How did we let it come to this?

Martha MacCallum's finest moment:

That was her finest moment? Yikes! Neither she nor her guest were impressive ... both yammered to their audiences.

Poor Martha. They took her show off primetime and moved her to the 3:00PM slot. She finally got it. She is standing up to the left.

Roger Ailes thought attractive women were enough. They require a spine as well, Roger!

You think she's attractive?

They require a spine as well, Roger!

Actually they require a brain. At least for most "news" channels.

Aren't you checking out?  Over and over again?  You must be trying to trigger some flaw in the system. We shall find out.

Weingarten really mopped the floor with MacCallum.

That how you saw it?

Meh, I’ve got no problem teaching about America’s history of racism and oppression. If you are anything other than a white (and it is to be the right kind of white) Christian make the US has shit all over you at some point in time. Racism was written into the US constitution, has been made law on many occasions, and takes a long time to be rid of.

We have gotten better, but still have a long way to go. Pretending that it never happened does not in any way help us achieve that though, refusing to face our demons means we let them stick around.

Is the United States of America responsible for what happened to it as a British Colony as well?

Even the 1619 Project , which is harmless but does tend to irritate those prone toward white grievance , hurts no one who isnt looking to be hurt. 

I looked at the 1619 Project material at the New York Times, but didnt read very much of it. The major idea there is that America has always been a racist nation. Although that may be a somewhat controversial idea, it is hardly indefensible. 

I'm still trying to figure out how non racist whites would be offended by learning about the country's past. Racist whites? Yeah, they'd be upset. 

non racist whites would be offended by learning about the country's past

You can't understand why lying about the past to feed a racist narrative would offend anyone? 

The 1619 project isn't about teaching kids about our past. It makes up the past to suit it's racialist agenda. 

The 1619 project isn't about teaching kids about our past. It makes up the past to suit it's racialist agenda.

What has the project made up?  Be specific.

Try being bullied by African Americans and Hispanics just for being white while growing up; and then being taught this leftist revisionist history BS.

I can speak from experience. I cursed my white appearance in between the ages of 9 and 10 growing up in Detroit. I am as much of a multiracial mutt as it gets; but I have very pale white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes. That screams white privilege according to the moronic left. Forget being tall for my age, and skinny enough that strong winds looked like they could blow me away. 

This is just what those bullies would have needed; someone telling them that all whites (or anyone that looks white) is responsible for all the ills in their world; and will receive special privileges from the system just due to their appearance. No backlash from that what-so-ever. It won't ratchet up the already existing hate to a new level.

The Democrats stay in power by promoting racial division. They need it to exist.

They are experts at exploiting minoities

[deleted]

I grew up in racially changing neighborhoods on the South Side of Chicago. Racial gang fights were not unusual during the warm weather months. Fortunately not too many had guns, although I did have two white friends shot in a race based gangfight about 50 feet from where I was. 

I know all about bad neighborhoods where there was racial animosity. 

I hear you. I am of multi ethnic extract myself. Spaniard. Mexican, and Apache on my mothers side, and Scottish, French, English, and Cherokee on my father's side. I have a somewhat fair complexion so my heritage can slide by. As a child growing up in a small border town on the AZ/Mexico border, I regularly got beat up by white guys for being half Mexican and then beat  up by Mexicans for being half white. How's that for a identity crisis? As I grew older I came to embrace the best of the different heritages that are a part of me. Having grown up with racism, I know that with effort, it can be conquered. Many of those folks that beat up on me apologised to me later in life and are good friends to this day. Others not so much. In my opinion, the so called critical race theory is a crock of unmitigated horse manure!

Try being bullied by African Americans and Hispanics just for being white while growing up; and then being taught this leftist revisionist history BS. I can speak from experience.

Ah, so because you experienced bullying and discrimination at the hands of minorities then the bullying and discrimination experienced by those minorities for the last 400 years is a lie? Sounds like a whole vineyard of sour grapes.

"Charles Krauthammer once lamented that we lost the battle when Conservatives allowed the left to take over education."

They say reality has a liberal bias, that's because as educators tried to focus on teaching unvarnished truth conservatives complained that they weren't feeding kids enough conservative opinion and perspective and claimed that the "left" was taking over education but nothing could be further from the truth. Think about the concepts behind conservatism and liberalism.

Conservatism: noun - commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.

Liberalism: noun - willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.

Conservatism desperately tries to reject change, they cling to the status quo, so when facts come out showing the flaws in the status quo they gnash their teeth and dig in their heels doing everything they can to resist accepting the facts. This is especially true when the facts and truth about the past, aka "traditional values" comes to light. Conservatives will do just about anything to protect their shiny bright perspective of the "traditional values" that they hold dear while ignoring and obfuscating any of the dirty little secrets that were part and partial to those "traditional values". There is nothing being taught in the 1619 project that conservatives can actually claim isn't true, conservatives just believe little to no attention should be given to those facts because they want to focus on the parts of their traditions they value, which are most often the great achievements of our nation while they completely shirk any of the responsibility for the way the natives were treated, for the slaves their ancestors abused and treated like cattle, for the blatant rape and pillaging or the people and natural resources of this land. 

Liberals are willing to accept facts and change our behavior and have no problem speaking truth to traditional values that have been steeped in racism, hate, genocide and destruction. They speak openly about such things because they truly believe that by doing so it will lead to a brighter future for our nation and our children. Getting the truth out will lead to change that will be for the betterment of all. Just because it makes some uncomfortable because they continue to cling to traditional values with a dark past and history doesn't deter liberals and progressives, they will continue to speak truth to the status quo and keep pushing for change no matter how much some bitter clingers whine and gnash their teeth. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to talk about the past or about the evil that some of our white ancestors committed if we are open to changing our ways and discarding the traditional values that were built on the backs of racism and discrimination. Only those who continue to harbor those passed down or inherited prejudices experience any real discomfort, and should we really give a fuck how bigots feel? Should we really stop speaking or teaching truth just because it hurts some piece of shit white supremacists feelings?

My grandfather told me stories about intense racial intolerance against him when he first came to America. He was Irish.

Those were my thoughts as well.  Because he allegedly experienced these things, everything else is a lie.  Unreal.  

retending that it never happened does not in any way help us achieve that though,

Who is arguing for that? 

The 1619 project literally makes  up claims (The US revolted from Britain to protect slavery for instance) to feed a narrative to kids. 

The 1619 project literally makes  up claims (The US revolted from Britain to protect slavery for instance)

It is an opinion piece. 

This is the most relevant portion of the opening 1619 Project essay. In this context it is obvious that the conclusion that ( (The US revolted from Britain to protect slavery for instance)) is an opinion. 

Big deal. 

America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country. Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves — black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights.

Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all.

The very first person to die for this country in the American Revolution was a black man who himself was not free. Crispus Attucks was a fugitive from slavery, yet he gave his life for a new nation in which his own people would not enjoy the liberties laid out in the Declaration for another century. In every war this nation has waged since that first one, black Americans have fought — today we are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the United States military.

My father, one of those many black Americans who answered the call, knew what it would take me years to understand: that the year 1619 is as important to the American story as 1776. That black Americans, as much as those men cast in alabaster in the nation’s capital, are this nation’s true “founding fathers.” And that no people has a greater claim to that flag than us.

In June 1776,   Thomas Jefferson sat at his portable writing desk in a rented room in Philadelphia and penned these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” For the last 243 years, this fierce assertion of the fundamental and natural rights of humankind to freedom and self-governance has defined our global reputation as a land of liberty. As Jefferson composed his inspiring words, however, a teenage boy who would enjoy none of those rights and liberties waited nearby to serve at his master’s beck and call. His name was Robert Hemings, and he was the half brother of Jefferson’s wife, born to Martha Jefferson’s father and a woman he owned. It was common for white enslavers to keep their half-black children in slavery. Jefferson had chosen Hemings, from among about 130 enslaved people that worked on the forced-labor camp he called Monticello, to accompany him to Philadelphia and ensure his every comfort as he drafted the text making the case for a new democratic republic based on the individual rights of men.

At the time, one-fifth of the population within the 13 colonies struggled under a brutal system of slavery unlike anything that had existed in the world before. Chattel slavery was not conditional but racial. It was heritable and permanent, not temporary, meaning generations of black people were born into it and passed their enslaved status onto their children. Enslaved people were not recognized as human beings but as property that could be mortgaged, traded, bought, sold, used as collateral, given as a gift and disposed of violently. Jefferson’s fellow white colonists knew that black people were human beings, but they created a network of laws and customs, astounding for both their precision and cruelty, that ensured that enslaved people would never be treated as such. As the abolitionist William Goodell wrote in 1853, “If any thing founded on falsehood might be called a science, we might add the system of American slavery to the list of the strict sciences.”

Enslaved people could not legally marry. They were barred from learning to read and restricted from meeting privately in groups. They had no claim to their own children, who could be bought, sold and traded away from them on auction blocks alongside furniture and cattle or behind storefronts that advertised “Negroes for Sale.” Enslavers and the courts did not honor kinship ties to mothers, siblings, cousins. In most courts, they had no legal standing. Enslavers could rape or murder their property without legal consequence. Enslaved people could own nothing, will nothing and inherit nothing. They were legally tortured, including by those working for Jefferson himself. They could be worked to death, and often were, in order to produce the highest profits for the white people who owned them.

