The 1619 Project: An Epitaph - "Most of the problems with this key point in the 1619 Project’s narrative appear to have stemmed from the way that Hannah-Jones went about researching and preparing her collection of essays. While the New York Times Magazine feature emerged under the consultation of several expert scholars in other areas of the 400-year swath of American history under its scope, it used very few specialists in the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War – arguably the most crucial period for the study of slavery in the United States.Instead, Hannah-Jones took on this subject herself or assigned specific themes from this period to non-experts, such as Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond who wrote an accompanying piece on the economics of slavery despite having no scholarly competencies in that subject.The results have made the period of 1775 to 1865 an acute vulnerability for the 1619 Project, even as the remainder of the initiative has faced far less criticism. At this point it would be accurate to conclude that the reputation of the project’s other essays, many of them entirely unobjectionable adaptations of scholarly insights for a popular audience, has suffered because of the Times’ inflexible refusal to address erroneous historical claims in the essays by Hannah-Jones and Desmond.When specialists in the 1775-1865 period began to scrutinize the Times’ claims about this period, they quickly identified multiple glaring errors of fact and interpretation alike... Hannah-Jones’s own response to her scholarly critics devolved from an initial respectful engagement to aggressive derision. She attacked the scholarly credentials of James McPherson and Gordon Wood, two of the most famous historians to question her narrative. In one perplexing tweet, she singled out the critics as “white historians” (oddly neglecting the lack of racial diversity among the scholars who advised Desmond’s own 1619 Project contribution). When a group of conservative African-American academics and journalists launched a competing “1776 Project” in early 2020 to offer a counternarrative, Hannah-Jones bombarded them with a string of personal attacks, the gist of which amounted to declaring them unworthy of her attention... So what brought about the Times’ sudden, if underplayed, reversal?On March 6, 2020, Politico published a surprise essay by historian Leslie M. Harris that upended the 1619 Project debate. Although its author chided some of the historian-critics of the project for allegedly understating slavery in their own work, she also had a stunning revelation about Hannah-Jones’s essay.The previous summer Harris had been contacted by the Times to serve as a fact-checker on the 1619 Project’s discussions of slavery, one of her areas of specialization. The newspaper had asked her to verify the following claim... In Harris’s own words, “I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.” The Times’ editors ignored her warning and ran with Hannah-Jones’s argument anyway."
1619 Project Founder Believes Asians Aren’t ‘People of Color’ - "Nikole Hannah Jones, the founder of the 1619 Project, argued on Twitter about school demographics and basically stated Asian people aren’t “people of color” because she didn’t like the fact someone pointed out a specialized school was majority Asian during a conversation... Jones believes the very notion of parents feeling “nervous” their children might not get a good education from forced school integration is racist and parents should not be given a choice and complaining about the possible safety of their children in inner-city schools is also racist.In order for African-American children to compete in schools against Asian-Americans who have been dominating specialized schools and STEM for over a decade, hard choices must be made. Jones believes meritocracy must be sacrificed for a more “fairer” system. White people made the rules, therefore, it cannot be fair. The reasoning behind Jones’s statement is because her entire thesis revolves around white schools doing better than black schools and therefore, it’s “White America’s Fault.” However, the data shows Asian-American students routinely do better and surpass all other ethnic groups, which completely destroys Jones’s belief system."
Disputed NY Times '1619 Project' Already Shaping Schoolkids' Minds on Race - "Speaking at Harvard University in December, she said the decision not to credit white abolitionists was a deliberate choice.“I don’t see giving you credit for fighting to end an institution that you created. That’s just the way that I think about it,” she said. “We have had plenty of stories in 400 years about white heroism. We have given outsize attention to what I would call good white people.”And she said including those details would have blunted the moral force of her narrative: “I think it was important not to give white people that escape when they were reading this.”“This is a bottom-up history about people who never get any credit,” she said. “Very intentionally we were creating a counter-narrative.”... “If it just had been confined to that one magazine, we’d just forget about it and it would disappear from our consciousness,” Wood told RealClearInvestigations. “But now they’re going to work out a real effort to get it into the classrooms.“And it’s got the authority of The New York Times, a powerful institution in our country,” he said. “That’s what I think is alarming.”For her part, Hannah-Jones has asserted that there is no such thing as objective history, and took pride in the fact that, as reported in the Atlantic magazine, some historians declined to sign their letter... Gates expressed admiration for the 1619 Project but rebuked Hannah-Jones for some of her choices, including the decision to ignore the role played by African chieftains, who kidnapped blacks for the slave trade."
