kyzr
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2009
- 37,210
- 28,605
- Thread starter
- #1,301
The 1619 Project is a joke, fake history, and just fucking wrong. But you're welcome to believe it as true, this is America, you can say or think or write whatever you want. Unless the hi-tech oligarchs censor you...Some disputed inaccuracies does not invalidate the idea or the project.1. If you actually read the link you posted you'd see that the 1619 Project is fake history.1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.
1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.OMG, look at the fucking poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? Fuck no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.
1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats
3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.![]()
Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.www.foxnews.com
2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.
2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.
HARRIS PROMOTED GROUP THAT PUT UP BAIL FOR ALLEGED VIOLENT CRIMINALS![]()
Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.www.foxnews.com
2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.
2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,
After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.![]()
Trump tells his violent supporters who stormed the Capitol 'you're very special,' but asks them 'to go home'
President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.www.businessinsider.com
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."
Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.
Fact Checking the 1619 project and it's critics.
2. All leading Democrats. No Democrats told those rioting that they "loved" them.
a. The American Revolution was NOT fought to protect slavery. (1-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.
b. Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? (2-0 1776 Commission)
The historians’ letter contests this depiction, responding that Lincoln evolved in an egalitarian direction and pointing to his embrace of an anti-slavery constitutionalism that was also shared by Frederick Douglass. Hannah-Jones, they contend, has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles. Who freed the slaves? That was Abraham Lincoln.
c. Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? (3-0 1776 Commission)
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims. Each of these criticisms rings true.
The Verdict: This one goes conclusively to the five historians. Echoing other critics, the historians point to serious and substantive defects with Matthew Desmond’s thesis about the economics of slavery, and with the project’s overreliance on the contested New History of Capitalism literature. By contrast, the Times has completely failed to offer a convincing response to this criticism – or really any response at all.
d. Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work? (4-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a valid complaint about deficiencies of scholarly guidance for the 1619 Project’s treatment of the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This comparative lack of scholarly input for the years between 1775 and 1865 stands in contrast with the Times’ heavy use of scholars who specialize in more recent dimensions of race in the United States. It is worth noting that the 1619 Project has received far less pushback on its materials about the 20th century and present day – areas that are more clearly within the scholarly competencies of the named consultants.
Thank you very much for that link!