Posted on 08/22/2019 8:29:13 AM PDT by Liberty7732
There are a lot of lies, factual errors, misrepresentations, selective history and general nonsense in the New York Times’ 1619 project that are worthy of rejection.
According to the Times: “The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.”
It is worth rejecting that slavery should be placed “at the very center” of our history. Was it a large and terrible part? Yes. It caused misery culminating in a bloody Civil War and its legacy endured through Jim Crow. But at the very center? Not the religious freedom that brought the first Pilgrims in Massachusetts? Not the idea of an upside down government that dethroned the king and put the people on the top and the government subservient (“for the people and by the people”?) That was a first in history, while slavery was a universal part of world history on every continent and among every race — both enslaving and being enslaved.
On the cover the 1619 Project, overlaying on a full-page black and white picture of a very dark ocean, are these words:
“In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.”
Picking 1619 is the worst of “journalistic” cherry-picking. There was no America until 1776. Before that, Florida and other South and Southwestern areas were variously Spanish colonies, or French colonies, and finally most were British colonies — all before the American Revolution created the new nation. Slavery ran most of its life in North America when we were all British subjects, or Spanish and French subjects.
This is crucial, because all of these nations — and all of the rest of the world — were practicing slavery at this time and had from time immemorial. Slavery was part of the Asian world, a large part of the Muslim world, practiced throughout Central and South America even before the first Conquistadors arrived, and importantly for our discussion, rampant through Africa by other Africans.
Most of the slaves transported to America were not captured by white slavers as depicted in the movie Roots. That happened, but the majority were simply bought from Africans who had enslaved nearby tribes they had conquered. It was a facet of Africa like it was the rest of the world, and to call it a uniquely American evil is factually wrong and dishonest. It was — and still is — a worldwide evil.
Slavery in the United States of America ran 87 years from 1776-1863. Or in President Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, “Four score and seven years ago…” Just a fact, something journalists used to care about.
A common lie told today by leftists, and it is repeated in the Time’s 1619 Project by several of the writers, is that the “white men” who created the Constitution, did not see black people as fully human and not worthy of rights. This is also factually wrong. The northern colonies were packed with abolitionists — white people — who argued that this was the moment to end the atrocity of slavery, at the outset of the new nation. But there were other white people in the southern colonies, slave holders, who would not agree to form a single country to fight for freedom from British rule if emancipation were included.
It’s possible that the majority of the framers preferred to free blacks and give them rights in the newly formed country. But freedom could not be won unless all the colonies were bound together against the greatest empire on earth at the time. So the painful compromise was made to win freedom from Britain. And then, within a few generations, a bloody Civil War was fought almost entirely by white people to free the slaves. (About 90 percent of Union troops were white.)
The Times ignores this and misrepresents world history, our history and the founders and framers, by saying all of the framers saw blacks as subhuman. The publication is intent on doing this because as modern leftists they have an almost instinctive antipathy toward America and the very idea of American greatness. But more relevant to the moment, they are doing this literally to help beat Donald Trump and Republicans in 2020.
It does not require any special analytical abilities to deduce this. Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet essentially says so.
A recording of a full Times staff meeting was leaked to Slate last week, which then published a transcript of it. Baquet held this staff meeting two weeks ago to explain a coming change in coverage after the collapse of the Trump-Russia narrative.
“Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, 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.”
Support us on Patreon
Pulitzers are award by like-minded leftists. Only one type of story wins those. But despite two years and virtually unlimited legal and financial resources, Mueller failed to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. Which essentially means those years of reporting got it wrong. But Pulitzers.
Baquet went on, and this really pulls the veil back:
“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”
But Pulitzers — unless of course they were just political accolades by fellow travelers and not about actual journalism.
Baquet: “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well…Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”
That is, a different angle of attack on President Trump, since Trump-Russia it turns out was never really a story. The real story the Times will not tell is how we got a two-year special counsel investigation of an event that did not happen. Baquet, not knowing this would become public of course, just puts it out there openly.
“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?”
Divided by Trump. Amazing. Baquet said the Times must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”
And there it is. The 1619 Project.
“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.”
“Reframing” history is just a deceptive way of saying “rewrite” history. And there is no conceivable way this does not inflame racial tensions and make us more divided. And understand, most news outlets across the country take their cue on story importance and framing from the New York Times.
The first lines of the massive project let it all hang out.
“Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true…”
No. Another premise to reject that just flat wrong. Blacks did indeed fight to earn their claim to them, as did whites. But the ideals were true and right — changing support for values does not in any way alter the moral standing of the values themselves. That would be self-evident to a non propagandist. Those ideas simply were imperfectly implemented, as mentioned above.
Our nation’s story actually is one of consistently moving closer to those ideals, striving through emancipation in the 19th century to the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. Blacks have been fully equal to whites under the law in this country for 50 years.
But the Times will never tell that story.
Baquet told his staff that over the next two years, the Times will “teach” its readers to see race everywhere, to view every issue through race. Stories will strive to “reframe” each issue through the lense of race. The next two years just coincidentally happen to cover the entire presidential election cycle.
And that brings us to the final premise to reject: That the New York Times is a news organization. It is not. And it has not been for a long while. But it took its own mask off now. It is virtually self-described now as an anti-American, leftist, Democratic propaganda outlet — with some news stories sprinkled in.
No independent-minded person should think otherwise.
The key to freedom is eternal vigilance. That’s in response to this crap.
Bump for later.
How about a Project 1932? This would highlight all of the dishonesty (most of it done in an absolutely shameless manner) that the New York Times (along with other establishment press organs) engaged in for so many years, including of course Uncle Walter's contributions. BTW, 1932 was the year he received his dubiously earned Pulitzer Prize.
The New York Times has been in the rewriting American history act for years they can’t handle the truth it’s why they never report it.
NY Times argues that everything in America benefited from slaves. So that means that all companies in American benefited from slaves. So companies which advertise in the NY Times benefited from slaves. So why would I want to buy a product which is from a company that benefited from slaves? Which leads to why as a company would I want to advertise with the NY Times?
One of the most popular jokes among Soviet citizens was: “The future is known. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
Two comments about this article:
1) This is a great article, because it straightens out a lot of the historical lies and selectivity practiced by the Left, in its attempt to destroy this country.
2) The article, inadvertently, plays into the hands of the Left by responding to what the 1619 Project states. IOW, it let’s them decide the arena in which we’re arguing, and decide what the terms are that everyone can use.
The simple fact is that slavery has been over with for more than 150 years. No one alive today (with perhaps a couple dozen exceptions) even had a grandparent who was a slave (and that as an infant, when they wouldn’t have even been aware of it). No one alive today even came close to experiencing slavery legally in this country...and, conversely, no one alive today even came close to enslaving another person legally in this country. We hear ALL THE TIME about how the Dreamers and other children who crossed the border cannot be held responsible for the wrongdoing of their parents - but, somehow, everyone alive today can be held responsible for events that occurred decades or more before our grandparents were born? What complete hypocrisy!
There is no nation that has ever existed which has been perfect, nor will there ever be one. That is undeniable by anyone. But that is not really the question that should be addressed. The question to focus on is this: What can we do to CONTINUE to improve our nation in terms of ending discrimination based upon utterly irrelevant characteristics like one’s race, religion, gender, etc.? Because, and this MUST be pointed out by us REPEATEDLY, this country has probably done more over the course of its existence to eliminate suffering and injustice than any other single nation. No, we’re not perfect - but that is an unattainable thing. What we are is the least imperfect of all of the nations on this planet. People flock here by the millions - would they (and especially those from what are minority groups here) come if we were actively practicing slavery, or if we had Jim Crow laws on the books and being enforced?
This country, the one our ancestors (literal or, in my case, ideological) created starting in 1776, has done more good than any other in the time since than any other nation, precisely BECAUSE we broke away from the English system and English rule. We created a NEW nation, unfettered by the attitudes of the Old World, so it is a complete fallacy (and a purposeful one, at that) to ascribe pre-1776 mistakes to the nation born in that year. Yes, we made mistakes along the way, sometimes bad mistakes - but we’ve addressed them all and learned the lessons so that we (hopefully) won’t repeat them. Other nations have followed our lead in many regards, to our credit.
The 1619 Project, like virtually everything else that the Left does, aims at changing the terms of the debate. If we buy into that, then we’ve lost before we even begin. They want to discredit every single thing that we’ve done for the past 243 years, by concentrating on what was done before we had control over our own destiny, and then blame people who weren’t alive then (or, in many cases including mine, people whose ancestors weren’t even here then) for all of the problems and injustices of the past (and, of course, judge them and us by today’s standards and not those of the time). We simply cannot allow them to get away with that kind of manipulative behavior. All that they do is to tear down - nothing they suggest even hints at creating improvements, for the simple reason that they are ONLY interested in controlling this nation by demoralizing its people to the point where we have nothing left for which to fight.
