Conservatives are livid the New York Times is writing articles about slavery
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
August 20, 2019 marks the 400-year anniversary of the first slaves ever brought to America.
To commemorate this ignominious American milestone, the New York Times published The 1619 Project .
In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.
The #1619Project published online today and it is my profound hope that we will reframe for our readers the way we understand our nation, the legacy of slavery, and most importantly, the unparalleled role black people have played in this democracy. https://t.co/yXKwnJhAf5
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) August 14, 2019
In other words, the project aims to put the Black experience on par with the white one in the telling of America’s story.
The project features essays from prominent African-American writers and thinkers like Jamelle Bouie, Wesley Morris, and Bryan Stevenson, among others. Although it formally launched this weekend, more essays and articles will be published in the coming days.
And wouldn’t you be surprised if a package of essays that posits this idea caused a freak-out from the predominantly white people in power in the Republican party?
You wouldn’t be surprised. Many conservatives are upset that the New York Times isn’t keeping the story of Black Americans secondary.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) thinks that by telling a part of history that has never been properly told, the New York Times is not doing news.
What is the 1619 project? In the Times’ words: “It aims to REFRAME OUR COUNTRY’S HISTORY, understanding 1619 as OUR TRUE FOUNDING, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the STORY WE TELL ourselves about who we are” (emphasis Cruz’s).
The idea upset Cruz enough to go on a Twitter bender.
If you care about journalism, or the First Amendt, READ the transcript. The Editor says (in effect) “for 2 yrs, we covered ‘Russia, Russia, Russia,’ facts be damned; now we’ll scream ‘racism, racism, racism’ for 18 mos, and the rest of the media follow us.” That’s not journalism. https://t.co/TPkpB0DjNj
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 18, 2019
E.g., NYT: ““One reason we all signed off on The 1619 Project [explained below] and made it so ambitious and expansive was TO TEACH OUR READERS TO THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE THAT.” Does that sound like news? Or editorial? (Remember, this was the “News” Editor.) 3/x https://t.co/xpXXOhaDLR
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 19, 2019
What is the 1619 project? In NYT’s words: “It aims to REFRAME OUR COUNTRY’S HISTORY, understanding 1619 as OUR TRUE FOUNDING, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the STORY WE TELL ourselves about who we are.” 4/x https://t.co/iTLNZcafyN
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 19, 2019
It’s telling that when you say America has never truly come to terms with the sin of slavery, some people freak out.
The Editor continued: “Race in the next year…is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship w/ Donald Trump, but Latinos & immigration.” So, he’s explicit that this is the political narrative. 5/x https://t.co/NvAAKRKBE7
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 19, 2019
Cruz also highlighted a meeting over a Times headlin e that was changed after people said it was too generous to Trump’s history of racism, ignoring the fact that a project about the 400-year anniversary of slavery by the Times probably wasn’t thrown together in the past three days to respond to some blowback from readers.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, was also quite bothered.
“The NY Times 1619 Project should make its slogan ‘All the Propaganda we want to brainwash you with,'” he wrote. “It is a repudiation of the original NY Times motto.”
Mara Gay ( @MaraGay ) Tweeted:
In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.”
This is simply a LIE.Pravda was never more dishonest than this effort to write a “left history”
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 18, 2019
The NY Times 1619 Project should make its slogan “All the Propaganda we want to brainwash you with”.it is a repudiation of the original NY Times motto.
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 18, 2019
The 1619 Project is saying that slavery has a lengthy legacy (perhaps best evinced by the whiteness of leaders in Congress and the Oval Office over time—like, hey, Newt Gingrich) and that it deserves to be covered in that way instead of willfully ignored, as it is by a great deal of Americans.
Gingrich was so thoroughly trounced after his take that he had to put out a statement clarifying that he thinks slavery is bad.
The left doesn’t get it. Slavery was AND IS terrible (there are slaves today who need liberating). A 1619 history of slavery project is great. Insisting that slavery is THE defining reality of America is simply factually wrong.
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) August 19, 2019
Gingrich tweeted the project is “great” but that framing slavery as “the defining reality of America” is wrong. He then went on Fox and Friends to say that because white people weren’t enslaved, slavery wasn’t their defining experience.
Fox’s Newt Gingrich calls The New York Times’ #1619Project “a lie” and complains that the “several hundred thousand white Americans who died in the Civil War” don’t get enough credit. Gingrich also suggests that the #1619Project is ultimately about impeaching Trump. pic.twitter.com/W489EABIsX
— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) August 19, 2019
Of course, that’s largely the point of the project. Even if you didn’t own slaves or you think slavery is wrong, if you believe you didn’t in any way benefit from slavery—guess what? You did.
