Culture The 1619 Project Megathread - Right...

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Funny, she didn't act that way until a truth squad came into operation. Her shit has been passed out as curriculum in schools. Why?



1619 Project Creator Says Her Series Is ‘Journalism’ and ‘Not a History’
Josh Christenson - MAY 10, 2020 2:35 PM

The creator of the controversial 1619 Project, a New York Times Magazine commentary series on the impact of slavery in America, is now saying her work was meant to be "journalism" and "not a history."

"The 1619 Project is not a history," Nikole Hannah-Jones said in an MSNBC interview on Sunday. "It is a work of journalism that examines the modern and ongoing legacy of slavery."

Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project last week, but the initiative has been frequently criticized for its inaccuracies by historians.
In December 2019, five distinguished American historians wrote a letter to the magazine editor, saying that they were "dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it."

In February, a group of predominantly African-American scholars, community leaders, and journalists launched the 1776 initiative, a series of essays and educational resources that "counter the false history that the 1619 Project espouses and has disseminated as a school curriculum."

A report in March revealed that the Times consulted historian Leslie Harris, who "vigorously argued against" Hannah-Jones including one of her most controversial claims—that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery—before the launch of the 1619 Project in August 2019.

A few days after the report, the Times printed an editor's note and Hannah-Jones tweeted that a correction had been made.

"Yesterday we made an important clarification to my #1619Project essay abt [sic] the colonists' motivations during the American Revolution," she said. The article would now read that slavery was the primary motivation for the American Revolution for "some of" the colonists.

"As written, it appears that I am saying this was a universal motivation of ALL colonists. I wasn't clear enough," Hannah-Jones said.
The clarification is small — just two words –but important. We add tht slavery was one of the primary motivations for "some of" the colonists to declare independence. As written, it appears that I am saying this was a universal motivation of ALL colonists. I wasn't clear enough
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

The 1619 Project has been sent as curricula to thousands of classrooms with the help of the Pulitzer Center.

After Hannah-Jones's win was announced, the Pulitzer Center congratulated Hannah-Jones "on her historic win" and said it "looks forward to continuing to collaborate with her and the team at The New York Times Magazine on this important work."
 
Oh. Thanks for the correction. Hadn't looked at the info for quite some time, but it was called the Slave Trade Act of 1794 that I was refering to. Can't remember where I got the "months" from, but at least I'm more accurate than this 1619 project, right?
It's kind of a facetious point on my part - the current US government is the second attempt. The first was a lolbertarian wet dream that worked about as well as you'd expect. The Slave Trade Act was a few months into his second term, so that's probably what got you thinking that.

Stuff like the 1619 project diminishes the fact that slavery was accepted and normal and had been for thousands of years. The evolution of thought (especially on slavery) of all the people involved with founding the US was fairly rapid as they turned the brand new Enlightenment philosophy into something that would work in the real world is pretty astonishing. Most of them freed their slaves, or tried. Jefferson's letters to his nephew (I think it was his nephew) about how feeling like a hypocrite for putting off legally ending slavery because he knew it would lead to a war between slave and non-slave states that the country couldn't handle so soon after the revolution are pretty interesting. He also couldn't free his own slaves, but it was because he was terrible with money and they were all collateral with banks and it was illegal to free them. 20 years earlier no one would have even been bothered about it.

Everything nowadays is about painting those people as evil, despite the fact that they were the first to put these brand new ideas into practice. Slavery wasn't considered a bad thing by many people for decades, yet the first foreign war the US got was to stop slavers, and that was under Jefferson. Then we did it again about ten years later under Madison.

I hate this disengenuous rewriting of history. Yeah, some of America's history is objectively awful, but a lot of it is only bad through a modern lens 250 years into a philosophy that was put into practice in the US, and the entire reason that lens exists is because these maligned "old white men" bought into some bizarre French ideas in the 18th century that no one else was really taking seriously.
 
Why can't people just be happy that it's over now and stop obsessing over it so much?

There's something really despicable to me about the way the 21st century and all it's potential is being dragged down by bickering over history we can't change.

History is history, let's focus on the future.
 
Why can't people just be happy that it's over now and stop obsessing over it so much?

There's something really despicable to me about the way the 21st century and all it's potential is being dragged down by bickering over history we can't change.

History is history, let's focus on the future.
Because maintaining grievances is big money business. Lawyers and xxxx-studies majors love that cash.
 
Because maintaining grievances is big money business. Lawyers and xxxx-studies majors love that cash.

They make money while literally fucking the fate of the human race, why are they allowed to get away with it?
 
Well you heard it right from the horse's mouth: If it isn't fact-based, it's JOURNALISM.
 
The first was a lolbertarian wet dream that worked about as well as you'd expect.
But it did give the world the sovereign citizen movement.

I am an article 4 free inhabitant who is travelling, pls no buli.
 
Gotta find it funny the creator of 1619 first google image hit is her using lighting to be as white as she can.
Anyways, without slavery all the ancestors of the slaves would have been killed by rival Nigerian tribes rather than sold to slavers.

Why is it so often the whitest "black" people who have the biggest chips on their shoulder? She has to have a shitload of white ancestry to look like that.
 
Why is it so often the whitest "black" people who have the biggest chips on their shoulder? She has to have a shitload of white ancestry to look like that.
Half-breeds tend to use whatever element of their ancestry is in higher social favor to get ahead, it's a big part of why they're so widely mistrusted. A couple of generations ago, this involved paper-bag tests to keep real niggers out of the social parties of well-to-do American Negroes, and now results in the vaguely brown children of #CurrentYear adopting hardline racial attitudes that would make your average Black Panther inductee blush with how on-the-nose the whole thing is.
It's all just them playing to what they perceive the mob wants.
 
Didn't George Washington sign anti-slavery legislature just a few months after America became a country? Bet you'll never see that in a Mcgraw-Hill textbook before you'll see this shit.
the british were hunting down slaver ships in 1776 and europe outlawed slavery in all colonies in 1815...
 
Back
Top Bottom