The 1932 and 1939 Project: How the New York Times Covered up Murder and Genocide

With the launching of the New York Times’ “1619 Project,” the paper of record seeks to reframe American history. Formerly we had foolishly assumed the birth of the nation to be July 4, 1776, with the writing of the Declaration of Independence. But no, the paper of record has another date in mind.

It turns out to be 1619, with the importing of the first African slaves to America. That moment, the Times believes, more accurately depicts the founding of the nation and its underlying precepts. We now learn that our Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, or our disingenuous claim that “all men are created equal” do not define the nation. Rather, it is that America is a uniquely racist and exploitative enterprise, a criminal operation, morally stained in its DNA, founded as it is on the institution of slavery. Furthermore, we are to understand that all the advances and benefits that have accrued to our nation in its 243-year history, come not from our religious underpinnings, individual and private property rights, free markets, and our constitutional system of limited government, but rather -- you guessed it -- slavery.

Others have refuted the ideologic and political 1619 Project, so I will not retrace ground covered elsewhere. It makes more sense to declare a new project that I will describe as the “1932 and 1939 Project,” not as a new timeline and birthdate for the founding of the nation but rather as the origin of the despairingly predictable leftist propaganda machine that the media havebecome. Why 1932 and 1939? These are the years that the NY Times chose to ignore, cover up, and whitewash for ideological purposes what were among the worst genocides of the 20^th century --

Some comments.

First off in 1939 what had transpired was not yet the Holocaust but the removal of civil liberties from Jewish people. One needs to remember that a feature of Administrative Law since it began, including the French Revolution which was a very different affair than the American, is that civil rights as only being political in nature can be revoked just as easily as they are given. The NYTs would have been unable to loudly protest the natural result of Administrative Law because as so-called “progressives” they were among those laboring to push that form of laws on America.

You may also note that at the Nuremberg Trials they likewise did not ever, even for a moment, suggest that the Administrative Law form was inherently bad and dangerous, instead inventing an ex post facto offense, crimes against humanity, to charge Germans etc with. Those proceedings could be said to be covering up 1939 too for that cause.

Now, as for the Left covering up the horrors of the Soviet Union I would point out that this was far from a single example. We learned not too many years ago that the supposed truth teller, Upton Sinclair, outright knew that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty but wrote Boston as an exoneration because it would sell well with his Leftist readers in Europe. Lying to cover up what the Left does is just what the Left does. It’s why even at this day they are upset because Trump supposedly threatened to get an investigation reopened BUT are not even a bit upset that Biden threatened in order to get said investigation shut down.

The true historical significance of the year 1619 is that in that year the first representative body was established in the New World, at Jamestown. But The New York Times does not consider that significant.

Slavery had existed in the Western Hemisphere for untold ages among the indigenous populations and for over 100 years on the part of European colonists before 1619.

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.