Yet in making the argument against Britain’s tyranny, one of the colonists’ favorite rhetorical devices was to claim that   they   were the slaves — to Britain. For this duplicity, they faced burning criticism both at home and abroad. As Samuel Johnson, an English writer and Tory opposed to American independence, quipped, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”

Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade. This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South. The wealth and prominence that allowed Jefferson, at just 33, and the other founding fathers to believe they could successfully break off from one of the mightiest empires in the world came from the dizzying profits generated by chattel slavery. In other words, we may never have revolted against Britain if some of the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so; nor if they had not believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue. It is not incidental that 10 of this nation’s first 12 presidents were enslavers, and some might argue that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.

Jefferson and the other founders were keenly aware of this hypocrisy. And so in Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he tried to argue that it wasn’t the colonists’ fault. Instead, he blamed the king of England for forcing the institution of slavery on the unwilling colonists and called the trafficking in human beings a crime. Yet neither Jefferson nor most of the founders intended to abolish slavery, and in the end, they struck the passage.

There is no mention of slavery in the final Declaration of Independence. Similarly, 11 years later, when it came time to draft the Constitution, the framers carefully constructed a document that preserved and protected slavery without ever using the word. In the texts in which they were making the case for freedom to the world, they did not want to explicitly enshrine their hypocrisy, so they sought to hide it. The Constitution contains 84 clauses. Six deal directly with the enslaved and their enslavement, as the historian David Waldstreicher has written, and five more hold implications for slavery. The Constitution protected the “property” of those who enslaved black people, prohibited the federal government from intervening to end the importation of enslaved Africans for a term of 20 years, allowed Congress to mobilize the militia to put down insurrections by the enslaved and forced states that had outlawed slavery to turn over enslaved people who had run away seeking refuge. Like many others, the writer and abolitionist Samuel Bryan called out the deceit, saying of the Constitution, “The words are dark and ambiguous; such as no plain man of common sense would have used, [and] are evidently chosen to conceal from Europe, that in this enlightened country, the practice of slavery has its advocates among men in the highest stations.”

With independence, the founding fathers could no longer blame slavery on Britain. The sin became this nation’s own, and so, too, the need to cleanse it. The shameful paradox of continuing chattel slavery in a nation founded on individual freedom, scholars today assert, led to a hardening of the racial caste system. This ideology, reinforced not just by laws but by racist science and literature, maintained that black people were subhuman, a belief that allowed white Americans to live with their betrayal. By the early 1800s, according to the legal historians Leland B. Ware, Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond, white Americans, whether they engaged in slavery or not, “had a considerable psychological as well as economic investment in the doctrine of black inferiority.” While liberty was the inalienable right of the people who would be considered white, enslavement and subjugation became the natural station of people who had any discernible drop of “black” blood.

For most of his life Abraham Lincoln believed that Africans were socially inferior to whites. He did not believe slavery was acceptable, but neither did he believe that a black person could be his social equal. 

Why is that? How did that happen? 

Of course, Lincoln was taught, by the society of his time, that Africans were inferior. And so he believed it. Abraham Lincoln was born in the west, in Kentucky, and then his family moved to Indiana , then Illinois. As a young man Lincoln lived in a small village. In these remote places, he somehow absorbed the idea that the black Africans were inferior to whites. And this was in the "northwest" part of the US.

Lincoln was born less than 25 years after the passing of the US Constitution

And America was not a racist nation?  Please. 

What's does this have to do with the present?

To say that Blacks today are oppressed is the biggest of lies

It has to do with people saying that The 1619 Project is dishonest.  The essays that I have seen under that banner are largely opinion pieces, although I'm sure that in the writers view they are all facts.  

When I was a kid and first taught American history, many years ago,  we were never even initially taught that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. The 1619 Project and similar works may over compensate a little here and there, but why let it bother you?  Does this collection of essays actually harm anyone?  It is absurd to say so. 

Is slavery a big deal john, or not? Do you think it's not a big deal if school districts teach the civil war based upon the premise that it had nothing to do with slavery?  

Seems like lying about slavery being the cause of the nation's founding is about as big a deal as there is. 

Put on some black make up and take a drive in most any town or walk through a white neighborhood in North Carolina or open carry on a street in Texas. Then come back and say that, if you're not dead.

It has to do with people saying that The 1619 Project is dishonest

Because this statement from your link is holocaust denial level of dishonest. 

 "the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."

Do you think deniers of the Holocaust should teach history to Israeli kids?  If they are willing to lie about so something so fundamental, and easily disprovable, why in the world should they be entrusted with deciding what kids learn?

some black make up and take a drive in most any town or walk through a white neighborhood in North Carolina or open carry on a street in Texas. Then come back and say that, if you're not dead

You exaggerate.  I know liberals are obsessed with racial appropriation, but no liberal has killed the governor of Virginia or PM Treadeu yet. 

Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.

This is , exactly, the offending passage .  No direct sources are cited , no names given, no explicit reference to founding documents,  it is clearly a personal opinion. 

And she uses the word "some" to further indicate it is a generalization. 

The right latched onto this one sentence as a way to dismiss the entire collection of essays, which encompass tens of thousands of words. 

it is clearly a personal opinion. 

Started with the phrase "The fact." Sure. 

nd she uses the word "some" to further indicate it is a generalization. 

There is no evidence to support the claim that it was a "primary reason" for any, let alone "some".  Do you think it's appropriate for history books to claim, for instance, that "the primary reason that some people voted for Joe Biden is because he promised to murder every first born white child"    You believe that making shit up under the guise  of "opinion" is an acceptable way to teach history to kids?

You are badly exaggerating bordering on hysteria. 

Do you think it's not a big deal if school districts teach the civil war based upon the premise that it had nothing to do with slavery?  

A couple weeks ago a Louisiana state legislator proposed that classrooms teach both the "good" and the "bad" aspects of slavery. 

Started with the phrase "The fact." Sure. 

You don't think that personal opinions can start with the phrase "the fact is" ? lol.  The fact is they can. 

think that personal opinions can start with the phrase "the fact is" ?

You think claiming this is an opinion somehow makes it acceptable? 

ouple weeks ago a Louisiana state legislator proposed that classrooms teach both the "good" and the "bad" aspects of slavery. 

Obviously, you don't have a problem with him  teaching history to kids. It's just an opinion.  

I could better respond to your comment if I could make sense out of it.

A couple weeks ago a Louisiana state legislator proposed that classrooms teach both the "good" and the "bad" aspects of slavery. 

The 1619 project literally makes  up claims (The US revolted from Britain to protect slavery for instance) to feed a narrative to kids. 

" In April 1775, Lord Dunmore (1732-1809), the royal governor of Virginia, threatened that he would proclaim liberty to the slaves and reduce Williamsburg to ashes if the colonists resorted to force against British authority . In November, he promised freedom to all slaves belonging to rebels who would join "His Majesty's Troops...for the more speedily reducing the Colony to a proper sense of their duty...." Some eight hundred slaves joined British forces, some wearing the emblem "Liberty to the Slaves." The British appeal to slave unrest outraged slave holders not only in the South but in New York's Hudson Valley. Later, Sir Henry Clinton (1738-1795) promised protection to all slaves who deserted from the rebels . Clinton's promise may well have contributed to the collapse of the British cause in the South. By suggesting that the Revolution was a war over slavery, he alienated many neutrals and even some loyalists ."

digitalhistory.uh .

None of the history taught in the 1619 project is "made up". While protecting slavery was not the primary motivation in the Revolution, it was a significant factor that played a role in getting some who were formerly British loyalists to side with the rebels and their support was pivotal in the ultimate outcome. It is fair to say that without leveraging British rhetoric against the colonies and their claim they would either use the slaves in their army or protect the slaves who sided with them, the South may not have joined in the Revolution and we might have lost the war and been British subjects till some future unknown date or even until today.

So was the reason the colonists revolted because they wanted to preserve slavery like the South in the civil war? No, but that was part of the reason that many in the South joined in the fight and led to our eventual victory over the British.

one of the history taught in the 1619 project is "made up"

Of course it is  "the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."

This is a lie.  Even with the new edited version with the "some of" language added. There's zero evidence that any of the people who declared independence were driven by a desire to protect slavery. 

Nothing you've written even addresses that. 

Per  Gordon Wood, the foremost expert on colonial America in the world (who, naturally , wasn't consulted for the 1619 propaganda project,   the global leaders in the anti-slavery movement in 1775 were what would become  the northern states. The first anti-slavery meeting in the world  took place in Philadelphia in 1775.  The British, of course, didn't even outlaw slavery for more than 50 years after the colonies declared independence.  Why, do you imagine, the 1619 project ignores that and makes up a claim that   protecting slavery   was a primary reason the Us declared independence?

Here's what actual historians say "It still strikes me as amazing why the NY Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support.” He adds that fellow historians have privately expressed their agreement. Mr. McPherson coolly describes the project’s “implicit position that there have never been any good white people, thereby ignoring white radicals and even liberals who have supported racial equality.”

The reality is the Revolution made a human equality a principle to be striven for, an idea without precedent in a time  where slavery had existed globally for thousands of years without much criticism from anyone.  That's the actual legacy of the revolution. 

