The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine)

[David Lockmiller]

(10-10-2020 04:22 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by The New York Times Magazine’s editor, Jake Silverstein, as it appeared in print in August 2019:

“1619. It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?”

Now compare it to the version of the same text as it now appears online:
“1619 is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that the moment that the country’s defining contradictions first came into the world was in late August of 1619?”

In an email, Silverstein told me that the changes to the text were immaterial, in part because it still cited 1776 as our nation’s official birth date, and because the project’s stated aim remained to put 1619 and its consequences as the true starting point of the American story.

To be clear, what is now immaterial, according to Mr. Silverstein, is the subsequently deleted statement of fact by Mr. Silverstein from his August, 2019 published article on the 1619 Project, to wit:

"this fact [that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth], which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong . . . "

Better start "counting your spoons."