An open admission that they are falsifying history to poison people's minds
New York Times Reveals That 1619 Project Is a Fraud - "The Smithsonian Magazine disputed the 1619 Project because the Spanish brought slaves to present-day South Carolina in 1526.“In 1526, enslaved Africans were part of a Spanish expedition to establish an outpost on the North American coast in present-day South Carolina. Those Africans launched a rebellion in November of that year and effectively destroyed the Spanish settlers’ ability to sustain the settlement, which they abandoned a year later. Nearly 100 years before Jamestown, African actors enabled American colonies to survive, and they were equally able to destroy European colonial ventures,” the magazine reported.Ignoring these and other pre-1619 slaves “effectively erases the memory of many more African peoples than it memorializes,” the Smithsonian Magazine article argued. Therefore, the New York Times project “silences the memory of the more than 500,000 African men, women, and children who had already crossed the Atlantic against their will, aided and abetted Europeans in their endeavors, provided expertise and guidance in a range of enterprises, suffered, died, and – most importantly – endured.”Ouch!... Following the police abuse of George Floyd, protests across the country devolved into violent riots, seemingly inspired by Marxist critical race theory and the 1619 Project.When vandals toppled a statue of George Washington in Portland, they spray-painted “1619” on the statue. When Claremont’s Charles Kesler wrote in The New York Post, “Call them the 1619 riots,” 1619 Project Founder Nikole Hannah-Jones responded (in a since-deleted tweet) that “it would be an honor” to claim responsibility for the destructive riots. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the “dismantling” of America’s “economy and political system,” in order to root out supposed racist oppression. Portland activist Lilith Sinclair provided a chilling example of Marxist critical race theory and its ability to inspire an aimless revolution. “There’s still a lot of work to undo the harm of colonized thought that has been pushed onto Black and indigenous communities,” she said. As examples of “colonized thought,” she mentioned Christianity and the “gender binary.” She said she organizes for “the abolition of … the “United States as we know it.” The riots have proved the most destructive (in terms of insurance claims) in U.S. history. While Democratic nominee Joe Biden has condemned violent looting and arson, he refused to condemn antifa or Black Lives Matter agitators, instead attacking “right-wing militias” as if they were the true instigators of violence... Civil rights veteran Robert Woodson released his “1776 Unites” curriculum for high school, aiming to teach inspiring stories of black Americans who embraced the Founding principles and achieved their own American dreams. His vision of black resilience and agency counters the victimhood culture of Marxist critical race theory. Rather than calling for an unguided revolution in the name of racial justice, his curriculum provides young Americans a roadmap for success inspired by America’s highest ideals."
In Racist Screed, NYT's 1619 Project Founder Calls 'White Race' 'Barbaric Devils,' 'No Different Than Hitler' - "In an indication of what was to come, the founder of the New York Times’ 1619 Project penned a lengthy racist screed attacking all white people in 1995.Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead essayist on New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, wrote a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s The Observer stating that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”... This isn’t the first time the New York Times has hired and kept a writer with a history of racism and radical views. In 2018, the NYT hired Sarah Jeong despite a long string of racist tweets that littered her Twitter calling white people “goblins,” likening their smell to dogs, and asking to “#cancelallwhitepeople”. The irony of the situation was that Jeong was brought on to fill the position forcefully vacated by Quinn Norton, who was fired from The Times for old social media posts using racial and anti-LGBTQ slurs."
