a counter to D’Souza’s contention that it wasn’t dealt with. That doesn’t mean what he says can’t be countered, but it does mean that you have failed to do so.

The Democrats were the party of slavery, both before the Civil War and after. The Republicans were the anti-slavery party. It’s not just a moment or a few years that this was true. It was true for a long, long, long time. That fact is virtually ignored by the MSM in general and/or even distorted at times, so much so that when you say to most people that the Democrats were the party of slavery and the GOP the anti-slavery party they think you are lying or mistaken. I have had that happen to me several times.

there should be a lot of not just cryptic “mention” in a sentence like you offer,

Neo, when the author writes; “These black officials joined with white Republicans, some of whom came down from the North, to write the most egalitarian state constitutions the South had ever seen” she is indeed referencing the fact that “the Republicans were the anti-slavery party.”

As to why there aren’t more references. I don’t know if there aren’t. This is only the first installment. And I only read the first article in the first installment. I don’t know what in the rest and it doesn’t appear that you do either.

Tom Lehrer – We Will All Go Together When We Go – with intro …
https://www.youtube.com › watch
Lyrics
I am reminded at this point of a fellow I used to know
whose name was Henry, only to give you an idea of what
a individualist he was, he spelled it H-E-N-3-R-Y –
the three was silent, you see.
Henry was financially independent, having inherited his
father’s tar-and-feather business, and was therefore
able to devote his full time to such intellectual pursuits
as writing. I particularly remember a heartwarming novel
of his about a young necrophiliac who finally achieved his
boyhood ambition by becoming coroner… (The rest of you
can look it up when you get home.)

Source: Musixmatch
Songwriters: Tom Lehrer

Actually, I think the main function is to keep people busy answering and answering, and re-inventing the wheel over and over, which is distracting and time-consuming and often frustrating for people to do.

But I think it can be clarifying and edifying to have someone like Manju here. It keeps people on their toes and also instructs on the latest leftist talking points, hot off the press as it were.

It’s not how they work in the big scheme of things as many of them have themselves noted repeatedly. They do not engage that way because 1., Their conclusions cannot be defended as entailed from premisses which are themselves indubitable (Rorty’s admission) ; and 2, to debate an opponent is to dignify that opponent as someone with a position that deserves to be heard out. That kind of tolerance has no place in the matured leftist scheme of things.(Marcuse)

Thus, hit and run, and make you do the work of chasing links and arguing with insinuations. A strategy not intended to resolve an issue, but to discredit an opponent.

As I said, whatever they pay Manju (including nothing), it’s too much.

“What’s more, do you really not understand that in a huge lengthy multi-faceted treatment of the influence of slavery and discrimination against black people in the US, there should be a lot of not just cryptic “mention” in a sentence like you offer …”

The mention, the arch insinuation, and what’s contentiously left unsaid, is bait; meant to provoke a bite, not a real debate.

That’s why it’s called trolling.

You can only use a troll for your own ends, to make your own point. You cannot talk to one as if it is a real person, much less as a worthy peer.

The jury is still out on whether you’re really as dense as you seem.

You response is laughable. A person has to have a lot of extra knowledge to figure out what you describe here. What’s more, do you really not understand that in a huge lengthy multi-faceted treatment of the influence of slavery and discrimination against black people in the US, there should be a lot of not just cryptic “mention” in a sentence like you offer, but discussion and presentation of (and I repeat myself) “the fact that the Democrats were the party of slavery as well as the party of Jim Crow and segregation, and the Republicans were the anti-slavery party.”

I repeat: whatever they pay you (even if it’s nothing) they’re not getting their money’s worth.