From U.S. Grant and Union Soldiers Fighting the Slavocracy to John Brown and Abraham Lincoln, All Statues Must Come Down

Dear fellow Scandinavians

(dear Danes, dear Norwegians, dear Swedes),

have you heard the latest news

about Hans Christian Heg?

Have media outlets in Scandinavia

mentioned him in recent days?

Who is H C Heg, you ask?

The Scandinavian is no longer alive.
In fact, he died in America in 1863.

He was shot from his horse wearing a blue uniform

fighting the South's slave power in gray.

The colonel was about to be made

brigadier general when he was killed at

Chickamauga, the most brutal battle for

the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer regiment, which

had so many Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes

among its ranks that it was known at the

Scandinavian regiment (just about every other

soldier seemed to be named Ole or Jens)

In June 2020, his statue in Madison was toppled,
beheaded, unceremoniously dragged through the street,
and dumped in a pond.


Between 1850 and 1920, a full tenth of the 
Danish population, or 300,000 souls, emigrated to the new world.
In Ole Sønnichsen's massive 600 page opus about 
Denmark's emigrants, "The Journey to America" (Rejsen til Amerika),
August Rasmussen explains why he left Denmark 
at the age of 26 in 1856:

"For my own part, I can say this: I gave my spine to 
the landowner's cane and the back of my jersey to 
the lieutenant's blade and my ears to the overseer's 
whacks. Whippings, punches, and blows were not 
allowed, but the big ones beat the little ones anyway. 
They knew our rights was nonexistent."

That's right, ladies and gents: Denmark's nobles carried
canes and/or whips. And it wasn't for the cattle…
I have a question for you:
Would you care to answer it?
What kind of "white privilege" is that?!

No doctor was ever called for the average dirt-poor Dane, and
in 1890, one Jeppe Aakjær visited Skive, where
a sick man had been allowed to rest, in… the filth of a… barn!

"How had this man been treated. Lain down here, 
where the animals stood and soiled and stank; …
a portion of the wall over the door frame was missing,
and the door, formed by rough, stubborn boards, could
not be closed at all, but allowed the unstable atmosphere
of the barn [with barely any light] to streak over the sick 
man. … This was how the room was, where the young man
lay in the flimsy blankets under which one saw the lean limbs
— on all sides surrounded by a wreath of musty, stinking bed 
straw. This is where he had been lying for six weeks, 
in the disgusting filth."

I have a question for you:
Would you care to answer it?
What kind of "white privilege" is that?!
 
In Sweden and Norway, it was… worse:
the poverty was such that
one fourth of the Swedish population
and one third of the Norwegian population

emigrated. Four years after the Civil War ended,
famine broke out, and the Scandinavians
starved. I have a question for you:
Yep, that's right, it hasn't changed —
What kind of "white privilege" is that?!

With the Irish (and its' many redheads' pasty
white skin), the three Scandinavian countries
— whose inhabitants are supposed to be the
epitome of Adolf's Aryan race incarnate — formed the
four nations where the people were so dirt-poor 
that of all the peoples that emigrated to the new world,
they figure in the top quatuor of the ones who sent the
largest proportions of their populations thereto.

 
Do you know what word Ole Sønnichsen uses to describe
the framework under which the largest part
of the Danish population lived?
In Danish, the word he uses is called "slaveri."

August Rasmussen and his newly-wed wife, Ana,
decided to emigrate in 1856, he writes, because they did not want 
their children to grow up in "the same type of slavery" 
as they had.

As for the Scandinavians' Scandinavians,
the Icelanders (whose hair is so blond that
it is almost white) say they lived in slavery 
until the 20th century or more than 40 years
after Appomattox, and whose only "redemption"
is that their race or skin color was the same 
as that of the enslavers, their fellow countrymen.
Yes. Yes. I'm going to ask the question again:
Will somebody be so kind to tell me exactly how
poverty, how famine, and how slavery (or bondage) 
is supposed to fit in with "white privilege"?!

(On the other hand, there is one thing I cannot deny:

it would be much harder to teach about the horrors

of "white privilege" if students (whatever their race,

whatever their nationality) knew that in 1869,

Northern Europeans were starving to death…)

BACK TO MODERN TIMES

— to 2020 or, rather, to 2015:

the "mostly peaceful" protestors started out

five years ago or so protesting the Stars and Bars

(the Confederate flag) and tearing down statues of

Confederate generals, making it sound like

they were acting out of patriotism

and revolted at traitors to the USA

They were lying.

