AUDIO The 1619 Project exposed: How Marxists are dividing America and rewriting history

“The 1619 Project” was written in 2019 by leftist activist Nicole Hannah Jones and claimed to present the “real” year America was founded, with the first arrival of African slaves in Jamestown, Virginia.

Featured Image

LifeSiteNews staff Sep 1, 2021

(LifeSiteNews) – This week, Jonathon van Maren speaks with Dr. Mary Grabar, the author of the book, “Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America.” In the latest podcast episode of The Van Maren Show, she detailed how this New York Times article series has become part of a bigger plot to change how the history of America’s founding has been traditionally taught in schools and understood by the public.

Listen here:

“The 1619 Project” was written in 2019 by leftist activist Nicole Hannah Jones and claimed to present the “real” year America was founded, with the first arrival of African slaves to Jamestown, Virginia.

However, Grabar points out that the claim that the United States “was built on the backs of slaves in terms of wealth and power is wrong,” and that a truth-based look at history proves it.

In her book, she exposes point-for-point Jones’ articles, highlighting how “it’s a rewriting of American history” and is dividing Americans by race. Grabar believes the concepts put forth by Jones are being injected into school curriculums across the United States. She also describes how the 1619 Project was created to indoctrinate children and to “capture their emotions” on social justice.

She also argues that the project received most of its funding from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and billionaire Pierre Omidyare, “who donates to a lot of Democratic candidates on left-wing causes.”

To learn more about Dr. Grabar and her book, click here.

Teaching Kids America Always Racist: Key to Destroying Nation’s Future

05.09.2021 | Jerry Newcombe

Surge Summary: Efforts like the “1619 Project” want to tear down the United States through false history … so that they can then rebuild her in their own twisted image, contrary to the best of the nation’s founding ideals.

by Jerry Newcombe, D.Min.

If there are riots now in America, what will it be like 20 years from now if the New York Times gets its way?

The New York Times sponsored the 1619 Project, which postulates that America’s real beginnings as a nation are when the first slaves were brought over….to Jamestown in 1619.

  • Not 1776, when America declared independence from Great Britain.
  • Not 1620, when the Pilgrims first came over “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”
  • Not 1787, when the founders wrote the Constitution, the longest-lasting constitution of any nation.

Many historians note that this is a distortion of our nation’s roots. Worse, it makes young people turn against this country. Despite our flawed history and their own personal sins, the founders created the framework by which evils like slavery could one day be uprooted. And it has been.This battle over history and what is to be taught in our schools (when they reopen) has reached the highest echelons of power these days.

CNN reported (5/3/2021): “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is asking schools to stop using the 1619 Project, a curriculum aimed at reframing US history around the date of August 1619, when the first slave ship arrived to what would become the US.”

McConnell and other Republican senators said, “Families did not ask for this divisive nonsense. Voters did not vote for it…Americans never decided our children should be taught that our country is inherently evil.”

In my humble opinion, Mitch is right to do this. If this curriculum continues to spread, all children will learn is a distorted view of our past.

In his classic book “1984,” George Orwell said, “Whoever controls the past controls the future.” And he added, “Whoever controls the present controls the past.”There is indeed a battle over the history of America. Much of the rioting in the streets of the last year has constituted a war on America as founded. Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others have been torn down by the mobs. Even Abraham Lincoln has not escaped the wrath of rioters.

Although some historians support the 1619 Project, many historians vehemently disagree. The DailyWire even reported that a group of scholars demanded that the Pulitzer Board revoke the Pulitzer Prize awarded to NYT writer Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Pulitzer Prize for her introduction to the 1619 Project.

Bob Woodson, an African-American scholar who has worked for decades on behalf of urban renewal, organized a number of scholars to oppose the 1619 Project.

In an interview I did with Woodson for D. James Kennedy Ministries, he told our viewers, “We at the Woodson Center organized 23-plus scholars and activists to confront this 1619 Project. We call ourselves the 1776 Unites.” These scholars include some prominent Blacks, like Dr. Carol Swain, retired professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

Already the Woodson Center has seen some changes: “As a result of our essays that we wrote…Nikole Hannah-Jones, who was the author of the 1619 Project actually revised it…We forced them to back away from and change the reasons for the Revolutionary War.”Initially, the 1619 Project held that America’s War for Independence was held for the purpose of protecting slavery.

That is an astounding claim, in light of the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, whereby George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other Members of the Virginia House of Burgesses tried to abolish the slave trade into Virginia. King George III put the kibosh on their efforts. (This was before William Wilberforce’s successful crusade, motivated by his Christian faith, to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire.)

