1619 Project

[Kathianne]

I've been so pissed since I read about this in NYT, that I was hoping someone else would start the discussion, alas.

So, the NYT has decided we should all look at American history through the slave perspective. It is only they, that have done anything towards making America a semi-decent place to be. Any accomplishments have been on their backs or by them. Seriously. They have even come up with lesson plans made in conjunction with the Smithsonian, thus using all of our money to change history.

Oh the Founding Fathers? )They don't capitalize that title, they were just lucky heirs to what had already been done with the slaves. The entire Revolution was a response to England wanting to end slavery. There is no mention of the thousands of years that slavery existed prior to 1619, it was all those English colonists doing.

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/605...omment-1021541

Retconned America – The 1619 Project
Posted by Sgt. Mom on August 19th, 2019 (All posts by Sgt. Mom)

It appears that this week, the New York Times, the so-called paper of record, upon whom the self-directed spotlight of smug superiority ever shines – has now taken that final, irrevocable step from the business of reporting news and current events, matters cultural and artistic to becoming a purveyor of progressive propaganda. Of course, as characters in British procedural mysteries often say, ‘they have form’ when it comes to progressive propaganda; all the way from Walter Duranty’s reporting on famine in the Soviet Union through the drumbeat of ‘worst war-crime evah!’ in coverage when it came to Abu Ghraib, and the current bête noir – or rather ‘bête orange’ man bad. It seems that it has now become necessary for the Times to make the issue of chattel slavery of black Africans the centerpiece, the foundation stone, the sum and total of American history. Everything – absolutely everything in American history and culture now must be filtered through the pitiless lens of slavery.


Never mind that as a human institution, slavery has existed at least as long as war, prostitution, and agriculture itself. Never mind that black slaves from Africa went largely to the middle east, to the Caribbean and to South America, where they labored in such horrible conditions that few survived, let alone reproduced. Never mind that at least as many English, Irish and Scots arrived in those English colonies in North America as indentured servants laboring under the same brutal conditions. Never mind that at least half of the founding fathers had strong objections to chattel slavery, and less than a hundred years into the great experiment in self-rule, sufficient numbers of Northerners felt strongly enough about it to fight a brutal civil war in order to bring it to an end. And never mind that slavery itself kept the South inefficient, relatively poor, largely inhospitable to industrialization and unattractive to poor and working-class immigrants.


No, all must be reframed and ret-conned; the concept of the United States is fatally stained with the new version of original sin; slavery and racism. There must be nothing left of our traditions and culture in which we can take honest and openly expressed pride. Not throwing off the last ragged remnants of feudal rule, and establishing a democratic republic, wherein the common, ordinary citizen could, by voting, exercise political control of his or her own life. Industrial innovation and creativity in everything from weaving cloth to taming the wild atom, setting up trade networks, exploring and settling a continent, reaching out into space, encouraging social mobility in a manner practically unknown to any other nation … no, all of that and more. Everything about America – that part of it occupied by the United States of – is now marred by the stain of slavery, in the eyes of the NY Times. All because better than half of us who live in it and honor those traditions had the temerity to vote for the ‘bête orange’.


The NY Times, the so-called, duly anointed and authoritative ‘paper of record’ has now taken up the heavy job of entirely re-writing American history. Will they have any luck at this, given the death-grip that the establishment media has on current culture? Or are there enough of us still left who actually read history that we can pull pop culture the other way? Discuss as you wish.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...rget-trump-too

New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too by Byron York

| August 17, 2019 07:18 PM

by Perhaps when you think of the founding of the United States, you think of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers. Now, the New York Times wants to "reframe" your understanding of the nation's founding.


In the Times' view (which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans), the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.


This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called the 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: "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."




Another, more concise statement from the Times: "The goal of The 1619 Project is to reframe American history."


The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It begins with an overview of race in America — "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true." — written by Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, who on Twitter uses the identity Ida Bae Wells, from the crusading late 19th-early 20th century African American journalist Ida B. Wells.


The essays go on to cover the economy ("If you want to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation."), the food we eat ("The sugar that saturates the American diet has a barbaric history as the 'white gold' that fueled slavery."), the nation's physical health ("Why doesn't the United States have universal healthcare? The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War."), politics ("America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others."), daily life ("What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot."), and much more.


The Times promises more 1619 Project stories in the future, not just in the paper's news sections, but in the business, sports, travel, and other sections. The Times' popular podcast, The Daily, will also devote time to it.


