The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country.
Six -- So what's incorrect about the above statement? I think anyone who has taken fourth grade American history knows that's true.
Yet, as the headline blares, the "New York Times Magazine Declares War on America and History"!!!
Ignorant. Lame. Dumb. Fake.
So nothing America has done to come closer to the ideas expressed in the constitution and declaration have any merit.
100,000s dead in the civil war, A trillion dollar welfare state. Electing a black as president. Blacks as CEOs, Supreme Court Judges, Board members prominent politicians. NOTHING redeems us.
Our founding fathers were all despicable racists.Writing and adopting the Bill of Rights was ignoble and meaningless.
we're all just deplorable frauds. And that's the message your going to ride into the election.
I'm puzzled as to the gross exaggerations necessary to your argument, 6ft.
Are the actual ideas on the right now so bankrupt that it's necessary to exaggerate everything the opponents think?
You posted a ridiculous screed from Red State, then doubled down with all this nonsense as if any of us on here, much less ggait, actually holds such extreme views.
Problem is, we don't.
So you're tilting at wind mills that don't exist, except without any of Cervantes' ennobling moral spirit.
So the NY Times isn't the paper of record of the left. Isn't the first response to my posting a defense of the Times racist screed. And yours the second response exactly the same.
I didn't call anything you said 'racist'.
Again, you are tilting at your own wind mills, not any I've constructed.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:05 pm
So you didn't answer the question.
What exactly is incorrect about the NY Times thesis?
Answer -- nothing.
How exactly is telling the truth "declaring war on history"?
SMH
The Times is trying to REFRAME the founding of the country. Not just discuss History. They want to destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity.
Ok, I'll bite.
Why is an honest recognition of the tension between the aspirational ideals and the reality of our Founders' necessarily leading to "destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity."
Huh?
How is that the necessary conclusion?
No, the aspirational ideals were a hugely important step forward in mankind's development of civilization, imperfectly achieved as they were and are still today. Definitely "GOOD for humanity".
The Founders also designed a form of government with all sorts of self-correcting, self-improving systems in place to help actualize those aspirational ideals over time. It was an enormous experiment, one which they knew was undoubtedly imperfect, so they provided for mechanisms to evolve further.
Acknowledging these realities is essential for us to actually further move toward the achievement of those aspirational ideals, and not to revert into a self congratulatory mode that denies truth in the name of maintaining power. That would have been the opposite of the Founders' intent.
Jesus. The premise starts by moving the founding of the country from 1776 and the founding fathers to 1619. Yeh its a benevolent move by the Times.
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:26 pm
by foreverlax
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
2h2 hours ago
More
Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought! @JudicialWatch
Wow is right.
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 pm
by ggait
Six -- so please tell us what 2020 election ax are the lefties at the NY Times grinding by providing recent coverage about the moon landings and D-Day?
Providing coverage of historical events in connection with significant anniversaries is just such a clever cover for their electioneering bias!!
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:05 pm
So you didn't answer the question.
What exactly is incorrect about the NY Times thesis?
Answer -- nothing.
How exactly is telling the truth "declaring war on history"?
SMH
The Times is trying to REFRAME the founding of the country. Not just discuss History. They want to destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity.
Ok, I'll bite.
Why is an honest recognition of the tension between the aspirational ideals and the reality of our Founders' necessarily leading to "destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity."
Huh?
How is that the necessary conclusion?
No, the aspirational ideals were a hugely important step forward in mankind's development of civilization, imperfectly achieved as they were and are still today. Definitely "GOOD for humanity".
The Founders also designed a form of government with all sorts of self-correcting, self-improving systems in place to help actualize those aspirational ideals over time. It was an enormous experiment, one which they knew was undoubtedly imperfect, so they provided for mechanisms to evolve further.
Acknowledging these realities is essential for us to actually further move toward the achievement of those aspirational ideals, and not to revert into a self congratulatory mode that denies truth in the name of maintaining power. That would have been the opposite of the Founders' intent.