Woodson remarks, “And so we have other changes that have been made; but essentially the whole 1919 Project is an attempt to undermine, I think, the values and virtues of our nation. And they’re using race as the bludgeon to do that.”

Woodson adds this about the 1619 Project: “They are trying to define America by its birth defect of slavery and Jim Crow, and our counter is that no individual or nation should be judged by the worst of what they used to be. America is a country of redemption. America is a country of second chances, and so we at 1776 Unites believe that America is defined by its promise. And the constitution is a mechanism for us to be self-correcting, and America is the only nation on the face of the earth that fought a civil war to end slavery.” [Emphasis added]

The above-mentioned Dr. Carol Swain argues that the 1619 Project sends a “very crippling message to our children” by conveying the idea that racism is in our national DNA. It basically says that no matter how you try, you will always be a victim of hopelessly racist America.She adds, “It seems that anything that’s connected to Western Civilization and the traditions of our Judeo-Christian heritage in America, that’s very unpopular these days.”

What is this all about? Dr. Richard Land, the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, observes, “If you want to remake America, you’ve got to tear down belief in the country we have now. You have to make the country we have now and the founding fathers and our institutions illegitimate—that’s what the 1619 Project is about.”

There is a battle over history, and it is a battle we must win if we are to continue as a free nation.


Our first parents were Adam and Eve we all share their DNA.

Originally posted here.Image: Screen shot:

Sorry, 1619 Project, But the Mayflower Was Far More Pivotal to American History


AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File

In August 2019, The New York Times launched its “1619 Project,” a subversive attempt to redefine America’s history and present by placing race-based slavery at the center of absolutely everything. The project launched on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of some pirates who traded black human beings to the governor of Jamestown for some supplies, then strained to connect that obscure event with slavery. Yet the far more consequential 400th anniversary comes today, the anniversary of the Mayflower’s final arrival at Provincetown Harbor.

While onboard the Mayflower, a group of religious “Separatists” (today known as Pilgrims) and nonreligious “Strangers” signed the Mayflower Compact, a barebones document focused on self-governance that arguably became a precursor to America’s true founding, the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

These Pilgrims settled on American soil on November 21, 1620, four hundred years ago today. Their arrival marks a far more consequential date in American history than August 20, 1619.

Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact is mercifully short. Also unlike the declaration, it explicitly acknowledges England’s control over the future colony. However, the document lays down a crucial framework for self-government.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

Scholars Demand Pulitzer Board Revoke Prize Over ‘Glaring Historical Fallacy’ in 1619 Project

As Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), notes in his book 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, “only a minority of those aboard the Mayflower were religious pilgrims — 37 of the 201. The nonreligious passengers (the Separatists called them ‘Strangers’) quickly asserted that the charter they had signed back in England was void. And some of the Strangers, such as Stephen Hopkins, were rough customers.”

Hopkins had been convicted of mutiny at Jamestown in 1610 and sentenced to death. After his sentence was commuted, he ran an alehouse in England. The London Merchant Adventurers recruited him for the Mayflower. Hopkins had multiple servants on board the ship and any lasting disagreement with such men could have doomed the Pilgrims’ project.

The real meat of the Mayflower Compact comes down to the phrase “civil body politic.” As Wood explains, the term simply refers to “a group of people who agree to govern themselves by common rules to be created through peaceful deliberation. That means it isn’t a tribe, a dictatorship, or an aristocracy. It offers an ordered public life under the rule of law.”

The Mayflower Compact is a barebones document aimed at keeping a small but diverse group of people together. The Declaration of Independence, by contrast, uses soaring rhetoric to convince the British crown and people across the world of the justice of the Americans’ cause. Even so, as Rebecca Fraser put it in The Mayflower: The Families, the Voyage, and the Founding of America, “the Mayflower Compact has a whisper of the contractual government enunciated in the 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just power ‘from the consent of the governed.’”

“Both documents are attempts to forge a new unity — ‘a civil body politic’ — out of disparate people who have conflicting interests,” Wood explains. “Both call into existence a new government, and both justify that government as needed for safety, good order, and justice. Above all, both project the ideal of self-government as the only way to achieve the ‘general good.’”

Wood argues that the Mayflower Compact was not America’s “true founding” — and neither was August 20, 1619 — but it was a “crucial pre-founding, informing the beginning of the American republic.” On the Mayflower, “an idea of true self-government began to take root.”

