The New York Times’s 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history

Homepage | Forums | JackPine Radical Rooms | JPR Reading Rooms | The New York Times’s 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #329339
      Ohio Barbarian
      • Total Posts: 21,777

      This scathing review of the NYT’s promotion of racialist, tribalist theory that ignores the basic social and economic factors of our past is quite long, but thorough. The WSWS destroys the whole idea that America was founded on and is still all about racism with relentless Marxian logic. This falsehood being pushed that racism caused slavery and, for that matter, the conquest of the Native American peoples, badly needs to be shot to pieces and this review does it. From the article:


      Despite the pretense of establishing the United States’ “true” foundation, the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history. Its aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal “identities”—i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race.

      The Times is promoting the Project with an unprecedented and lavishly financed publicity blitz. It is working with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, which has developed a proposed teaching curriculum that will be sent to schools for teachers to use in their classes. Hundreds of thousands of extra copies of the magazine and a special supplement have been printed for free distribution at schools, libraries and museums across the country. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the staff writer and New America Foundation fellow who first pitched the idea for the Project, oversaw its production and authored the introduction, will be sent on a national lecture tour of schools.


      The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of American history is rooted in race hatred—specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of “black people” by “white people.” Hannah-Jones writes in the series’ introduction: “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”

      This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and development. The transfer of this critical biological term to the study of a country—even if meant only in a metaphorical sense—leads to bad history and reactionary politics. Countries do not have DNA, they have historically formed economic structures, antagonistic classes and complex political relationships. These do not exist apart from a certain level of technological development, nor independently of a more or less developed network of global economic interconnections.

      Full article here.

      Indeed, what Democratic apologists are pushing now is nothing less than eugenics and Fascist, even Nazi, ideology turned on its head. They’re full of shit, and need to be called out at every opportunity.


      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #329397
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 5,326

      But the economics of their setup meant that they had no problem enslaving some of them as the spoils of war. And IIRC, the Greeks themselves enslaved those that they defeated in battle because, hey, that armor isn’t going to polish itself, and who doesn’t like cheap labor.

      I’m no expert, but afaik there was some racism also in play in regards the business of the Romans enslaving people, but of a pretty cynical kind. “We’re the best because we’re in charge. If we weren’t the best, someone else would be doing the enslaving.”

      Though just because it was fundamentally about economics doesn’t mean that there weren’t plenty of the kind of racism that was part of the tribalism of the times. And I guess taking slaves was also a way of cementing in the minds of  the conquered that they had been conquered. It was probably a tool for dealing with who were left to lead those who had been defeated. So there was an element of political currency to it.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.