Jesus. The premise starts by moving the founding of the country from 1776 and the founding fathers to 1619. Yeh its a benevolent move by the Times.
Now that their fabricated coverage of the Russia collusion hoax has turned into an embarrassment, the NYT is desperate for a new hoax to keep their readers energized. What better than race. They can hang it on Trump & use it to discredit the concept of American Exceptionalism that under pins Trump's MAGA & America First campaigns. It assuages their readership's PC white guilt, inculcated by the liberal academia most of their readers were brainwashed by in college. The Grey Lady now has White Guilt -- it's their new business model. They announced it in their employees-only town hall meeting. As I posted in the Fourth Estate thread :
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:11 am
Whaddaya know. After focusing all their reporting resources on the Trump-Russia-collusion story, it fizzled.
So now the Grey Lady is changing course to focus on Trump's racism. How original.
Can't wait for an exciting self-licking season #2.
Burned by a leak from their own employees-only town hall meeting.
2 Pulitzers for perpetuating a hoax. ..
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:40 pm
by 6ftstick
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 pm
Six -- so please tell us what 2020 election ax are the lefties at the NY Times grinding by providing recent coverage about the moon landings and D-Day?
Providing coverage of historical events in connection with significant anniversaries is just such a clever cover for their elctioneering bias!!
SMH
Their EXPRESSED INTENT is to REFRAME the founding of the country. How hard is it to understand their own words. This was developed at an editorial meeting of the NYTimes. How does the Moon Landing or D-Day fit the lefts agenda that Trump and his supporters are racists? They don't. Changing the founding of the country to 1619 certainly does.
From a times editor "nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery."
prominent democrats running for President have already picked up the 1619 rhetoric. Purely coincidental I"ll bet.
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:41 pm
by runrussellrun
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 pm
Six -- so please tell us what 2020 election ax are the lefties at the NY Times grinding by providing recent coverage about the moon landings and D-Day?
Providing coverage of historical events in connection with significant anniversaries is just such a clever cover for their electioneering bias!!
SMH
Remember....I hate the fact that YO*U (collective) brought us the clown in the white house..........and the collective YOU have done nothing but to re-elect him so far..........but, just to be clear, not ONE mention of tRump in any of these "historic' events? Be sure.....with your answer councilor.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 pm
Six -- so please tell us what 2020 election ax are the lefties at the NY Times grinding by providing recent coverage about the moon landings and D-Day?
Providing coverage of historical events in connection with significant anniversaries is just such a clever cover for their elctioneering bias!!
SMH
Their EXPRESSED INTENT is to REFRAME the founding of the country. How hard is it to understand their own words. This was developed at an editorial meeting of the NYTimes. How does the Moon Landing or D-Day fit the lefts agenda that Trump and his supporters are racists? They don't. Changing the founding of the country to 1619 certainly does.
From a times editor "nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery."
prominent democrats running for President have already picked up the 1619 rhetoric. Purely coincidental I"ll bet.
The history of this country did not start in 1776. That was the founding. There is very little history taught other than 1492, Jamestown and the American Revolution. Really that is pretty much all that is taught in schools....really more history from 1606 to 1776 would be good for everyone.
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:40 pm
by HooDat
Not sure what school you went to TLD, but this public school boy spent what at times felt like an excruciating amount of time on colonial and per-revolutionary war history.
The part we super-skimmed was between the LA Purchase and the civil war.
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:55 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Not sure what school you went to TLD, but this public school boy spent what at times felt like an excruciating amount of time on colonial and per-revolutionary war history.
The part we super-skimmed was between the LA Purchase and the civil war.
I am the product of a terrible school system. But really most American History is 1492, Jamestown and then a lead up to Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, American revolution and then off to the races. I didn’t say the lead up to 1776 wasn’t covered at all. A lot of what happened in between is left out. A lot of good history. Not an airing of grievances type of history...