What of 1619?

The New York Times‘ “1619 Project” argued that America’s “true founding” came fifteen months before the Mayflower’s arrival. English pirates landed with some twenty to thirty African captives at Jamestown, Virginia, on August 20, 1619. According to the Times, this marked the tragic beginning of more than 200 years of race-based slavery in America.

There are numerous problems with this interpretation. First, this moment certainly did not mark the first time black slaves set foot on what would later become the United States. The Spanish brought slaves to present-day South Carolina in 1526, almost 100 years before the project’s date.

More critically, there is no conclusive evidence that the black men and women who arrived at Jamestown in August 1619 actually became slaves in the same sense as slaves in the antebellum South.

As Wood notes, “The exact status of these captives is unclear. It is likely that they were considered slaves on board the pirate ship, but because slavery was not recognized by English common law, once the captives landed their status became fuzzy. In Bermuda, also founded by the Virginia Company, slaves brought by outsiders were considered to be indentures with a life tenure of service. In Virginia, the records show that many of the captives were, after a term of indenture, set free. None were recorded as slaves.”

Wood argues that “the status of these African captives appears to have fallen into a vaguely defined middle ground” between freedom and slavery.

While the situation of these Africans is lamentable, the 1619 Project is not on solid ground in claiming that this obscure event somehow deserves to be remembered as the centerpiece of American history.

The New York Times Just Gave Definitive Proof the ‘1619 Project’ Is a Fraud

Why does it matter?

As Nikole Hannah-Jones, the 1619 Project’s founder, argued, the project aims to change America’s national memory. It is “not a history” but a fight to “control the narrative,” she admitted.

While some of the 1619 Project’s goals are noble — the project rightly aims to tell the stories of black Americans who have not received the attention they deserve — its heart and soul focuses on subverting America’s view of itself as a force of good and freedom in the world.

The project’s initial installment condemned many aspects of American society — including capitalism and Americans’ preference for sugar — as rooted in racial oppression. This echoes — and is arguably built upon — Marxist critical race theory, which encourages people to find hidden oppression behind various aspects of society.

Portland activist Lilith Sinclair provided a chilling example of Marxist critical race theory and its ability to inspire an aimless revolution. “There’s still a lot of work to undo the harm of colonized thought that has been pushed onto Black and indigenous communities,” she said. As examples of “colonized thought,” she mentioned Christianity and the “gender binary.” She said she organizes for “the abolition of … the “United States as we know it.”

When vandals toppled a statue of George Washington in Portland, they spray-painted “1619” on the statue. When Claremont’s Charles Kesler wrote in The New York Post, “Call them the 1619 riots,” 1619 Project Founder Nikole Hannah-Jones responded (in a since-deleted tweet) that “it would be an honor” to claim responsibility for the destructive riots. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the “dismantling” of America’s “economy and political system,” in order to root out supposed racist oppression.

1619 Project Founder Admits It’s ‘Not a History,’ But a Fight to ‘Control the National Narrative’

The riots have proved the most destructive (in terms of insurance claims) in U.S. history. While leftists repeat claims of “institutional racism,” the riots have victimized the black community. The destruction disproportionately hit black communities in Kenosha, Wisc.Minneapolis, and Chicago. The riots destroyed black livesblack livelihoods, and black monuments. At least 26 Americans have died in the riots, most of them black.

For these and other reasons, many black leaders have denounced the official Black Lives Matter movement, the founders of which have described themselves as “trained Marxists.” Over 100 black pastors recently condemned the Black Lives Matter movement and urged Nike to distance itself from it.

Last month, Wood led a group of 21 scholars in condemning the 1619 Project and urging the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the Pulitzer Prize it had awarded to Hannah-Jones. Among other things, the scholars noted the project’s many errors and stealth revisions.

The 1619 Project originally claimed that the patriots in the American Revolutionary War fought in part to defend slavery — a completely baseless accusation the Times ultimately softened after facing scholars’ rebukes. In September, the project deep-sixed its fundamental claim that 1619 represented America’s “true founding.” Hannah-Jones then proceeded to act as though she had never claimed such a thing.

As the scholars wrote to the Pulitzer board, “the false claims were erased or altered with no explanation, and Hannah-Jones then proceeded to claim that she had never said or written what in fact she has said and written repeatedly, assertions that the Project materials also made.”

“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit. A ‘sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,’ as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish ‘deeply reported’ falsehoods,” the scholars wrote.

