Media Criticism

1619 Project Author Nikole Hannah-Jones Now Says She Never Implied That Year Was America's True Founding

But she did. Repeatedly.

|

The 1619 Project is The New York Times' Pulitzer-winning effort to put racism and slavery at the center of the conversation about American history. The newspaper published a series of articles in August 2019—the 400th anniversary of slavery's introduction to the English colonies in the Americas—that reframed the year 1619 rather than 1776 as the true founding of America.

It's a provocative claim, and it came under serious criticism, along with other aspects of the project. But the project's lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is now asserting that she never made it and that anyone who believes otherwise was fooled by bad-faith right-wing critics.

"One thing in which the right has been tremendously successful is getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens," wrote Hannah-Jones in a subsequently deleted tweet. "The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776." She made a similar statement on CNN as well.

But as The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf exhaustively demonstrated in a series of tweets, this is simply not true. The 1619 Project was absolutely promoted—by the Times, and by Hannah-Jones herself—as an effort to recast 1619 as the year of the country's founding. On the newspaper's website, a special interactive version of the project was introduced in the following manner (emphasis mine):

The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the 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 our national narrative.

Both conservative critics and progressive fans of the 1619 Project described it this way, because that's how the Times itself described it.

The original description no longer appears at nytimes.com. At some point, it was edited to read:

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

This may be a more accurate description of the project, and it's certainly a less controversial claim. But it's plainly different from the original, which means this is an unacknowledged edit—a major transgression of basic norms of journalism (albeit one that happens in major newspapers with some frequency).

Theoretically, it could be the case that the Times characterized the project using language that clashed with Hannah-Jones' own vision. But Hannah-Jones repeatedly used the same phrasing:

For further clarification, here is Hannah-Jones' banner picture:

Writing for Quillette, Phillip Magness, a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and the author of The 1619 Project: A Critique, argues that this dispute has "come to symbolize the Times's blurring of historical analysis with editorial hyperbole." Magness's other criticisms of the 1619 Project have been much more consequential: He and other historians have pointed out significant flaws with the lead essay's thesis that the preservation of slavery was a major reason for the American Revolution—an idea the project's own fact-checkers disputed prior to publication—and he has also offered withering criticisms of an article's economic arguments about slavery.

All these arguments matter outside the world of journalism. The 1619 Project is being taught in U.S. schools, and President Donald Trump has waded into the debate in a characteristically clumsy fashion: declaring a federal initiative to "promote patriotic education" as a corrective. (As always, the best course here is to give families more control over kids' education options: Kids should neither be forced to read the 1619 Project nor forbidden from doing so.)

In any case, that the Times' major effort to reframe American history was itself reframed to suit the Times' purposes after mistakes were identified does not inspire tremendous confidence in the work—Pulitzer Prize notwithstanding.

NEXT: The Justice Department Sees 'Anarchy' Overtaking New York City. If Only That Were Remotely True.

Media Criticism Racism History

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

188 responses to “1619 Project Author Nikole Hannah-Jones Now Says She Never Implied That Year Was America's True Founding

  1. Can someone help me understand what the connection is between hair dye color and ultra-left wing politics?

    1. I love that this 1619 stupidity is already dead.

      1. To late its in the schools and any notion of changing school curriculum is deniest and racism.

        1. “To late its in the schools”

          The fuck it is, NCLB and Common Core were in schools too.

              1. Common Core is still there and some states still use parts of NCLB. These things don’t just go away.

                1. 2 things

                  1) the “too” there has significance, try to remember English class

                  2) NCLB was repealed in 2015.

                  “some states still use parts of NCLB.”

                  They may use programs that still meet NCLB criteria, coincidentally, but that’s “coincidentally”. You’re claim is like saying we still have prohibition because some people choose to teetotal.

                  1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…RGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                    Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

                2. NCLB was deprecated. No one uses any of it anywhere ever.

            1. Not every school uses shit curriculum.

              Especially private or charters.

              1. And NCLB was repealed in 2015

                1. But it’s still is some schools. Most states are still using Common Core.

                  1. “But it’s still is some schools. ”

                    Cite?