Here's what actual historians say

What I linked were facts, you linked a single supposed historians opinion. Then you claim "fellow historians have privately expressed their agreement" and this one supposed historian claims the 1619 project has an “implicit position that there have never been any good white people, thereby ignoring white radicals and even liberals who have supported racial equality.” which is total bullshit. Of course there were whites fighting for equality pretty much since the first slaves were brought to the Americas. That doesn't in any way change the fact that most colonists of that day either were neutral on the position or supported and even fought to preserve what they saw as their right to own other humans as livestock.

"The reality is the Revolution made a human equality a principle to be striven for, an idea without precedent in a time"

While it's true, the founders, even the ones who owned slaves, wanted to ultimately see the abolition of slavery. As was recognized by the Vice President of the Confederacy in 1861 when he talked about the founders and said "Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this (slavery), as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away."

But that does not change the fact that the preservation of slavery was used as a tool to get Southern landowners and formerly British loyalists to side with the rebels and join in the revolution. This is an established fact regardless of what Gordon S. Wood whose book "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" was praised by Newt Gingrich and other right wing conservatives for its right wing slant that accentuated "American exceptionalism" and focused on what he called "the most radical and most powerful ideological force, the powerful sense of equality" and he said that was "despite all of its disturbing and unsettling consequences,  it is what makes us one people" as if the struggle for equality was done and we now were enjoying some sort of post-racism period. Obviously, the racial divisions today haven't been this far apart since the 1960's and conservatives refusal to accept that fact is the problem, not the teaching kids the truth about American history and how we got here.

hat I linked were facts

Your link has nothing to do with the lie. Do you not understand what you linked? 

a single supposed historians opinion.

And Shakespeare is a supposed playwright.  At least try and argue in good faith. Calling one of America's  most decorated historians a "supposed" historian is just pathetic. Maybe your ignorant friends will believe that, but any person who has actually studied colonial history will laugh in your face if you try something so dishonest in person.. 

e prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong

You just highlighted a passage that proves my point. Do you understand that? The founders wanted and assumed slavery would fade away, they didn't risk their lives by going to war to protect it. Just understand what you linked and you should realize how dishonest the 1619 lie is. 

not the teaching kids the truth 

You just proved that the 1619 project is lying to kids. 

You just proved that the 1619 project is lying to kids.

Sad that some have such trouble with reading comprehension. The 1619 project doesn't claim that all revolutionaries were fighting the British to protect slavery, that is a patently false conjecture. Obviously those making such a ridiculous claim haven't read what the 1619 project is claiming and must be complete dumb shits fooled by right wing rhetoric.

You claim that "the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery" is a lie, but provide nothing to disprove that premise. That is a fact supported by what I provided, which was the fact that British governors were in FACT threatening to free the slaves and use them to burn some southern cities to the ground. This caused some on the fence or even some Southern loyalists to back the rebels instead of the British they had formerly been supporting.

"You just highlighted a passage that proves my point."

What you claimed was nothing but a broken pencil, pointless. Your claim that the revolution supposedly had nothing to do with slavery is beyond bogus, it's a sack full of wet shit. My quotes and links show that while the founders did want slavery to eventually disappear, they used the threat of the British taking that step to inspire and recruit their southern colonists into fighting the British which enabled their victory. So yes, "one of the primary reasons some of the colonists" joined the revolution was because they believed they were fighting to preserve slavery which is all the 1619 project has claimed. Any fucking morons claiming anything different should have their heads examined.

1619 project doesn't claim that all revolutionaries were fighting the British to protect slavery, tha

What's really sad are dumb shits who can't argue honestly and have to constantly create strawmen to argue against.  The issue is, of course, whether slavery was a primary factor behind the colonists declaring independence.  Where's your evidence of that? And instead of providing any evidence to support your claim, like a really dumb shit, you provided evidence proving the opposite without apparently realizing what you were doing. 

 was the fact that British governors were in FACT threatening to free the slaves an

You can't even get this simple fact correct. It was one governor in one colony who offered freedom to the slaves of REBELS (those rebelling for other reasons).  Those who owned slaves and remained loyal to the crown could keep their slaves.   

Your claim that the revolution supposedly had nothing to do with slavery is beyond bogus, it's a sack full of wet shit.

The more dishonest your arguments, the more hysterical you get. You can't even understand simple things like Dunsmore's order and yet you denounce the subject's foremost experts like Grant Wood as "fucking morons" li  and claim they should have their heads ' examined. Do you know how dumb you sound to anyone remotely familiar with the study of American history? Lucky for you the pack you run with on this site are particularly ignorant of scholarship. 

It's like watching a struggling high school physics student attack Einstein for being ignorant.  It's the sort of asinine hubris that a journalist like Nikole Hannah-Jones Jones bizarrely demonstrated when that she claimed  doesn't consider James McPherson (look him up, I'm sure you have no idea who he is)  preeminent in his field so she  feels herself free to lecture him about the civil war. Progressives are too dumb to recognize how ignorant they are. Sad they don't respect scholarship, at all. 