The 1619 Project may do America some good at the margins by telling the overlooked stories of black Americans, but its subversive aspects are dangerous and need to be rebuked. At the very least, The New York Times should publicly apologize for falsely claiming that 1619 was America’s “true founding.”

The signing of the Declaration of Independence rightly deserves that distinction, and the Mayflower Compact is an important precursor to it. America has long struggled to live up to the ideals of the declaration, but that does not mean it is an inherently racist or oppressive country. The United States has taken tremendous strides toward justice and equality, and its ideals are sound. The New York Times should be working to uphold those noble ideals, not to undermine America’s foundations.

Contrary to Hannah-Jones’ protestations, America’s memory is sound, and Americans are right to celebrate the Mayflower on its 400th anniversary.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

‘1619 Project’ Founder Has a Tantrum After NYT Publishes Critical Column
Civil Rights Leader Aims to Stop the Riots at the Source — With Stories of Black American Success
Amid Deadly Riots, Oprah Signs on to Adapt Anti-American ‘1619 Project’
Black Chicagoans Eviscerate Black Lives Matter Narrative, Booting Activists From Their Neighborhood

How The Revolutionary War Taught More Americans To Oppose Slavery

How The Revolutionary War Taught More Americans To Oppose Slavery


July 8, 2020


As the author of nine historical books, my heart has truly been broken at the nihilistic, all-or-nothing approach to history demonstrated by anarchists tearing down and vandalizing statues, especially of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Often spray-painted on these statues is 1619, a reference to The 1619 Project, published by The New York Times.

The fundamental [1619] claim that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery simply does not correspond with the facts, too conclusively for the point to be dismissed as mere hair-splitting. The issue is not differing interpretations of history, but an outright misinterpretation of it,” African-American scholar John McWhorter wrote on, which warns of 1619’s fallacies.

“For one, note the suspension of disbelief we are expected to maintain. Supposedly the Founding Fathers were trying to protect slavery, despite never actually making such a goal clear for the historical record, and at a time when there would have been no shame in doing so,” McWhorter observed.

My research of the record concurs. In fact, throwing off political slavery by England motivated many to fight for independence. In writing “Stories of Faith and Courage from the Revolutionary War,” I read original letters, writings, and sermons from the nation’s founding generation. One question I asked: how did Christians justify taking up arms against their God-ordained king? Ministers and congregations looked to two primary biblical examples to resolve this faith crisis. Both directly related to slavery.

I have this morning heard Mr. Duffield upon the signs of the times. He runs a parallel between the case of Israel and that of America, and between the conduct of Pharaoh and that of [King] George,” John Adams wrote his wife, Abigail, in mid-May 1776, after attending church in Philadelphia. If God delivered the Israelites from slavery by Egypt, would He deliver America from enslavement by England? Adams hoped so.

“(Duffield) concluded that the course of events indicated strongly the design of Providence that we should be separated from Great Britain.” Duffield and Adams were not alone. “We have no choice left to us, but to submit to absolute slavery and despotism, or as freemen to stand in our own defence, and endeavor a noble resistance . . . every reasonable method of reconciliation has been tried in vain,” Baptist minister David Jones declared. “Our addresses to our king have been treated with neglect or contempt.”

Jones looked to Galatians 5:1, as did others, including Simeon Howard of Boston’s West Church: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. And be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

“It is the duty of all men to stand fast in such valuable liberty, as Providence has conferred upon them,” Howard proclaimed. “But in what way can a man be more justly chargeable with this neglect, than by suffering himself to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, when he might lawfully have preserved them?”

These Americans saw themselves as enslaved by Great Britain. This was not a new concept. Some of their ancestors had fled England to escape religious intolerance.

“They would hazard everything dear to them, their estates, their very lives, rather than suffer their necks to be put under that yoke of bondage, which was so sadly galling to their fathers, and occasioned their retreat into this distant land, that they might enjoy the freedom of men and Christians,” wrote Boston’s First Church’s Charles Chauncy.

The view that Americans were enslaved by England enabled many to see the hypocrisy and injustice of enslaving Africans, which was legal in the 13 original colonies.

By the 1770s, black New Englanders, thousands of whom were Revolutionary War veterans, had begun sending petitions to northern state legislatures demanding an end to slavery. These, essentially, worked,” African-American scholar Wilfred Reilly wrote for “By the 1790s, 10 states and territories, containing more than 50 percent of the free population of the new nation — Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, the North-West Territory, and the Indiana Territory — were free land by law. And, the anti-slavery upswell continued apace.”