                    Because it isn’t. The leftover curriculum may be, which is nothing without the directives to teach, design and implement it, which are not.

                    1. So no cite then.

                    2. Massachusetts

                  2. But it’s still is some schools

                    Categorically incorrect. ESSA replaced NCLB and part of ESSA was that any remaining NCLB curriculum, guidelines, and programs were now part of ESSA, and NCLB was done away with. So even when discussing NCLB leftoveres, theu ard no lpnger NCLB, and they have changed reporting and documentation requirements that are different from NCLB. NCLB is gone.

      2. I love that this 1619 stupidity is already dead.

        Not quite. Now she’s a victim of right wing trolls misattributing her own words to her. So she has victim status, which makes her a saint.

        1. You remember when Elijah Muhammad’s stupidity was accepted for that reason?

          Yeah me neither. She amlnd her “blacks came to America first” crap are now tarred with the same racialist brush. It’s over.

        2. Maybe the Black Privilege has reached its limit. No more calling all white people racists without getting challenged. Now that would be real racial progress.

    2. Chemicals.

      1. Just a guess but perhaps the chemicals appropriated the hemoglobin from the blood feeding the brain in order to cause the hair color to change.

    3. Social signaling, like a peacocks tail or a mandrill’s ass.

    4. It might be similar to the prevalence of bottle blondes, fake figures, fake tans, fake families, and fake values in the Fox News-Republican-Federalist-conservative world.

      Human nature can be odd.

      1. No that’s to be more attractive, not less.

        1. He talks big shot, but we all know he would beg like a junkie looking for a fix if he ever met anyone here in person and thought he would get his ass kicked.

      2. Not to mention fake news about the russkis, asshole bigot.

    5. Appropriating Irish culture.

    6. Lack of a job that requires one be professional in appearance.

      1. We may have a winner here, but I’m still crunching the numbers.

      1. LOOK AT MEEEE!

    7. When I opened the article I was startled by what I thought was Pennywise the Clown.

      1. Pennywise was safer to have around your kids.

        1. Was thinking, not to be more of an asshole than I am, that that hair color does make one think of Crusty the Clown.

          1. Or even Frenchy from ‘Evil Clown Comics’ as published by National Lampoon magazine.

    8. In her case, she’s probably reflecting Antifa’s red and black colors of anarcho-communism. That’s been a recent trend in some of their circles.

    9. It seems to be an unwritten rule, hair dyed = progressive or ultrafeminist. I am not going to take one for the team, but I posit that there’s a close correlation to hair dye coloring/politics, grievance, outrage culture, misandry, and mental health issues. I further posit, much like the maxim, ‘Don’t stick your dick in crazy,’ there is likely a ‘Don’t stick your dick in dyed hair/Don’t invite dyed hair into your home’ rule. It may go further, using burner phone, having false or sterile business cards. Or, just buying a sex robot.

      1. There are people with dyed hair (using ‘dyed’ in this context to refer to ‘unnatural’ hair colors (blue/pink/green etc vs ‘colored hair’– people who have a ‘natural color’ but have done so artificially) who are perfectly normal, rational people. But whenever someone is screeching at you in an unhinged rant tinged with social-justice language, there’s a very good chance they’ll have dyed hair.

        1. Green hair

          How did your banishment change your views on Antifa?

          I still have the same views as them. I hate the government. I hate how our society is run. It’s not that I don’t have the same views as them. It’s just that I’m not as aggressive. I’m an anarcho-pacifist. I’m like a diplomat.

          1. It’s just that I’m not as aggressive. I’m an anarcho-pacifist.

            A pacifist who’s not as aggresive?

            1. Cut him some slack! He just got out of a cult after all.

        2. I wonder whether it has to do with a certain personality type that’s still trying to look young and rebellious at 50.

          1. LOL – it looks like someone busted a literal troop of clowns.

          2. Portland has its own special brand of white trash.

        3. Too bad the reason forums doesn’t allow us to post graphs. This could all be explained with a simple Venn Diagram.

          1. Here you go: .

            It’s really small, but accurate.