The 1619 Cover-Up. Did the 1619 Project cover-up a major legal precedent to avoid blaming the victim? - "Prominent historians accused Hannah-Jones of inaccuracy. Hannah-Jones responded, “The 1619 project is not history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative.”... The 1619 Project asserted the ship that docked in Virginia carried “enslaved Africans” who were sold to the colonist. But, Adolph Reed, a black political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told an interviewer that assertion was a lie. The Africans weren’t enslaved, they were actually indentured servants who were freed after their indentured time expired.Reed was ignored for making a technical distinction... Hannah-Jones explained... “The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself, one group has monopolized this for too long in order to create this myth of exceptionalism.”If the past is a recorded narrative by the victors, then the 1619 Project is a narrative according to the victims. In 1971 psychologist William Ryan coined the phrase “blaming the victim” to discredit Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report — The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. According to Ryan, theories that divert responsibility from social structures to behavior or cultural patterns of the marginalized blame the victim.However, by the end of the 20th century, the concept of “blaming the victim” has gone beyond its original intent and is used specifically to censor sensitive subjects. The mention of “the victim’s” slightest role — in any event — is considered unconscionable, especially in historical events like slavery. For example, it’s constantly repeated that Africans were kidnapped by Europeans and forced into slavery, but any mention of the fact African tribal chiefs sold Africans to Europeans blames the victim and is improper to discuss. By labeling the first Africans “enslaved” instead of indentured servants, the 1619 Project can be accused of engaging in a cover-up similar to how — kidnapping — covered up African tribal chiefs selling Africans... In 1653 Casor complained to Robert Parker, a white planter who was visiting Johnson, that he was indentured to Johnson, but Johnson kept him seven years longer than he should have. Johnson insisted that Casor was his servant for life, but Johnson was warned if he didn’t release Casor from servitude, Casor could recover Johnson’s cows as damages. Johnson freed Casor. Then Casor bound himself to Parker. Johnson petitioned the Northampton County court for the return of “his servant”, and in March 1654, the court ordered Casor returned to Johnson and handed down the judgment that Casor was Johnson’s servant for life, that is, his slave.This was the first civil suit in the Thirteen Colonies to declare a person of African descent a slave for life. It also established the right of free blacks to own slaves."
They deny objectivity, yet it's supposed to be taught in schools
Pulitzer Board Must Revoke Nikole Hannah-Jones' Prize - " Hannah-Jones’s refusal to correct her errors or engage her critics, we have recently learned, was accompanied by surreptitious efforts by The New York Times to alter the record of what it had published in the original magazine of August 18, 2019. Providing no public explanation or acknowledgment of its actions, the Times amended the digital version of the Project text. Not until September 19, 2020, when historian Phillip Magness compared the original and digital versions of the essay in the journal Quillette, did the alterations come to light... Correcting factual errors in their published works, of course, is an important responsibility of both the journalistic and scholarly press. But such corrections are typically and rightly made openly and explicitly. The author and the publisher acknowledge an error and correct it. That is not what happened in this case. Rather, the false claims were erased or altered with no explanation, and Hannah-Jones then proceeded to claim that she had never said or written what in fact she has said and written repeatedly, assertions that the Project materials also made. Fortunately, we have a documentary record to the contrary, in the form of the original publication, in addition to extensive video footage of Hannah-Jones (and Silverstein) making precisely the claims that she now denies having made. The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit. A “sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,” as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish “deeply reported” falsehoods."
Someone once claimed to me that the Straits Times has a correction policy, since they update articles even if they don't explain or even acknowledge the update
Salon - Posts | Facebook - "Why Republicans are so determined to deny the 1619 project"
So many liberals in the comments going on tirades, assuming that the 1619 project is gospel truth, that contesting it means denying slavery happened and accusing them of wanting to teach propaganda. How ironic.
