Tuesday, April 14, 2020

One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

The 1619 Project posits that American history began with slavery
writes Reason Magazine's Cathy Young in the New York Daily News regarding the 1619 project
 — the arrival of 20 enslaved Africans in colonial Virginia. But as former Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain argues in her 1776 Project essay, this narrative is flawed from the start: The Africans were indentured laborers who, like their white counterparts, later gained freedom and sometimes land. Leading black historian Nell Irving Painter also makes this point. Thus, 1619 was the start not only of African bondage in America, but of the free African-American community.
Most contentiously, the 1619 Project asserts that preserving slavery was a principal motive for the American Revolution. … Supporting material mentioned on Twitter by 1619 Project lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones includes University of Houston historian Gerald Horne’s 2014 book, “The Counterrevolution of 1776.” But that volume is riddled with errors — e.g., a 1774 pro-Crown, pro-slavery pamphlet is misattributed to a revolutionary — and Horne is a career Communist propagandist who defends Stalinism. … Hannah-Jones has downplayed the connection …

The real story of slavery and the American Founding is full of paradox. The Revolution’s anti-tyranny rhetoric kindled abolitionist fervor; the British offer of freedom to slaves who fought for the Crown stoked fear of slave revolts. Supporters of the 1619 Project note that the Declaration of Independence referenced such fears, assailing King George for inciting “domestic insurrections amongst us.” Yet the same passage originally included a powerful condemnation of Britain’s promotion of slavery — later dropped to placate slaveholders.

The Revolution’s [immediate] aftermath saw abolition in the North, but also a slavery-enabling Constitution and rollbacks in the rights of free blacks — a shameful betrayal of “all men are created equal.”

Still, the revolutionary spirit of that message remained. It almost certainly helped end slavery in the Western world. It scared slaveholders like Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who repudiated the Founders as anti-slavery believers in “equality of races.” It inspired abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, who saw it as a goal to fight for.
The 1619 Project admirably stresses black Americans’ role in that fight — but asserts that “for the most part [they] fought back alone,” an inaccurate and polarizing claim that erases the very real history of interracial solidarity.

In a later-deleted snarky Twitter rejoinder to the 1776 Project, Hannah-Jones wondered why any African-Americans would embrace “the year revolutionaries decided to form a new country where you and your people would have been enslaved for another 100 years.” But the dissenters — conservatives like Swain and activist Robert Woodson, but also liberals like Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page, scholar and author John McWhorter, Columbia University philosophy student and writer Coleman Hughes — believe that the heritage of 1776, of a political order based on the then-radical principle of inalienable human rights, belongs to all Americans. They deserve to be heard.
RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise

• 1619 and The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …
• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619

No comments: