Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 29, 2021

 Sept 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of part of an article by Princeton historian, Sean Wilentz, which criticizes the 1619 Project for claiming that a main reason for the Revolutionary War was to protect the institution of slavery from the British. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The link to Wilentz's article is below:

    https://www.opera-historica.com/pdfs/oph/2021/01/05.pdf

The title of Clark's blogpost does not match the intention of Wilentz's expressed concerns over the 1619 Project. In an interview reported by The Atlantic, Wilentz said the following about the letter containing his criticisms of the 1619 Project (see  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ ):

Far from an attempt to discredit the 1619 Project, our letter is intended to help it.

In addition, there are scholars  who share a similar view of the relationship between the Revolutionary War and slavery which was claimed in the 1619 Project. For example Alfred Blumrosen, Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers along with his late wife who was an adjunct professor of law there made similar claims (see  https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/slave-nation/ ).

The central issue involved in connecting the reasons for the Revolutionary War and the defense of slavery revolve around the effects on public perception on the future of slavery which the press, both American and British, played by how they reported on the Somerset case and the words of its presiding judge, Judge Lord Mansfield: 

So high an act of dominion was never in use here; no master was ever allowed to take a slave by force to be sold abroad, because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatsoever. We cannot say the cause set forth by this return is allowed or approved by the laws of this kingdom, therefore the man must be discharged.

Two academic papers deal the newspaper accounts and the resulting public perception (see  https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc804870/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf  and  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED245272.pdf  ). Thus, whether there was a relationship between the Revolutionary War and slavery is not as clearcut as some would believe.

Does the 1619 Project overstate any existing relationship between the war and slavery? Yes it does. But, that is no reason to discount the whole project since it points to a truth that the project's critic, Wilentz, recognizes and expressed in his letter to The Times. That truth was the central role played by slavery in American history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost containing a quote from the statement made by the Global Covid Summit in September, 2021 in Roam. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Full statement from the Global Covid Summit in Roam

https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org

One of the things I do before I consider accepting information I read on the internet is to vet the sources. Some of the co-signers listed are advocates of the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19. And considering the fact that there is no peer-reviewed legitimate documentation supporting the use of Ivermectin for treating Covid, the 2nd resolution makes sense. What is written above is declaration that there should be no governmental medical standards that the the government should apply to doctors in the name of the doctor-patient relationship and in order to stop political intrusion into the practice of medicine.

Such seems to forget that government intrusion is not always politically based. That, in terms of medicine, it is well advised by the scientific study of those practicing medicine and/or medical research. And if it is well advised by scientific study, it is wrong to a priori claim that gov't oversight into how medicine is being practiced is politically based.

Doesn't Clark understand what is really being promoted by the Global Covid Summit? Has he vetted his sources and publicly disclosed what he found?

We need the truth about using Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid 19. That truth is that there is no current research that confirms the claims that Ivermectin is a proven treatment or prevention for Covid-19. That legitimate research is needed before such a claim can be made. That those who want to treat the disease with Ivermectin must be upfront and explicitly clear about what is known about Ivermectin at this time. And anyone practicing medicine must explain that, from what we know at this time, vaccines are really the first line of prevention and, hopefully, the elimination or managing of the disease.

Should the research prove the claims about Ivermectin to be true, then that would be great. But as of now, there is no such proof (see  https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/why-ivermectin-should-not-be-used-prevent-or-treat-covid-19  ).