4 ms·
I am not sure why are you asking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project Copy a little bit to show the d
by temp8964 5y ago
I am not sure why are you asking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
Copy a little bit to show the dishonesty of the project creator:
> In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.
- avs733 5y agoyou: it's not about reframing, they get facts wrong the author: "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" I think this speaks to the fundamental issue that the entire conversation here AND the need for news literacy is about...taking a different lens on something cannot, by definition, be 'correct' or 'incorrect'. It is a perspective...it can be coherent or incoherent, it can be widely or not widely accepted. It is a claim, argumentation, it is not a fact. Reducing argumentation to 'a fact' or 'facts' debases discourse and is why we are stuck here as a society.
- temp8964 5y ago"to show the dishonesty of the project creator"
- saynay 5y agoSo, no, you can't provide examples of errors?
- temp8964 5y agoI need to copy paste the Wikipedia page for you?