As I mentioned to friends at the time,

it is/it was merely a preview of going on to protest

the Stars and Stripes and the National Anthem

and destroy the statues of everyone involved

with American history, indeed with Western

civilization

(You think sportsmen are right to kneel

before the National Anthem? I would be more

convinced if American sportsmen allowed

themselves to stand up (so to speak — or kneel,
for that matter), just, y'know, once 
in a while, when people in China (notably in

Hong Kong) are beaten by Chinese police

— my hunch is that there are more Chauvins

among the police in China or Russia than in

the US of A and that, indeed, their recruitment

may be actively encouraged there)

• Now the protestors in Madison, Wisconsin

have torn down the statue of Colonel Heg,

"a Wisconsin abolitionist who died trying to end

slavery during the Civil War"; the Norwegian

immigrant was a member of "the Free Soil Party,

which was centered around opposing the

expansion of slavery into the western United States.

He was also a leader of Wisconsin's Wide Awakes,

an anti-slave catcher militia."

I'm all for trying to understand the protestors,

and — in the wake of the death of George Floyd —

everyone in America and around the world

was in (full) support of the protests and against the

type of policeman who kept a knee on his neck

for 8-9 minutes — initially

But no, I'm sorry, I must be a racist because

I do not see what tearing down the statue of

Colonel Heg has to do with honoring the memory

of any victim of the police (in America or elsewhere)

or the protesting of police brutality (idem) (nor, for

that matter, the theft of sneakers or the setting of

businesses, black or white, in flames)

But my (open or subconscious) racism is, must be,

much worse because I do not understand the

defacement or tearing down of the following statues

either (if not the calling for the defacement of

the statues), in America as well as in Europe

• Winston Churchill defaced in London. Do the

Antifa-type protestors — who love nothing less

than calling their (alleged) adversaries fascists,

Nazis, and… Adolf Hitler — not have any idea of

who, during Sir Winston's lifetime, was his

major and mortal enemy?! What on earth are kids

being taught in school nowadays?!

• Why would a statue of John Brown be defaced?

John Brown was an abolitionist hanged after an

(admittedly ill-conceived) attempt to start a revolt

among the South's slaves, arm the blacks, and

free them all. Why the devil would Antifa be

(rightly or wrongly) against such a scenario?!

• Ulysses Simpson Grant. Some people mention

that U.S. Grant was a slaveholder, making it sound

that with a whip by his side, he oversaw a plantation

with dozens of slaves pickin' cotton; in fact (and

no doubt to his surprise), when his father-in-law died,

Grant, who was married to a Southern gal, inherited 
one black slave. In any case, no man did more militarily

than Grant to crush the Southern armies and ensure

the freedom of the South's slaves. No president,

besides Lincoln, did more to fight for black rights

(they didn't teach you in school — American or

European — that Grant sent the U.S. army troops

to fight the KKK?! Well, why on earth would teachers

be expected to teach you something like that?!)

• a monument to the 54th Massachusetts

Volunteer Infantry Regiment in Boston. Note:

the 54th Massachusetts was composed

entirely of… black soldiers (it was featured

in the movie "Glory") and the statue shows

crowds of infantrymen hurrying forward to

charge the army of Robert E Lee, all of

whom are… black

• they have promised to bring down a statue of

Abraham Lincoln in Washington standing next

to a freed slave or two. Note: this statue was

paid entirely by private contributions, but not just

just any private contributions; to wit, exclusively

from the pockets of… former slaves

• one mostly peaceful protestor has called

for the removal of statues portraying… Jesus Christ!

(it is time we all realized that JC was a racist

using his whip on Africans in the cotton fields

of Judea)

Will someone please answer this question:

what on earth is it that our schools (in America,

in Europe) are teaching our kids?!

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from the head of the 1619 Project; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

Nikole Hannah-Jones, staff writer at The New York Times and lead essayist in The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, just endorsed the nationwide destruction of statues as a product of her historically inaccurate work.

Thus writes The Federalist's xAllison Schuster about the founder of the 1619 Project, who displays not an iota of love or gratitude or even simple (if critical) understanding towards her nation or towards a single one of the nation's past leaders (thanks to Instapundit's Ed Driscoll).

the project’s influence truly revealed itself in the recent removal of historical symbols in nearly every major city across the U.S.