In that Sermon, Dr. Arnett issued a grave warning of what might happen to America if a group, including academics who then self-described as "Liberals," had its way. Excerpts follow:
"The Danger to our Country.In another section of the lengthy discourse, Bishop Arnett addressed the topic of "The Greatness of America," as follows:"Now that our national glory and grandeur is principally derived from the position the fathers took on the great questions of right and wrong, and the career of this nation has been unparalleled in the history of the past, now there are those who are demanding the tearing down the strength of our national fabric. They may not intend to tear it down, but just as sure as they have their way, just that sure will they undermine our superstructure and cause the greatest calamity of the age. What are the demands of this party of men? Just look at it and examine it for yourselves, and see if you are willing that they shall have their way; or will you still assist in keeping the ship of state in the hands of the same crew and run her by the old gospel chart! But ye men who think there is no danger listen to the demands of the Liberals as they choose to call themselves:
"'Organize! Liberals of America! The hour for action has arrived. The cause of freedom calls upon us to combine our strength, our zeal, our efforts. These are The Demands of Liberalism:"'1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempt from just taxation.
"'2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.
"'3. We demand that all public appropriations for sectarian educational and charitable institutions shall cease.
"'4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.
"'5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.
"'6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.
"'7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.
"'8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of “Christian” morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.
"'9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.'
"'Let us boldly and with high purpose meet the duty of the hour.'
"Let us see what it is that makes us so great; wherein lies our strength. What has made us one of the greatest powers of the earth, politically and intellectually? Have we come to the conclusion that it is Righteousness that exalteth a nation? We have met to-day at the request of the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, and also the Governor of our beloved State, Rutherford B. Hayes. For what? Why call us from our homes? Why come to the house of God? Why not go to the hall of mirth and to the places of amusement to-day? No that is not what they want us to do. We are commanded to go to our 'several places of worship, and there offer up thanks to Kind Providence which has brought our nation through the scenes of another year, and blessed the land with peace, plenty and prosperity.' Then as Americans we have reason to rejoice and congratulate ourselves on the greatness of our beloved country; at this the close of the first hundred years of experimental government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To be a citizen of this vast country is something, and to share in its privileges and duties is more than something." - Dr. Benjamin W. Arnett, 1876 "Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon" -CENTENNIAL Thanksgiving Sermon, DELIVERED BY REV. B. W. ARNETT, B. D., AT ST. PAUL A. M. E. CHURCH, URBANA, OHIO 1876 - available in the "Library of Congress - Historical Collections" - "African-American Pamphlets from the Daniel A. P. Murray Collection," 1820-1920; American Memory, Washington, DC.
This historical treasure is one which should be prominent in our national discussions, especially now, when our philosophical foundations are being challenged, and when the views of a learned man like Dr. Arnett might shed light on centuries-old ideas about America's history. His theme: Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, but Sin is a Reproach to any People."
"Withdraw from Christendom the Bible, the Church with its sacraments and ministry, and Christian morality and hopes, and aspirations for time and eternity; repeal all the laws that are founded in the Christian Scriptures; remove the Christian humanities in the form of hospitals and asylums, and reformatories and institutions of mercy utterly unknown to unchristian countries; destroy the literature, the culture, the institutions of learning, the art, the refinement, the place of woman in her home and in society, which owe their origin and power to Christianity; blot out all faith in Divine Providence, love, and righteousness; turn back every believer in Christ to his former state; remove all thought or hope of the forgiveness of sins by a just but gracious God; erase the name of Christ from every register it sanctifies—in a word annihilate all the legitimate and logical effects of Christianity in Christendom—just accomplish in fact what multitudes of gifted and learned minds are wishing and trying to accomplish by their science, philosophy, and criticism, and what multitudes of the common people desire and seek, and not only would all progress toward and unto perfection cease, but not one of the shining lights of infidelity would shine much longer. Yes, the bitterest enemies of this holy and blessed religion, owe their ability to be enemies to its sacred revelations - to the inspiration and sublimity of that faith which reflects its glories on their hostile natures. They live in the strength of that which they would destroy. They are raised to their seats of opportunity and power by the grace of Him they would crucify afresh; and is it to be thought that they are stronger than that which gives them strength? Can it be supposed that a religion which civilizes and subdues, and elevates and blesses will succumb to the enmities it may arouse and quicken in its onward march? Are we to tremble for the ark of God when God is its upholder, and protector, and preserver?” - Dr. Benjaming W. Arnett, St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio, Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, November 1876Dr. Arnett, an A.M.E. Minister and Ohio State Legislator, was invited to publish this remarkable sermon commemorating the Centennial of the Declaration of Independence by the following method:To:
Rev. B. W. ARNETT, B. D.
