1619 Project

[Hellbilly]

Sorry but y'all just aren't that important.

Neither are you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Neither are you.

I don't demand that history be changed to accommodate racial nonsense. Do you know what happened on Juneteenth? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Hellbilly]

I don't demand that history be changed to accommodate racial nonsense.

Denying what happened does exactly that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Denying what happened does exactly that.

The 1619 project does exactly that. It makes much up without any facts at all. Much is embellished to pump up blacks that did very little.

 

[Dadoalex]

Those facts are already being taught. Except for giving syphilis to black men. That never happened. The study simply didn't treat black men that had syphilis as they promised to do.

The 1619 Project has nothing to do with any of that anyway. The Project claims that the United States was created as an independent nation in 1619 with the arrival of the first slave, NOT 1776. The war of independence had nothing to do with autonomy or taxation. The fake history invented by the journalist was that the people in America discovered a plot by King George to end slavery and the war was solely to save slavery. Every other historical narrative is examined solely through the lens of slavery and skewed to support the import of the black race.

Sorry but y'all just aren't that important.

You're going to need to point to the specific passage to document your claims.

"Gave it," knowingly allowed it to spread...There's a difference?

Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study | HISTORY

In order to track the disease’s full progression, researchers provided no effective care as the study's African American participants experienced severe health problems including blindness, mental impairment—or death.

www.history.com

 

[Dadoalex]

No, I depend on what the author said. She said, on Twitter:


[IMG]https://web.archive.org/web/20200829234333im_/https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1000118161574977536/MJ-FExjk_bigger.jpg[/IMG][B]Ida Bae Wells[/B]‏Verified account @[B]nhannahjones[/B]
FollowFollow @nhannahjones

"I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past."
6:29 AM - 27 Jul 2020

Now, of course, she has deleted that post, as she realized that the useful idiots of the world can run around claiming it is "accurate history", and that she can make money from their ignorance. In doing so she is, knowingly, reworking the history of even her own words in a dishonest fashion to suit her narrative and cash in. If that isn't irony, I don't know what is.

In other words, she is chock full of shit.

It is, however, still on the wayback machine BTW:

Ida Bae Wells on Twitter

“I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past.”

web.archive.org

Here's your golf clap for buying that bullshit. ::golf clap::

Again, I ask which parts are inaccurate?

Alllwhile knowing you speak from the Arrogance of Ignorance.

 

[Dadoalex]

Well, it is pride month so you can be proud of almost any perversion. Including being a Democrat.

I'm a Republican but stopped being proud of it when the GOP turned into KLAN Lite.

 

[Hellbilly]

You're a fucking idiot

 

[Hellbilly]

The 1619 project does exactly that. It makes much up without any facts at all. Much is embellished to pump up blacks that did very little.

You don’t know jack about it. Only what your white masters tell you.

 

[Fueri]

Again, I ask which parts are inaccurate?

Alllwhile knowing you speak from the Arrogance of Ignorance.

I quoted the author, FFS. SHE said it isn't a history.

I know it's hard to admit you've been utterly duped, but it's time to stop digging the hole. The author stated unequivocally that this is NOT a history. Any further debate is absurd.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I quoted the author, FFS. SHE said it isn't a history.

I know it's hard to admit you've been utterly duped, but it's time to stop digging the hole. The author stated unequivocally that this is NOT a history. Any further debate is absurd.

You do realize that the 1619 project isn't being defended on the merits. It is being used as a vehicle for white bashing which is exactly the way the journalism author intended it be used.

 

[Mac-7]

This 3 hour episode aired last night on ABC. I watched the first half of this last night and was very impressed, from the archive footage, to the overturning of the Voting Rights law by a conservative Supreme Court, to gerrymandering, to the fight for civil rights, this is not a finger pointing, accusatory series, but instead is a measured, fact based review of the struggle black Americans have faced since their arrival in this country. I'm looking forward to the watching the 2nd half of this and highly recommend it.

I believe if you have Hulu then there is a much more in depth, 6 hour version available.

https://www.hulu.com/series/the-1619-project-7ba3407a-299c-4a10-8310-bbcdd6ab4653

Hulu’s six-part 1619 Docuseries is an expansion of “The 1619 Project” created by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and the New York Times Magazine. The series seeks to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black...

www.hulu.com

Is Hulu just discovering that slavery once existed?

That must have been a great shock to them, but the rest of America has been aware of that fact all the time

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You're going to need to point to the specific passage to document your claims.

