Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jones said it on Twitter:
“The fight over the 1619 Project is not about history. It is about memory,“ she responded on social media. “I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ry%3f_amp=true
But she seems to have wiped it from her feed. (Cue GGG petulantly saying, “All you can find is an Examiner article?”) |
I'm not clear what she meant when she said it "is not a history" and "is a work of journalism," nor do I understand why you think it matters. I do not read what you quoted here as some sort of admission that she wasn't trying to capture the truth, which is the spin I thought you initially put on it.
Quote:
|
I’m not resentful of anything. You keep trying to assign an ethos to me. I’m only interested in dismantling something.
|
Dude, you just wrote a post, all by yourself, in which you described your core political beliefs, and made sure to point out that you were anti- woke people, people who see race as super important, and the 1619 Project. If you don't like what you're seeing, stop looking in the mirror.
Quote:
|
I’m interested in poking holes in things people are desperate to believe. You totally misapprehend what drives me. If I see a thing and it seems there’s even a hint of suspension of disbelief, or worse faith, required to believe it, I’m interested in showing its flaws.
|
Oh, nuts. There are plenty of things that people suspend disbelief in that you couldn't care less about. There are certain things that really push your buttons, and you helpfully listed a bunch of them in the post you wrote where you described your beliefs.
Quote:
|
ETA: I must correct myself. Jones said 1619 was journalism. But it seems she doesn’t really know what that means. To the extent they are both presumably accurate reporting of facts, history and journalism are identical. One can’t tell a false history and call it journalism or write false journalism and call it history. Both require accuracy. She should have been more concise and used “opinion piece using selected historical events as support.”
|
She's a 44-year-old woman with a master's degree in journalism who has worked as a reporter for almost two decades, include several at the New York Times. A few years ago she was given a MacArthur genius grant. It must be that she doesn't really know what "journalism" means. Fun to see you suspending disbelief.