    10. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I Abq earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. More INformation Here

    11. Sure, you got to be a dumbass to believe one and do the other.

    12. Chemicals absorbed through the scalp?

    13. ” She’s appropriating our culture!! ”

      /Bozo and clowns everywhere

    14. i think every_one cant know about the post..READ MORE

  2. She has a Pulitzer. Probably more lies than Stephen Glass.

    1. You know who else has a Pulitzer? You know who else was nominated for a Pulitzer?

      1. Michael Jackson?

      2. She hasn’t been nominated for 2 Nobel Prizes, and has more likelihood of receiving them.

  3. She looks like one of those white people who fake being black.

    1. With the red hair dye, she looks like a white lady pretending to be a black lady pretending to be a white lady.

      1. She looks like Carrot Top with bronzer.

  4. So, 1619 isn’t really 1619, abolish the police isn’t really abolish the police, we need a vaccine to open up doesn’t really mean a vaccine will do it…anything else?

    1. It’s almost as if causing divisiveness is the goal… almost…

    2. Doublethink.
      The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

      (AKA lies)

      1. “anyone who believes otherwise was fooled by bad-faith right-wing critics.”

        [aka gaslighting]

        It’s enough to make me hope ACB is the chosen successor [to RBG]

      2. So many people have read 1984, but fail to see Orwellian concepts even when they are openly adopted and not even vaguely disguised. I fear for humanity.

        1. Honestly, not that many people have actually read it. They know the tropes enough to ape them in discourse, but it’s like a lot of other things that Orwell wrote after he got back from Spain. You have to really dig in to understand the disillusionment he had with international communism, and how it had come to reflect all the worst aspects of the systems it criticized.

        2. So many people have read 1984, but fail to see Orwellian concepts even when they are openly adopted and not even vaguely disguised.

          Most people are partisans who see this kind of thing clearly only when the Other Side does it.

          1. Like the left rushing out to buy 1984 when Trump got elected…

            1. Exactly.

              1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…RGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

            2. Was this a thing? Sad if so…

              Not only for the irony of their usual tactics, but honestly had they not read it by then? It’s required reading for most that I grew up with… in middle or high school…Their first encounter with it was when a “bad man” won the election and the media told them to get it?

              1. Both 1984 and Brave New World were sold out for months. There was also a run on The Handmaidens Tale but there was plenty of stock on those due to the show.

                The funny part was that Animal Farm was still widely available. So much for introspection.

    3. So, 1619 isn’t really 1619, abolish the police isn’t really abolish the police, we need a vaccine to open up doesn’t really mean a vaccine will do it…anything else?

      Not being racist is racist.

  5. “One thing in which the right has been tremendously successful is getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens,”

    Is there a Pulitzer prize for projecting?

    1. Gold metal for projecting! It kills me when liberals think the media isn’t nearly 100% supporting them; except Fox, WSJ and a handful of conservative sites that might collectively garner 5% of the entire media. So, they’re screaming about only controlling 95% of the media.

      1. You know who else controls the media?

        /Misek The Stormfag

        1. You know that guy has an authentic SS officer’s uniform tucked away somewhere.

          1. Those things are expensive, you really think he can afford one?

    2. Partly it has to do with relativity – i.e. how the world looks depends a great deal on where you’re looking at it from.

      I have some friends on the very far left to whom it seems that even CA is full of nothing but right wingers. People to the right of them, anyway.

      Those are the people for whom “the right has been tremendously successful in getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens,” because they think of Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi as “The Right.”

  6. Way to get distracted by facts, you racists!

  7. Wow, this is some major gaslighting.

    1. It’s not her fault. If someone rewarded you with unabashed praise and prestigious awards every time you publicly said or wrote anything that became increasingly detached from reality, you’d probably have a hard time distinguishing what reality was too.

  8. Somebody needs to fix the incinerator under the memory hole, comrades.

  9. You know, Robby, I am old enough to remember when most Americans cared about what a stale-thinking white male Republican thought about anything.

    That was before the culture war settled the course of American progress.