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:01 pm
by ggait
How hard is it to understand their own words.
Come on Six. I'm calling BS on you.
We both know you've been commenting on what the NY Times is doing without actually reading anything that they've actually posted on the 1619 project website.
You're just letting the Red State website chew your food for you and give you uniformed talking points to amplify. Why don't you read it yourself and then give us some informed reactions?
I looked the site up -- has some interesting sounding essays. But have not had the time to read them yet. One, for example, talks about how the present day wealth gap among AAs stems from the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Since I'm a sucker for quantitative analysis, I'm going to go back and see what it says.
If you'd be willing to do the same, then maybe we could have an online discussion about it?
Let me know.
P.S. The reason I brought up the moon landing (50 years ago) and D-Day (75 years ago) is that news organizations tend to cover historical events on their major anniversaries. You think the NY Times is covering the events of 1619 (400 years ago fyi) is just because of Trump and the 2020 election? Talk about derangement syndrome!
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:05 pm
So you didn't answer the question.
What exactly is incorrect about the NY Times thesis?
Answer -- nothing.
How exactly is telling the truth "declaring war on history"?
SMH
The Times is trying to REFRAME the founding of the country. Not just discuss History. They want to destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity.
Ok, I'll bite.
Why is an honest recognition of the tension between the aspirational ideals and the reality of our Founders' necessarily leading to "destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity."
Huh?
How is that the necessary conclusion?
No, the aspirational ideals were a hugely important step forward in mankind's development of civilization, imperfectly achieved as they were and are still today. Definitely "GOOD for humanity".
The Founders also designed a form of government with all sorts of self-correcting, self-improving systems in place to help actualize those aspirational ideals over time. It was an enormous experiment, one which they knew was undoubtedly imperfect, so they provided for mechanisms to evolve further.
Acknowledging these realities is essential for us to actually further move toward the achievement of those aspirational ideals, and not to revert into a self congratulatory mode that denies truth in the name of maintaining power. That would have been the opposite of the Founders' intent.
Jesus. The premise starts by moving the founding of the country from 1776 and the founding fathers to 1619. Yeh its a benevolent move by the Times.
Now that their fabricated coverage of the Russia collusion hoax has turned into an embarrassment, the NYT is desperate for a new hoax to keep their readers energized. What better than race. They can hang it on Trump & use it to discredit the concept of American Exceptionalism that under pins Trump's MAGA & America First campaigns. It assuages their readership's PC white guilt, inculcated by the liberal academia most of their readers were brainwashed by in college. The Grey Lady now has White Guilt -- it's their new business model. They announced it in their employees-only town hall meeting. As I posted in the Fourth Estate thread :
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:11 am
Whaddaya know. After focusing all their reporting resources on the Trump-Russia-collusion story, it fizzled.
So now the Grey Lady is changing course to focus on Trump's racism. How original.
Can't wait for an exciting self-licking season #2.
Burned by a leak from their own employees-only town hall meeting.
2 Pulitzers for perpetuating a hoax. ..
Yikes.
But you're not a Trumpist, didn't vote for the guy, but own a MAGA hat and post garbage like the above.
Right.
HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Not sure what school you went to TLD, but this public school boy spent what at times felt like an excruciating amount of time on colonial and per-revolutionary war history.
The part we super-skimmed was between the LA Purchase and the civil war.
I am the product of a terrible school system. But really most American History is 1492, Jamestown and then a lead up to Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, American revolution and then off to the races. I didn’t say the lead up to 1776 wasn’t covered at all. A lot of what happened in between is left out. A lot of good history. Not an airing of grievances type of history...
I'm an old guy, but I took a look at some of my old textbooks from elementary and middle school (yes, my parents saved that stuff!) and nope, scarcely a word on slavery until moving into the latter part of the first half of the 1800's.
Plenty on the Pilgrims, etc, (and yes I recall that as pretty darn tedious...though understanding that many who first came here were fleeing religious persecution in their home country did stick) but mum about slavery.
