NY Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones Quietly Dropping Central Claims of 1619 Project
“These deletions are not mere wording changes. The ‘true founding’ claim was the core element of the Project’s assertion that all of American history is rooted in and defined by white racial hatred of blacks.”
Back in July, the 1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones admitted that it was really more about controlling the narrative than an honest representation of history.
Now we are learning that Hannah-Jones and the New York Times are scrubbing some of the central claims of the project. What a surprise.
The folks at the World Socialist Website don’t seem too pleased about this:
The New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones abandon key claims of the 1619 Project
The New York Times, without announcement or explanation, has abandoned the central claim of the 1619 Project: that 1619, the year the first slaves were brought to Colonial Virginia—and not 1776—was the “true founding” of the United States.
The initial introduction to the Project, when it was rolled out in August 2019, stated that
The 1619 Project is a major initiative from the New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. 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.
The revised text now reads:
The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.
This is kind of a big deal. As the WSWS points out, it changes the entire meaning behind the project:
It is not entirely clear when the Times deleted its “true founding” claim, but an examination of old cached versions of the 1619 Project text indicates that it probably took place on December 18, 2019.
These deletions are not mere wording changes. The “true founding” claim was the core element of the Project’s assertion that all of American history is rooted in and defined by white racial hatred of blacks. According to this narrative, trumpeted by Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, the American Revolution was a preemptive racial counterrevolution waged by white people in North America to defend slavery against British plans to abolish it.
Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner is even using the ‘F’ word. (No, not that one.):
The 1619 Project is a fraud
New York Times Magazine editors have quietly removed controversial language from the online version of Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project, a package of essays that argue chattel slavery defines America’s founding. Hannah-Jones herself also asserts now that the project’s core thesis is not what she and everyone else involved originally said it was.
It “does not argue that 1619 is our true founding,” she said on Friday. She declared elsewhere in July that it “doesn’t argue, for obvious reasons, that 1619 is our true founding.”
Adams points out the same changes noted above and goes on:
The Pulitzer Center, which is an “education partner” for the 1619 Project, describes the initiative thus: “The 1619 Project … challenges us to reframe U.S. history by marking the year when the first enslaved Africans arrived on Virginia soil as our nation’s foundational date.”
In other words, even those who support the project most firmly understand its core thesis to be that 1619 is the date of America’s true founding because America was founded on slavery. Yet the New York Times Magazine is no longer willing to stand by that idea. It has quietly amended the language of the online version, and its founder claims now, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, that she and her brainchild did not say what they very clearly said.
The fact that this was done so quietly speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
Can the @nytimes's #1619project get any more dishonest? They appear to have edited their own website to remove the claim that 1619 was America's "true founding" some time between August 2019 and @nhannahjones's denial today that she ever intended to claim that. pic.twitter.com/3oQtLJDcQd
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 18, 2020
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Try learning history not making claims. History can’t be cured.
Wasn’t millionaire Oprah funding and pushing this Mega-Bunches???
The NY Times have perpetrated frauds all my life.
Walter Duranty is unavailable for comment.
First of all, the American “Revolution” started out as a protest. It’s when in January 1776, King George, in his madness, declared the American colonies to be outside of the protection of the King that it became a war. The colonists were shocked as was Parliament.
The colonists considered themselves to be British citizens and made their protests within their rights as citizens. There was no such thing as being “American”. Parliament had no interest in fighting a fraternal war against one of their most promising colonies, one that was crucial for paying off their debt and maintaining their huge global navy.
And so, slavery had nothing to do with it. The colonists were reluctantly forced to decide whether to surrender to the king and be treated like Ireland or fight that war. There was no uniting principles other than the fear that what King George did to Massachusetts would be done to all of them if they don’t unite. And so the Declaration of Independence was formulated establishing the colonies as a sovereign, independent state. That was our founding document, not the Constitution which was the founding of our Republican government and institutions.
The project 1619 reduces history to a badly conceived cartoon fantasy.
Another example of Affirmative incompetence.
It seems as if the practice of teleology has expanded from just science and is now being utilized by history and the like.
When things evolve naturally, there is order because the system is a product of the niche. But when one uses artificial selection to create a system, say, affirmative action or socilaism, that system will ultimately fail because there is no real or logical basis for its existence.
I always like the Star Trek fans who think that the socialist world of the 23rd century is perfect, while ignoring that the flagship symbol is armed to the hilt with phasers and photon torpedos, because you know, not everyone is reasonable about having their rights subdued.
Could Nikole Hannah-Jones be any redder?
It wouldn’t surprise me if she turned out to be Irish but is pretending to be “black” to get some of that black privilege that we’re not allowed to mention.
Isn’t her use of red hair dye representative of blatant “cultural appropriation?”
Also, it’s psychologically revealing that this black woman appears so insecure and uncomfortable with respect to her own racial identity, that she has to use dyed hair and extensive tattoos to basically transform herself into another person.
It may be henna. That goes back to her Egyptian roots. (Bad pun even for me!)
Salon customer: Can you dye my hair henna color?
Larry: Henna color at all, toots.
Fake Nikole Hannah-Jones red hair will forever be linked to the Pulitzer.
The New York Slimes was NEVER America’s “paper of record” any more than CBS was ever “the tiffany network.” Those were just little tales they told about themselves to make themselves look and feel important.
There is a lot of scrubbing going on. I have been comparing searches on Senate candidates and Duckgogo, Google and CSPAN website searchs are bias against conservatives.
It’s galling, how quickly the Dhimmi-crats’ contrived, fallacious and garbage propaganda narratives are so quickly granted legitimacy, deference and sacrosanct status, by corporations, the media, and, academia. This is a nauseating history that goes back to the poisonous lies of “Critical Race Theory,” to the latest “trans” narcissism and totalitarian edicts, through to this latest “1619 Project” historical revisionism, along with “Black Lives Matter’s” Marxist bigotry and stupidity.
