The #WaPo has a decent review of "The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story," the new book based on the notorious #NYTimes Sunday Magazine articles.
Reviewer @CarlosLozadaWP notes the basic dishonesty of the project, where criticisms are met by changing the definitions of words.
Reviewer @CarlosLozadaWP notes the basic dishonesty of the project, where criticisms are met by changing the definitions of words.
For instance, when Nikole Hannah-Jones says blacks fought for their rights "alone," that doesn't mean "Without aid or support," or "Without anyone else." It means "without the support of the majority of white Americans."
This is dubious as stated (did the majority of whites oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? If answering, please present evidence). It is also irrelevant. A minority of white Americans has always fought for black rights. NHJ lies about this.
Similarly, she tries to support the claim that one motivation of the American Revolution was to protect slavery from British abolition. And as always, she apparently provides absolutely no evidence of that.
Instead, she indulges in #IntellectualBaitAndSwitch.
Instead, she indulges in #IntellectualBaitAndSwitch.
Instead she argues for other propostions, themselves dubious, and hopes you won't notice they don't have any connection to the motivation of the rebellious colonists.
In short, Hannah-Jones is lying, although Lozada is to polite to say that in plain words.
In short, Hannah-Jones is lying, although Lozada is to polite to say that in plain words.
The politeness leads to some hysterical results. E.g., “ ‘The 1619 Project’ has taken pains to affirm its intellectual rigor.” Or “In its concluding sections, however, ‘The 1619 Project’ displays its most significant evolution, moving away from its strictly historical inquiry.”
This comes after L. has demonstrated the lack of rigor and the attempt to substitute myth-making for history.
The pièce de résistance: “And so the New York Times’s 1619 Project is now enlisted in the service of a policy agenda and political worldview.”
The pièce de résistance: “And so the New York Times’s 1619 Project is now enlisted in the service of a policy agenda and political worldview.”
The 1619 project has always been political. It's just another neo-Marxist scam, aiming for the destruction of the U.S. and the return of segregation, with the dominant and subordinate races switched. Blacks are to rule, whites are to be made second-class citizens.
That's the very dirty, very nasty secret of #BLM, #CRT, and #Wokeness. Evil whitey is to be punished forever.
Feh!
Feh!
@threadreaderapp unroll please
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