Your idiocy has perfectly encapsulated the dangers of what happens when Jones her propagandists who are  driven by partisan and racialist objectives spread lies to a gullible, ignorant readership who don't know what real scholarship looks like.  They end up  believing lies and rejecting reality in favor of propaganda.  She's already taken advantage of a generation of historically ignorant progressives predisposed to believe her agitprop and has used them to ensure her lies are instilled in the next generation of kids. 

Read the words: "the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery." It does not say all or even many. 

This is nothing akin to holocaust denial and you know it.  

I suppose that you can prove that none of the founding fathers had it on their radar that the government of the time was considering banning slavery?

Actually, you can't, because it is impossible to prove a negative, without direct knowledge of what they were thinking. It can be inferred or even proven that they were, on the other hand, from correspondence and such. The author of the article in question is a historical scholar, so I think that she would not make the claim without some form of knowledge. 

The issue is, of course, whether slavery was a primary factor behind the colonists declaring independence.

Again, words. It was not claimed as the primary factor. It may have been a contributing factor. 

gain, words. It was not claimed as the primary factor.

She literally wrote "the fact that one of the primary reasons"

't, because it is impossible to prove a negative, without direct knowledge of what they were thinking. It can be inferred or even proven that they were, on the other hand, from correspondence and such.

Of course. Which is why the people claiming that it was a PRIMARY reason should be able to provide that sort of evidence.  They don't. 

r of the article in question is a historical scholar, so I think that she would not make the claim without some form of knowledge

She's a journalist. She's not a scholar.   I quoted the actual scholar. Wasn't that clear?  It's amazing to me that people blindly accept the authority of a far left journalist with a partisan axe to grind and ignore the actual experts in the field.  O

Maybe, just maybe, people will come to realize that putting a partisan journalist pushing a narrative in charge of our children's' historical education instead of actual experts is a bad idea.  I can dream of that, at least. 

Which is why the people claiming that it was a PRIMARY reason should be able to provide that sort of evidence.

"Sir Henry Clinton (1738-1795) promised protection to all slaves who deserted from the rebels . Clinton's promise may well have contributed to the collapse of the British cause in the South. By suggesting that the Revolution was a war over slavery, he alienated many neutrals and even some loyalists ."

"the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists"

So yes, the facts show that ONE of the primary reasons for SOME of the colonists to side with the rebels against the British was over slavery. How is this so fucking hard for some to understand?

"I quoted the actual scholar."

You quoted a scholar who was giving his general opinion on the 1619 project, not any actual facts. You quoted him as saying "It still strikes me as amazing why the NY Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support.” Just a general opinion that doesn't refute a single fact presented.

You then quote another opinion based on zero facts, stating that the 1619 project presents an “implicit position that there have never been any good white people, thereby ignoring white radicals and even liberals who have supported racial equality.” Total bullshit, there is no "implicit" message or position that there are never any good white people, that's pure fantasy conjecture by someone who thinks they're reading between the lines and giving their bullshit opinion.

By suggesting that the Revolution was a war over slavery, h

Your arguments are getting dumber by the second. Whatever unlinked source you got that from obviously never bothered to actually read the Phillipsburg declaration. In fact, I'd bet they never heard of it. If you'd  actually bothered to read it, you'd know how stupid it would be to claim it was a "war over slavery" when the Phillipsburg declaration promised that any blacks captured supporting the rebels would be sold at auction and the proceeds given to the captors.  

Doesn't get more pro-slavery than that!

How is this so fucking hard for some to understand?

How hard is it to understand fucking English? The claim wasn't that the Brits used the   taking of slaves from rebels as a punishment for rebelling. They did!  The claim is that the colonists rebelled because the English threatened the institution of slavery. Is the distinction to hard for you to understand?  IF you wanted to keep your slaves, all you had to do was support the Crown. In fact, the Brits were more than happy to return any slave who came to them who was owned by a loyalist. All the brits did was punish REBEL  slave holders by inciting their slaves to leave.  Get it? Slavery for loyalist slaveholders was fine. Rebellion was not. 

Nothing you've posted even hints that the Brits were threatening the INSTUIITON of slavery which is the ACTUAL claim made. In fact,  your cited acts prove the opposite. They upheld slavery by protecting loyalist slaveholders, returning runaway loyalist slaves and by actually ENSLAVING rebels.  No literate person can square these acts upholding and expanding slavery with the claim they threatened slavery's existence. 

Sadly, this is what happens when the uneducated get manipulated by those with an agenda. They know the uneducated won't think anything through, so if they put concepts adjacent to what's being agued, the gullible progressives will fall for it. Clinton's declaration, like Dunsmore's, isn't a threat to slavery. It's a threat to rebels. In fact, if protecting one's own slaves were the primary motivator of a slaveholder, all he had to do was support the Brits and his ownership was protected. As the record makes clear, the English didn't threaten the institution of slavery with these edicts, so it's impossible to claim they motivated people to rebel to protect slavery. 