Claremont’s Charles Kesler wrote a column in The New York Post … titled “Call them the 1619 riots,” blaming the indignation and utter lack of regard for the nation’s greatest men on the misinformation stemming from The 1619 Project.

Hannah-Jones responded to the article on twitter saying she would be honored to claim responsibility for the defamation of American heroes and Founding Fathers such as George Washington.

It would be an honor. Thank you. https://t.co/W4HXKY8kCm

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) June 20, 2020

“America is burning,” Kesler writes. “Rioters set fire to police stations and restaurants. Looters have ravaged shops from coast to coast. And now they’re coming for the statues — not just of Confederate generals, but the republic’s Founders, including George Washington, whose statue was torn down in Portland, Ore. Call them the 1619 riots.”

In her online tweet discussions with people attempting to be civil and reasonable, like Hot Air's John Sexton himself, Nikole Hannah-Jones never finds it appropriate to display the slightest ounce of gratitude to, or even understanding for, the nation who fought a bloody war that resulted in freedom for the slaves. Instead she takes offense at General Grant, the man who destroyed the slave power, and whines how (perfectly valid) arguments are allegedly offensive and ought to be verboten.

To show the abhorrent double standards prevalent in leftists, as I have written before, a foreign autocrat and a foreign dictator such as Castro "clearly wasn't all bad," in Nikole Hannah-Jones's viewpoint. "And everything he did in Cuba wasn't all bad." (This ties in with the presence of that fellow 1619 academic of hers who displays "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin.) But the same can not be said, can never be said — who they were and what they did was perhaps "not all bad" — about such people as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ulysses S Grant, and even, arguably, Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee?

But there is a second double standard here: certainly, if mainstream Americans (whatever the color of their skin) can agree to consider, practically as well as theoretically, the supposed evil of their ways and the alleged sins of their ancestors (real or otherwise) and the alleged mistakes in the nation's past without resorting (honestly or otherwise) to calling narratives such as the 1619 Project "offensive", then certainly people like Nikole Hannah-Jones and Gerald Horne can, and must, agree to the same standards (i.e., not falling back on the "that's offensive" line all the time?…

 … The project’s scope, however, had already reached young Americans. As evidenced by the mayhem of recent weeks, so many Americans were taught an altered form of history, one riddled with mistruths that discounted the value of the Founders’ work.

Kesler’s article accusing The 1619 Project of inciting this type of defamation with its wrong portrayal of American history divulges truth to those who already saw the project’s inherent dishonesty. Hannah-Jones’ proud ownership of the accusation, however, is far more telling of her own motivation for the project.

 
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

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "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"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• 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

• From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• 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

• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?! 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)

• 1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• The Departure of Bari Weiss: "Propagandists", Ethical Collapse, and the "New McCarthyism" — "The radical left are running" the New York Times, "and no dissent is tolerated"

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),  An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• 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

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

• 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

• The Truth Is Out: "The 1619 Project Is Not a History," Admits Hannah-Jones, and "Never Pretended to Be"

THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• 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

• Not 1619 but 1641: In Fact, the American Revolution of 1776 Sought to Avoid the Excesses of the English Revolution Over a Century Earlier

• 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"

• One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth, says Bob Woodson; Because the North's Civil War statues — as well as American history itself — are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for the Left to remove evidence of the truth

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 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"

• Inciting Hate Already in Kindergarten: 1619 "Education" Is Part of Far-Left Indoctrination by People Who Hate America to Kids in College, in School, and Even in Elementary Classes

• "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"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

• 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"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• When was the last time protests in America were marred by police violence? 1970, according to Ann Coulter, who asks "Can we restrict wild generalizations about the police to things that have happened in our lifetimes?" (Compare with, say, China…)

• The Secret About Black Lives Matter; In Fact, the Outfit's Name Ought to Be BSD or BAD

• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish

• 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

What Does the Leftists' "Prank" at Trump's Tulsa Rally Show Other than Their Teenage Mentality?

Donald Trump, conservatives, Republicans, and, not least, Americans in general, should be very grateful for the lack of attendees at Trump's campaign rally in Tulsa, and that for the following reason: it shows exactly what the true nature of the Left is.

The partial lack of spectators in Oklahoma was artificial. Entirely artificial.

How on Earth can a successor of Walter Duranty at the so-called "newspaper of record" write that Trump's Tulsa Rally Fizzles as Seats Go Empty when that outcome was manufactured?

