The Old Grey Whore, at it again.
Last week, a little pamphlet of the working man called the New York Times announced a new initiative in moral enlightenment for the great mass of ignorant Americans. The “1619 Project,” as it’s called, “aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story.”
Those with questions about this exercise in revisionism are being cast as bigots who just hate that America’s “paper of record” is acknowledging our “real past.” Right. Because if there’s one thing Americans don’t hear enough about, it’s how evil and racist their country is.
The Times is asking for more than a “re-examination” of the country’s history. The editors are not really looking to “explore” anything in earnest: they’ve already reached their conclusions, assumed to be obvious and beyond dispute. Here is a declaration from the nation’s leading newspaper that the Founding as we understand it is illegitimate, that America needs to be fundamentally re-imagined and reconstructed.
Well, duh. They’ve only been screaming this very thing directly in our faces for years now—since at least “fundamental transformation” and “for the first time I’m proud of my country,” if not well before. So how many more times do we all need to hear it before we stop pretending to be shocked by it and take them at their word?
No serious person would disagree that American slavery was a disgraceful system, or that racial disparities persist today. But what, exactly, do the revisionists expect to keep the nation together once the ancien regime has been abolished?
Brute force, subjugation, and iron-fisted tyranny, natch. More from Steve Sailer:
How exactly retconning American history will get rid of Trump was left vague, but Baquet was confident that it was all part of the Times’ seamless plot.
By the way, that’s some hilariously shameless boasting about the power of The Narrative to warp minds.
As I’ve pointed out, The Narrative is pushed less by printing fake news or by completely censoring true news than by the power of the prestige press to pick out ideologically convenient items from the vast surfeit of events and declare them the news about which we are all supposed to have a “conversation.”
Did, say, a Catholic schoolboy “smirk” at a “tribal elder”?
Now, that’s national news!
In contrast, in the wake of the vaunted Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, did four Teens of Color in St. Louis, shouting “Kill the white people,” hammer a white man to death?
Why are you interested in a local police blotter detail?
And if there is a lot of news for powerful interests to pick and choose amongst, there’s even more history.
Lots, lots more from Sailer, who wanders pretty far afield in this nonetheless interesting analysis.