...At last year’s Times shareholder meeting, I questioned Chairman Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, Jr. about it, asking:
The New York Times has invested significant resources in its 1619 Project, built upon the premise that everything in American history is irrevocably built on and tainted by slavery. Many well-respected historians from a wide array of backgrounds have stepped forward to challenge the premises and factual assertions of the Project, particularly the claim that U.S. independence was motivated by a desire to break from an abolitionist Britain. The Times has finally admitted its error. Will it now go back to correct the record with the vigor with which it distorted it, and ensure that schools using 1619 Project materials are not teaching falsehoods?
Confronted about his paper’s failings, Sulzberger showed no remorse. He responded: “The 1619 Project… certainly has its critics, some of whom disagree with some of its conclusions. And one of the things that we’ve tried hard to do throughout the Project is simply to encourage dialogue between those with different perspectives. And we think that that debate has been of real value to the public.”
Despite egregious errors—acknowledged even by those who helped edit it—Sulzberger’s response to 1619 Project failings was that he was basically good with it as long as people talked about race. Really?
Is it healthy and uplifting to tell black students they are perpetual victims living in a racist country founded on preserving the intuition of slavery? Will this encourage them to strive for excellence and achievement to uplift fellow blacks?
This mindset does a disservice to Woodson’s aspiration. As they do with almost everything they touch, leftists turned something that’s potentially useful into just another vehicle for left-wing propaganda and proselytizing. My parents handled Black History Month much better.
The Gender, Sexuality, and Race Room
Reply With Quote