It was a "narrative" that was phony and it was a narrative that led to another round of fake news.

Indeed, it was a crisis of sorts (a knee-slappin' crisis in this case, according to the Left) created by the party of government. (Thanks for the instalink, Stephen Green.)

But there is more — as Dom Calicchio and Tyler Olson write on Fox News:

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared to take pleasure Saturday night in reports that the turnout for President Trump’s Tulsa, Okla., rally was lower than expected.

In a Twitter post, Ocasio-Cortez claimed the Trump campaign had been scammed by teenage anti-Trump activists who allegedly reserved scores of tickets for the Tulsa event online – then failed to show up, thus preventing others from being able to attend.

“Actually you just got ROCKED by teens on TikTok,” the New York Democrat wrote in response to a Twitter message by Trump 2020 Campaign chief Brad Parscale, who argued that “Radical protestors” in Tulsa had prevented some of the president’s supporters from entering the BOK Center, where the rally was held.

Scammed; scammed by teenagers: How appropriate. You start gaining wisdom in this world when you realize that the entire structure of the Left is a world of drama queens and scammers operating on a teen-age mindset.

Leftists are obsessed with race. Leftists are obsessed with sex. Leftists are obsessed with melodrama. Leftists are obsessed with private lives; the private lives of every citizen.

In case you are wondering, rules and laws and rights and politics all have to do, or ought to have to do, with the public sphere, and with the public sphere alone. A home is a man's (and a woman's) castle, and what goes on inside (notably in the bedroom) and in private life in general should have no bearing on rules and regulations.

But in that case, of course — if you cannot bring in private lives, sexuality, racism, and other like personal sins — the Left has nothing left to run upon.

The left's teenage-mentality-driven Drama Queens are also obsessed with tearing down everything before them. (By the way, isn't it time time that the 26th Amendment be repealed?)

When members of the White House Press Corps shoot questions at the president or at his press secretary, you get the impression that the whole night prior, the editors of mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times had been chortling like Beavis and Butt-Head until the sun rises.

Let us imagine this conversation as an example: Trump sucks! What can we do about it? Listen to this plan: if we take the president's Charlottesville speech, and leave in the middle part of “You also had some very fine people on both sides” while leaving out the final part — heh-heh-heh — not to mention the sentence where he specifically says “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists [who] should be condemned totally” — uh-huh-huh-huh — we can make it appear that he is a racist calling neo-Nazis (and, more generally, white supremacists) “very fine people” — heh-heh-heh. Oooh, man, coo-ool! That's awesome!

“Shout out to Zoomers. Y’all make me so proud,” Ocasio-Cortez added.

 … “KPop allies, we see and appreciate your contributions in the fight for justice too,” the congresswoman wrote.

The fight for… justice?!

The entire thing was artificial — AstroTurf as you leftists love to call events involving non-leftists, such as the Tea Parties.

It turns out that the party always singing the praises of solemnity, responsibility, and truth — i.e., the necessity for government intervention — while castigating the despicable Republicans, the odious Donald Trump, and his allegedly immature tweets are nothing less than elated with teen-age pranks.

What does this say about the Left's angry or merry denunciations of AstroTurf, Republicans' alleged lack of manners and intelligence, conservatives' purported eliminationist rhetoric, and the opponents they call names such as POS and Adolf Hitler, not to mention… voter suppression?

Doesn't psychology tell us that imagining what is in others lies in fact in yourself?

It wasn't Trump, or another Republican, charging that his or her adversaries belong in the trash heap of history, but a top Obama aide. (Every time I hear such a quote — and in view that every person not a leftist is a despicable deplorable or some other such inhuman monster, there is a myriad of such quotes — I say that conservatives should thank them publicly for showing exactly to what extent our founding fathers were prescient in deeming the Second Amendment necessary.) Thanks to Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, who writes, tongue in cheek,

DEMOCRATS: TRUMP IS DIVIDING AMERICA.
ALSO DEMOCRATS: Susan Rice Says Trump Supporters Belong In ‘Trash Heap Of History.’

(More about "America divided" in the conclusion.) This ties in with The Divine Right of Democrats, in which Kevin Williamson discusses the liberation of the Donkey party by the practical elimination of the Republican party (America is "suffering from a kind of infection in the form of the Republican party, which inhibits the normal and healthy — meaning Democrat-dominated — political life of the United States").

