Mayor Pete's Curtain Call: Buttigieg's Revisionist Year In Review
Oops! Chicago Teachers Union Unintentionally Crafts a Campaign Ad for Trump
Times Square Ball Drop Now Presents: The Ultimate Party Pooper's Paradise ... a...
By the Book: Republican Senator Says Trump’s Deportations Will Use Already Existing Laws
Marc Elias, Mr. Fake Dossier Himself, Flees Twitter in a Huff to Yap...
Biden Adopts a 'Sell Low, Buy High' Losing Philosophy When it Comes to...
Media SWOONS! Julie Kelly BLISTERS Biden's DOJ for BRAGGING About 1000 Guilty Pleas...
9-1-1? We'd Like to Report a Murder: Scott Jennings DISMANTLES CNN Panel Defending...
Foiled AGAIN! Elon Musk and MAGA Come to Consensus on H-1B and BAHAHA...
Poll Shows Americans Don't Give Even 1 Single Flying EFF About Political Opinions...
Jamie Raskin Getting All Big and BAD About RESISTING Trump's Politicization of the...
OOF! Biden Dishes Out WHOPPER of an Insult at Kamala Harris's Expense Babbling...
Democrat Jasmine Crockett Shows Off Her Special Brand of Stupid on MSNBC in...
Did Harry Sisson Create His X Account While in Grade School? Internet Detectives...
Voters’ Remorse: Angry Democrats Want to Sue Florida Politician Who Jumped to Republican...

'It's falling apart': 1619 Project architect Nikole Hannah-Jones' 'small' clarification is actually a pretty big deal

The New York Times’ 1619 Project has come under fire even from liberal-leaning historians for its liberties with history, facts, and the truth. For what it’s worth, project architect Nikole Hannah-Jones recently made a “clarification” to one of the its many dubious claims:

Advertisement

It’s just a “small” clarification, though. No big deal:

That’s putting it mildly, Nikole.

But we’ll get back to that. Here’s the rest of Hannah-Jones’ thread on the subject:

Advertisement

Maybe if you’re going to write “sweeping passages of history,” you should make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about first. Unless, of course, that gets in the way of your narrative.

Anyway, back to the idea of the “small” clarification:

Advertisement

You weren’t clear enough? You know, if the whole project weren’t an exercise in historical revisionism, we might be a little more inclined to take Hannah-Jones’ contrition at face value. But she hasn’t really demonstrated that she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

It’s really not.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement