Just think of how pissed off AG Sulzberger must be about those covert changes to the 1619 Project to have (presumably) signed off on Bret Stephens' double-plus-length column eviscerating it, knowing full well how much it would antagonize the leftward portion of the staff.
Meh. This is an argument against non-historians intervening in historical debates. But that happens all the time, to the benefit of history. The Times frequently praises works of history written by journalists, politicians and other non-academics.
-
-
Not really. It’s about journalists who haven’t reflected upon what a founding is and probably aren’t really aware that it is a longstanding topic in political thought. I agree with you that the historians angle isn’t that interesting. But Brett does get to the deeper question.
-
You understand that not everyone shares this idea of a "founding" -- it's a matter of interpretation, not fact. And there have always been skeptics about the American Revolution. Samuel Johnson's "Taxation No Tyranny" makes profound points.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.