What does it say about leftists, when they claim that, say, there are no blacks, or very few, in attendance at a campaign involving any Republican. Isn't it from the same artificial accounts? After years and decades of MSM outlets and teachers hammering home the "fact" that Republicans are supposed to be racist trash hostile to African-Americans (see Charlottesville above) and other like "narratives", why would anyone (white or black) be surprised at a lack of black supporters at their rallies or among their ranks?

And let it be known that the most stunning false narrative of all, the 1619 Project, got started only last year, in order to further make Americans become revolted at the United States, at its people, and at its history

Incidentally, the most important policy for the Republicans today — certainly, in Trump's next term — is getting rid of all the far leftists in public education (sic), if necessary by simply getting rid of Jimmy Carter's education (sic) department once and for all, and returning the subject matter to the states and to various sub-localities, where, as has been known since the days of Tocqueville, citizens and parents can have some input into the subjects that their children are being taught. 

To return to the Tulsa event, let's try the put-the-shoe-on-the-other-foot approach:

What if a Republican-led initiative had resulted in a significant downturn at a rally for Barack Obama, for one of the Clintons, for Joe Biden, or — for that matter — for AOC? The Democrats would be — rightly — outraged (and FYI, a good number of conservatives would join in the condemnation of that "prank", which would be called something far worse, something closer to a crime, by the powers-that-be).

In that case, indeed, the Democrats would call the "prank" what it truly was: a "dirty tricks" campaign to sabotage an opponent's rally.

But there are more ominous questions: imagine if a Republican-led initiative had led to a full turnabout of a strictly Democratic-voting county, just like, in real life, the Democrats managed to do in California's Orange country. The Democrats would go berserk.

Here is the million-dollar question: What does this glee about their ability to influence the turnout of a Republican rally say about Democrats' approach and attitude to elections (local as well as national)?

When you are constantly running against Adolf Hitler — meaning a Democrat running for office is never anything less than a figure of heroic proportions — isn't cheating, er, isn't taking liberties with the election process something acceptable, even valorous, to do?

From ballot harvesting and mail-in ballots to motor voter and same-day voter registration through the lack of voter IDs — all items that are present (certainly not to the extent as in the U.S.) in no other country — all are designed to ensure a one-party banana republic.

In that perspective, Glenn Reynolds mentions a Facebook user opining that Ocasio-Cortez deserves our gratitude:

“Fraudulent ticket reservations? I think we just learned exactly what will happen with mail in voting. We should thank AOC for demonstrating this.”

Have you heard the meme that America is divided? Uncountable times, doubtlessly. Well, it's true; but what we are not told is that America is divided between Americans who believe in facts and teenage-mentality-driven Drama Queens who live by the existence of their melodramatic fairy tales.

Related: The Era of the Drama Queens — Every Crisis Is a Triumph

Leftists are drama queens. Leftists constantly erupting in hysterics — male (girly men?) or female — rule the roost.

Racism! Patriarchy! Sexism! Rape on campus! Global warming! Christianity's bigotry! The reactionary average American! Republicans' hate speech and hate thought! US history, a litany of racism and oppression! All the founding fathers, hypocritical sonzabitches! All our ancestors, imperialist mongrels! Oppression of women, and gays, and transgenders!

(The only person, the only people, who come out positive in this (self-serving) world view are — surprise, surprise — the drama queens themselves! Also known as the wise men, and the wise women, arriving as knights in shining armor on their white steeds to fight for the victims and the martyrs of the world.)

Whenever there is drama — whenever there is a crisis (or the semblance of a crisis) — the left's  drama queens win.

There must be constant drama — crises, if you prefer — or the movement loses momentum and/or comes to a standstill and/or dies out. 

• The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables

The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

WHEN YOU’VE LOST AN EDITOR OF ROLLING STONE

writes Ed Driscoll on Instapundit, you can be sure that the Left is going berserk. Indeed, you can barely find a news editor much farther to the left side of the aisle than Matt Taibbi, whose article, although it doesn't specifically mention the 1619 Project, explains a lot about the New York Times rewriting of history, which amounts to part of "the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist thought these days"…

This is how another Matt, Townhall's Matt Vespa, is quoted as describing the Rolling Stone editor's piece:

Taibbi torched the media for being afraid to confront the terror campaign that's engulfed the nation's newsrooms. He also said if anything that's been exposed during the unrest over the officer-involved fatality of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 that sparked nationwide riots, it's that the American Left has gone totally insane and the liberal media is destroying itself.