But a project with the aim of reframing U.S. history has to be more than a bunch of articles and podcasts. A major goal of the 1619 Project is to take the reframing message to schools. The Times has joined an organization called the Pulitzer Center (which, it should be noted, is not the organization that hands out the Pulitzer Prize) to create a 1619 Project curriculum. "Here you will find reading guides, activities, and other resources to bring The 1619 Project into your classroom," the center says in a message to teachers.


The paper also wants to reach into schools itself. "We will be sending some of our writers on multi-city tours to talk to students," Hannah-Jones said recently, "and we will be sending copies of the magazine to high schools and colleges. Because to us, this project really takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has shaped their country's history."


The project rollout just happened to come at the same time as the leak of a transcript of a Times employee town hall in which the paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, discussed his "vision" of making race the central theme of Times coverage for the remaining two years of President Trump's term in office.


Baquet spoke frankly about the paper's approach to Trump. For two years, he explained, the Times made a very, very big deal of the Trump-Russia affair. "We built our newsroom to cover one story," Baquet said. But then came the Mueller report, which failed to establish the core allegation against the president: that he and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election.




"Now we have to regroup," Baquet told the staff, "and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."


That different story is race — and Trump. "We've got to change," Baquet said. "I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world's reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that's become so divided by Donald Trump?"


Some on the staff appeared both anguished by the president ("it's a very scary time") and more than ready to make race a key feature of Times coverage.


"I'm wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting?" one staffer asked Baquet. "Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn't racist, I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting."


The staffer's point brought Baquet back to the paper's new initiative. "One reason we all signed off on The 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that," Baquet said. "Race in the next year ... is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration."


So the Times has two big plans. One would be big enough: to focus on the universe of racism accusations that increasingly surround the president at a time when he just happens to be running for reelection. But the other is even bigger: to "reframe" American history in accordance with the values of Times editors. It's an extraordinarily ambitious undertaking for people in what used to be known more simply as the news business.

[Kathianne]

Another.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/19/the-le...icas-founding/

The left’s vile smear of America’s founding
By Rich Lowry August 19, 2019 | 8:17pm

Beto O’Rourke has taken the measure of America and found it wanting.


“This country, though we would like to think otherwise,” he intoned last weekend, “was founded on racism, has persisted through racism and is racist today.”


This is now a mainstream sentiment in the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders said earlier this year that the United States was “created” in large part “on racist principles.”


The New York Times has begun its so-called 1619 Project, marking the 400th anniversary of the importation of slaves from Africa.


The series seeks nothing less than “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.”


It is certainly true that an American nation existed prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and slavery was its great sin, with permutations still felt today. But to pretend that racism is the essence of America and constituted one of the country’s founding principles is an odious and reductive lie.


It doesn’t explain why any reference to slavery was kept out of the Constitution. James Madison, per his notes during the drafting convention, “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”


The careful avoidance of the term was subsequently used to buttress the position of opponents of slavery from John Quincy Adams to Abraham Lincoln to Frederick Douglass. The great black abolitionist asked, “If the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument,” how could it be that “neither slavery, slaveholding nor slave . . . be anywhere found in it?”


The notion of slavery as a founding principle doesn’t explain the passage of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, setting out the terms of settlement in the swath of territory between the Great Lakes and the Ohio River. It stipulated that “there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.”


It doesn’t explain why the Constitution permitted the prohibition of the slave trade as of 1808, when it was indeed prohibited.

Beto exploits tragedy for sake of politics
Of course, in crucial respects the Constitution was indeed a compromise with slaveholders. It isn’t clear why it would be considered better if, in the absence of such a compromise, slave states had possibly gone their own way to create a rump nation-state wholly devoted to slavery and not yoked to a North that became more anti-slavery over time.


Rather than enhancing the moral standing of slavery, the Founding tended to undermine it.


“The Revolution suddenly and effectively ended the cultural climate that had allowed black slavery, as well as other forms of bondage and unfreedom, to exist throughout the colonial period without serious challenge,” the historian Gordon Wood writes. In his view, it set in motion the “ideological and social forces” that eventually led to the Civil War.


In the broadest gauge, it’s a mistake to treat the United States as an outlier in terms of its racial attitudes, when it was really an outlier in its (imperfect) embrace of liberty.


“Europeans did not outdo others in enslaving people or treating slaves viciously,” the late historians Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and *Eugene Genovese observe. “They outdid others by creating a Christian civilization that eventually stirred moral condemnation of slavery and roused mass movements against it. Perception of slavery as morally unacceptable — as sinful — did not become widespread until the second half of the eighteenth century.


“Today we ask: How could Christians or any civilized people have lived with themselves as slaveholders? But the historically appropriate question is: What, after millennia of general acceptance, made Christians — and, subsequently, those of other faiths — judge slavery an enormity not to be *endured?”


It’s not a question anyone running in the Democratic presidential primaries, or editing The New York Times, is inclined to ask.

[Kathianne]

https://spectator.org/dean-baquet-ki...ew-york-times/

Dean Baquet Kills the New York Times
It’s hard to imagine America’s former leading newspaper recovering from what its executive editor admitted last week.
Scott McKay by SCOTT MCKAY
August 19, 2019, 12:05 AM

The revelations from an internal town hall between New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet and key members of the paper’s staff, which leaked to Slate and were reported Thursday with an extensive transcript, prove everything we already knew — namely, that the paper was dedicating its coverage and its very credibility to the Trump-Russia narrative.


“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet told the assemblage. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”


Think about that statement for a minute. Baquet says he “built our newsroom” to cover a story which turns out to have been based on a hoax spread by Democrat Party operatives and used by a corrupt Obama administration to spy on innocent American citizens while attempting to prejudice a presidential election.


Had the Times actually covered the back half of the Trump-Russia story, in which the abuses by the Obama and Clinton camps turn out to have been the meat of the thing, it might have been justified to “build our newsroom” around it. But of course that’s not what Baquet did.




Not shockingly, as Baquet admitted, things went badly.


“Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump,” he said, “not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”


Then came Honest Bob Mueller, who it turns out was a big disappointment to Baquet and his gang.

...

In a way, Baquet has done the country a favor. Now that his performance at the Times’ internal meeting has leaked out, there can be no denying the intentions behind the nonstop accusations of Trump’s racism — and that of every one of his voters by extension — to come in the next year and change before the November 2020 elections.


If the ownership of the Times had any integrity or business sense, they would drop Dean Baquet like a radioactive turd this very day. I can’t think of anything more poisonous than a newspaper’s executive editor essentially publicly admitting his plan to stoke racial animosity in an effort to influence a presidential election when his charge is to present that publication as an objective deliverer of news. Fulfilling that mission is now impossible.


Baquet has to go, as does the newsroom he built in pursuit of a hoax perpetrated on the American people — and he has to go now, before he does any more damage to domestic stability.


So until he does, it isn’t a bad idea for those people unsatisfied with the quotes above to not just refuse to spend a single dime on the Times’ content but also to similarly refuse patronage of its advertisers.


The reason this kind of abuse of the First Amendment happens is those behind it don’t see consequences to their actions. That can’t continue. It’s time to make the Gray Lady suffer.

[Gunny]

I'm going to have to read this one a couple of times

[Kathianne]

I'm going to have to read this one a couple of times

Indeed. As I said, they are working on tying lesson plans around 'slavery first' as the base of the US. I don't know how they got the Smithsonian to join in, but will say that the New York Times lesson plans are widely used in high schools and private middle schools.

A few years of this and kids won't have a clue to how the Constitution came to be, it will be considered the ill gotten gains of aristocracy.

[SassyLady]

I don't read NYT. Or the Washington Post.

If it isn't free I'm not reading it.

[Gunny]

Indeed. As I said, they are working on tying lesson plans around 'slavery first' as the base of the US. I don't know how they got the Smithsonian to join in, but will say that the New York Times lesson plans are widely used in high schools and private middle schools.

A few years of this and kids won't have a clue to how the Constitution came to be, it will be considered the ill gotten gains of aristocracy.

I've kind of been pointing out this topic for years (decades). THE biggest problem is mainstream, middle class white (and anyone that doesn't want to be called Uncle Tom or racist) won't discuss the topic. Post thread after thread and it's crickets chirping time. A topic cannot be discussed if you won't say the name out of fear of being called a name.

Blacks are disproportionately represented to mainstream America in every facet of our lives. It is and has been a concerted effort by the apologetic left who claim to have a cause. I'm still waiting for the Dems to actually deliver anything meaningful. Anyone who wants a good look at the future where this is going need only look at what "entitled" blacks with no skills did to South Africa. That country is now so far behind the 8 ball Greece looks like a wealthy haven by comparison.

Blacks make up between 13-15% of the US population, depending on whose numbers you want to use. 13-15%. You would think they were 70% and the majority they way they are presented and/or forced into everything from something as simple as comic book characters suddenly becoming black who were white for decades to the number of black representatives in our government.

