1619 Project

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
1619 Project the NYT's far-left revisionist history of Slavery and the Nation.

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, that of a perpetual teenage zealot raised in an anti-Capitalists cult: which is a reflection of both our education system and the NYT hiring and editorial filters. The stain from this efforts isn't just on American History, but on the NYT for publishing it, or any readers not skeptical enough to see through 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".

Erick Erickson (conservative evangelical blogger and radio host) has been deconstructing various flaws, errors, lies and fallacies at his website (https://theresurgent.com)[4] He points out the premise was not to tell the truth or get to history, but according to the 1619 Projects authors, "It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."

This means that the NYT wants to change our history, lie, and omit context, like:

  • Our country started in 1788 (the ratification of the Constitution), they want to pretend it started 169 years earlier when a British privateer (John Jope) first brought Slavery to the New World (the rest of the world already had it).
  • They ignore that while we had Slavery given to us by Europe, Africa and the rest of the world, 169 years before we were a country, only a fraction of our Country allowed it (that was the least populous half), and an even smaller number (<5% of the South) ever had slaves.
  • We abolished Slavery within 77 years of becoming a Country (in 1865), or in less than half the time after it forced on us
  • Slavery has been outlawed for 154 years, over twice as long as it was allowed to exist in our country.

Mathematically and logically, that would mean that for something that 2% of the population participated in, and ended 150 years ago, we should all be held accountable, forever, and accept no credit for ending. By that standard, doesn't it mean that all Socialists and their sympathizers (like the NYT), are responsible for the worst things that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro, Chavez and other prominent Socialists did? Or do they think standards should only apply to the other side?

❝ 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... ❞


In the end, if you find anything wrong in 1619, lies of omission or commission, then the project is tainted by bias. And if you can't find anything wrong in it, then you're tainted by self-delusion. Even the World Socialist Web Site wasn't THAT self-deluded. Which means the World Socialist is more interested in truth and accuracy in journalism, and is to the right of, the NYT. Wow!

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. [5]

So they want:

  • To taint us with something we had no choice in, and take no credit for ending.
  • To only hold us responsible and to ignore the global problem and all of recorded History and pretend that we were somehow unique: we weren't
    • (NOTE: if Slavery is so wrong that it stains a culture forever, then every culture and country in the world is stained)
  • ignore that we sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people, in our bloodiest war, to end slavery.
    • *NOTE: we are the only country to fight a civil war over freeing people a different race than the majority)
  • To ignore that we've outlawed slavery for twice as long as we allowed it, with only a minute percentage of our population every participating in it.
  • Our guilt to live forever, unless we destroy Capitalism and all that is America, to make up for it.

I disagree with them, and feel pity for them and any of the historically illiterates who sympathize with this revisionism. If it catches on, like all progressive efforts, it will divide the nation, and increase the rift between the educated/informed, and the progressives. Eventually they're going to make this rift wide enough that the only solution is another civil war, and they'll get what they really wanted, the destruction of the country that brought modern Constitutional Democracy, religious liberty, free speech, and civil rights to the world. And then they can remake it into something they want, with more authoritarianism, less liberty, and more collective intolerance.

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