In some threads, when presented with historians who criticise the 1619 project, some liberals mock them as far right
1619 Project founder claims her project is simply an 'origin story,' not history - "New York Times magazine staffer Nikole Hannah-Jones claimed this week that her infamous 1619 Project is not actually a work of history, but rather an “origin story.” Do the schools that have incorporated the project into their history curricula know about this?... “I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past.” First, there is a word for literature that seeks not merely to inform but to "challenge the national narrative" and “national memory,” and it is not "journalism." Second, if the project “is not a history,” then what are we to make of the schools that have updated their history curricula to make way for its faulty central claims? Practically speaking, how does one incorporate the 1619 Project into a straightforward history curriculum? Who knows! The project, its founder stressed, "never pretended to be a history." This seems an odd thing to assert now, considering Hannah-Jones herself claimed previously that the project is “American history, not black history.” There is also the rather awkward fact that she and her cohort have spent no small amount of energy boasting about the number of historians who have contributed to the effort, whether with essays or fact-checking. In retrospect, I suppose it was stupid to assume that an initiative bragging of the number of involved historians was also a work of history. Perhaps she is backtracking now on "history” because even interpretive history, like journalism, must rely on solid facts. Unfortunately for Hannah-Jones, her contributions to the 1619 Project have been criticized far and wide as being counterfactual... “I’ve said consistently that the 1619 Project is an origin story, not the origin story,” she added. “Our intro says explicitly, what would it mean to consider 1619 our founding — not that it is our founding. The entire point of the 1619 Project … is to offer an alternative, to challenge the single narrative, to push against it and center the margins.” Well, all right then. Whatever you say. Honestly, at this point, it is anybody’s guess what the true purpose of the project is. I had stupidly thought that its goal was to posit a premise (that everything we know about America flows from chattel slavery) and then back up said premise with historical fact. But the project apparently exists to “challenge” a “narrative” and our “national memory" — whatever that means."
1619 Project Founder Loses University Tenure Offer after Critics Cite Her “Unfactual and Biased” Work - "Hannah-Jones will now undertake a fixed five-year term as a Professor of the Practice in the place of the tenure... In 2019, Hannah-Jones won the Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project which aimed to “reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very centre of the United States national narrative.” The project was lambasted by a number of historians including Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria Bynum and James Oakes. In an open letter published in The New York Times in December 2019, the historians expressed “strong reservations” in regards to the content of the project and requested several factual corrections in place of what they labelled “ideology before historical understanding.”... Shannon Watkins, writing for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, asserted that Hannah-Jones work was “unfactual and biased” and the developments signified “serious red flags about how the university is being run.” The columnist proceeded to warn of “a degradation of journalistic standards” and implored the Board of Governors to “act swiftly to amend all relevant policies so that trustees are required to review every proposed hire.”"
UNC-Nikole Hannah-Jones: They’re coming for you, too - "UNC-Chapel Hill has sullied its reputation again, this time by giving into white conservative fears about a powerful black woman"
Truth only matters when it can be used to push liberal causes
Was Nikole Hannah-Jones Cancelled? - The Atlantic - "Should we say Hannah-Jones was “canceled,” or just “held accountable” by a university whose rules give its administration the chance to veto tenured appointments? Many who hate the term cancel culture have suddenly found it appropriate in her case, and a few who use it habitually have found reasons not to use it here. The best argument for the Board of Trustees, an inherently political body in a state with a Republican legislature, is that its decision is no more political than the initial appointment. Hannah-Jones is a political journalist. By hiring her, the faculty surely meant to side with her over the critics on the left and the right who have swarmed over her work in the past two years. How could hiring her not be political?... let’s return to the idea of “cancellation,” a term whose overuse and abuse in the past week has finally forced even its most zealous partisans to question its utility. Before the Hannah-Jones incident, Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jim Clyburn both described their GOP colleague Liz Cheney as a cancellation victim after House Republicans removed her as their leader. The term also jumped the species barrier, like some kind of zoonotic disease. The horse trainer Bob Baffert described his colt Medina Spirit as a victim of “cancel culture” after it tested positive for drugs and its Kentucky Derby victory was called into doubt... Here is the distinction that saves the term cancellation from uselessness and hypocrisy: Cancellation is not criticism; cancellation is the absence of criticism. It is the replacement of criticism with a summary punishment. The punishment ranges in seriousness and could include withdrawal of a job or just an invitation, but the salient point is that it is meted out instantly and without deliberation, often as the result of a mob action. When this switcheroo becomes a habit, the normal way of doing things, we can call that “cancel culture,” and it is indeed a sign of intellectual and institutional rot. The failure to distinguish cancellation from criticism is the