Considering the 1619 project is being pushed into public schools, I am pretty sure history can be manipulated too.
What you are referring to is the history we choose to center something DIFFERENT is somehow now being treated as 'manipulated'
It's not. Choosing what to center and what not to center isn't inherently manipulative, its human nature. Its why I focus on my running and my research and my partner at the expense of learning a new language or instrument. I center things in my life that I'm good at and bring me joy.
The fact that people are angry about shifting the centering is why literacy is important - because identifying the centering rather than jumping to 'bias' or 'manipulation' is where the literacy comes from.
They removed this quote from the interactive website without giving an explanation as to why. It's really obvious how biased they are.
However, when you have academic historians, across the political spectrum, saying the 1619 Project has little resemblance to actual historical study, they should get you alarm bells ringing.
If someone has a rigorous, evidence based viewpoint that’s cool. Flimsy analysis and force fitting history into a particular narrative is not.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians...
Updated: source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-...
Do you have other suggested reading beyond the scope of that piece? Too much of the criticism I've found online seems to be attacking straw-man paraphrasing of the project.
> In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.
A simple reading of its Wikipedia page can get those information.
To label 1619 as the founding of the country sounds like hyperbole designed to draw attention and discussion.
Was she wrong to respond the way she did? Sure. And it's a shame that an important project to take a sober look at the legacy of slavery has been diminished by her reaction to the criticism, and generally mishandled by the NYT.
Does that mean that the project as a whole is "factually wrong"? That seems dubious at best.
> what helped students distinguish misinformation the most is something called lateral reading. That can be as simple as opening a new tab and leaving the post to find more about the source of information. It appears to be effective.
in fact, you would be for this class
It would be clear that the class would help kids uncover that 1619 has many controversial claims
I am for the idea of this class. But I am pretty sure many teachers won't implement this idea netrually.
Wow.
clarifying: you claimed there were errors, pls provide examples. You made a claim, its not unreasonable to be asked to support it.
Copy a little bit to show the dishonesty of the project creator:
> In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.
the author: "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding"
I think this speaks to the fundamental issue that the entire conversation here AND the need for news literacy is about...taking a different lens on something cannot, by definition, be 'correct' or 'incorrect'. It is a perspective...it can be coherent or incoherent, it can be widely or not widely accepted. It is a claim, argumentation, it is not a fact. Reducing argumentation to 'a fact' or 'facts' debases discourse and is why we are stuck here as a society.