No.
1619 gets completely 100% gutted. It no longer stings at all and is utterly disarmed and destroyed. Even you avoided 1619.
You should have the common decency to point out that the sting is not lost at all in regard to 1619, and do it in one single, short sentence.
I'm happy to talk with you about the rest next and I hope we can keep this going. I'm just only keeping it simple and starting at the beginning. Just one thing. 1619. It's destroyed, it's dead Jim.
At this early time in the morning, I incorrectly used the context of “sting”. Doesn’t matter, I was clear in my intent. Pointing out early American abolitionists and the multiple vetos from the crown does not lose its sting nearly as badly as the legends foretell.
I’ve never even talked about or defended the ludicrous claims of the 1619 Project, so I don’t know even know why you’re bringing it up to me as a point of criticism.
But you pinged me to this thread (and I certainly don’t recall ever requesting that I be added to any American history ping list of yours), when our only prior interaction had been on another thread related to the history of slavery and abolition in America.
Nonetheless, claims about slavery in America being a British institution (as compared to a global one that had existed for time immemorial) are as ridiculous as those who claim that slavery is America’s original sin.
There existed abolition movements in both the colonies and in Great Britain. It just so happens that the British succeeded in abolishing it before America did.
There also existed Americans who, after independence was declared, were unwilling to manumit their slaves, and would not do so until forced to as a result of the Civil War.
So blaming the British for the obstinacy of American slaveholders, decades after independence was declared, rings hollow.
But that’s just me.