New York Times Admits 1619 Error
The correction may not seem significant or complete, but pushback is working.
Reading a meaningful editorial correction from The New York Times seems a bit like seeing Halley’s Comet; it happens once in a lifetime. Yet, last week, the stalwart Leftmedia rag stepped up and admitted it may have gone too far regarding the premise of its controversial 1619 Project.
You may recall our earlier reporting on this destructive rewriting of American history. The 1619 Project was an attempt to recast the American Revolution and the founding of our nation as based on the desire to protect and perpetuate the institution of slavery. It was written mostly by leftist journalists, with a few (anti-)American historians sprinkled in for good measure.
After it was released in August 2019 to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the first arrival of slaves in the New World, the 1619 Project was torn apart by legitimate historians for its complete lack of factual reporting and its blatantly agenda-driven view of American history. But respected scholars like Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists James McPherson and Gordon Wood, who were not even consulted on this project, didn’t make a dent with the “righteous” New York Times.
In true leftist fashion, the Times doubled down, insisting that this was a new attempt at historical understanding — that history was not fixed. Comrade Lenin would be proud.
The major issue of concern was that the 1619 Project had bigger plans that included pushing this dreck into our public schools to indoctrinate our children into believing that America was founded on, and still believes in, slavery. Thousands of schools across the country have accepted the 1619 Project as real history, teaching an entire generation of Americans that their country is racist.
The good news is that the continued pushback against the 1619 Project has made an impact, however small. The New York Times issued a correction of the leading article of this farce, written by Nikole Hannah-Jones. Her screed assumed that “all” of the American colonists were drawn to the revolution to protect slavery. The Times now says that only “some” of the colonists were motivated by it.
Not exactly a mea culpa or a complete retraction, but that will never happen. The Times has too much invested in this multimedia project to give up now. But this is an incremental fight. And the truth has just recorded a victory.
This correction demonstrates that the revisionists know their work is complete manure meant to feed an agenda that denigrates the United States. If they admit the premise of their so-called project is not genuine, then what else within that project can still be trusted to be true?