Difference between revisions of "The 1619 Project"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(not history: it is polemic)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''The 1619 Project''' is a collection of [[revisionist history]] developed by ''[[The New York Times]]'' to "reframe" (in their words)<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html The 1619 Project]</ref> [[American history]] exclusively around slavery and racism.
+
'''The 1619 Project''' is a collection of [[revisionist history]] developed by ''[[The New York Times]]'' to "reframe" (in their words)<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html The 1619 Project]</ref> [[American history]] exclusively around slavery and racism, reading into history what the liberal revisionists can only wish was the reality.  
  
 
The work has been roundly criticized,<ref>Lowry, Rich (January 3, 2020). [https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/1619-project-top-historians-criticize-new-york-times-slavery-feature/ Historians Roast the 1619 Project]. ''National Review''. Retrieved January 5, 2020.</ref> including by prominent historians James Oakes,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18.html An interview with historian James Oakes on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref> Gordon S. Wood,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref> Victoria Bynum,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/30/bynu-o30.html Historian Victoria Bynum on the inaccuracies of the New York Times 1619 Project]</ref> James McPherson,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref> and Richard Carwardine.<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/31/carw-d31.html Oxford historian Richard Carwardine on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref>
 
The work has been roundly criticized,<ref>Lowry, Rich (January 3, 2020). [https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/1619-project-top-historians-criticize-new-york-times-slavery-feature/ Historians Roast the 1619 Project]. ''National Review''. Retrieved January 5, 2020.</ref> including by prominent historians James Oakes,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18.html An interview with historian James Oakes on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref> Gordon S. Wood,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref> Victoria Bynum,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/30/bynu-o30.html Historian Victoria Bynum on the inaccuracies of the New York Times 1619 Project]</ref> James McPherson,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref> and Richard Carwardine.<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/31/carw-d31.html Oxford historian Richard Carwardine on the New York Times’ 1619 Project]</ref>
 +
 +
The 1619 Project is named after the tragic year slaves from Africa first arrived in Virginia, and its premise is that America’s 18th-century founders fought a revolution “to ensure that slavery would continue,” that slavery was part of “the brutality of American capitalism … low-road capitalism … winner-take-all capitalism … racist capitalism.”
 +
 +
However, among other scholarly rebukes,  Princeton historian Allen Guelzo criticizes The 1619 Project, finding that it  views,
 +
 +
"slavery not as a blemish that the Founders grudgingly tolerated with the understanding that it must soon evaporate, but as the prize that the Constitution went out of its way to secure and protect. The Times presents slavery not as a regrettable chapter in the distant past, but as the living, breathing pattern upon which all American social life is based, world without end.”  "The 1619 Project  is not history: it is polemic, born in the imaginations of those whose primary target is capitalism itself and who hope to tarnish capitalism by associating it with slavery." <ref>Marvin Olasky (March 01, 2020) [https://townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/2020/03/01/misplaced-blame-n2561964 Misplaced Blame: Using 1619 For Propaganda in 2020] Townhall.com. Retrieved March 05, 2020</ref>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 03:14, March 6, 2020

The 1619 Project is a collection of revisionist history developed by The New York Times to "reframe" (in their words)[1] American history exclusively around slavery and racism, reading into history what the liberal revisionists can only wish was the reality.

The work has been roundly criticized,[2] including by prominent historians James Oakes,[3] Gordon S. Wood,[4] Victoria Bynum,[5] James McPherson,[6] and Richard Carwardine.[7]

The 1619 Project is named after the tragic year slaves from Africa first arrived in Virginia, and its premise is that America’s 18th-century founders fought a revolution “to ensure that slavery would continue,” that slavery was part of “the brutality of American capitalism … low-road capitalism … winner-take-all capitalism … racist capitalism.”

However, among other scholarly rebukes, Princeton historian Allen Guelzo criticizes The 1619 Project, finding that it views,

"slavery not as a blemish that the Founders grudgingly tolerated with the understanding that it must soon evaporate, but as the prize that the Constitution went out of its way to secure and protect. The Times presents slavery not as a regrettable chapter in the distant past, but as the living, breathing pattern upon which all American social life is based, world without end.” "The 1619 Project is not history: it is polemic, born in the imaginations of those whose primary target is capitalism itself and who hope to tarnish capitalism by associating it with slavery." [8]

References

  1. ↑ The 1619 Project
  2. ↑ Lowry, Rich (January 3, 2020). Historians Roast the 1619 Project. National Review. Retrieved January 5, 2020.
  3. ↑ An interview with historian James Oakes on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
  4. ↑ An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
  5. ↑ Historian Victoria Bynum on the inaccuracies of the New York Times 1619 Project
  6. ↑ An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
  7. ↑ Oxford historian Richard Carwardine on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
  8. ↑ Marvin Olasky (March 01, 2020) Misplaced Blame: Using 1619 For Propaganda in 2020 Townhall.com. Retrieved March 05, 2020
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_1619_Project&oldid=1627159"