Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

The 1619 Project

592 Views
Message 1 of 17

Trump's the Head of an ALL WHITE REPUBLICAN PARTY and they're becoming critics on the historical impact of slavery? I've heard it all.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

599 Views
Message 2 of 17

The 1619 Project has been criticized by some American historians, including historians of the American Revolution Gordon Wood[6] and Sean Wilentz,[43] and Civil War experts Richard Carwardine[5] and James McPherson.[7] McPherson stated in an interview that he was "disturbed" by the project's "unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history." McPherson continued, "slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement."[7]Professor Oakes criticized Hannah-Jones's assertion that "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country."[44]

 

Historian Victoria Bynum, author of the historical book behind the film Free State of Jones, has also been critical of the project. She said, "regardless of how successful slaveholders were in inculcating the common people with racism, the idea that anyone 'that harbored racial prejudice was a priori historically responsible for slavery,' appears to be a rhetorical device aimed at rendering racism timeless and immutable."[45]

 

Historian Leslie M. Harris, who was consulted by the New York Times during development of the 1619 Project, wrote in Politico that she warned of the historical inaccuracy of the idea that the 13 colonies went to war to protect slavery, but "Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway".[46] However, she argued more forcefully against critiques which she viewed as implying that the existence of those inaccuracies is enough to discredit the project's central aims.[46]

 

The project has also received criticism from conservatives.[30] Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the project as "brainwashing" "propaganda", in a tweet,[30][47] and called it "a lie" in a subsequent media appearance.[29][30] Senator Ted Cruz has also equated it with propaganda.[33] Conservative commentator Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, characterized the project as an attempt to reframe American history in accordance with the values of New York Timeseditors, as part of an alleged ongoing campaign by the paper to shift the narrative of the Trump presidency from the Trump–Russia affair toward race, in the re-election year.[36] Conservative pundit Erick Erickson also criticized the "racial lenses" deployed in revisiting history.[30] President Donald Trump, Senator Cruz and Newt Gingrich have echoed the opinions expressed by the conservative commentators.[29][30][34] The August 18, 2019, edition of the Washington Examiner said, "The 1619 project has been panned by critics as an attempt to reduce the entirety of American history to a lesson on slavery and race."[47]

 

A September 13, 2019 analysis in New York Magazine by Andrew Sullivan, formerly a contributor to The New York Times Magazine, critiqued the project as an important perspective that needed to be heard, but one presented in a biased way under the guise of objectivity. He declared this evidence of The New York Times' shift from impartial reporting to activism.[48]

 

In response to criticisms, Hannah-Jones has said that every part was deeply researched, and also analyzed by fact-checkers, in consultation with a panel of historians, verifying every argument.[33] Nancy LeTourneau, writing in the Washington Monthly, argues that the conservatives feel threatened by the project because "it challenges the totalism on which their entire world view has been constructed. It is their mindset, which monopolizes imagination and stifles alternatives, that lays the groundwork for authoritarianism".[49] Responding to a critical Letter to the Editor from five historians, New York Times Magazine editor in chief Jake Silverstein wrote: "Good-faith critiques of our project only help us refine and improve it – an important goal for us now that we are in the process of expanding it into a book."[4] When twelve Civil War historians and political scientists who research the Civil War composed a letter to the New York Times Magazine expressing their concerns about the project's "limited historical view" and "problematic treatment of major issues and personalities" Silverstein, responded but the NYTM declined to publish the letter and his response. The scholars, led by Allen C. Guelzo of Princeton University, subsequently published the exchange in another venue. [50]

 

In February 2020, a rival project called the 1776 Project was launched to counter The 1619 Project.[51]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

619 Views
Message 3 of 17

“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.

 

This is a play on words. 

 

Slavery was an issue  in the American Revolution.  It was the primary reason for some of the colonist,  just not all or perhaps even most. So it's true to say slavery was not the primary reason for the American Revolution in general for all the colonies and colonist, but slavery was a reason.

 

Slave owners wanted to keep their slaves, and the nation was divided on that before it was even a nation.  They saw the best way of doing that was independence from Britain.

 

The reason was avarice,  the love on money 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

643 Views
Message 4 of 17

Once again as pointed out by posters we see something to divert all from the real news of the day. We see that everyday from the Trump enablers, and with Trump you need that because what he does everyday makes no sense, and hurts the USA to the point of destroying it.

 

Now here is something everyone should do right now. To night on C-Span there was the best program I have seen on Trump and why he must be defeated. The program is THE LINCOLN PROJECT.

 

The Lincoln Project is founded by Reb. and its purpose is to defeat Trump, and the Reb. in the House and Senate who support him. They go in to detail what Trump has done, and how he is destroying the Country, and will do that if he gets a 2nd Term. All of the founders are people who have worked for Reb., or had leadership positions in the party. They know the party inside and out, and they know Trump. They even in a back handed way compare him to Hitler. The program was recorded in NYC in front of a large mostly Reb. audience.

 

The program should be required viewing for every true American as even some of the Trump enablers might learn something. These are not Dems, but Reb. speaking and they know what they are talking about. After you watch it you will have a much better understanding of Trump and how he has been destroying the USA. They even tell the Dems how best to defeat him, and they are right on.

 

GO WATCH C-SPAN RIGHT NOW.       THE LINCOLN PROJECT

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

664 Views
Message 5 of 17

ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!

 


Only Thing Man Learns From History Is Man Learns Nothing From History
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

670 Views
Message 6 of 17

Just a sad attempt to divert from the original sin of America's founding.   Do you really think we'd be the economic powerhouse we are without hundreds of years of free labor?  

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

710 Views
Message 7 of 17

New York Times corrects The 1619 Project — but it’s still a giant lie

 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/14/new-york-times-corrects-the-1619-project-but-its-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.”

 

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.

 

In fact, the ideas behind the revolution also spurred anti-slavery sentiment. Many delegates condemned the practice on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, with New York’s own Gouverneur Morris calling it “a nefarious institution — It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed.”

 

Tensions over the abomination, so flagrantly at odds with the high phrase “All men are created equal,” put North and South at odds from the start.

 

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 childrenwith that lie. And you’re still lying.

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

The 1619 Project

717 Views
Message 8 of 17

Don't you love it when members of an ALL WHITE REPUBLICAN PARTY offer their opinions on slavery? It's like asking members of the Gestapo what they think of Hitler.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Gold Conversationalist

Re: The 1619 Project

742 Views
Message 9 of 17

@jimc91 wrote:

More Humor!  LOL

 

The thought police needs to check in to remind us of who should post and what topics are acceptable!

 

Glad you guys are no longer in charge...

 

Trump 2020 and for the sake of our Republic lets take back the House and keep the Senate.

 

Some of these folks that support the concept of the “Thought Police” are scary...

 

hahaha i love that.gif

 

Excellent response and absolutely right on, jimc!!!!  

 

 

 


 

You can lead a Liberal to knowledge, but you can't make'em THINK! 😞
Trump 2020!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: The 1619 Project

769 Views
Message 10 of 17

The thought police!...Please. 
I would be very supportive of the “Truth and Fact Police”, and however that falls for the 1619 Project, so be it. 

Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards.

Solve your favorite crosswords on AARP Games to earn AARP Rewards points. Try your hand at the Daily Crossword, the Mini Crossword, and Let’s Crossword, the new member game you can play with family and friends. Play Now.

Top Authors