Because rewritten history is better than no history? This makes me sick to my stomach, especially after watching our teachers of the Law “Academia” all day yesterday…we have serious issues folks!
There’s a new history curriculum with “a very unbalanced, one-sided account” of slavery is creeping into public schools across the country with the help of The New York Times.
It’s called “1619 Project” and it “aims to reframe the country’s history” around slavery.
Conservatives and historians who have actually studied the nation’s founding describe it as “a lie.”
“The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery,” according to the project. “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 materials, promoted online, include essays, poems, lesson plans, timelines, activities and other readings.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called the project “embarrassing” and “a lie.”
“The fact is I saw one reference that The New York Times claims that the American Revolution was caused in part to defend slavery,” he told Fox & Friends. “That is such historically factual false nonsense that it’s embarrassing that The New York Times is doing this.”
“This is a tragic decline of The New York Times into a propaganda paper,” he said.
“[America’s] founding ideals were false when they were written.”
“The US is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie.”
“[O]ne of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare independence was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”
Several historians told World Socialist Magazine the same thing.
Brown University historian Gordon Wood lambasted the project as “wrong is so many ways.”
Wood said first read about the 1619 Project in his Sunday edition of The New York Times, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author was shocked by how inaccurate it is.
“I read the first essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, which alleges that the Revolution occurred primarily because of the Americans’ desire to save their slaves. She claims the British were on the warpath against the slave trade and slavery and that rebellion was the only hope for American slavery,” he said.
“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,” Wood said.
“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.”