1619 project

 
evince said:
This makes not one shred of sense


Black Americans don’t vote Republican except in tiny fractions


The people I know HATE the Republican Party for its racism


I do too
Click to expand...

Then you should tell them the history of the GOP like who voted for the 13th and 14th and 15 th and 19th amendments. You probably have no idea what those amendments are
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You really like being beaten down don't you?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybe...think-about-the-1619-project/?sh=44536f097a15

https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-and-its-critics/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/

https://nypost.com/2020/03/14/new-york-times-corrects-the-1619-project-but-its-still-a-giant-lie/

Real historians panned it as fictional and "interpretive" rather than factual and the NYT, the original publisher, had to print a retraction admitting it was fictional.
Click to expand...




https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/


Your link



The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts
A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.
By Adam Serwer
 
evince said:
Prove that claim idiot
Click to expand...
The 1619m project says the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. Professor LESLIE M. HARRIS debunked that.

Leslie M. Harris is professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863 and Slavery and the University: Histories and Legacies.


Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times missed: White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in their territory, but white Northerners were much more conflicted, with many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave colonies. More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
 
Blacks have been long trained that they should want retribution on Whites, and as well those who don't are betraying their race, and thus should be hurt.

The brain washings have largely worked.
 
evince said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/


Your link



The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts
A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.
By Adam Serwer
Click to expand...

Cherry picking.

Several weeks ago, the Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, who had criticized the 1619 Project’s “cynicism” in a lecture in November, began quietly circulating a letter objecting to the project, and some of Hannah-Jones’s work in particular. The letter acquired four signatories—James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes, all leading scholars in their field. They sent their letter to three top Times editors and the publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, on December 4. A version of that letter was published on Friday, along with a detailed rebuttal from Jake Silverstein, the editor of the Times Magazine.

The letter refers to “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing’” and says the project reflected “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” Wilentz and his fellow signatories didn’t just dispute the Times Magazine’s interpretation of past events, but demanded corrections.

Underlying each of the disagreements in the letter is not just a matter of historical fact but a conflict about whether Americans, from the Founders to the present day, are committed to the ideals they claim to revere. And while some of the critiques can be answered with historical fact, others are questions of interpretation grounded in perspective and experience.

Work of fiction based on a loose interpretation of history.
 
evince said:
Among black voters, 83% identify or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with just 10% who say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP.
Click to expand...

In 2020 12% of Blacks voted for Trump. The percent of Blacks becoming Republican keeps increasing
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Cherry picking.

Several weeks ago, the Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, who had criticized the 1619 Project’s “cynicism” in a lecture in November, began quietly circulating a letter objecting to the project, and some of Hannah-Jones’s work in particular. The letter acquired four signatories—James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes, all leading scholars in their field. They sent their letter to three top Times editors and the publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, on December 4. A version of that letter was published on Friday, along with a detailed rebuttal from Jake Silverstein, the editor of the Times Magazine.

The letter refers to “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing’” and says the project reflected “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” Wilentz and his fellow signatories didn’t just dispute the Times Magazine’s interpretation of past events, but demanded corrections.

Underlying each of the disagreements in the letter is not just a matter of historical fact but a conflict about whether Americans, from the Founders to the present day, are committed to the ideals they claim to revere. And while some of the critiques can be answered with historical fact, others are questions of interpretation grounded in perspective and experience.

Work of fiction based on a loose interpretation of history.
Click to expand...

That is the intro to the article you fucking idiot



It is not cherry picking
 
The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts
A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.
By Adam Serwer
 
ptif219 said:
Tonight you can watch 3 hours of Democrat party propaganda of the 1619project. Should be good for a laugh. Nobody believes their lies so they think a documentary will work


https://abc.com/news/insider/watch-...ls-docuseries-on-abc-and-all-episodes-on-hulu
Click to expand...

How long have you been one of Satan's minions?

7h35pp.gif
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Blacks have been long trained that they should want retribution on Whites, and as well those who don't are betraying their race, and thus should be hurt.

The brain washings have largely worked.
Click to expand...

So you hate black people and think they are stupid
 
evince said:
The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts
A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.
By Adam Serwer
Click to expand...

It is a Democrat racist hit piece meant to get Blacks to vote for theb Party that hated them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top