Seems like NHJ and the Times could have chosen not to die on a couple of these hills and the 1619 Project's critics would have had way less fodder. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/1619-project-took-over-2020-inside-story/2020/10/13/af537092-00df-11eb-897d-3a6201d6643f_story.html …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Or broad claims deserve a broad airing, not a stealth edit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It was a single sentence in a much longer essay, and basically the sole “factual” objection that critics had, and it was revised. Absolutely too small potatoes to support right wing claims that the project “lies” or has been “debunked.”
End of conversation
-
-
-
Yes, the many historians- black and white-critical of it are acting in bad faith. I know that's comforting to you.
-
There is an obvious, categorical difference between the criticisms academic historians have raised and the way right wing pundits discuss the 1619 project. The way you’ve blithely conflated them is evidence of bad faith.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
No, the more rational point of view is that the 1619 authors' choice to die on these hills is proof that *they* weren't acting in good faith. The hills were the whole point--they wanted to coerce acceptance of their prioritizing political dogma ahead of historical integrity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Which of its fundamental assertions have been refuted? That black history is central to American history? That 1619 represented a watershed moment in the history of British America? That slavery had lasting consequences visible today? What are you talking about?
End of 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.