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
Click to expand...

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."
 
Click to expand...
I have a Degree in History and 1619 is the most irrelevant, useless fucking topic to ever discuss in history. No wonder why she's trying to make it journalism.
 
Here we have her on record as someone employed by the New York Times embracing that journalism is propaganda divorced from fact, at least.
 
The Native Americans or tribes before Columbus showed up like one of our kiwifarmers here have a greater claim to injustice and victimhood if we going all the fucking way back to 1619. Why not go back to Africa if the US is truly founded on racism, why do Africans still want to come here if America hates on blacks, I know its a rhetorical question.

Ironically I first learned of this project from stupidpol a couple of months ago and there was a link to a full blown socialist website arguing against the 1619 project.
 
Gotta find it funny the creator of 1619 first google image hit is her using lighting to be as white as she can.
1589232567349.png
Anyways, without slavery all the ancestors of the slaves would have been killed by rival Nigerian tribes rather than sold to slavers.
 
1619 is just 131 too many IMO.

wtfNeedSignUp said:
Anyways, without slavery all the ancestors of the slaves would have been killed by rival Nigerian tribes rather than sold to slavers.
Click to expand...
Yeah they leave that part out that african societies willingly sold slaves to people. The coastal societies were so successful in selling slaves that they drove the inland tribal societies and slavers out of business and some of those people eventually became slaves themselves.
 
This project was a basically 20 hoteps whos degrees are in Twatter shitposting and blaming whitey, none of it in history trying to argue with the foremost experts in these fields, guys with 30+ year careers and the evidence to back up their claims.

Her 'proof' that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery is the British offer to free any negro who fought for them.

The problem is the Conteninal Army made the same offer and neither group had any intention on delivering.
 
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.
 
So by her standard Journalism is inacurate, ignores experts that disagree with journalist takes, and is meant to be exagerated to make a point. It's amazing what people will admit when they are defending temselves, so much for journalistic integrity.
 
We live in a eternal present, where the past only matters if it allows the party to get one over on the other side of the aisle.
 
Vlinny Chan said:
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.
Click to expand...
George Washington didn't become president until 13 years after the country was formed, but otherwise it's kind of a mixed bag, he got the US out of the international slave trade, but he did also sign the Fugitive Slave Act.

Why would the revolution be about keeping slavery when, though, when the British didn't make it illegal until almost 60 years after the American Revolution? Was there a time machine or something?
 
wtfNeedSignUp said:
Gotta find it funny the creator of 1619 first google image hit is her using lighting to be as white as she can.
View attachment 1286612
Anyways, without slavery all the ancestors of the slaves would have been killed by rival Nigerian tribes rather than sold to slavers.
Click to expand...
"Anyways, without Western slavery all the ancestors of the slaves would have been killed Enslaved by rival Nigerian tribes rather than and sold to Arab slavers." - just had to fix that for you.
 
This pretty much sums up the problem, taken from a NYT' Editors response to this nonsense:


Though we respect the work of the signatories, appreciate that they are motivated by scholarly concern and applaud the efforts they have made in their own writings to illuminate the nation’s past, we disagree with their claim that our project contains significant factual errors and is driven by ideology rather than historical understanding. While we welcome criticism, we don’t believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted.

The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is? In the case of the persistent racism and inequality that plague this country, the answer to that question led us inexorably into the past — and not just for this project. The project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer at the magazine, has consistently used history to inform her journalism, primarily in her work on educational segregation (work for which she has been recognized with numerous honors, including a MacArthur Fellowship).

Though we may not be historians, we take seriously the responsibility of accurately presenting history to readers of The New York Times. The letter writers express concern about a “closed process” and an opaque “panel of historians,” so I’d like to make clear the steps we took. We did not assemble a formal panel for this project. Instead, during the early stages of development, we consulted with numerous scholars of African-American history and related fields, in a group meeting at The Times as well as in a series of individual conversations. (Five of those who initially consulted with us — Mehrsa Baradaran of the University of California, Irvine; Matthew Desmond and Kevin M. Kruse, both of Princeton University; and Tiya Miles and Khalil G. Muhammad, both of Harvard University — went on to publish articles in the issue.) After those consultations, writers conducted their own research, reading widely, examining primary documents and artifacts and interviewing historians. Finally, during the fact-checking process, our researchers carefully reviewed all the articles in the issue with subject-area experts. This is no different from what we do on any article.
 
kcbbq said:
George Washington didn't become president until 13 years after the country was formed, but otherwise it's kind of a mixed bag, he got the US out of the international slave trade, but he did also sign the Fugitive Slave Act.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Creepy, Orwellian rewriting of history, it also reminds me of this card rom the infamous Illuminati card game.

rewriting history.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom