1619 Project

From iGeek
Revision as of 16:57, 1 December 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

The NY Times’ 1619 Project was created by far-left Anti-American Socialists and Progressives (same thing), to try to convince the public that slavery was part of the DNA of America, and since DNA can't be changed, we must either destroy America and remake in their Socialist/Fascism image, or be condemned for perpetuity by the bloodied hands of people 400 years ago, and who we may have no relationship to. It has the nuance and introspection of the best the NYT has to offer, which is to say, that of an intellectual grammar schooler raised in terrorists anti-Capitalists cult after being educated in anti-American madrasa. Which based on the hiring filtes put on their staff, doesn't appear far from the reality. The stain from this efforts isn't on American History, but on the NYT for publishing it, or any readers not skeptical enough to see its blatant bias.

Issue Lie Truth
1619 Project 1619 is a History effort, lead by the NYT to educate people on the evils of Slavery and America. It was the impetus behind most things and makes the founding fathers (and the Nation) into racist hypocrites. This whole project is looking at America through a Progressive America haters lens. It pretends our DNA is infected with Slavery and Racism, and seen through that lens there's nothing we can do to change our DNA or History, thus we're doomed in perpetuity for the sins of our fathers.

How bad is this effort? It's so bad that even the far-left World Socialist Website did interviews real Historians like the Pulitzer Prize-winning James McPherson (Princeton history professor on the Civil War)[1], or multiple award winning James Oakes (Distinguished Professor of History and Graduate School Humanities Professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York)[2], or Pulitzer Prize winning Gordon Wood (professor emeritus at Brown University, specializing in the Revolutionary War)[3] and they had to admit that it was, ‘Biased’ and ‘Anti-Historical’... and they're understating it. Disinformation and propaganda would be more accurate terms.

Not only were these distinguished experts in their field never contacted, they don't know anyone in their small circle of fellow expert historians who were contacted either. Instead the root of the 1619 Project are books by Sven Beckert, Ed Baptist and Walter Johnson, who according to James Oakes, "Collectively their work has prompted some very strong criticism from scholars in the field". Which is equivalent of saying, "some Historians have criticized the historical accuracy presented in Mein Kampf".

❝ I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history. And slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement. So I thought the account, which emphasized American racism... focused so narrowly on that part of the story that it left most of the history out. ❞
❝ What you really have with this literature is a marriage of neo-liberalism and liberal guilt. When you marry those two things, neo-liberal politics and liberal guilt, this is what you get... [“Original sin”, slavery or racism is built into the DNA of America]. These are really dangerous tropes. They’re not only ahistorical, they’re actually anti-historical. The function of those tropes is to deny change over time... Nothing changes. Every single generation is born with the same original sin.... There’s nothing we can do to get out of it. ❞
❝ ...[1619] is so wrong in so many ways... ❞


This means the World Socialist is more interested in truth and accuracy in journalism, and is to the right of the NYT on this effort.

Since this effort is anti-American and Anti-Capitalists, offers no balances or insights into what really happened, it is going to become the basis for high school education/indoctrination into Marxist ideology. [4]

A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way. (Never trusting their readership with the whole truth). More than that, some insist on idol worship for what they publish, and abject denial of their obvious and omitted bias: and that fuels the backlash against them.


Alternate History

There's real history, and the left's history -- they have very little in common. Very little. When I read Howard Zinn, or Karl Marx's view of the world -- it sounds like an average far left intersectional Democrats view of the world. While it has names in common with mine, the facts have been changed to protect the guilty and convict the innocent. more...


📚 References

More Links