The NYT has refused to address inaccuracies in the 1619 project. The fact that the likes of the Rufo Right may be morons or bigots does not preclude the same thing from being true of the Left. And if you think that average Americans are not going to support politicians who promise to prevent demonstrably false information from being ta…
The NYT has refused to address inaccuracies in the 1619 project. The fact that the likes of the Rufo Right may be morons or bigots does not preclude the same thing from being true of the Left. And if you think that average Americans are not going to support politicians who promise to prevent demonstrably false information from being taught to their kids, well, good luck with that.
The trouble, of course, is that we Americans generally seem incapable of perceiving and accepting the nuanced truth of our own history.
And yet even the NYPost and similar organs have articles about the NYT correcting the 1619 project. Since I refuse to click on links to NYP, heritage, pjmedia etc I can't actually tell you anything further. The only thing I was willing to click on was https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/magazine/criticism-1619-project.html.
But hey, feel free to both-sides with the 1619 and the 1776 projects.
Thanks for the link, Assad. Unless I missed it, the NYT editor failed to address anything regarding matters of factual error, including the claim that the American Revolution was waged to protect slavery.
As for rc4797's comment that local school districts should have the right to accept or decline 1619 teaching materials, I have to wonder why he considers citizens to be 'morons and bigots' when they decide to advocate for exactly that outcome.
This is them addressing that very issue. I'm not an expert on it, but they do present evidence that protection of slavery was likely on the minds of many southerners with regards to deciding for independence or not. Whether that raises to the level of a 'major cause' or not (or however it was presented in the project) is certainly up for debate, but the information presented does shed some light on the subject, and by extension onto the topic of Constitutional compromises around slavery.
The NYT has refused to address inaccuracies in the 1619 project. The fact that the likes of the Rufo Right may be morons or bigots does not preclude the same thing from being true of the Left. And if you think that average Americans are not going to support politicians who promise to prevent demonstrably false information from being taught to their kids, well, good luck with that.
The trouble, of course, is that we Americans generally seem incapable of perceiving and accepting the nuanced truth of our own history.
And yet even the NYPost and similar organs have articles about the NYT correcting the 1619 project. Since I refuse to click on links to NYP, heritage, pjmedia etc I can't actually tell you anything further. The only thing I was willing to click on was https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/magazine/criticism-1619-project.html.
But hey, feel free to both-sides with the 1619 and the 1776 projects.
Thanks for the link, Assad. Unless I missed it, the NYT editor failed to address anything regarding matters of factual error, including the claim that the American Revolution was waged to protect slavery.
As for rc4797's comment that local school districts should have the right to accept or decline 1619 teaching materials, I have to wonder why he considers citizens to be 'morons and bigots' when they decide to advocate for exactly that outcome.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html
This is them addressing that very issue. I'm not an expert on it, but they do present evidence that protection of slavery was likely on the minds of many southerners with regards to deciding for independence or not. Whether that raises to the level of a 'major cause' or not (or however it was presented in the project) is certainly up for debate, but the information presented does shed some light on the subject, and by extension onto the topic of Constitutional compromises around slavery.