And my schooling was first rate.
Fortunately, by the latter part of middle school and into high school, we were getting exposed by excellent teachers to the full play of of history, not just the sanitized portions that fed the mythology of 'American Exceptionalism' without recognizing the mistakes made along the way.
I was lucky, but lots in my generation didn't get that exposure at all.
HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Not sure what school you went to TLD, but this public school boy spent what at times felt like an excruciating amount of time on colonial and per-revolutionary war history.
The part we super-skimmed was between the LA Purchase and the civil war.
I am the product of a terrible school system. But really most American History is 1492, Jamestown and then a lead up to Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, American revolution and then off to the races. I didn’t say the lead up to 1776 wasn’t covered at all. A lot of what happened in between is left out. A lot of good history. Not an airing of grievances type of history...
I'm an old guy, but I took a look at some of my old textbooks from elementary and middle school (yes, my parents saved that stuff!) and nope, scarcely a word on slavery until moving into the latter part of the first half of the 1800's.
Plenty on the Pilgrims, etc, (and yes I recall that as pretty darn tedious...though understanding that many who first came here were fleeing religious persecution in their home country did stick) but mum about slavery.
And my schooling was first rate.
Fortunately, by the latter part of middle school and into high school, we were getting exposed by excellent teachers to the full play of of history, not just the sanitized portions that fed the mythology of 'American Exceptionalism' without recognizing the mistakes made along the way.
I was lucky, but lots in my generation didn't get that exposure at all.
Let's see about that first rate schooling.
Why was Ben Franklin pissed at John Hancock ? Making him, Hancock, reimburse the EastIndia Co. for some "fake news" historic event.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:05 pm
So you didn't answer the question.
What exactly is incorrect about the NY Times thesis?
Answer -- nothing.
How exactly is telling the truth "declaring war on history"?
SMH
The Times is trying to REFRAME the founding of the country. Not just discuss History. They want to destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity.
Ok, I'll bite.
Why is an honest recognition of the tension between the aspirational ideals and the reality of our Founders' necessarily leading to "destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity."
Huh?
How is that the necessary conclusion?
No, the aspirational ideals were a hugely important step forward in mankind's development of civilization, imperfectly achieved as they were and are still today. Definitely "GOOD for humanity".
The Founders also designed a form of government with all sorts of self-correcting, self-improving systems in place to help actualize those aspirational ideals over time. It was an enormous experiment, one which they knew was undoubtedly imperfect, so they provided for mechanisms to evolve further.
Acknowledging these realities is essential for us to actually further move toward the achievement of those aspirational ideals, and not to revert into a self congratulatory mode that denies truth in the name of maintaining power. That would have been the opposite of the Founders' intent.
Jesus. The premise starts by moving the founding of the country from 1776 and the founding fathers to 1619. Yeh its a benevolent move by the Times.
Now that their fabricated coverage of the Russia collusion hoax has turned into an embarrassment, the NYT is desperate for a new hoax to keep their readers energized. What better than race. They can hang it on Trump & use it to discredit the concept of American Exceptionalism that under pins Trump's MAGA & America First campaigns. It assuages their readership's PC white guilt, inculcated by the liberal academia most of their readers were brainwashed by in college. The Grey Lady now has White Guilt -- it's their new business model. They announced it in their employees-only town hall meeting. As I posted in the Fourth Estate thread :
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:11 am
Whaddaya know. After focusing all their reporting resources on the Trump-Russia-collusion story, it fizzled.
So now the Grey Lady is changing course to focus on Trump's racism. How original.
Can't wait for an exciting self-licking season #2.
Burned by a leak from their own employees-only town hall meeting.
2 Pulitzers for perpetuating a hoax. ..
Yikes.
But you're not a Trumpist, didn't vote for the guy, but own a MAGA hat and post garbage like the above.
Right.
I don't own a MAGA hat. It would be hazardous.
but I do believe the words of the NYT Editor,
...especially when leaked by one of his employees. . '
HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Not sure what school you went to TLD, but this public school boy spent what at times felt like an excruciating amount of time on colonial and per-revolutionary war history.
The part we super-skimmed was between the LA Purchase and the civil war.
I am the product of a terrible school system. But really most American History is 1492, Jamestown and then a lead up to Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, American revolution and then off to the races. I didn’t say the lead up to 1776 wasn’t covered at all. A lot of what happened in between is left out. A lot of good history. Not an airing of grievances type of history...
I'm an old guy, but I took a look at some of my old textbooks from elementary and middle school (yes, my parents saved that stuff!) and nope, scarcely a word on slavery until moving into the latter part of the first half of the 1800's.
Plenty on the Pilgrims, etc, (and yes I recall that as pretty darn tedious...though understanding that many who first came here were fleeing religious persecution in their home country did stick) but mum about slavery.
And my schooling was first rate.
Fortunately, by the latter part of middle school and into high school, we were getting exposed by excellent teachers to the full play of of history, not just the sanitized portions that fed the mythology of 'American Exceptionalism' without recognizing the mistakes made along the way.
I was lucky, but lots in my generation didn't get that exposure at all.
Let's see about that first rate schooling.
Why was Ben Franklin ticked at John Hancock ? Making him, Hancock, reimburse the EastIndia Co. for some "fake news" historic event.
Have you brought up the Boston Tea Party before ABV? I seem to have a recollection of you or someone else doing so.
Old Ben was far less radical than some of those involved in either the mob who raided the East India company ship or afterwards defended the action. He was trying to avoid a war, whereas some were trying to incite it. Franklin argued that the East India Company wasn't the enemy of the colonists, it was the actions of the government, so he argued for reimbursement for the losses. Hancock was on the other side of that debate as was Adams.
The British doubled down in response, and war became all the more probable.
I don't recall what you are referring to as 'fake news'. That some of the mob dressed as Indians? or are you questioning whether it happened at all?
Here's what we really do know that was 'fake' and that's the Tea Party of present times actually giving a hoot about fiscal responsibility. Yikes, what happened to their beliefs?
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:05 pm
So you didn't answer the question.
What exactly is incorrect about the NY Times thesis?
Answer -- nothing.
How exactly is telling the truth "declaring war on history"?
SMH
The Times is trying to REFRAME the founding of the country. Not just discuss History. They want to destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity.
Ok, I'll bite.
Why is an honest recognition of the tension between the aspirational ideals and the reality of our Founders' necessarily leading to "destroy any acceptance of the founding of the country as something GOOD for humanity."
Huh?
How is that the necessary conclusion?
No, the aspirational ideals were a hugely important step forward in mankind's development of civilization, imperfectly achieved as they were and are still today. Definitely "GOOD for humanity".
The Founders also designed a form of government with all sorts of self-correcting, self-improving systems in place to help actualize those aspirational ideals over time. It was an enormous experiment, one which they knew was undoubtedly imperfect, so they provided for mechanisms to evolve further.
Acknowledging these realities is essential for us to actually further move toward the achievement of those aspirational ideals, and not to revert into a self congratulatory mode that denies truth in the name of maintaining power. That would have been the opposite of the Founders' intent.
Jesus. The premise starts by moving the founding of the country from 1776 and the founding fathers to 1619. Yeh its a benevolent move by the Times.
Now that their fabricated coverage of the Russia collusion hoax has turned into an embarrassment, the NYT is desperate for a new hoax to keep their readers energized. What better than race. They can hang it on Trump & use it to discredit the concept of American Exceptionalism that under pins Trump's MAGA & America First campaigns. It assuages their readership's PC white guilt, inculcated by the liberal academia most of their readers were brainwashed by in college. The Grey Lady now has White Guilt -- it's their new business model. They announced it in their employees-only town hall meeting. As I posted in the Fourth Estate thread :
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:11 am
Whaddaya know. After focusing all their reporting resources on the Trump-Russia-collusion story, it fizzled.
