Unserious. Profoundly and deeply unserious.
After the New York Times’ widely discredited revisionist history, the 1619 Project, began to be inserted into history books, the White House commissioned the 1776 Commission which completed its work and released a history of the nation’s founding progress and its challenges.
What’s the response of the New York Times?
Its attacks lean heavily on tweets. The article is filled with citations from Twitter. That’s a perfect metaphor for the general unseriousness of the Times’ entire revisionist history which takes social media slants, transforms them into a revisionist history, and ignores the critiques of that revisionist history.
But that’s still a step up from the Bezos social justice rag, the Washington Post, which headlines its attack on the 1776 Commission with, “‘A hack job,’ ‘outright lies’: Trump commission’s ‘1776 Report’ outrages historians.”
Speaking of hack jobs and outright lies, there’s the Washington Post.
The Post not only quotes and embeds tweets, it does so using Ibram X. Kendi and other revisionist racialists. Then there’s this howler.
“It’s very hard to find anything in here that stands as a historical claim, or as the work of a historian. Almost everything in it is wrong, just as a matter of fact,” said Eric Rauchway, a history professor at the University of California at Davis. “I may sound a little incoherent when trying to speak of this, because the report itself is not coherent. It’s like historical wackamole.”
“Group rights is not anathema to American principles,” he said, recalling the formation of the Senate. “Why do Wyomingers have 80 times the representation that Californians have if not for group rights?”
This is your brain. This is your brain on MSNBC.
When you’re quoting a “history professor” who thinks that the electoral college is an example of group rights, you might as well quote Ibram X. Kendi. It’s all GIGO.
“It’s a hack job. It’s not a work of history,” American Historical Association executive director James Grossman told The Washington Post. “It’s a work of contentious politics designed to stoke culture wars.”
Grossman would know since the AHA spends much of its time stoking culture wars. Grossman had also written for the New York Times to argue that history has to be revisionist.
As long as the revisionism is anti-American.