Conservative columnist Byron York, meanwhile, asked if the Times could be considered a news outlet after it published a feature on African-Americans and accused it of “creating curriculum.”
Question raised by leaked New York Times transcript, plus rollout of 1619 project: Should the public still view the Times as a news outlet? Or as something else? https://t.co/28AbrrPgnt
— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 17, 2019
New York Times 'reframe American history' project hugely ambitious. You thought founding was Declaration, Constitution? No. NYT says 'true founding' was 1619, when first slaves arrived. Creating curriculum for schools. https://t.co/nINfjRhnV6
— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 18, 2019
“Creating curriculum” could also be known as teaching people the truth, which is then told to others. Alas, what a terrible thing for a newspaper to do.
Even while enraged, some conservatives came so close to understanding the project.
“If the land in which the United States was founded has been tainted by racism since the 1600s and everything derived therefrom is therefore tainted, then the US is illegitimate, the constitution is illegitimate, and revolution is the answer,” Erick Erickson wrote.
Yes, some might say.
If the land in which the United States was founded has been tainted by racism since the 1600s and everything derived therefrom is therefore tainted, then the US is illegitimate, the constitution is illegitimate, and revolution is the answer —
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 18, 2019
Once you declare the United States a racist enterprise, you light a fire that will eventually consume you too.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 18, 2019
Maybe if this upsets you, and you aren’t African-American, then you need to ask why.
Tags
Who is online
113 visitors
They had a world's fair to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus "discovering" America. We can't have a series of newspaper articles to remember the 400th anniversary of slavery in America?
Traitors are supposed to get more credit? Because I'm betting that it's the Confederate dead that Gingrich is thinking about.
From a historical standpoint, yes it should be told, but I get a feeling there is more to this than just history. I get the feeling that it is also a case of attempting to make whites feel as guilty as possible for something their ancestors did that many had nothing to do with. I have a multi ethnic ancestry and cannot say whether any of my ancestors owned any, but either way, although I abhor slavery as a institution, there is no way I will accept any responsibility or blame for anything my distant ancestors may or may not have done.
Well, it is a telling of history from a particular point of view. And from the excerpts provided in the seed, that history from a particular point of view isn't being told completely.
African slavery did not begin on the shores of the North American continent; African slavery began in Africa. The first slaves that arrived in Virginia in August, 1619, were slaves before they ever saw the coast of North America. Landing in Virginia did not make these people slaves.
Those who sold slaves are more responsible for the history slavery than those who bought slaves. The traders were supplying slaves to make a profit. And the slave trade begins in Africa.
So, the particular point of view for telling the history of Africa slavery in North America isn't an African point of view; what is being presented is a white version of history. African history isn't significant until white people began buying African slaves.
The history of African slavery in North America is a story of free trade. It is a story of merchant middlemen exploiting poor countries to obtain supply and then exploiting richer consumers to obtain profit. The history of African slavery is also part of the history of Islam. The history of African slavery is the history of Africa as much as the history of North America. The roots of slavery are in black history as well as white history.
But apparently the full history of African slavery isn't important from a particular point of view. Apparently that particular point of view is to ignore African history and tell the history from a white perspective.
What a pile of nonsense.
In America, our interest in slavery (and most other things) mainly pertains to what happened in America. What does the fact that there were also slaves in Africa have to do with the price of cotton in Mississippi?
What happened in America is white European history. Any telling of the story of slavery in America will be based upon the white European perspective.
While it is certainly possible to blame white Europeans for slavery in America, don't forget that white Europeans ended slavery in America, too. Sadly the entire African history is lost in telling the story from a white European perspective. African-Americans don't have any history that is uniquely their own; African-American history is white European history.
Funny how it is conveniently forgotten and/or ignored that not all slaves in North America came from Africa. There was a fair percentage of whites that were also brought here from Europe as slaves.
You're clearly confusing indentured servitude (in which people were not property, and it was generally voluntary) with slavery.
Please Google the definition of debt bondage, which is a form of indentured servitude. It is classed as a form of slavery
The whites who were brought from Europe are who you mentioned above. They were indentured servants and had a fixed term of years to work off their debt; generally four to seven. And they had some rights. Actually, the first blacks here were treated as indentured servants with the same right to eventual freedom, but shortly after, the slave laws were passed and they lost the few rights they had.
Under debt bondage, the terms aren't clear, the person often ends up with terms which means they're never free, and the bondage can be passed down through the generations. I would agree that is a type of slavery. But it's not what happened to the whites who came here from Europe.
I think there are probably a good number of Irish folks whose ancestors came over here by way of indentured servitude and debt bondage in the 17th and 18th centuries that would dispute that.