    1. You are a white male dumb ass. You are also unemployed and a burden on society and all those around you. But you make up for it by having a poor grasp on reality and being profoundly stupid.

    2. “most Americans cared about what a stale-thinking white male Republican thought about anything.”

      You’re a day old?

    3. Apparently, you care or you wouldn’t be here.

      1. That’s not caring. That’s just how his algorithm is coded.

        1. The algorithm used to give sentience to a jar of gall bladders of failed dictators?

    4. Really? I thought they are obsessed with a particular one for, oh, four years now.

    5. Well, as a stale-thinking, uneducated, obsolete white male clinger, you should know, Kirkland!

      1. Stale-thinking, poorly educated, useless clinger gets my vote. Trolls serve little purpose if they can’t troll

    6. Funny, but with the death of a stale-thinking white woman, everyone seems interested in what white male Republicans are thinking.

    7. There are trolls who show up here just to throw some pablum to see how much of a reaction they can get. That is about all this one does, as there is never so much as a hint of anything close to meaningful dialogue. Just bullshit intended to annoy.

      Tony, on the other hand, is a troll who is also a true believer, and who wants his Star Trek future now!

      1. Yeah. Tony is stupid but he at least tries. The Rev is just a member of the dirtbag left. He just emotes.

        1. yeah Tony is very fat

    8. Haha. Old, bitter hippie. You’re useless, old man.

  10. She looks like Bozo’s mom. Wonder if she wears size 20 shoes?

  11. First 1619 sells out and now BLM has removed it’s about page where it explains how it plans to destroy the nuclear family, end capitalism, and destroy all of Western civilization as we know it and replace it with something more “queer affirming” (no shit their language not mine).

    https://www.faithwire.com/2020/09/21/black-lives-matter-org-deletes-about-page-calling-for-disruption-of-nuclear-family/?utm_source=FWNL

    It is almost like these lunatics are embarrassed or something.

    1. They repented of their SJW ways after reading the Gospel…or the poll numbers.

    2. A website called ‘faithwire’ is beating Reason to the punch on this?

      1. Who doesn’t beat reason to the punch on stories that embarrass the left?

        1. Umm, Jacobin? I don’t think they beat Reason on stories to embarrass the Left. But they might be it.

    3. they still have it in their PDF file for download. Pretty funny.

    4. Nicole Hannah Jones is a damned liar. If you want the real dope on her, just ask Bari Weiss.

    5. It’s almost as if new polling data has come in.

    6. I have heard the internet group of black intellectuals calling BLM out for this stuff a lot, and I think they see the public recognizing them for what they are (and not liking it)

      I saw a panel the other day where they tear apart BLM (and the left’s overall attempts) wanting to destroy the nuclear family, discourage school choice, and discourage STEM/science…all things that whites have objectively used to extreme effect to continue to accumulate generational wealth. They are getting called out by actual educated black people for not really caring about blacks and just pushing basically political Marxism, and people are starting to see through.

      1. I’d love to see that panel. Got a link?

  12. Just for the record, the ship to Jamestown in 1619 contained NO slaves.
    There were 30 indentured servants, who were granted 50 acres after their contracts were worked out, and became capitalists.
    One of those (black) indentured servants became a (black) slave owner.

    (Minor detail irrelevant to winning a pulitzer for flat out lying)

    1. And ten bucks says this woman has white ancestors who owned slaves. There is no way she is all black. Hell, her black ancestors almost certainly owned slaves if you traced them all the way back to Africa and maybe before you got that far back.

      1. No doubt her African ancestors enslaved other Africans to trade for horses and guns.

        1. No, she’s descended from the tribes that were traded for horses and guns by the stronger tribes who conquered them.

          Chris Rock is actually descended from a tribe in Cameroon whose history is marked by other tribes chasing them into the nearby mountains and enslaving them.

          1. This is an important point.

            The descendants of African slaves are the descendants of conquered people.

            Things rarely go well for conquered people, and that’s been the truth since Europeans were backwards people living in small tribes and dressed in skins.

