Look i like Howard Zinn, but he is sloppy and takes a few things out of context to prove something he already knows is true. The 1619 project is beyond that.
The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.
www.politico.com
It's most fundamental idea. The idea we fought a revolution to protect slavery is so laughable a 3rd grader would ask questions. "But weren't many of the founding fathers staunch abolitionists, didn't most of the fighting take place in free states daddy?"
At best you could argue slave holding states fought the revolution for that reason. Except most of the slave holding states tended to be more sympathetic to the British than the free states?
This isn't some howard zinn **** up on sourcing. This is a total distortion of American history beyond all reason.
It's akin to randomly centering Indian indentured servants as the center of British Imperial history. Absurd. Or thinking the slaves built Rome. Technically true but we don't center labor because fungible workers don't really matter....