The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History

This is the refutation of the 1619 project. In theory, I agree with some of what is cited here; however, this book, published by the organized socialist platform, is also heavily biased that capitalism and the resulting wage gap vis-a'-vis social class is the true narrative of U.S. history. I can agree with that to some extent. However, I'm also a fan of capitalism and believe it is the best economic system that we have at the present, especially for the poor. Several articles contained within this book were nebulous and vague. However, many articles contained herein were from "heavy hitters" in the historical world. I believe the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between the 1619 project and this refutation; both seem to be show more the extremes. I was surprised to discover that the main contributor to the 1619 project, Hannah-Jones, even admitted on Twitter that “the 1619 Project is not a history.” It is rather “about who gets to control the national narrative, and, therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself.” I will agree (see my previous review), it's not accurate history! I can agree with a forward comment that there were those reluctant to speak against the 1619 project as they would be labeled racist. 389 pages show less