        1. That doesn’t really clarify the issue. Those people were nominally “indentured servants”, but they didn’t enter that status through indenture or legal punishment, but through abduction and force. There are many things wrong with the 1619 project, but I think it is legitimate to refer to this group as “slaves” or “enslaved”.

          1. They entered the status of indentured servant through mutual contract for a specific time. There is a legal distinction in the term; slaves have no rights at all and are property, indentured servants have contractual and personal rights, and are not property.
            But you keep your history.

            1. They entered the status of indentured servant through mutual contract for a specific time.

              Just because these people were listed on official records as “indentured servants” doesn’t mean that they entered that status voluntarily or that they weren’t treated as slaves.

              But you keep your history.

              I didn’t state a history; I asked a question, obviously a question to which you have no answer.

              1. Just because these people were listed on official records as “indentured servants” doesn’t mean that they entered that status voluntarily or that they weren’t treated as slaves.

                So where is the evidence that they didn’t enter that status voluntarily?

                1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…ESd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                  Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

                2. That’s the predominant view among historians. It may be right or wrong. So far, I haven’t seen evidence either way. Hence my question.

                  1. That’s the predominant view among historians.

                    Cite?

    2. There were 30 indentured servants

      Who were of various races. Even The New Jim Crow, which I was told to read by my HR department, points out that this wasn’t actually slavery, and in particular wasn’t actually race-based at all, and that race-based slavery didn’t come about until, IIRC, about 100 years later after a united black-white slave revolt resulted in the freeing of the white people in order to divide the rebelling faction into two opposed groups.

      1. about 100 years later after a united black-white slave revolt resulted in the freeing of the white people in order to divide the rebelling faction into two opposed groups.

        Gosh, where have I seen this tactic recently?

        Goes to show that, in one sense, Marx was right about the conflict between the classes; he just didn’t anticipate how readily his own side would later appropriate and exploit racial divides to deflect from those issues.

        1. Gosh, where have I seen this tactic recently?

          The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    3. I’m totally fine with a Pulitzer being awarded for lying. Joseph Pulitzer was a founder of yellow journalism. It’s our fault for attaching any value to this prize.

    4. And the country really started in 1789….

  13. But as The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf exhaustively demonstrated in a series of tweets, this is simply not true.

    How far to the left do you have to move to lose The Atlantic?

    1. Pretty far. And how obvious does your lying have to be in order for even someone as stupid Fridersdorf to be able to see through it?

    2. Friedersdorf is one of the last few Democrats who are trying to keep his side from going completely off the deep end into radical extremism.

      As you can tell, it’s not working.

    3. “How far to the left do you have to move to lose The Atlantic?”

      They don’t disagree, they just want her to shut up about it until after the election.

  14. 1619 Project Author Nikole Hannah-Jones Now Says She Never Implied That Year Was America’s True Founding

    It’s a provocative claim, and it came under serious criticism, along with other aspects of the project. But the project’s lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is now asserting that she never made it and that anyone who believes otherwise was fooled by bad-faith right-wing critics.

    Was the headline written by someone who didn’t read the article? I can understand that, none of us read the articles before commenting.

    But is the issue that she did imply but is now saying she didn’t imply?

    Or is the issue that she claimed and now claims she didn’t claim?

    Because those are not the same thing.

    1. Or is the issue that she claimed and now claims she didn’t claim?

      She claimed. In print.

    2. “But is the issue that she did imply but is now saying she didn’t imply?

      Or is the issue that she claimed and now claims she didn’t claim?”

      Who cares. The woman has red hair.

  15. “…anyone who believes otherwise was fooled by bad-faith right-wing critics.”

    AKA gaslighting

  16. But it’s plainly different from the original, which means this is an unacknowledged edit—a major transgression of basic norms of journalism (albeit one that happens in major newspapers with some frequency).

    The NYT isn’t even pretending to journalism these days in case you haven’t noticed. And I’m not being hyperbolic or sarcastic, I’m not joking. The NYT are not “journalists” in the old-fashioned sense of giving you the who, what, where, why, and when, they’re “journalists” in the new sense of “shapers of the narrative”. They’re no longer interested in giving you the facts, they’re giving you their opinion on the facts. And that opinion starts with which facts are important and which are not.

