It was a big “No” on Sunday from President Donald Trump on the New York Times Magazine revisionist history 1619 project, even as supporters of the project said he would be censoring the truth about slavery. That threat is what those who support the revisionist history will say to anyone who challenges or questions it. The premise is that America did not begin in 1776 but in 1619 with the first slaves that arrived to the nation from Africa.
It’s one thing to teach about the horrific practice of slavery but the project is vehemently anti-American. It targets capitalism and everything that eventually led the nation to a path of freedom and equality for all despite its tainted beginnings, which no one should forget.
Trump made it clear that the Department of Education will pull any funding from schools that use this curriculum after Twitter users suggested that California would be adopting the curriculum for their school system.
“Department of Education is looking at this,” said Trump on Twitter. “If so, they will not be funded.”
I don’t think a lot of parents know what is actually going on here with the 1619 project and what it means. Here’s what the website states: “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.”
According to The Fredrick News Post:
That curriculum exists. The Pulitzer Center helped turn The New York Times’ The 1619 Project — which received worldwide attention when it was published last year — into a curriculum that’s now taught in more than 4,500 schools nationwide.
In conjunction with the new teachings, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research and educational institution, sent a survey conducted by Braun Research to 1,001 parents and 566 school board members across the country to measure their outlook toward the state of civics education and The 1619 Project as a whole.
This type of curriculum is what happens right underneath a parents nose and actually is what turns most young American students against the founding principals of the nation. It is a revisionist history that teaches that our nation is essentially bad and therefore not salvageable unless completely changed.
Just look at this essay in the group as an example:
In fact, it openly targets American capitalism. Calling the nation’s principals on economy and free market evil. The essay by Matthew Desmond is titled ‘In Order To Understand The Brutality Of American Capitalism, You Have To Start On The Plantation.’ And that’s just one of numerous essays in the project that target American principals and attempt to discredit the system of based on the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
However, it is this same New York Times project that leftist liberal professors and school districts have debated adopting as a permanent curriculum. In fact, as soon as anyone questions the historical context of the project, many times they are targeted by those who support it as racists.
The project by Nikole Hannah-Jones of The New York Times was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, “for a sweeping, provocative and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America’s story, prompting public conversation about the nation’s founding and evolution.”
But opponents aren’t criticizing the reality of slavery but the intentions of those to take a revisionist history that turns the truth regarding the founding of America in 1776 on its end.
For example, The Washington Times editorial states:
At the heart of Mrs. Hannah-Jones‘ project is the explicit claim that the true history of America did not start in 1776, but in 1619, the year when the first slaves arrived to the colonies. Instead of taking our bearings from the eternal truths enshrined in the Declaration (“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”), she argues that slavery is the lens through which all of America’s successes and failures, every single thing that defines us, good and bad, must be understood.
Mrs. Hannah-Jones applies her argument to Revolution, claiming that the colonists fought for independence on the grounds that an America untethered from Britain would allow the institution of slavery to flourish. This assertion is so wrong, so factually inaccurate, that leading historians (Mrs. Hannah-Jones is a journalist) of both conservative and liberal persuasions, systematically went through her research and found no evidence supporting her contention. (They did, however, find a trove of historical inaccuracies and distortions.)