source of the humor in V. S. Naipaul’s quip after the Ayatollah Khomeini dispatched assassins to kill Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses. Naipaul called Khomeini’s fatwa “a most extreme form of literary criticism.” This cancellation/criticism dichotomy is elusive in part because it is not parallel to any legal or moral distinction: If I choose not to associate with others, or not to give them the courtesy of a carefully composed retort, I am simply exercising my legal rights of speech and association. “Go screw yourself” is, legally, a form of criticism. And sometimes anything less rude would be undignified. The political scientist Charles Murray was “canceled” when a mob physically assaulted him—and did not criticize him—rather than letting him speak at Middlebury College. Did he also then perpetrate a cancellation when he withdrew from an event upon discovering that the right-wing troll Milo Yiannopoulos was a fellow speaker? In explaining his reasoning to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Murray did not enumerate Yiannopoulos’s faults. He said, “He is a despicable asshole.”... Decisions made after careful scientific analysis of horse piss do not, by this standard, amount to cancellation. Nor does the Republican Party’s decision to oust Cheney, which was conducted in full daylight and according to reasoned discussions about whether she was sufficiently batty to lead the House Republican conference. The politician who invokes “cancel culture” most noisily is Senator Josh Hawley, who is criticized all the time, and who continues to serve in Congress and to enjoy large platforms where he can respond as he pleases. But a myriad of other cases of alleged “cancel culture” do count, and Hannah-Jones’s is one of them. This is true even though Hannah-Jones has consistently diminished complaints about “cancel culture,” and has sometimes engaged with her critics gracelessly and dishonestly. The Trump administration and various distinguished historians have made their criticisms of Hannah-Jones’s work clear. The UNC Board of Trustees has simply said no, without elaboration that would explain the extraordinary circumstances that led it to stand athwart the tenure process and cry halt. The hallmark of cancellation is cowardice—an unwillingness to argue with one’s opponents and show decent respect for the opinions of others by explaining why they are wrong... Rejecting a candidate for a tenured position indicates a lack of confidence in the faculty. The board’s job is to oversee that faculty, and if it really finds its collective judgment so awful, the people of North Carolina deserve to know the extent of the rot. Otherwise they should assume that the rot is in the board itself."
Weird. Liberals told us cancel culture didn't exist, and it was "accountability culture". There's no accountability for liberals, I guess
Weird how we are told the Kavanaugh circus was like a job interview and so could not be counted as cancellation
Is it normal for tenure deciions to be explained?
New York Times corrects The 1619 Project — but it’s still a giant lie - "It took The New York Times seven months to admit a problem with its 1619 Project — and even its correction preserves the fundamental lie of its bid to rewrite American history. The 1619 Project, which puts the nation’s true founding in the year African slaves were first brought here, insists that “out of slavery grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system.” The Post’s Twisted History series showed earlier this month how wrong this was — in particular, project lead Nikole Hannah-Jones’ claim that the American Revolution was fought primarily to preserve slavery. Scholars of all political stripes from a variety of disciplines objected to Hannah-Jones’ essay immediately on its publication last August, especially this crucial line: “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” rico That’s a lie, pure and simple, and the paper still hasn’t corrected it. It “made an important clarification,” in Hannah-Jones’ words. A new “editors’ note” explains, “A passage has been adjusted.” Namely, it added two words: The essay now says protecting slavery was the main reason “some of” the colonists fought to rebel from England. Sorry: Preserving slavery was not a major motive for declaring independence, and next to no one fought in the war for that reason: The colonists didn’t think slavery was under threat, because it wasn’t... After the change, Hannah-Jones tweeted, “In attempting to summarize and streamline, journalists can sometimes lose important context and nuance. I did that here.” No, you rewrote American history — and pushed to indoctrinate children with that lie. And you’re still lying."
Not So Fast, Nikole Hannah-Jones - "People remember only what they are taught to remember today… . What Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times, the Pulitzer Prize committee, and all their allies are doing is striking at the foundation of the American constitutional order. Now that the president has called it out, NHJ is lying to obscure her real intentions, and the truly revolutionary nature of The 1619 Project. Don’t let her get away with it.
UPDATE: You will recall that Winston Smith’s job was to rewrite history in newspaper archives to reflect the party line"
Yes, the 1619 Project Actually Suggests That Year Was America’s True Founding, and Nikole Hannah-Jones Admits It - "The New York Times would like people to believe that one of the 1619 Project's more widely criticized claims—that we might consider 1619, the year African slaves first arrived in the British colonies, to be the true year of America's founding—was never actually put forth by the Pulitzer Prize-winning article series. Editors recently removed (without explanation or acknowledgment) the provocative statement that the project "aim[s] to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" from the article series' online introduction. Lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones has repeatedly claimed it is a myth that the project proposes 1619 rather than 1776 as the country's birth year: She blamed bad-faith critics on the right for tricking the media into believing otherwise.