I will add the same strategy is being used for gays. By the time it's said and done if they have their way, gays will have populated the Earth

There isn't a black, a female and a gay white male in every damned social group; yet, to listen to the media, and I mean ALL forms of media, you would think so. All anyone that doesn't want to see blacks has to do is get away from their rat-infested cities. You go out in the country where one has to work constantly to get by and there is no audience to feel sorry for the plight of their ancestors 2 centuries ago and blacks are few and far between.

Just like the nameless, not wealthy socialists that are all for socialism, one has to wonder just where all these whites like O'Rourke and Warren think they fit in the big scheme of things after they have enabled the unworthy to dispossess those that worked to build this country. How stupid and blind do you have to be to realize "hey, I'm white and cutting my own throat"?

When numbers are presented proportionally, blacks just aren't really part of the big picture. Unfortunately, the progressive left has been rewriting our history since Day One. They aren't going to stop and nobody is going to stop them. If this continues as is, whites will be dispossessed just because they are white and owe blacks, the very reason given by the black government of S Africa to do it.

Why? Because whites are afraid to say enough and call a spade a spade (pun intended). Wouldn't want to save our history and heritage from being rewritten by actually saying the progressive blacks on the left are out to destroy white America the same as the progressive left is out to destroy free America.

[icansayit]

Maybe we will all understand WHY, and WHO's idea this is.

Namely....this fellow....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is another part of the enemies of Trump and their campaign to try to get a progressive/socialist demo-rat into that position.
These people are nothing short of true bloodied traitors--a damn tragic and sad fact, IMHO.
And they will succeed unless enough people take notice, take meaningful action to highlight their damn lies, their treason and their true
political allegiances to Socialism, Marxism, Communism and its renaming to be called - Liberalism-Progressive enlightenment and fly under the Dem party banner why lying to gain office to destroy our nation!
NYT is a propaganda rag that should be brought up on charges IMHO.
It is no longer a newspaper that has any legitimate standing.
To let that rag do this is far, far, far worse than just a damn crying shame.
It is turning a blind eye to outright lying, corruption, evil, unamerican and definitely treasonous actions/behavior.
Many of us predicted that they would pull out all stops to try to make sure Trump does not get a second term. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

This is another part of the enemies of Trump and their campaign to try to get a progressive/socialist demo-rat into that position.
These people are nothing short of true bloodied traitors--a damn tragic and sad fact, IMHO.
And they will succeed unless enough people take notice, take meaningful action to highlight their damn lies, their treason and their true
political allegiances to Socialism, Marxism, Communism and its renaming to be called - Liberalism-Progressive enlightenment and fly under the Dem party banner why lying to gain office to destroy our nation!
NYT is a propaganda rag that should be brought up on charges IMHO.
It is no longer a newspaper that has any legitimate standing.
To let that rag do this is far, far, far worse than just a damn crying shame.
It is turning a blind eye to outright lying, corruption, evil, unamerican and definitely treasonous actions/behavior.
Many of us predicted that they would pull out all stops to try to make sure Trump does not get a second term. -Tyr

I don't think Trump is the end game, perhaps a catalyst.

The end game is Marxism.

[Russ]

The New York Times has an important part to play in this world, but only if you have a pet parakeet or you are trying to housebreak your new St. Bernard.

[LongTermGuy]

The New York Times has an important part to play in this world, but only if you have a pet parakeet or you are trying to housebreak your new St. Bernard.

[Kathianne]

https://fee.org/articles/what-the-16...and-economics/

[KarlMarx]

I've been so pissed since I read about this in NYT, that I was hoping someone else would start the discussion, alas.

So, the NYT has decided we should all look at American history through the slave perspective. It is only they, that have done anything towards making America a semi-decent place to be. Any accomplishments have been on their backs or by them. Seriously. They have even come up with lesson plans made in conjunction with the Smithsonian, thus using all of our money to change history.

Oh the Founding Fathers? )They don't capitalize that title, they were just lucky heirs to what had already been done with the slaves. The entire Revolution was a response to England wanting to end slavery. There is no mention of the thousands of years that slavery existed prior to 1619, it was all those English colonists doing.

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/605...omment-1021541





https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...rget-trump-too



[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

The NYT aka, There is no Ukrainian Fame Times, aka There is no Holocaust Times? When it comes to revising history, the NYT are Zen masters

My feeling is that all education in this country should include a study of the Greek and Roman classics, and a required curriculum in the United States in the US Constitution

All of this should be done at the expense of gender studies, and multiculturalism studies