You quoted a scholar who was giving his general opinion on the 1619 project, not any actual facts. 

I forgot this and didn't want to ignore it:

Let me quote from Wood and four other preeminent  historians on the specific topic then:

"On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false."

For most of his life Abraham Lincoln believed that Africans were socially inferior to whites. He did not believe slavery was acceptable, but neither did he believe that a black person could be his social equal.

From what historical text does this come? And why would his overcoming the pressures of the society he lived in to think counter to the "social norm" not be something important to mention?

In a speech on July 1, 1854 he said:

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to
enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet,
with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of
the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule,
you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have
the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right
to enslave you.

In the Seventh and Last Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
Alton, Illinois  October 15, 1858 he said:

And when this new principle [that African Americans were not covered by the phrase "all
men are created equal"] -- this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three
years ago, -- is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil
design; I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro -- to take away from
him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things
constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing
but property of the negro in all the States of the Union…. That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor
tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between
these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two
principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue
to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of
kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that
says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it
comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own
nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for
enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. 

April 4, 1864 - Letter to Albert Hodges:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” 

Lincoln in his final public address also called for African Americans having the right to vote, which indicates he was fully receptive to them being on equal political standing as white people.

You said:

Why is that? How did that happen? 

Well it's not the truth and it didn't happen. Lincoln was against slavery and against considering any people as inferior for the bulk of his life regardless of how the "society of the time" felt.  He did not believe what "they" believed and had the balls to do something about it.

This is the issue I have with many who wish to rewrite the facts and clear actions of the people in the past, black or white, who have made it their life's mission, or in fact given their lives, to strive for the equal treatment of all people as embodied in the words "all men are created equal".   If America was a racist nation early on, thank God for people like Abraham Lincoln and thousands of others before and after him who have striven to create a future where that is no longer the case. Today some people might be racist, but a racist nation that does not make thanks in large part to those like Abraham Lincoln.

From the Times:

Though we respect the work of the signatories, appreciate that they are motivated by scholarly concern and applaud the efforts they have made in their own writings to illuminate the nation’s past, we disagree with their claim that our project contains significant factual errors and is driven by ideology rather than historical understanding. While we welcome criticism, we don’t believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted.

The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is? In the case of the persistent racism and inequality that plague this country, the answer to that question led us inexorably into the past — and not just for this project. The project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer at the magazine, has consistently used history to inform her journalism, primarily in her work on educational segregation (work for which she has been recognized with numerous honors, including a MacArthur Fellowship).

Though we may not be historians, we take seriously the responsibility of accurately presenting history to readers of The New York Times. The letter writers express concern about a “closed process” and an opaque “panel of historians,” so I’d like to make clear the steps we took. We did not assemble a formal panel for this project. Instead, during the early stages of development, we consulted with numerous scholars of African-American history and related fields, in a group meeting at The Times as well as in a series of individual conversations. (Five of those who initially consulted with us — Mehrsa Baradaran of the University of California, Irvine; Matthew Desmond and Kevin M. Kruse, both of Princeton University; and Tiya Miles and Khalil G. Muhammad, both of Harvard University — went on to publish articles in the issue.) After those consultations, writers conducted their own research, reading widely, examining primary documents and artifacts and interviewing historians. Finally, during the fact-checking process, our researchers carefully reviewed all the articles in the issue with subject-area experts. This is no different from what we do on any article.

As the five letter writers well know, there are often debates, even among subject-area experts, about how to see the past. Historical understanding is not fixed; it is constantly being adjusted by new scholarship and new voices. Within the world of academic history, differing views exist, if not over what precisely happened, then about why it happened, who made it happen, how to interpret the motivations of historical actors and what it all means.

The passages cited in the letter, regarding the causes of the American Revolution and the attitudes toward black equality of Abraham Lincoln, are good examples of this. Both are found in the   lead essay by Hannah-Jones . We can hardly claim to have studied the Revolutionary period as long as some of the signatories, nor do we presume to tell them anything they don’t already know, but I think it would be useful for readers to hear why we believe that Hannah-Jones’s claim that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery” is grounded in the historical record.

The work of various historians, among them David Waldstreicher and Alfred W. and Ruth G. Blumrosen, supports the contention that uneasiness among slaveholders in the colonies about growing antislavery sentiment in Britain and increasing imperial regulation helped motivate the Revolution. One main episode that these and other historians refer to is the landmark 1772 decision of the British high court in Somerset v. Stewart. The case concerned a British customs agent named Charles Stewart who bought an enslaved man named Somerset and took him to England, where he briefly escaped. Stewart captured Somerset and planned to sell him and ship him to Jamaica, only for the chief justice, Lord Mansfield, to declare this unlawful, because chattel slavery was not supported by English common law.

