Abraham Lincoln statues

[Gene C]

(06-03-2021 07:18 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  . While you are well within your right to disagree with her conclusions, to accuse her of being irresponsible because she is somehow purposefully misleading people who obviously don't know better is still merely your opinion, and therefore has nothing else to back it up.

She is under no obligation to present anything in "a positive manner," and besides, who gets to determine what "positive" even means?

Best
Rob

Here is some of my nothing else to back it up....
Here are a few comments from the National Review by George Leef
"She was the mastermind behind the New York Times’ infamous “1619 Project.” Criticism of that project and especially her contributions have been sharp and non-ideological.

In today’s Martin Center article, Jenna Robinson examines this controversy.
(Additional article by Jenna Robinson is linked to below)
A key point is the claim Hannah-Jones made that the American Revolution was mainly about protecting slavery. But she cited no evidence in support of that astounding assertion. Historians of the Revolution were quick to point out that the preservation of slavery had virtually nothing to do with the sparking of the rebellion in 1775.

Robinson writes, “In December of 2019, five historians, led by Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz, wrote an open letter expressing their ‘strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project.’ The signatories were a politically diverse group: Victoria Bynum at Texas State University, James M. McPherson at Princeton, James Oakes at City University of New York, and Gordon S. Wood at Brown University. They called attention to serious factual errors in the project, including its central thesis that the American Revolution was fought to protect the institution of slavery:

These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’ They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds—that they are the objections of only ‘white historians’—has affirmed that displacement.”

Instead of acknowledging that her history was wrong, which would have pulled the rug out from under the whole endeavor, Hannah-Jones and the Times went into evasions.

It also turns out that members of the Pulitzer committee had strong reservations about awarding their Prize to Hannah-Jones, but were ignored.

Rather than forthrightly confronting the criticism of her work, Hannah-Jones has resorted to evasions, deleting of evidence, and personal attacks.

The entire article is here - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho...nah-jones/

An additional article by Jenna Robinson, which I found more specific, is from May 21, 2021 on the James G Martin Center OF Academic Renewal website.,
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2021/05/...nah-jones/

For those interested, Wikipedia has a lengthy article about the 1619 Project
I found the section "Reactions From Historians" especially interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

Thanks to Roger for letting us discuss this subject (we wandered a little from the original thread topic) and thanks to those who contribute for trying to be respectful of others.