New York Times Magazine Declares War on America and History

F*ck The New Duranty Times and its revisionist history.

This country didn't even exist in 1619. At that time it was inhabited primarily by Native American tribes and a hodge-podge of European settlements. To claim the arrival of the first slaves marked "our true founding" is pure unadulterated bullshit.

 

You clearly haven't read the Articles of Secession for many of the states. In the same declaration saying they were leaving, they stated why. Here are a few: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

 

Funny how right wing extemists are foaming at the mouth enraged over a factual documentary.

 

I don't see that as the issue. Rather, it's reviewing history to learn how & why racism is still part of your & my life today, & what we can do to change it. It is true that millions of black people were victimized for their entire lives over generations in America (& other locations), but it is equally true that 164 years after the end of slavery in America, we are still being victimized by racist & supremacist views established in the 1600s, that need to be addressed & eliminated from our society & our personal lives. Anything we can do to advance that process is a positive step.

 

You are partly right. It certainly has to do with present day black communities, but it also has just as much to do with white communities & the impacts those communities have on the black ones. Yes, our communities are distinct & often separate, but they all constitute permanent portions of our American society, & cannot be regarded as something separate or independent unto themselves. How they live & what they do within each community has an overall impact on all of us. We are one, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. America as a society & a nation is the cumulative totality of all our ethnic & racial sections taken together. For far too long, white Americans have regarded America as what they make it. They are wrong. America is what ALL AMERICANS TOGETHER make it. The sooner we all recognize & accept that, the better for us all.

 

Yes, but their economy depended on slaves.

 

That we kind of agree but it's allot deeper regarding the economic makeup of both the north and south. But in the sense that the south was primarily agricultural while the north was primarily industrial. How taxes worked in this era was through tariffs which the South had the majority burden (nearly 80% of taxation) and the republican platform was status quo for this practice to continue. Remember, the Lincoln advocated to owner the prior compromises (MO compromise in respect) during his inauguration stating “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” .

A good read can be found below.

Tariffs and the American Civil War

 

Yes, that's true but then (as you pointed out) Lincoln won anyway without being on the ballot of 10 states in the south (doesn't seem quite fair) so the South obviously didn't believe him, or didn't care.

 

They were hoping the Wig party would have beaten Lincoln out. Once that didn't occur is the moment the confederation was born.

Again, slavery revolved around this topic, but the primary purposes for the secession revolved around the economic dichotomy of the north and south.

It's not the same, but the ideology is somewhat the same if you look at today's Catalonia and Spain. Catalonia is tired of subsidizing Spain by it supplying the primary revenue source for the country.

 

Your post sounds like a continuation of the historic national trend to blame blacks in an attempt to avoid white responsibility. It won't fly. Whites have always made the decisions, so the results we live with today must be credited to the whites in charge. I want to change that by actually living up to the creed of the Declaration of Independence, which states that "all men are created equal." I'd like to live by that creed, except expand it to say & mean, "all humans are created equal." Human rights should apply to everyone.

 

Most of the colonies hadn't even been established, in fact, Virginia was the ONLY US colony in 1619

These left wing America haters have a pathological view of the United States history as a chronicle of injustice, oppression, inequality, violence, and little else. This is preached in our schools and universities and dissenting from it gets you expelled accepted society as a "hater". They buy Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States (1980) hook line and sinker.

McClay has a more accurate depiction in Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story By Wilfred M. McClay.

He reviews the archaeological evidence for information on our aboriginal inhabitants. His accurately describes the colonies on the eve of revolution in a fair-minded manner.

Another good book is Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America. You may want to send a copy to The Fake News Times.

 

The Muslims ran the slave trade for centuries. The Islamic world began taking slaves from Africa shortly after Islam’s founding, in the seventh century, and slaves continued to be procured there until the second half of the twentieth century. It was still perfectly legal to buy another human being in Saudi Arabia until 1963.

The millions of Africans brought into the Islamic Middle East and North Africa since the seventh century left almost no genetic trace in the present-day populations of those regions as African males were invariably castrated. The adult males who did not suffer this fate were consigned to a life of perpetual backbreaking labour as galley slaves or miners, without the comfort of female company. The situation with female slaves however was very different: virtually all of these were employed as house-maids and concubines, and the great majority would at some stage have had children, or at least become pregnant. What happened to these children is one of the darkest secrets of Islamic history. No doubt that great numbers of them were killed by their fathers, since no other explanation is forthcoming. It is a curious fact that a topic as explosive as this has been very sparsely investigated by academics and journalists, though the following excerpt from the New York Daily Times of 1856 shows it to be a subject periodically noted by Western observers over the centuries.

“In Constantinople it is evident that there is a very large number of negresses living and having habitual intercourse with their Turkish masters – yet it is a rare thing to see amulatto [someone of mixed Negro-Caucasian race]. What becomes of the progeny of such intercourse? I have no hesitation in saying that it is got rid of by infanticide, and that there is hardly a family in Stanboul where infanticide is not practiced in such cases as a mere matter of course, and without the least remorse or dread.” (“Horrible Traffic in Circassian Women – Infanticide in Turkey” New York Daily Times, August 6, 1856, p. 6)​

But the Left seems to have some acceptance of infanticide. Between Wright-Piersanti and Sarah Jeong’s racism, no wonder the Times recently embarked on its “1619 Project” — it’s pure projectionism. As Andrew Sullivan wrote last year,

“I don’t think the New York Times should fire Jeong — in part because they largely share her views on race, gender, and oppression. Their entire hiring and editorial process is based on them.”​

 

CBS’s Gayle King Blames Slavery for No Universal Health Care.

 

Nah, they aren't reframing. It's an honest mistake. They don't know their history.

 

I think he means northern African moors.

 

It's just one more example of the "white man bad" leftist narrative, and we're sick and tired of it.

 

LOL - Another priceless pearl of "progressive" idiocy...

 

well, are they that dumb, or are they convinced that their audience is that dumb?

 

By revising history, it will be easier to pass desired legislation in the future.

It's an evil concept, but very logical.

 

You left out C) All of the Above.

 

It co-relates with their love of abortion.

FWIW to the NYT, Spain was established in what is now the US prior to 1619, Santa Fe, NM existed then.

The city's full name as founded remains La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís ("The Royal Town of the Holy Faith of Saint Francis of Assisi").

 

Yes, great point. Spain established slavery in the new world, and Muslim slavers supplied it, but, the NYT is focused on attacking America, because they imagine that it will harm Trump in 2020 election.

 

Technically, those settlers weren't even immigrants, they were simply moving from one part of British territory to another.

 

Lol...You people are just butt hurt that they aren't indoctrinating children with your reactionary claptrap any more. Stop trying to whitewash the history of the US.

 

How does something that happened in 1619 impact you today, other than feeding your hatred of America?