NYT Bashed for Their Incorrect “Anti-Historical” 1619 Project

The New York Times has done a fabulous job of supporting the leftist agenda over the years. However, it seems that one of their latest projects is not only slightly biased but according to several prominent historians, wholly “anti-historical.”

The NYT’ 1619 Project, as it is called, was released earlier this year “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,” according to their website.

As you can imagine, the project has seen some backlash, especially as it is now being offered to some schools as part of their curricula. Although, it should be noted that some of its most critical responses have come not from white conservatives with a pollical agenda but from world-renown historians who, like most other credible sources, were not consulted by the project.

One site, the World Socialist Website, recently conducted interviews with a few of the nation’s most prominent and critically acclaimed historians to gather their reactions to the project. The name of the site excluded; we think these interviews speak for themselves.

These scholars claim that while “slavery and the contributions of black Americans” are, in fact, a significant part of our history and no doubt has helped to shape our nation, history cannot simply be rewritten to support any one cause, political agenda, or even belief system.

Gordon Wood is one such historian. Wood is quite easily considered to be one of the foremost experts on early American history and in particular the American Revolution, which as interviewer Tom Mackaman says, “the ‘1619 Project’ trains much of its fire on.” He is also professor emeritus at Brown University and is the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the American Revolution.

As such an expert on the topic, it would seem likely that he would have been approached by the NY Times during the research phase of their project. And yet, Wood says, “no one ever approached me. None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War, as far as I know, have been consulted.”

And Wood was not the only scholar to have a similar experience. James McPherson is a Princeton history professor who has also won Pulitzer Prizes for his work that specializes in the American Civil War. When he was asked by WSW if he was consulted for his expertise, McPherson’s answer was a resounding no. In fact, he said he didn’t know anything about the project until he picked up his Sunday paper one day.

He said, “I didn’t know anything about it until I got my Sunday paper, with the magazine section entirely devoted to the 1619 Project. Because this is a subject I’ve long been interested in, I sat down and started to read some of the essays. I’d say that, almost from the outset, I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution but existed throughout history.”

He continued, saying, “And slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement. So I thought the account, which emphasized American racism – which is obviously a major part of the history, no question about it – but it focused so narrowly on that part of the story that it let most of the history out.”

Wood essentially said the same thing.

He stated, “I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it’s going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of The New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways.”

He explained himself by saying that co-author Nikole Hannah-Jones “claims the British were on the warpath against the slave trade and slavery and that rebellion was the only hope for American slavery. This made the American Revolution out to be like the Civil War, where the South seceded to save and protect slavery, and that the Americans 70 years earlier revolted to protect their institution of slavery. I just couldn’t believe this.”

Indeed, it’s unimaginable the lengths people will go to, even with all of history proving them wrong.

Comments (11)

  1. Our history is being re-written by the beret wearing, bespectacled, bearded little Marxists. The pathetic turn we have taken today is because of one, affirmative action hero of the left. Hussein Obama called it, “fundamentally transforming AmeriKa”.

  2. The left was sane as late as 1912. They sold out and lost touch with reality and morality through supporting the Bolsheviks.

  3. …why would they consult experts, then it would ruing their leftist agenda…

  4. Liberalism is a mental retardation disorder that afflicts young and old, rich and poor, cross party lines, Millennials and you know the rest. Leading the libtards are Shiff for brains,Bella Pelosi,Mutt Romney,Hillary,Waters,the squad, all the libtards running for President! The view and worst of all the treasonous RINOs! These are just some of the poster girls in the godless deranged Satanist NAZI Commie Demoncrat party!Stop these traitors/weirdos from turning the US into godless shit holes like the lib run cities..

  5. the best thing to do with the times use it to line your bird cage and pray they can not read

  6. New York what? To me they are a waste and meaningless.

  7. How can the British, back in 1619, be against the slavery trade when they were very much involved in it since it was also their vessels (commissioned by Great Britain’s Leadership) that were picking up the slaves in Africa and transporting them all over the world. They were very heavily involved in the Barbary Coast Trade corridors back in the day…. So this article makes absolutely no sense and also goes completely against actual history that has been documented heavily over the years. They are just trying to change and rewrite history again as usual to for it to meet their feelings, objectives, and goals. It’s a form called brainwashing which is a common tactic of the Liberals…..

  8. So liberal/ democrat and so predictable stupid. Another attempt to rewrite history.

    The fin thing about these idiots is that they love to use all the tools, produces, machines, and technologies that old white men created. They love yo live in the comfort and warmth and freedom mb s old white men created. They love acting like they are being radical extremist while spewing the liberal party line.

    In fact they are cowards pissing in the wind while killing babies and letting Hispanic rapist go free.

    I have decided the no feminist or liberal / democrat is actually against rape. Their whole rape is horrible story is a lie. In fact they like and endorse rape. Feminist and liberal / democrats believe rape is good. The proof of this is that their sanctuary places let Hispanic rapist go free, they love obama for playing rapist rap music in the white, and they would still vote for bill or Hillary clinton despite the numerous rapes. Murders and threats against rape victims those two have been involved in. So feminists and liberal / Democrats love rape and rapist. Hence rape should no longer be a thing. It should be an acceptable moral part of our culture like being a LGBT person, antifa member. or an abortionist

    And when are t hff e liberal / democrats going to get over their bigotry about polygamy everywhere. Really unfair to not let consenting adults do whatever they want. Heck you let rapists free but consenting adults cant do what they want?

  9. I wouldn’t give he 5 cents for her ugly, extreme biased & stupid “opinions”!!

  10. These modern day leftists are delusional wacko nut cases or have they always been this way and no one paid attention to them? Let’s rewrite history, let’s let boy transgenders compete with girls and the tax payers get stuck with the bill. Wow, unbelievable and we vote these idiots into office to transform our country into a socialist/Marxist/communist 3rd world nation. Go figure!

  11. The N.Y. Times has a very long history of racism: The racist N.Y. Times’ Sarah Jeong!…

    Her racist and sexist quotes: “White men are bullshit,”… “#cancelwhitepeople.”

    “White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.”

    “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

    “Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

    “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

    “But the alternative view — that of today’s political left — is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing”

Comments are closed.