Dear Pastor:
Will you please prepare your “Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon” for publication: together with whatever matter pertaining to the colored people of this city, you deem worth preserving.
We make this request of you, believing that the publication of such matter, will be of benefit to the present and succeeding generations.
Yours Respectfully,
J GAITER
J. DEMPCY
C. L, GANT
Trustees W. A. STILGASS, W. O. BOWLESUrbana, O.
December 7th, 1876
J GAITER, J. DEMPCY, C. L, GANT
Trustees W. A. STILGASS, W. O. BOWLES
Excuse me, but who is denying those consequences and contributions? And at the time in question we were a series of British colonies, not a nation. Get a life, NY Times!
“Picking 1619 is the worst of “journalistic” cherry-picking. “
It is very easy to make a true sound bite into proof of a lie. The more sound bites taken out of context the harder to prove why the whole thing is wrong.
Fortunately nobody even reads that birdcage liner anymore
Are we supposed to believe that the blacks in Africa sold their best and brightest to the Arab slave traders?
A few months ago, I started posting this little historical exercise about Slavery in pre America:
Slavery was, not yet a reality, even in any British Royal American Colonies by 1619.
1619: The year, the first Endentured Africans, not slaves, were brought to Jamestown, is drilled into students’ memories, but overemphasizing this date distorts history!
Jamestown was not American nor even a British Colony at that time, 1619.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
Before going to the link above, everyone, ask yourself a simple question:
In what year did the former British/American Colonies, become America/the USA and recognized by the world powers as America.
Hint, It was not in 1619.
1783! America’s independence was recognized by Britain in 1783.
The Emancipation Proclamation was in 1863, 80 years after we became a recognized country.
This year,2019, will make freedom from Slavery/1863, for 156 years in America, the USA. Thanks to the The Emancipation Proclamation being declared in 1863.
The US had legal slavery for 80 years! Liberal liars scream “400 years” of slavery, and it is a complete lie.
At this point, blacks in today’s America, have been free for much longer than their ancestors were slaves! (nearly twice as long).
*How many union soldiers died to free the Slaves: - Quora:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-union-soldiers-died
*Approximately 110,000 Union Soldiers died due to battle-related causes during the Civil War. Around 250,000 died of disease. Yes, you were more likely to die of illness later than on the battlefield. The deadliest battle for both sides was the infamous Battle of Gettysburg, totaling more than 50,000 casualties.
At least 360,000 Union soldiers died from battle causes or illnesses linked to their service in the Civil War. More suffered from physical and mental wounds for most of their lives post Civil War.
Women born just before, during and after the Civil War in the battleground states often died in their 20’s to 30’s. My Dad’s mother and one of her sisters died in their late 20’s. Women in their families before and after the civil war lived into their late 70’s to 80’s.
Very good post.
Because the South had cheap slave labor they didn't industrialize. It was cheaper for Southerners to use slaves then to innovate, build factories, and set up trade routes.
That gave the North a war advantage over the South. Slavery caused the South to accept being a second rate region, kept wages down and allowed wealth for a small number of elites without bringing along most citizens.
Southerns thought their ability to direct and force the movements of slaves was the same as large scale real power. Instead slavery was the power of an abusive husband - power that doesn't translate into anything beyond the home - or plantation...
This collective shared illusion was another reason the South lost.... the power of phony 'elites' is always based on illusion. The South went to war thinking their silly sense of superiority would translate out to wins on the battlefield... they were wrong.
Slaves assisted with giving their phony elites a false sense of superiority... much like poor blacks and illegals make our phony elites think they're superior...
Baquet hates our country... tearing down history is like tearing down statues... done by bullies who fear reality.The New York Times can do better. So not only did most people NOT benefit from slaves - even the slave owners didn't 'benefit' - 0 in the long run... Slavery - cheap labor - was their undoing.
Thanks.
great post
Thanks
BTW-Has anyone ever done a research into the articles and editorial of the NYT for their racist past that they are so critical of others?
I am truly sick of all of this ‘Holier than Thou’ bloviating by the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