"One thing in which the right has been tremendously successful is getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens," wrote Hannah-Jones in a subsequently deleted tweet. "The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776."
Forget for a moment that Hannah-Jones' Twitter banner is a picture of 1776 crossed out and replaced with 1619. Forget that multiple progressive media outlets that were sympathetic to the project's aims used the 1619-as-true-founding summary in order to explain it. Forget that a year ago, after the articles were published, both Hannah-Jones and New York Times magazine editor Jake Silverstein described the project in exactly these terms: "We sort of proposed the idea in a variety of ways that if you consider 1619 as the foundational date of the country, rather than 1776, it just changes your understanding and we call that a reframing of American history." Just consider one last piece of evidence that Hannah-Jones is being deceptive about who invented the 1619-not-1776 framing. In an interview with Tomiko Brown-Nagin, dean of Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute, Hannah-Jones stated explicitly that the 1619 Project makes evocative arguments such as, "What would it mean to consider 1619 our founding and not 1776?" Here is video of the conversation, which took place not a year ago, or even several months ago, but just last week: September 15, 2020... the claim is inarguably part of the 1619 Project, and it's absurd for Hannah-Jones to pretend it isn't—especially while she continues to describe the project in exactly these terms. To say that conservatives imagined or manufactured this is ridiculous. It's gaslighting—and it undercuts the credibility of the author and her work."
Now the 1619 Project is trying to rewrite its own history - "“The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding” — for claims to the contrary, blame “the right.” Huh? She’s on the public record at plenty of appearances, such as an Ann Arbor event, saying the project asserts “our true founding is 1619 not 1776.” And the 2019 print edition of the project’s introduction says of the moment in 1619 when a ship with enslaved Africans arrived on our shores: “America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began.” That line no longer appears in the online version, so the entire Times is a part of Hannah-Jones’ scheme to falsify her record. This, after she’s had to correct the original essay several times to retreat from its most ridiculous claims (ones her own sources, such as Northwestern black history prof Leslie M. Harris, had debunked before she went to print). The online version now says “some of” the founders fought to preserve slavery — which is still misleading, since virtually none of them did so. It’s almost as wormy as deleting “understanding 1619 as our true founding” from the project’s founding document — then pretending it was never there. Having won a Pulitzer for her first bid to fake the historic record, Hannah-Jones seems to think she can do it whenever she likes."
1619 Project: Top Historians Criticize New York Times Slavery Feature - "One focus of the historians is the preposterous claim of the 1619 Project that a primary reason that the colonists launched the American Revolution was to protect slavery. “This is not true,” they say. “If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.”"
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts | Facebook - "The union for the employees of the New York Times”, in a since deleted tweet, condemned a fellow member for their op-ed on the newspaper’s much criticized 1619 project. This reflects a growing pattern at the paper of record to endorse censorship and punishment for journalistic wrongthink. Of all the industries, journalists should be particularly sensitive to the importance of protecting the right of free expression and a healthy open debate on the issues of the day."
Mitch McConnell Singles Out 1619 Project in Biden's Education Plan - The New York Times - "“Kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them, and if they look a certain way, they’re an oppressor,” Mr. Scott said, adding later: “Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.”... On his first day in office, Mr. Biden signed an executive order asserting that the federal government should “pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all,” especially people of color “who have been historically underserved, marginalized and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” “Our country faces converging economic, health and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism,” Mr. Biden wrote in the order. The administration’s proposed rule protested by Mr. McConnell and others does not mandate any curriculum changes. Instead, it lays out priorities for federal competitions or grant programs to which schools could elect to apply for initiatives that “take into account systemic marginalization, biases, inequities and discriminatory policy and practice in American history.” In addition to citing the 1619 Project, the rule quotes the work of Ibram X. Kendi, the author of the book “How to Be an Antiracist.”"
