Posted on 05/08/2020 3:56:05 PM PDT by rktman
In this new video, 'The Architects of Woke' series takes aim at The 1619 Project's Fake History -- unveiling the fraud of New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project. Directed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the project attempts to reframe our understanding of American history by alleging the central event in the founding of the United States was the first importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 and not the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
The project has been notably criticized by esteemed historians for its factual errors. Despite this, schools across the nation have embedded the 1619 Project into their curriculums, perhaps endangering our nation's understanding of its founding for generations to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
L8r
The problem is that the media have the bully pulpit. Half of the country considers everything they say to be gospel truth, and see them as honest to goodness news sources.
Only part of the reason the traditional school system should
NEVER reopen.
I believe it was Michael Obama who said we have to change our history.......
I bet we would be surprised at how much of history is remembered inaccurately.
Who said “History is lies men have agreed on”.
“Napoleon Bonaparte said”
But probably auf französisch.
an excellent article on the causes of secession and the war:
https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-the-civil-war-is-wrong-9e94f0118269
If you completely ignore everything the secessionist wrote and said about why they were seceding, than yes that article is excellent.
There is no bully pulpit wuthout a willing audience. There are far, far nore American citizens outside the media. We could mutiny them out of existence in nothing flat.
We just do nothing and wait for a single leader to deliver us, whike we submit.
But its kinda hard to do with our fear filled, mask wearing, patriots.
Fascinating. Thank you.
If you think it was all about slavery you would have to ignore everything Abraham Lincoln said.
Video: The 1619 Project’s Fake History: Endangering our nation’s understanding of its founding for generations to come.
frontpagemag.com ^ | 5/8/2020 | Frontpage staff
Posted on 5/8/2020, 3:56:05 PM by rktman
In this new video, ‘The Architects of Woke’ series takes aim at The 1619 Project’s Fake History — unveiling the fraud of New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project. Directed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the project attempts to reframe our understanding of American history by alleging the central event in the founding of the United States was the first importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 and not the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
The project has been notably criticized by esteemed historians for its factual errors. Despite this, schools across the nation have embedded the 1619 Project into their curriculums, perhaps endangering our nation’s understanding of its founding for generations to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
The Lies of the New York Times’ 1619 Project continue to be spread by liberals.
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!
1619: First Africans:
In August 1619 “20/odd Negroes” arrived on the Dutch Man-of-War ship at Jamestown colony. This is the earliest record of Black people in colonial America.[38] These colonists were freemen and indentured servants.[39][40][41][42] At this time the slave trade between Africa and the English colonies had not yet been established.
Records from 1623 and 1624 listed the African inhabitants of the colony as servants, not slaves.
In the case of William Tucker, the first Black person born in the colonies, freedom was his birthright.[43] He was son of “Antony and Isabell”, a married couple from Angola who worked as indentured servants for Captain William Tucker whom he was named after.
Yet, court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640; John Punch. He was an indentured servant who ran away along with two White indentured servants and he was sentenced by the governing council to lifelong servitude. This action is what officially marked the institution of slavery in Jamestown and the future United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jamestown,_Virginia_(1607–99)#1619:_First_Africans
Jamestown was not an American colony 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.
It was 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, 2020, will make freedom from Slavery/1863, for 157 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 decades after the civil war lived into their late 70’s to 80’s.
Lincoln: The Founders did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited it that way!
PGA Weblog ^
Posted on 9/2/2019, 4:35:14 PM by ProgressingAmerica
Abraham Lincoln:
Judge Douglas asks you, “Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?” In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.
When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood.
More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.
Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the “Great Emancipator” was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3776122/posts
.
If you think the southern rebels didn’t secede to protect slavery, you have to ignore everything they wrote and said.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.”
—Mississippi Secession Convention
.
Well George Washington was a Southern boy and a rebel. He also owned slaves.
If you want a powerful counter to this lunacy, please see my site, www.wildworldofhistory.com. On the “VIP” side, I have an entire 6-part (and continuing) lesson series, written and video, called “The 1620 Default.”
Basically, NYTimes’ argument that because of slavery, there was no American exceptionalism is simply wrong. There was no American exceptionalism at JAMESTOWN. But there was a Plymouth, where the Pilgrims brought with them the “Four Pillars of American Exceptionalism.”
Yes he was. He rebelled because he, and the rest of the founders, after a long train of abuses and usurpations. In fact they spent 11 years trying to get England to recognize their rights as Englishman. They also didn’t rebel to protect slavery.
Compare that to the southern rebels that had controlled the federal government for the first 60 years and than had a party they didn’t like win a free and fair election in a constitutional republic.
Here a nice chart comparing the rebellion of 1776 with the rebellion of 1860 and how different they truly were.
A comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?
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.