Skip to comments.Prominent Historians Criticize The NY Times’ 1619 Project As ‘Biased,’ ‘Anti-Historical’
Posted on 12/01/2019 10:24:47 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
How very Stalinist of the NY Times. History is a lot more complex then modern Democrat Fascist Party ideologues can deal with so they trying to re-write it to fit their political bigotry.
Thanks for an interesting history lesson.
Washington from 1793 on wanted to free his slaves (but half of the slaves at Mount Vernon were entailed to his wife's estate and he could not free them). It was a difficult process because he needed to keep his plans secret, but how to prepare the slaves for their future life as free persons while they were still slaves? How does an adult who has just followed orders all of his life suddenly learn how to make smart decisions?
His will provided that his slaves be freed at his wife's death--Martha ordered them free at the end of 1800 (to remove any incentive for any of them to try to kill her). Reportedly most of them did not fare very well as free persons. Life for free persons of color in a slaveholding society was not easy--the slaveholders did not want their slaves to see free black people enjoying a prosperous life.
Thanks for the ping.
One thing I noticed immediately that I haven’t seen anybody else discuss: Did you notice that this interview was on wsws.org? The World Socialist Web Site? That in/of itself is somewhat shocking.
Mainly, I am happy to see some historians speaking out. I wish there were more of them. In the end, it’s not enough of them. Progressives have been doing damage to our history for over a century, it’s time to push back with or without the historians’ help.
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.