And when the lies bubble to the surface and can no longer be hidden, just change the name.
Socialist becomes liberal becomes progressive.
Negro becomes Afro-American becomes African-American becomes black.
Gun control becomes gun safety.
CHAZ becomes CHOP.
The 1619 Project becomes the 420 Project.
Democrats can do this in their sleep, they have a macro for it.
BTW, Hannah-Jones doesn’t look black to me. Is she yet another white imposter co-opting control of the black narrative to trigger that long-sought-after left-wing objective, RACE WAR?
Black Lives Matter is turning out to be another Weather Underground which started out as a black protest movement but was co-opted by white anarchists.
Bozo Jones.
Say no more.
I thought she looks like Ronald McDonald’s daughter.
.
The hairstyle is known in the trade as “Big Top.” That’s not accidental.
Their objective is to shift the Overton Window. They start with a 100% radical Leftist theme, then when that hits resistance, slowly back off until they can slip this through into national school programs without any squawking.
Then a few years from now, an even more radical Leftist theme comes out…
The 1619 Project was nothing more than propaganda disguised as journalism. It is the current norm.
The 1619 Project was designed to do certain specific things. It was designed to bolster the spurious argument that hatred of Negroes was the sole reason for institutionalized slavery in the US. This is necessary to support the current spurious argument that such wide spread hatred still exists. This is necessary to prop up the inference that all bad things, that happen to Negroes in America, are the fault of someone other than the person affected and that it is the result of a vast conspiracy on the part of Caucasian Americans to destroy Black Americans. It plays into a class inferiority complex created by liberals and Progressives. And all of it is poppycock and balderdash.
What the Project ignores is historical reality. Historically, all slavery was economic. Slaves provided a captive workforce which was controlled by its owner/employer. However, institutional slavery was not the only method of slavery used in the US for this purpose. Another was indentured servitude. This was widely used in the increasingly industrialized Northeast during colonial times and for a while after the founding of the Republic. Then you had the “company community” approach. This created a class of economic slaves which were housed, fed and supplied by a company, usually at exorbitant prices, which placed the worker in debt to the company and created virtual wage slaves. And, these “slaves” were composed of every imaginable racial and ethnic group. There was little racial animosity involved, it was simply business.
For those with an interest in American history, the historical rise of the racial equality movement in the 1950’s is very enlightening. While history has been rewritten to cst Republicans as oppressors of Black Americans and the Democrats as their saviors, the reverse is actual fact. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the universal equality act. It was passed by Republicans, not Democrats, who were operating under their primary premise that the government should not be used to benefit or oppress any particular group of people. The Democrats came along and attempted to turn Black America into slaves to the various governments through dependence upon government largess. Theytold the Black community that its members were too inept or stupid to succeed in the greater society in the country, without the help of the government. Then they doubled down and convinced the Black community that White Americans were conspiring to hold them back. And, even though Democrats controlled most governments, during this period, they managed to convince Black America that they were NOT part of this grand conspiracy. Indeed, there was and still is a conspiracy to dominate Black America. But, it is not being conducted by Conservatives, Evangelicals, Republicans or the majority of White Americans. It is being conducted by Liberals, Progressives, and the Democrats who view Blacks as being inferior and in need of control. And Black American race hustlers are selling their own people down the river for their own personal gain. That is history we rarely see.
Hear! Hear!!
Death to America is not a valid Course Outline.
The claim that the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act is often called false because a majority of the votes that passed the legislation were from Democrats. Although true, it ignores the fact that the Dems had a majorities in both chambers and could have passed it alone, but didn’t have the votes to do so. The bill’s passage required the votes of Republicans to put it over the top. Also, the percentage of Republicans voting for the bill was greater than the percentage of Democrats, demonstrating clearly that the party that supported the act was the Republican Party.
The version that was passed was that of the Senate, which the House declined to reconsider before voting. The votes (and the percentages) of each party are here:
Senate
Democrat Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
House
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Additionally, a Democrat held up the bill in committee in the House, and was forced into releasing it (to avoid an embarrassing procedural defeat). In the Senate, it would have also been held up by a Democrat committee chair, but he was outmaneuvered.
So I just compared the pic here with the pic of the fake Indiana BLM activist. Reminds me of those troll dolls from the 70’s which all looked alike except that they came with different colors of hair.
Slavery was never a thing in any of the British colonies in Australia. That country developed along similar lines to ours. The modern nation of Australia enjoys a standard of living comparable to the United States.
No, but Australia is blessed with a healthy Aboriginal Affairs bureaucracy where the same perpetual whining is available en buffet.
My point was simply that the importation of enslaved Africans doesn’t seem to be a key ingredient to the building of a successful modern nation. Brazil had black slaves just like we did, but, as a country, it’s far less successful than we are. Australia never allowed slavery, but today that country’s per capita GDP is comparable to the United States. It would seem that things like Anglo-Saxon culture and British legal traditions are more important factors than the use, or non-use, of slave labor.
Australia was founded in 1788. During that time William Wilberforce had already introduced a number of bills in the House of Common to Abolish the Slave trade. By 1790 Bills were being passed restricting the practice. Without actually seeing some of these bills and given the point at which it was founded, I would suspect that Australia was Possibly one of those colonies were it was being restricted. So I would resoundingly agree with you that slavery wasn’t a factor in successfully building a modern nation. Hannah-Jones argument about slavery is nothing more than someone trying to plant a narrative that places blacks as a central part of the founding of the Country and the Americas themselves.
The New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones abandon key “lies” of the 1619 Project
Fixt it for them.
We can’t give this obscenity of a human being a single ounce of respect. EVER.