"Gave it," knowingly allowed it to spread...There's a difference?

Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study | HISTORY

In order to track the disease’s full progression, researchers provided no effective care as the study's African American participants experienced severe health problems including blindness, mental impairment—or death.

www.history.com

Of course there is a difference. Giving the disease requires an affirmative act to otherwise innocent men. Allowing it to spread means just allowing black men to do whatever it is they did to contract the disease on their own.

 

[Fueri]

You do realize that the 1619 project isn't being defended on the merits. It is being used as a vehicle for white bashing which is exactly the way the journalism author intended it be used.

Well, yeah, it is not an 'accurate history' which it is often portrayed as, and that type of description is exactly what I originally responded to in this thread.

I'm not playing their game of pretending it is. Facts are facts, and the facts are that NHJ herself said it isn't a history, historians have said unequivocally that it is riddled with nonsense so it clearly isn't "history". In a better educated society, with a populace more prone to critical thinking that bowing to social pressures, this silly bitch would be laughed out of town.

 

[Dadoalex]

I quoted the author, FFS. SHE said it isn't a history.

I know it's hard to admit you've been utterly duped, but it's time to stop digging the hole. The author stated unequivocally that this is NOT a history. Any further debate is absurd.

So, again, you admit you haven't the slightest knowledge of the actual work beyond a long deleted tweet.

Thanks, knowing what you don't know is the first step to real enlightenment.

 

[Dadoalex]

Of course there is a difference. Giving the disease requires an affirmative act to otherwise innocent men. Allowing it to spread means just allowing black men to do whatever it is they did to contract the disease on their own.

Not informing a victim and purposely allowing the disease to spread IS an affirmative act.
Why do you suppose there weren't any White people in the study?
Don't White people get syphilis too?

 

[Ralph Norton]

Not informing a victim and purposely allowing the disease to spread IS an affirmative act.

Apparently your "degrees" did not include the meaning of the term "affirmative act".

 

[odanny]

It's funny how all these rednecks have strong opinions on the 1619 Project without ever having watched it. Perhaps these ignorant rednecks might have learned something if they watched it. How many of you ever heard of the Homestead Act? How about Special Field Order 15? 40 acres and a mule?

Many of you would benefit from watching NHJ explain some history to you.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

 

[Fueri]

So, again, you admit you haven't the slightest knowledge of the actual work beyond a long deleted tweet.

Thanks, knowing what you don't know is the first step to real enlightenment.

LOL. You are the one calling it 'accurate history'. The responsibility lies with YOU to prove your statement.

1619 is NOT history. So says the author (before she tried to erase that history to suit herself, of course), so you are clearly and completely wrong and, here you are, still defending it and trying to re-frame the discussion. Not going to happen.


What you're really defending, of course, is yourself. You got used and will now dance to avoid that reality. Good luck with that.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The Project claims that the United States was created as an independent nation in 1619 with the arrival of the first slave, NOT 1776. The war of independence had nothing to do with autonomy or taxation. The fake history invented by the journalist was that the people in America discovered a plot by King George to end slavery and the war was solely to save slavery. Every other historical narrative is examined solely through the lens of slavery and skewed to support the import of the black race.

“…was created as an independent nation in 1619 with the arrival of the first slave, NOT 1776.”

Of course NOBODY claims the U.S. was politically “independent” in 1619 “with the arrival of the first slave.” The language you use in this paragraph to describe the themes and errors in the 1619 Project’s “history lessons” only demonstrates your inability to discuss the issue intelligently.

Like MAGA’s “1776 Project” that aimed to retell “the story of America” with its own “updated” 1950s framing, the 1619 Project was originally NOT meant as a comprehensive history. Nor were these two “Projects” conceived as “historical fiction” either. This gets to the root of the problem that Fueri noted when he quoted the 1619 Project director.

Almost every comment on this Message Board, certainly the typical MAGAnut comments, suffer from crude and obvious partisan political bias. Our country is so politically divided now that few commenters on either side are interested anymore in studying history, at looking at their own biases or re-examining historical beliefs — we all think we are already “experts.” We are not.

The issue is not about “the import” of one “race” or another, but about our sad “legacy” of racial slavery and all that followed it. Even today, African Americans remain a special kind of “race-color caste” in our society … even as better educated and upper class blacks and mixed race people have become much more fully integrated into society.

Here’s an old “Politico” article by an African-American historian, who was asked to “fact check” the original Times essay, whose criticism was unfortunately ignored by the editors of the 1619 Project:

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.

www.politico.com