As I am writing the book review on this novel I wanted to keep my personal opinion and beliefs out of the review and use the blog as a place to voice those opinions so the review can be a way to flesh out the ideas, concepts, and quality of the writing. In our talk with peter wood about his novel 1620 and the response to the 1619 project, I asked him a question about the use of the word dehumanization in relation to slavery. Wood brings up that dehumanization can only go so far. This is a concept that I am confused by because I have always thought of slavery in the united states as a complete dehumanization of black enslaved people mainly because of how history has taught the concept and how slavery has manifested itself in other forms later in history. Wood points out what he says are contradictions in the 1619 project but I was more confused by his analysis and pushback of the project. While I have no problem with the critical analysis of the text some of the language and rhetoric behind what Wood is saying I do have problems with. Something that I struggled to understand is when he states that our constitution and laws should be colorblind. That is a very harmful viewpoint when it comes to race. The historical context of being color blind plays into race-neutral language with helps perpetuate the idea that if everyone is equal in the eyes of the law then there will be no race-related issues. The problem with this narrative is that based on the history of our country. People have been sorted and judgments have been passed based on race so having a colorblind way of looking at society would actually do more harm than good. Wood says that the reason he thinks being colorblind would be the most beneficial is because “our society should strive for the common good, which is best achieved by treating one another as individuals, not as representatives of identity groups.” This way of thinking in my opinion is not possible because when one’s entire existence has been based on that they are inferior to others because they are black then it is impossible to ask black people not to be representatives of an identity group because in our society that has been the majority of their identity. Wood does state that the concept of race will not disappear anytime soon so he does acknowledge that his idea of being colorblind is not easily achievable just based on how our society is structured. I do commend him for not wanting to have race be fundamental in terms of how people are treated in society the only thing is the concept of equality versus equity. Because we have not always treated people the same we can not start that now because of the systemic issues that have risen.
A few questions that I would like to pose are: Does Wood see any benefits from the project or solely critiques? In what ways is postmodernism effective and harmful in the 1619 project, if at all?
One reply on “Week 10”
Yeah, I agree with you that what he said about dehumanization was confusing in regards to race. Something else that I wanted to add was coming from anthropologist’s point of view (I’ve talked about this in some of my anthro courses) is that race is a cultural construct, we created it. But just because we created it doesn’t mean we can change how we think about the concept. But the whole concept of race isnt actually acknowledged yet (its too early for that)
Wood is saying that the constitution should be color blind, it probably should be, but I honestly dont think thats what the founding fathers were thinking about when they were writing it. The more i think about this the more confused I get for some reason. Sort of changing the subject a bit, why is America today still basing our ideals off of something that was written back in the 1700s?