 … For some, the liberal agenda … has to be far-left and quasi-Marxist. The woke clowns we used to mock on The College Fix and Campus Reform have graduated. And now, their toxic agenda is spreading like a brush fire. No dissent is permitted. Just one slip-up or differing opinion from that of the far-left mob could get you canceled. These are the hordes of Mordor, an apt description by conservative commentator Erick Erickson. They will make you care. In one way or the other, the left-wing mob will find a way to get you. They also don't want apologies; they want the destruction of those they view as enemies to their unhinged worldview.

… the media industry that is collapsing under the infection of wokeness and political correctness that are terrorizing newsrooms

 … The media appears to be a place where there can be no debate, where its writers work in fear, and the political correctness enforcers acting like ISIS' religious police watch their every move. Yeah, I can see why that's causing the liberal media to self-destruct.

Submit or die is the special of the day for the American Left. 

Again: this is the atmosphere in which the 1619 Project was birthed and in which it has been (and is being) sustained in the following months. But to get back to the piece of origin: After calling Donald Trump "a clown" who "makes a great reality-show villain" and who "seems determined to talk us into civil war", Matt Taibbi goes on to take on his own side and point out the following:

But police violence, and Trump’s daily assaults on the presidential competence standard, are only part of the disaster.

On the other side of the political aisle, among self-described liberals, we’re watching an intellectual revolution. It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind. It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.

The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.

They’ve conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out thoughtcrime, and it’s established now that anything can be an offense, from a UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” out loud to a data scientist fired* from a research firm for — get this — retweeting an academic study suggesting nonviolent protests may be more politically effective than violent ones!

Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who’d made politically “problematic” editorial or social media decisions.

The New York Times, the Intercept, Vox, the Philadelphia Inquirier, Variety, and others saw challenges to management.

Probably the most disturbing story involved Intercept writer Lee Fang, one of a fast-shrinking number of young reporters actually skilled in investigative journalism. Fang’s work in the area of campaign finance especially has led to concrete impact, including a record fine to a conservative Super PAC: few young reporters have done more to combat corruption.

Yet Fang found himself denounced online as a racist, then hauled before H.R. His crime? During protests, he tweeted this interview with an African-American man named Maximum Fr, who described having two cousins murdered in the East Oakland neighborhood where he grew up. Saying his aunt is still not over those killings, Max asked:

I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it’s going to be national news, but if a Black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of… It’s stuff just like that that I just want in the mix.

Shortly after, a co-worker of Fang’s, Akela Lacy, wrote, “Tired of being made to deal continually with my co-worker @lhfang continuing to push black on black crime narratives after being repeatedly asked not to. This isn’t about me and him, it’s about institutional racism and using free speech to couch anti-blackness. I am so fucking tired.” She followed with, “Stop being racist Lee.”

The tweet received tens of thousands of likes and responses along the lines of, “Lee Fang has been like this for years, but the current moment only makes his anti-Blackness more glaring,” and “Lee Fang spouting racist bullshit it must be a day ending in day.” A significant number of Fang’s co-workers, nearly all white, as well as reporters from other major news organizations like the New York Times and MSNBC and political activists (one former Elizabeth Warren staffer tweeted, “Get him!”), issued likes and messages of support for the notion that Fang was a racist. Though he had support within the organization, no one among his co-workers was willing to say anything in his defense publicly.

Like many reporters, Fang has always viewed it as part of his job to ask questions in all directions. He’s written critically of political figures on the center-left, the left, and “obviously on the right,” and his reporting has inspired serious threats in the past. None of those past experiences were as terrifying as this blitz by would-be colleagues, which he described as “jarring,” “deeply isolating,” and “unique in my professional experience.”

To save his career, Fang had to craft a public apology for “insensitivity to the lived experience of others.”

 … In the tweets that got him in trouble with Lacy and other co-workers, he questioned the logic of protesters attacking immigrant-owned businesses “with no connection to police brutality at all.” He also offered his opinion on Martin Luther King’s attitude toward violent protest (Fang’s take was that King did not support it; Lacy responded, “you know they killed him too right”). These are issues around which there is still considerable disagreement among self-described liberals, even among self-described leftists. Fang also commented, presciently as it turns out, that many reporters were “terrified of openly challenging the lefty conventional wisdom around riots.”

 … Max himself was stunned to find out that his comments on all this had created a Twitter firestorm. “I couldn’t believe they were coming for the man’s job over something I said,” he recounts. “It was not Lee’s opinion. It was my opinion.”

