Posted on 08/18/2019 2:09:16 PM PDT by SleeperCatcher
Because the race-baiting sycophants in the Left-wing “mainstream” media don’t believe they have divided America enough, the ‘woke’ editorial staff at The New York Times is embarking on a project to push our country closer to the abyss.
Under the auspices of something called “The 1619 Project,” the Times seeks to rebrand history and make the issue of slavery central to America’s founding.
The title of the initiative makes reference to the 400th anniversary of the arrival of black slaves to lands later to be collectively known as the United States. And the Times is clear about its objective: “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
There is nothing about the New York Times - or New York - that I can think of to recommend. They are up to mischief always.
That said, I'm not sure that Lincoln was “fighting to free the slaves.” If there is information to support the claim that he was, I'd like to read it.
“Benjamin Franklin was one of the early leaders.”
Most of Franklin’s life he was a slave owner.
Toward the end of his life he began printing abolitionist literature.
Just be aware.
Just what the hell does the NYT think they are. England allowed slavery in England until after 2000. They allowed slavery in their commonwealth until just before New York itself outlawed slavery in the 1830s. And that is right, New York was a slave state.
Here is the reality, Any major civilization in the world was or is a slave owning civilization at one time. Or they evolved from one. Indians had slaves. Incas had slaves, Huns had slaves, and don’t say you’re Irish or Black or Jewish. They had slaves too. In fact, here is how you can tell if you had a slave owning ancestor, Is your IQ over 120, then yes. That does not mean the reverse is true. But its a sure thing if you have a pretty high IQ. Also, even if you have a high IQ it does not mean your ancestors were not slaves at one time or another. But slaves were often slaves for a reason. They were conquered or generally unable to fend for themselves. So slaves were often trading toil of one type or another for protection and/or survival. They may not have had a choice. They may not have had good masters, but the trade was there.
Let them complain about British colonies then. The US, and particularly white Christian men put an end to slavery on these shores. It still exists in other places. Not here. Author can pound sand.
I can’t think of a single country that has NOT practiced slavery in the past but there are plenty that still do....mostly in Middle East and Africa. Pretty obvious that the “smart “ people have become more civilized throughout history and the not so smart are still living like savages.
Bet the “ editorial board “ of the NY Times doesn’t know that “ New York “ was named after The Duke of York, who was a highly successful slave trader.
Or, that Pennsylvania, Brown University, and Yale University were also named after wealthy slave traders.
And, they’ve all got prominent statues, and monuments, for the Soro-socialist mobs to tear down.
Soooo... they can blame America instead of Britain for most of our slavery years... and they can pretend that the Revolution didn't happen or wasn't of any consequence.
They're Deranged.
They will try to convince the public that William Bradford landed with 5 or so slaves with him.
Agreed, however,
although Lincoln was not “fighting to free the slaves’, EVERYONE knows that is Exactly what the Civil War was about.
Do you deny this ?!
And NYT project 1619 is entirely to paint the United States as evil at its founding.
The Soviets had the “class” card. The Democrats have the “race” card.
Indentured labors were first. Many were the poor from the slums of England. They were Northern Europeans. There lives were no better than the slaves who would come later. They had a chance fit their freedom if they lived past their terms of servitude. The world was different 300 years ago.
The NYT wants to fundamentally transform America.
“It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding,
I started school in the 50s when everyone was proud of American history. We had our flaws, of course, but we were the best country in the world. What has happened that history is to be revised by one of the most famous papers in the world to make us look irredeemably flawed?
It is the democratic party that is the party of slavery, that fought for secession and the right to keep their slaves. “If you like your slave you can keep your slave.”
I really hope they mention the democratic party in the 1820s-60s was the party of slavery and the Slavery Masters, and from the 1870s until the 1960s, the party of the Klu Klux Klan.
Kinda funny FReep name you have, being that Andrew Jackson was the first democrat president!
I meant him once. Well, I met a reenactor portraying him in Fort Toulouse - Fort Jackson National Historical Park in Wetumpka, Alabama.
Yes indeed-— tear down Western Civilization— in particular the Constitutional Republic whose document spells out what GOVT may not do to GOD Given Rights (these are not, as the xonstitiutional “scholar” obamaumao— the self anointed expert— Negative rights informing the people of what the Govt may do. The dude never got it if he ever intended to know- the Bill of Rights are limitations on any Government, or own or an invader— like GB at the time).
Tear down Western Civilization which eliminated slavery, in order to build up a TOTAL slave system- Totalitarian Communism/Marxist dictatorship. The Soviet Union was (and in many ways still is) and the Chi-coms are— Right Now— slave States. How do these a@@ clowns NOT understand it? Because it is what THEY want over everyone else in a representative democracy.
Try reading about the Lincoln Douglas Debates, held even before Lincoln became president. Lincoln was an abolitionist far earlier and was an early member of the Republican Party which was founded on the premise of ending slavery and preventing its expansion into the territories.
The claim that he was not opposed to slavery comes from his statement that “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it” is taken out of context. Lincoln preferred that Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment toward that end and all the states would ratify it. The Emancipation Proclamation did, in fact, free no slaves, because it freed only those slaves over which Lincoln no longer had jurisdiction, those now in the states in open rebellion against the United States which had declared themselves to be a new Nation: The Confederate States of America. It was THAT which he was talking about.
What Lincoln preferred did later come about.
As I said, read the texts of the Lincoln Douglas Debates.
So what? Am neither ashamed nor going to bad mouth our founding of the greatest country there has ever been.
If you don’t like it leave and please FYself on the way out.
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.