    There’s always been a bias in the news reporting, it’s inevitable that there would be a bias, but reporters were taught to be aware of their biases and to try to overcome that bias, now they’re taught to embrace the bias. But here’s the thing, they’re not taught to acknowledge the bias, they just sort of slide by it. It’s just assumed that the consumer is sophisticated enough to realize that of course everybody has a bias, you can’t help but see things from a certain perspective, that was the whole fucking point of “diversity” in the news room and the television studio. Everybody’s got a slant on the news so rather than deny it, we’re going to make sure you get a variety of slants.

    Yet look at the superficial diversity in the NYT – every goddamn one of them is a New Yorker with an elite education and an elitist New Yorker intellectual view of the world. Where’s Bubba from East Armpit, Arkansas and his opinion? How’s the mechanical engineer from Pittsburgh supposed to relate to these people? Do any of them relate to the single mother in Natchez working two minimum-wage jobs to support her kids? The hog farmer from Iowa? The factory worker from Kentucky? Well, no, we’re just supposed to know that of course the NYT has a certain bias and factor that into their coverage of the news. Even though they’re oh so careful not to mention the bias.

    1. Take out the reference to elite education and change “New Yorker” to “urbanite” and you could just as easily be talking about the Reason staff as you are the Times staff here.

      1. The main difference is the NYT pretends to be a news organization, while reason is plainly an opinion rag. Whether reason is really a libertarian opinion rag anymore is debatable.

    2. There’s always been a bias in the news reporting, it’s inevitable that there would be a bias, but reporters were taught to be aware of their biases and to try to overcome that bias, now they’re taught to embrace the bias.

      This is really just a pretension that they adopted after World War II had firmly established a consensus on civic nationalism. It’s a big reason why the Boomers and the Silent Generation voraciously devoured both print and television news and took what these people said as fact.

      The reality is that, for decades prior, news organs were openly partisan enterprises. They were often named for the very party they were pushing in their stories.

      Journalism is simply back at its roots as a naked propaganda organ, mostly for the Democrats now.

    3. “we’re going to make sure you get a variety of slants”

      Racist! And you violated the trademark of a mediocre band.

      1. Please tell me that band is called “Variety of Slants”, and not just “the slants”. That would be hilarious.

    4. These are people who believe reality has a liberal bias.
      They consider themselves objective.

  17. The thing that bugs me the most about Nikole Hannah-Jones is how much she looks like Rachel Dolezale. Is it just me? Can nobody else see the clown hair masking the fact that this woman doesn’t otherwise look very goddamn black? Has anybody seen a DNA test?

    1. She looks just like her. Would it surprise you if it came out tomorrow she is really white? It wouldn’t me at all. If nothing else, there is no way she is more than 50% black and that is being generous.

    2. DNA is now irrelevant; if it can no longer tell male from female, what good is it?

    3. She has slightly more melanin than Shaun King.

      1. Hey, now – Shaun King has it on good authority that he’s probably at least partially black.

  18. As always, the best course here is to give families more control over kids’ education options: Kids should neither be forced to read the 1619 Project nor forbidden from doing so.

    But the way you get to that point is to promote and push for a program that your opponents don’t want at all. You don’t get to the “middle” ground by proposing it. Proposing the “opposite” ground gives you a much better chance of getting to the “middle.”

    1. And since when is saying schools that get federal funds are forbade from teaching it forbidding anyone from reading it?

  19. Dat clown hair doe

    1. Is she wearing colored contacts to make her eyes darker? Hard to tell.

  20. Lying bitch lies eleventy thousand times and you are surprised she lies once more?

  21. That dumbass looks like a fucking clown. She could almost be as stupid as Kirkland.

  22. Pulitzers are a joke and so is that hair.

    1. You know who else was considered a joke until things became all too serious?

      1. Paul Ruebens?

        1. Ouch

      2. Tommy deSimone?

  23. it’s plainly different from the original, which means this is an unacknowledged edit—a major transgression of basic norms of journalism (albeit one that happens in major newspapers with some frequency).