By phone, Max spoke of a responsibility he feels Black people have to speak out against all forms of violence, “precisely because we experience it the most.” He described being affected by the Floyd story, but also by the story of retired African-American police captain David Dorn, shot to death in recent protests in St. Louis. He also mentioned Tony Timpa, a white man whose 2016 asphyxiation by police was only uncovered last year. In body-camera footage, police are heard joking after Timpa passed out and stopped moving, “I don’t want to go to school! Five more minutes, Mom!”

 “If it happens to anyone, it has to be called out,” Max says.

Max described discussions in which it was argued to him that bringing up these other incidents now is not helpful to the causes being articulated at the protests. He understands that point of view. He just disagrees.

“They say, there has to be the right time and a place to talk about that,” he says. “But my point is, when? I want to speak out now.” He pauses. “We’ve taken the narrative, and instead of being inclusive with it, we’ve become exclusive with it. Why?”

There were other incidents. The editors of Bon Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations of toxic workplace culture. The editor of Variety, Claudia Eller, was placed on leave after calling a South Asian freelance writer “bitter” in a Twitter exchange about minority hiring at her company. The self-abasing apology (“I have tried to diversify our newsroom over the past seven years, but I HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH”) was insufficient. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s editor, Stan Wischowski, was forced out after approving a headline, “Buildings matter, too.”

In the most discussed incident, Times editorial page editor James Bennet was ousted for green-lighting an anti-protest editorial by Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton entitled, “Send in the troops.”

I’m no fan of Cotton, but as was the case with Michael Moore’s documentary and many other controversial speech episodes, it’s not clear that many of the people angriest about the piece in question even read it.

 … To declare a point of view held by that many people not only not worthy of discussion, but so toxic that publication of it without even necessarily agreeing requires dismissal, is a dramatic reversal for a newspaper that long cast itself as the national paper of record.

Incidentally, that same poll cited by Cotton showed that 73% of Americans described protecting property as “very important,” while an additional 16% considered it “somewhat important.” This means the Philadelphia Inquirer editor was fired for running a headline – “Buildings matter, too” – that the poll said expressed a view held by 89% of the population, including 64% of African-Americans.

(Would I have run the Inquirer headline? No. In the context of the moment, the use of the word “matter” especially sounds like the paper is equating “Black lives” and “buildings,” an odious and indefensible comparison. But why not just make this case in a rebuttal editorial? Make it a teaching moment? How can any editor operate knowing that airing opinions shared by a majority of readers might cost his or her job?)

The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking.

It also guarantees that opinion writers and editors alike will shape views to avoid upsetting colleagues, which means that instead of hearing what our differences are and how we might address those issues, newspaper readers will instead be presented with page after page of people professing to agree with one another. That’s not agitation, that’s misinformation.

 … After the 2016 election, we began to see staff uprisings. In one case, publishers at the Nation faced a revolt – from the Editor on down – after articles by Aaron Mate and Patrick Lawrence questioning the evidentiary basis for Russiagate claims was run. Subsequent events, including the recent declassification of congressional testimony, revealed that Mate especially was right to point out that officials had no evidence for a Trump-Russia collusion case. It’s precisely because such unpopular views often turn out to be valid that we stress publishing and debating them in the press.
 
In a related incident, the New Yorker ran an article about Glenn Greenwald’s Russiagate skepticism that quoted that same Nation editor, Joan Walsh, who had edited Greenwald at Salon. She suggested to the New Yorker that Greenwald’s reservations were rooted in “disdain” for the Democratic Party, in part because of its closeness to Wall Street, but also because of the “ascendance of women and people of color.” The message was clear: even if you win a Pulitzer Prize, you can be accused of racism for deviating from approved narratives, even on questions that have nothing to do with race (the New Yorker piece also implied Greenwald’s intransigence on Russia was pathological and grounded in trauma from childhood).

In the case of Cotton, Times staffers protested on the grounds that “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” Bennet’s editorial decision was not merely ill-considered, but literally life-threatening (note pundits in the space of a few weeks have told us that protesting during lockdowns and not protesting during lockdowns are both literally lethal). The Times first attempted to rectify the situation by apologizing, adding a long Editor’s note to Cotton’s piece that read, as so many recent “apologies” have, like a note written by a hostage.