It is true, as Professor Wilentz has noted elsewhere, that the Somerset decision did not legally threaten slavery in the colonies, but the ruling caused a sensation nonetheless. Numerous colonial newspapers covered it and warned of the tyranny it represented. Multiple historians have pointed out that in part because of the Somerset case, slavery joined other issues in helping to gradually drive apart the patriots and their colonial governments. The British often tried to undermine the patriots by mocking their hypocrisy in fighting for liberty while keeping Africans in bondage, and colonial officials repeatedly encouraged enslaved people to seek freedom by fleeing to British lines. For their part, large numbers of the enslaved came to see the struggle as one between freedom and continued subjugation. As Waldstreicher writes, “The black-British alliance decisively pushed planters in these [Southern] states toward independence.”

The culmination of this was the Dunmore Proclamation, issued in late 1775 by the colonial governor of Virginia, which offered freedom to any enslaved person who fled his plantation and joined the British Army. A member of South Carolina’s delegation to the Continental Congress wrote that this act did more to sever the ties between Britain and its colonies “than any other expedient which could possibly have been thought of.” The historian Jill Lepore writes in her recent book, “These Truths: A History of the United States,” “Not the taxes and the tea, not the shots at Lexington and Concord, not the siege of Boston; rather, it was this act, Dunmore’s offer of freedom to slaves, that tipped the scales in favor of American independence.” And yet how many contemporary Americans have ever even heard of it? Enslaved people at the time certainly knew about it. During the Revolution, thousands sought freedom by taking refuge with British forces.

he key word is "one" ...

No, it not.  It's false. It was  not "one" or "a" primary reason..  Y

"the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."

Why did you leave the word 'some' out of that quote Sean? That isn't truncation, it's editing to try and support your agenda. In short, it's a lie. 

  On September 18, 1858 at Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln   told the assembled audience :

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

Abraham Lincoln Never Believed in Racial Equality | History News Network

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality? (snopes.com)

I am a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, but he did not believe in racial equality, although he was moving in that direction by the end of his life. 

He did always oppose slavery though. 

That isn't truncation, it'

I  quoted the original claim. It's been subsequently  edited to "some"

The 1619 project is a propaganda tool and as “history” it has no redeeming value or truth as a body of work even if a couple of sentences here and there within it are true.  It takes some truth to make the big lie believable to some.. 

Pretending racism is at a bare minimum is also delusional  Especially the meteoric rise against Asian Americans after whatshisname called Co-Vid the Kung Flu and China virus

The correct term is "Wuhan Virus"....escaped from the virology lab there.

Fauci helped the lab acquire funding.

You're still spreading that bogus nonsense?

The correct term is Co-Vid

I meant to say meteoric rise in violence against Asian Americans . . . after whatshisname . . . . . 

I usually don't get too personal on here but I have to speak my piece. 

Does racism exist, yes it does.  Have I personally contributed to it, No.  

Do I have privilege because I'm white, No.

Everything I have I worked hard to get.  No one handed me shit.  Yes, my mom helped me out in hard times but no one handed me the job I have or any job I ever had.  

Was I ever on welfare, yes.  At the time I was working a minimum wage job and my husband was in college and I became pregnant and knew I could not make it on what wages we were making at the time.  We were on welfare for a year, once my husband graduated from college and got a job we went off it.

I never went to college, every job I have ever had I always moved up in due to MY hard work.  

The job I have now (when I started I was making $6.00 an hour), once again, I worked my way up and make damn good money and just celebrated my 25th year.  

My family came to America in the early 1900s.  Not here for the civil war.

I have nothing to apologize for to anyone regardless of their color for what I and my late husband achieved in life.

Weingarten said, “All of the sudden, you’re hearing people talk about Critical Race Theory; people who have no idea what that term means.”

Based on the content of the Texas legislation, they are among those who have no idea what the term means. Even worse, there are members here whose comments illustrate an equal ignorance of the meaning of the term. 

Based on the content of the Texas legislation, they are among those who have no idea what the term means.

I tend to agree with you given the language of the proposed legislation.

Even worse, there are members here whose comments illustrate an equal ignorance of the meaning of the term.

Perhaps.  Although, I'd be interested to hear your understanding of the meaning of the term "Critical Race Theory" so that we might discuss.

To me it boils down to interest convergence. 

Critical Race Theory and the 1619 project aren't necessary synonymous. That being said, I find it sad that all too many seem to think that CRT is a new to school curriculums. It's been taught for about 40 years. I can't help but wonder why states like Texas suddenly got a bee in their bonnet about it...