    And reason wonders why so many people no longer trust journalists, and treat the whole enterprise as a sham. It’s such a mystery…

  24. As always, the best course here is to give families more control over kids’ education options: Kids should neither be forced to read the 1619 Project nor forbidden from doing so.

    Interesting word choice from Robby here. When we talk about creationism being taught in public schools, do we frame it as a “forbidden” topic? Or do we recognize it as bogus crap that has no place in a classroom that aims to educate, not indoctrinate? No one is arguing that the 1619 Project’s literature needs to be censored or made unobtainable. It’s crass editorializing, and like creationism, does not belong in a school that purports to educate truthfully.

    1. Interesting word choice from Robby here.

      Yeah – especially when the low-hanging fruit was “and kids shouldn’t be forced to consume the products of Trump’s “1776 Commission,” either.”

    2. When we talk about creationism being taught in public schools, do we frame it as a “forbidden” topic? Or do we recognize it as bogus crap that has no place in a classroom that aims to educate, not indoctrinate?

      To be more accurate, it isn’t that creationism is objectively “crap”, it’s that it’s adherents want it taught as part of science curricula even though it is clearly not a scientific theory. It is entirely a faith-based argument masquerading as science in spite of having none of the defining characteristics thereof.

      1. it is clearly not a scientific theory. It is entirely a faith-based argument masquerading as science

        A good point. The 1619 Project is a faith-based argument masquerading as history.

  25. You fucking idiot. There was a standard of objectivity at one time and that time is long gone. All journalism today is propaganda, no matter which part of the left-right spectrum you look at. Reason is one of the worst offenders, every article is edited for adherence to certain narrative and inconvenient facts are removed completely. The NYT is a joke but so is Reason.

  26. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here——????Click For Full Detail.

  27. Home based job to make every month more than $19k by doing very easy work on laptop or Mobile just in part time. Last month i have received $18643 from this job by giving this 2 hrs maximum a day online. Very easy work to do and earning from this are just crazy. Everybody can now makes more cash online by joining this job from the website given below excellent luck…… Read More

  28. What’s all this about 1619 superceding 1776?

    The decline and fall ball really got rolling in 545, when Rome was sacked by Geseric The Woke’s horde of Me Quoque activists.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/09/critical-climate-theory-makes-turn-from.html

    1. I thought the official sack and fall of Rome was 476 AD.

  29. Wow. The years have not been kind to Bozo, have they?

    -jcr

  30. How about starting the 1913 Project?
    Teach kids about the Year from Hell, when the income tax and the Federal Reserve were started.

    1. Wilson re-segregated the federal civil service that year also.

  31. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  32. Thank you for sharing such information with us. Coolastro is a great website for astrology content, we have writtern many content on angel numbers and dreams meaning. You can check out website for astrology content.
    Dream About Penis

    1. Uranus is in Saggitarius, so I guess this means you’re some kind of bot.

  33. These people are poison.

    It’s like the guy who linked autism to vaccines.

    By the time they apologize or retract the damage is down.

    Like that son of a bitch Neil Ferguson and his models that led to the lockdown also apologized. But too late. You already played your part by destroying countries.

  34. There’s a similar malaise in science journals with Big Pharma paying ghostwriters to push their products and agenda.

    We’re in a Dark Age.

  35. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you… .ReadMore.

  36. Now Says She Never Implied That Year Was America’s True Founding

    Well, to be fair…she didn’t imply it. She quite explicitly claimed it.

  37. As I understand it, the USA is a racist country because in 1619 a few slaves were brought to these shores to a place where the US did not exist. The slaves were former residents of the African continent who were enslaved by their own people and sold for transport to North America as was practiced in Africa for hundreds of years prior to 1619 but because the slave ships landed here Americans are the bad guys. I don’t think so. The root cause was the African practice of slavery. Africa is responsible for cleaning up the remnants.

  38. You can’t go home again, and you can’t take anything back….

  39. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……Click For Full Detail.

  40. Well it is interesting also visit samir adhikari

  41. Hannah-Jones believes that our true founding was when stores started to carry hair dye.

Comments are closed.