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...
My favourite quote from the 1776 project is from Coleman Cruz Hughes:

Instead of teaching black children lessons they can use to improve their lives –– such as the importance of education and geographic mobility –– the 1619 Project seems hellbent on teaching them to see slavery everywhere: in traffic jams, in sugary foods and, most surprisingly, in Excel spreadsheets. As Desmond puts it, “When a mid-level manager spends an afternoon filling in rows and columns on an Excel spreadsheet, they are repeating business procedures whose roots twist back to slave-labor camps.”

Without doubt, America would be a very different place –– in ways both large and small –– if not for slavery. Yet the arguments marshalled in support of this fact too often rely on an intellectual sleight of hand that would be plain to see if applied to any other historical event. For example, the legacy of World War II includes the creation of penicillin. But few would take seriously the argument that antibiotics are “rooted in” violence.
Source

Unfortunately rational approaches do not make money, and no one wants their role model pulling out the entitlement rug from underneath them. Without linking everything back to slavery, oppression and racism the excuses slowly dry up and the prospect of that easy road promised by the Lord of Gibs becomes full of potholes.

There are so many role models showing that the current popular stance for why *some* blacks do poorly is built on rotten foundations, unfortunately they're not the right kind as they had to work hard, in perhaps less forgiving times than now, and some were young adults in the years where someone genuinely would say nigger to your face without worrying about hate crime. That doesn't matter though, 1619 gives the narrative they want and they're going to burn everything down. Viva le Ghetto.
 
MrJokerRager said:
What is even keeping the NYTimes alive. Bezos funds Wapo, who funds the NYTimes?
Click to expand...
Boomer liberals and twitter wokies. The former still subscribe to the "paper of record" meme despite the paper in question having monthly struggle sessions in their office nowadays, and the latter are basically their target demographic.
 
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...

20200621_125356.jpg
 
Effluvium said:
In Racist Screed, NYT's 1619 Project Founder Calls 'White Race' 'Barbaric Devils,' 'No Different Than Hitler'

Click to expand...

Some people were calling her out over 1619’s complete neglect of any mention of Native Americans. Her response?

942963B9-904F-4630-BD7C-8B85CD0C9A75.png
Context
91B4D11B-E944-4DA1-A218-D8E4F3B117BA.jpeg
Tweets have obviously since been deleted.

NHJ has zero understand of the Trail of Tears and seems to think that the Five Civilized Tribes who owned black slaves—all eastern, all long since integrated with colonists for over a century— are somehow representative of all North American tribes of which there are 500+.

In her 1995 letter from that Federalist article, she claims that Africans had made first contact with Native Americans “long before” Columbus*. Since it was Africans selling their own people into the transatlantic slave trade, maybe that is where the Natives picked it up? Can anyone disprove it?

*This is one of my fave historical revisions from the hotep set. That it was Africans coming to American pre-Columbus that taught the Native tribes language and other intellectual shit. Read enough Afrocentric history rewrites and you’ll find this trope again and again. Native groups need to wise the fuck up about siding with these types.
 
kcbbq said:
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.
Click to expand...
John Quincy Adams, former US President, defended the Spanish/Portuguese ship Africans aboard the Amistad that resulted in the SCOTUS ruling they were not property and so free to go about their business. Slavery was not universally accepted in the US during its inception and after. It's why we had a Civil War. But let's call all white people devils instead.
MrJokerRager said:
What is even keeping the NYTimes alive. Bezos funds Wapo, who funds the NYTimes?
Click to expand...
Your tax dollars.
 
Feline Supremacist said:
John Quincy Adams, former US President, defended the Spanish/Portuguese ship Africans aboard the Amistad that resulted in the SCOTUS ruling they were not property and so free to go about their business. Slavery was not universally accepted in the US during its inception and after. It's why we had a Civil War. But let's call all white people devils instead.
Click to expand...

I support them calling you lot "white devils" as the first amendment allows them to. I believe the problem is that there are too many and a high number of white upper middle class guilty people who have bought into that bullshit.
 
MrJokerRager said:
I support them calling you lot "white devils" as the first amendment allows them to. I believe the problem is that there are too many and a high number of white upper middle class guilty people who have bought into that bullshit.
Click to expand...
Sorry, they can't call me white devil if I can't call them nigger, I insist on reciprocity.
 
Credit to @Effluvium for finding this.


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.”


Hannah-Jones claimed that the actions of European settlers and explorers such as Christopher Columbus were “acts of devils” and likens them to Hitler.

“[The whites] lasting monument was the destruction and enslavement of two races of people,” Hannah-Jones wrote.

Hannah-Jones claims Africans arrived in North America long before Europeans, but that unlike Europeans, Africans befriended and traded with the indigenous people. She claims pyramids in Mexico are a symbol of said friendship.

She then moves to the present and argues that white people today still take advantage of other people.

“The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community,” she writes.

She ends her letter by pitying the author she was responding to and claiming that white people still struggle with a supremacy complex.

“But after everything that those barbaric devils did, I do not hate them,” she wrote. “I understand that because of some lacking, they needed to [sic] constantly prove their superiority.”

The Times did not respond to a request for comment on whether their employee maintained these beliefs.

In May, Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her work on the 1619 Project, despite the work having to be substantially corrected after a number of respected academics and historians disputed its grasp on history. Hannah-Jones even admitted herself the correction was “important,” admitting she “los[t] important context and nuance” in the Pulitzer-winning essay.

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”.

IMG_5267.jpg


IMG_5268.jpg


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.

Hannah-Jones’s latest piece for the New York Times Magazine calls for race-based reparations.
 
One thing the general public would overlook is that these journalists and educators are the ones pushing anti-white hate that how they think it's anything but anti-white hate is a mystery.
 
NYT is full of nogs and gooks that are just as racist towards white people as your average stormfront user is towards them.

More news at 11

Homoerotic Cougar-kun said:
Is Whitey Derangement Syndrome a thing? Should we go ahead and call it a thing at this point?
Click to expand...

Eh maybe. I mean if we are going to do that then we would have to make a "Derangement syndrome" against literally every race on the planet. I can think of plenty of people frothing at the teeth over jews and blacks.
 
I love how the only acceptable form of cultural appropriation is of blacks taking credit for the accomplishments of other societies
 
Crazy person said:
Hannah-Jones claims Africans arrived in North America long before Europeans, but that unlike Europeans, Africans befriended and traded with the indigenous people. She claims pyramids in Mexico are a symbol of said friendship.
Click to expand...

We wuz....Mexicans?

Sheeeeit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom