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...
Even though Columbus basically told his employers shit (basically only way he can go to the new world was to go on their terms) and then adopting a native american, treating him like the son he never had because iirc that kids dad was friends with Columbus but died.
 
Last edited:
Niggernerd said:
Even though Columbus basically told his employers shit (basically only way he can go to the new world was to go on their terms) and then adopting a native american, treating him like the son he never had because iirc that kid was friends with Columbus but died.
Click to expand...
Isabella was all hot and bothered whenever Columbus entered the room and threw money at him.
Meanwhile Ferdinand has his face resolutely in his palm the entire time and added conditions like "you don't get paid until you come back."
 
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.”
Click to expand...
Yeah stupid white people should just accept white superiority, like this bitch has.
 
soy_king said:
I love how the only acceptable form of cultural appropriation is of blacks taking credit for the accomplishments of other societies
Click to expand...
1593295832553.png
 
Slimy Time said:
Never forget the brilliance of Shaka Zulu, who invented a shield made of cow hide, a short spear for stabbing instead of throwing, and a genius tactical move known as flanking...in the 1800s.
Click to expand...

Surely did wonders against the British Martini-Henrys of the time.
 
White Devil said:
Surely did wonders against the British Martini-Henrys of the time.
Click to expand...
Isandlwana was a great lesson in "never underestimate the opponent, even if they are spear throwers". No defensive trenches raised, no wagon circling, split force in half, poor scouting/intel, not handing out ammunition till too late etc because "they are a bunch of spear chuckers and that shit takes way too long to do". Still took a force of 15k Zulus with 5000 reserve to overrun and decisively win against around 1800 soldiers. Problem with that Zulu victory is it convinced the empire to step up aggression when dealing with them, leading to increased aggression and taking them seriously, barring a few minor victories, they got heavily smashed afterwards.

Still, it says a lot about the state of Africa when the great military innovation of "maybe we should have shields and not throw our spears away", and "move quickly and in formation so we can flank the enemy" was done over several thousand years after everyone else had figured that out, and were using better equipment, out of bronze or iron.
 
Even Isandlwana was an epic fuck-up for the Zulus because in stereotypical African fashion a group wandered off to go find some easier prey than healthy, well-armed soldiers and decided to go massacre everyone at the mission hospital located at Rorke's Drift.

To quote Wikipedia:
The Battle of Rorke's Drift, also known as the Defence of Rorke's Drift, was an engagement in the Anglo-Zulu War. The successful British defence of the mission station of Rorke's Drift, under the command of Lieutenants John Chard of the Royal Engineers and Gonville Bromhead, began when a large contingent of Zulu warriors broke off from their main force during the final hour of the British defeat at the day-long Battle of Isandlwana on 22 January 1879, diverting 6 miles (9.7 km) to attack Rorke's Drift later that day and continuing into the following day.

Just over 150 British and colonial troops defended the station against attacks by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors. The massive but piecemeal attacks by the Zulu on Rorke's Drift came very close to defeating the much smaller garrison, but were consistently repelled.[9] Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to the defenders, along with a number of other decorations and honours.
Click to expand...

As you can imagine, it ended about as well for them as it did for anyone else trying a frontal assault against outnumbered and desperate soldiers of the Crown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom