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:

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:

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:

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.