// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Oh, and it turns out this racist editor had a major hand in the 1619 Project:

    Hughes was no small part of the newspaper’s work on this, as she was on the byline of one of two major feature pieces on the broadsheet print edition of the special.
    Now that is a shock!
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • She can't be racist. She is hating on white people.

      Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

      Comment


      • Update, courtesy of Rich Lowry:

        Source: Historians Roast the 1619 Project

        The reviews of the 1619 Project are in.

        It is “a very unbalanced, one-sided account.” It is “wrong in so many ways.” It is “not only ahistorical,” but “actually anti-historical.” It is “a tendentious and partial reading of American history.”

        This is what top historians have said of the splashy New York Times feature on slavery in the U.S. that aspires to fundamentally reorient our understanding of American history and change what students are taught in the schools.

        Given that the Times can’t necessarily be trusted to give a straight account in its news pages of Mitch McConnell’s latest tactical maneuver, it wouldn’t seem a natural source for objective truth on sensitive historical matters, and sure enough, the 1619 Project is shot through with an ideological radicalism that leads to rank distortions and laughable overreach.

        The project has been controversial since it was first published in The New York Times Magazine last year, but its architects sneered at the critics as troglodyte conservatives (or “white historians”) unwilling to grapple with the country’s racial sins. Then the World Socialist Web Site — of all things — begin publishing interviews with eminent historians slamming the project.

        All of the above quotations come from the website’s interviews with highly accomplished and respected historians — the Princeton professor James McPherson, author of the magisterial history of the Civil War, “Battle Cry of Freedom”; the formidable historian of the Revolutionary War period, Gordon Wood; the CUNY professor James Oakes, who specializes in the Civil War period; and the Lincoln scholar Richard Carwardine of Oxford University.

        At the end of the year, the Times published an extraordinary letter from McPherson, Oakes and Wood, as well as Sean Wilentz of Princeton and Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, demanding “prominent corrections of all the errors and distortions presented in the 1619 Project.”

        “These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing,’” the historians wrote. “They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the objections of only ‘white historians’ — has affirmed that displacement.”

        © Copyright Original Source



        See also commentary by Brian Mark Weber
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Historians continue to call out the 1619 project for its factual errors and omissions.

          The latest salvo on the other side comes from Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, writing in The Atlantic. Wilentz makes mincemeat of The 1619 Project lead Nikole Hannah-Jones' contention that protecting slavery was a main motive of the American Revolution, of her statement that Abraham Lincoln "opposed black equality" and of her avowal that blacks fought "alone" for equal rights after the Civil War.

          Wilentz was also a co-signer of a letter to The Times lamenting factual errors in its articles, along with Brown University's Gordon Wood, Princeton's James McPherson and City University of New York's James Oakes. Wood is a premier historian of the American Revolution. "I don't know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves," he wrote in a separate letter to The Times' editor-in-chief, as reported by the World Socialist Web Site, which has taken an interest in the controversy. "No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776."
          CARTOONS | Pat Cross
          View Cartoon

          McPherson, the leading scholar of the Civil War, said he was "disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery." Oakes, a leading historian of Reconstruction, calls the idea that "slavery or racism is built into the DNA of America" one of several "really dangerous tropes." He adds: "They're not only ahistorical, they're actually anti-historical. The function of those tropes is to deny change over time."

          Which helps explain why The 1619 Project makes short shrift of black leaders and their white allies who led successful fights to make enormous change. "One of the many odd things about the New York Times's '1619 Project,' on slavery," notes Steven Hayward, author of the two-volume "The Age of Reagan," "is that Martin Luther King Jr is barely mentioned (ditto Frederick Douglass)." Nor is there mention of A. Philip Randolph, organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, or the 1920s Harlem Renaissance.

          Wilentz, McPherson and Oakes aren't conservative polemicists; Wilentz is a strong partisan Democrat and supporter of the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Their point is that The 1619 Project is inaccurate in many important respects -- on certain facts and, even more so, in the overall lesson it seeks to teach...

          https://townhall.com/columnists/mich...wrong-n2560022
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Writer of the 1619 Project makes some rather interesting admissions on Twitter:
            "The fight over the 1619 Project is not about history. It is about memory."

            "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."

            "The crazy thing is, the 1619 Project is using history and reporting to make an argument. It never pretended to be a history."

            https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...oject-n2573222

            So she pretty much straight-up admits that it's propaganda. As in actual propaganda and not in the looser "I disagree with it, so it's propaganda" sense.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Writer of the 1619 Project makes some rather interesting admissions on Twitter:
              "The fight over the 1619 Project is not about history. It is about memory."

              "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."

              "The crazy thing is, the 1619 Project is using history and reporting to make an argument. It never pretended to be a history."

              https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...oject-n2573222

              So she pretty much straight-up admits that it's propaganda. As in actual propaganda and not in the looser "I disagree with it, so it's propaganda" sense.
              So she is admitting that it is largely bull crap.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Writer of the 1619 Project makes some rather interesting admissions on Twitter:
                "The fight over the 1619 Project is not about history. It is about memory."

                "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."

                "The crazy thing is, the 1619 Project is using history and reporting to make an argument. It never pretended to be a history."

                https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...oject-n2573222

                So she pretty much straight-up admits that it's propaganda. As in actual propaganda and not in the looser "I disagree with it, so it's propaganda" sense.
                More of that "truth" over facts.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by Sparko, Today, 02:32 PM
                36 responses
                135 views
                0 likes
                Last Post LiconaFan97  
                Started by Juvenal, Today, 09:54 AM
                12 responses
                88 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Zymologist  
                Started by seer, Today, 09:50 AM
                6 responses
                55 views
                0 likes
                Last Post shunyadragon  
                Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:35 PM
                31 responses
                234 views
                0 likes
                Last Post mikewhitney  
                Started by shunyadragon, 09-27-2020, 07:37 PM
                32 responses
                218 views
                0 likes
                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                Working...
                X