Editors begged forgiveness for not being more involved, for not thinking to urge Cotton to sound less like Cotton (“Editors should have offered suggestions”), and for allowing rhetoric that was “needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.” That last line is sadly funny, in the context of an episode in which reporters were seeking to pre-empt a debate rather than have one at all; of course, no one got the joke, since a primary characteristic of the current political climate is a total absence of a sense of humor in any direction.

As many guessed, the “apology” was not enough, and Bennet was whacked a day later in a terse announcement.

His replacement, Kathleen Kingsbury, issued a staff directive essentially telling employees they now had a veto over anything that made them uncomfortable:

“Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”

All these episodes sent a signal to everyone in a business already shedding jobs at an extraordinary rate that failure to toe certain editorial lines can and will result in the loss of your job. Perhaps additionally, you could face a public shaming campaign in which you will be denounced as a racist and rendered unemployable.

These tensions led to amazing contradictions in coverage. For all the extraordinary/inexplicable scenes of police viciousness in recent weeks — and there was a ton of it, ranging from police slashing tires in Minneapolis, to Buffalo officers knocking over an elderly man, to Philadelphia police attacking protesters — there were also 12 deaths in the first nine days of protests, only one at the hands of a police officer (involving a man who may or may not have been aiming a gun at police).

Looting in some communities has been so bad that people have been left without banks to cash checks, or pharmacies to fill prescriptions; business owners have been wiped out (“My life is gone,” commented one Philly store owner); a car dealership in San Leandro, California saw 74 cars stolen in a single night. It isn’t the whole story, but it’s demonstrably true that violence, arson, and rioting are occurring.

However, because it is politically untenable to discuss this in ways that do not suggest support, reporters have been twisting themselves into knots. We are seeing headlines previously imaginable only in The Onion, e.g., “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London.”

Even people who try to keep up with protest goals find themselves denounced the moment they fail to submit to some new tenet of ever-evolving doctrine, via a surprisingly consistent stream of retorts: fuck you, shut up, send money, do better, check yourself, I’m tired and racist.

Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, who argued for police reform and attempted to show solidarity with protesters in his city, was shouted down after he refused to commit to defunding the police. Protesters shouted “Get the fuck out!” at him, then chanted “Shame!” and threw refuse, Game of Thrones-style, as he skulked out of the gathering. Frey’s “shame” was refusing to endorse a position polls show 65% of Americans oppose, including 62% of Democrats, with just 15% of all people, and only 33% of African-Americans, in support.

Each passing day sees more scenes that recall something closer to cult religion than politics. White protesters in Floyd’s Houston hometown kneeling and praying to black residents for “forgiveness… for years and years of racism” are one thing, but what are we to make of white police in Cary, North Carolina, kneeling and washing the feet of Black pastors? What about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer kneeling while dressed in “African kente cloth scarves”?

There is symbolism here that goes beyond frustration with police or even with racism: these are orgiastic, quasi-religious, and most of all, deeply weird scenes, and the press is too paralyzed to wonder at it. In a business where the first job requirement was once the willingness to ask tough questions, we’ve become afraid to ask obvious ones.

On CNN, Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender was asked a hypothetical question about a future without police: “What if in the middle of the night, my home is broken into? Who do I call?” When Bender, who is white, answered, “I know that comes from a place of privilege,” questions popped to mind. Does privilege mean one should let someone break into one’s home, or that one shouldn’t ask that hypothetical question? (I was genuinely confused). In any other situation, a media person pounces on a provocative response to dig out its meaning, but an increasingly long list of words and topics are deemed too dangerous to discuss.

The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey’s firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence “whistleblowers,” all those interminable months of Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.

It’s been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, “why the presumption of innocence is so important,” she said). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment, in other words, ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.

There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won’t be a few weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist thought these days.

 … For all our infamous failings, journalists once had some toughness to them. We were supposed to be willing to go to jail for sources we might not even like, and fly off to war zones or disaster areas without question when editors asked. It was also once considered a virtue to flout the disapproval of colleagues to fight for stories we believed in (Watergate, for instance).
Today no one with a salary will stand up for colleagues like Lee Fang. Our brave truth-tellers make great shows of shaking fists at our parody president, but not one of them will talk honestly about the fear running through their own newsrooms. People depend on us to tell them what we see, not what we think. What good are we if we’re afraid to do it?

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

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "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"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• 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

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!), An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• 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

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

• 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

THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• 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"

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 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"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

• 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"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• 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? …