So now the Grey Lady is changing course to focus on Trump's racism. How original.
Can't wait for an exciting self-licking season #2.
Burned by a leak from their own employees-only town hall meeting.
2 Pulitzers for perpetuating a hoax. ..
Yikes.
But you're not a Trumpist, didn't vote for the guy, but own a MAGA hat and post garbage like the above.
Right.
I don't own a MAGA hat. It would be hazardous.
but I do believe the words of the NYT Editor,
...especially when leaked by one of his employees. . '
ok, so you were just kidding when you wrote within the last 24 hours that you would refrain from wearing your MAGA to an auto rally in PA, one of the few places you think it wouldn't be dangerous to wear it.
Hard to know what to believe out of you, Salty.
All I know is it's all Trump apologia, all the time.
Or a distraction from him which is essentially the same thing.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 pm
Six -- so please tell us what 2020 election ax are the lefties at the NY Times grinding by providing recent coverage about the moon landings and D-Day?
Providing coverage of historical events in connection with significant anniversaries is just such a clever cover for their elctioneering bias!!
SMH
Their EXPRESSED INTENT is to REFRAME the founding of the country. How hard is it to understand their own words. This was developed at an editorial meeting of the NYTimes. How does the Moon Landing or D-Day fit the lefts agenda that Trump and his supporters are racists? They don't. Changing the founding of the country to 1619 certainly does.
From a times editor "nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery."
prominent democrats running for President have already picked up the 1619 rhetoric. Purely coincidental I"ll bet.
The history of this country did not start in 1776. That was the founding. There is very little history taught other than 1492, Jamestown and the American Revolution. Really that is pretty much all that is taught in schools....really more history from 1606 to 1776 would be good for everyone.
Revenge of the Pequoits is a great read.....and will take you down the path to many a great book about the first chapters era.
Once made an offer of the property in Bristol where Metacomet's rock still is. Air and moisture a little to much for the crop, or so I thought. Something about paying someone else, off, or I would be........
Re: 2020 Elections - A Reckoning
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:21 pm
by Andersen
Old Ben was far less radical than some of those involved in either the mob who raided the East India company ship or afterwards defended the action. He was trying to avoid a war, whereas some were trying to incite it. Franklin argued that the East India Company wasn't the enemy of the colonists, it was the actions of the government, so he argued for reimbursement for the losses. Hancock was on the other side of that debate as was Adams.
The British doubled down in response, and war became all the more probable.
What was the name of the legendary U.S. History Teacher at Gilman. I want to say Schrader or Schroeder, but I'm sure that's wrong.
Well done to him and you.
ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 pm
Six -- so please tell us what 2020 election ax are the lefties at the NY Times grinding by providing recent coverage about the moon landings and D-Day?
Providing coverage of historical events in connection with significant anniversaries is just such a clever cover for their elctioneering bias!!
SMH
Their EXPRESSED INTENT is to REFRAME the founding of the country. How hard is it to understand their own words. This was developed at an editorial meeting of the NYTimes. How does the Moon Landing or D-Day fit the lefts agenda that Trump and his supporters are racists? They don't. Changing the founding of the country to 1619 certainly does.
From a times editor "nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery."
prominent democrats running for President have already picked up the 1619 rhetoric. Purely coincidental I"ll bet.
The history of this country did not start in 1776. That was the founding. There is very little history taught other than 1492, Jamestown and the American Revolution. Really that is pretty much all that is taught in schools....really more history from 1606 to 1776 would be good for everyone.
Revenge of the Pequoits is a great read.....and will take you down the path to many a great book about the first chapters era.
Once made an offer of the property in Bristol where Metacomet's rock still is. Air and moisture a little to much for the crop, or so I thought. Something about paying someone else, off, or I would be........
'