From the moment the NYT published the 1619 project, which claimed the Revolution was fought to protect slavery and that slavery was the core of American values, real historians of all political persuasions have called the project out for bad history and confusing political editorializing with history.
Even if you're not an expert historian the fact that the Constitution's allowing of slavery was clearly a compromise that the Northern states accepted in order to free themselves from England and the fact that the US fought its bloodiest war to end slavery makes it clear that slavery is not the core principle of America.
Now it is true that since the party was founded slavery has been the core principle of the Democrat party but that's not the same as it being the core principle of America.
The original NYT piece said that 1619, when allegedly the first slaves arrived in America, was the true founding of our nation. Oddly the fact that native Americans had slaves far earlier doesn't seem to have been something that the NYT considered.
That claim has been totally destroyed by historians of all stripes. The revolution was fought to get freedom and allowing slavery in the South was a compromise not something most Americans wanted or fought for.
Instead of admitting that they'd got it wrong the NYT has stealth edited the 1619 project's web page to pretend that they never claimed that 1619 was the real year America was founded.
Here's the before and after shots of the 1619 web site:
There is no question that the intent of the creator and organizer of the project was to change the date of the founding of our country given her Twitter profile:
Instead of admitting her mistake as the historical evidence piled up Ms. Wells lied and said that the 1619 project never intended to change the date of the founding of America.
The reality is that slavery isn't a core part of America or even of the American experience, less than 20% of Americans were ever slaves and those mostly in a few states, but that that lie is a key aspect of Democrats attempt to diss America and call for giving power to the party which has stood for the oppression of Blacks since they fought the Civil War to preserve slavery; the Democrat party.
1 comment:
So much wrong here but I'll just point out a couple.
> Oddly the fact that native Americans had slaves far earlier doesn't seem to have been something that the NYT considered.
Uh, the Native Americans didn't found this country? If they had this country probably wouldn't have been so terrible to them. So your point is irrelevant.
> Instead of admitting her mistake as the historical evidence piled up Ms. Wells lied and said that the 1619 project never intended to change the date of the founding of America.
Yeah, see she was not literally asserting the country was founded then. She was saying the roots of the country lie in that moment. See there's various ways of looking at history. You can look at it through a social movement lense, feminist lense, great people, etc. This piece looked at US history through the lens of slavery/Black folk. So of course their story starts in 1619.
There's no one "right" way to look at or understand history.
Post a Comment