History isn’t always what it seems. It is more nuanced, incremental, and complicated than today’s all-or-nothing purity approach by the statue-toppling mob. This headline-only approach to history misses questions like this: How did George Washington transform from being born into a slave-owning family to emancipating slaves in his will, which was published in newspapers throughout the nation? What were the steps that made this transformation possible?

Those who erase history today are trying to prove they aren’t racist. Tolerance and living by an honor code affirming that everyone is created in God’s image is a better proof.

A healthy approach to history takes strength in the good from our past, such as the origin stories of freedom of religion, speech, and the press. It’s important to remember what we have overcome and those who’ve contributed to America’s growth.

While acknowledging that slavery and discrimination are part of our nation’s history, we believe that America should not be defined solely by this ‘birth defect’ and that black Americans should not be portrayed as perpetual helpless victims,”’s founder Robert L. Woodson, Sr. explained.

One way to fight this culture war is to rediscover American history. Don’t rely on your memory of history class. Read Flood local bookstores with purchases of American history and biographies by conservatives and scholars who rely on original writings.

Several years ago a publisher told me that patriotic books don’t sell. A professional at a major TV streaming company recently told me they probably wouldn’t produce a film now on George Washington. It’s time to prove that patriotism and American history are marketable ideas for books and films.

It’s not enough to buy products made in America. We must buy products about America. Our future understanding of the past depends on it.

Jane Hampton Cook is the author of the new book, “Resilience on Parade: Short Stories of Suffragists and Women’s Battle for the Vote.” The first female webmaster for the White House (2001-03), she is now a screenwriter and author of ten books, including “Stories of Faith and Courage from the Revolutionary War.”

VIDEO Behind The Mask -The Left’s Normalization Of Collective Guilt Is Ripping America Apart

All decent Americans stand against racism. But if we’re to live as brothers, we must stop indicting all those who share a skin tone for the sins of others.

The Left’s Normalization Of Collective Guilt Is Ripping America Apart

By Joshua Lawson JUNE 4, 2020

I was nowhere near the intersection of Chicago Avenue and 38th Street when George Floyd tragically lost his life. I wasn’t in Minnesota. I was more than 500 miles away. With the exception of the officers at that heartbreaking scene, there are more than 329 million additional Americans who had no part in that terrible evening.

So why are so many people acting as if it were their knee, not Derek Chauvin’s, that pressed down on George Floyd? The answer lies in the concerted effort of radical leftists and their unwitting accomplices to normalize the collectivization of guilt.

The Great Guilting

It’s nothing entirely new. In 1980, Howard Zinn and his Marxist, ahistorical, and repugnant textbook “A Peoples History of the United States” began mainstreaming the idea that Caucasians bore collective guilt for all of America’s past sins. By securing the blessings of the academic intelligentsia, he had support in the most valuable places.

Thankfully, Zinn didn’t have modern-day social media at his disposal. One shudders to think how wide Zinn’s reach could have been with a few million followers on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. But if you’ve looked around the social media landscape recently, you’ve witnessed the unleashing of a radical movement beyond his wildest dreams.

Leftist influencers have convinced millions of Americans that the only way they will be allowed in polite society, the only way they will be perceived as decent is if they accept culpability for Floyd’s death and the “systemically racist society” they apparently helped create.

The radical left demands Caucasians apologize for their “privilege.” They must read, internalize, and publicly praise books on approved reading lists in order to come to grips with their “unconscious” and deep-seated racism. They must shop at black-owned businesses on sites like, and as further proof of their solidarity. But is there much doubt that if the color was changed from “black” to “white,” that the Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn’t label these sites sources of hate?

On June 2, Instagram was flooded with people posting pictures of black boxes in support of Black Lives Matter activists. Quickly, however, an ever-growing list of “suggestions” muddled the “rules” of who should post and in what manner was pleasing to the Blackout Tuesday folks. Actress and feminist activist Emma Watson was attacked on Twitter for both posting the boxes and for taking so long. You can’t win.

Branded for the Sins of Others

It is always good to remind people not to be racist—though it is doubtful just how much reminding is needed between the legacy media, television, and movies all constantly promoting that message.

What’s sad is that so many good, utterly non-racist Americans feel if they don’t go through the “approved” steps they’ll be roped together with actual white supremacists.

Not to be left out, business from coffee chains to game developers also feel they must denounce what we have always known to be evil, namely, the unwarranted taking of another human life.

It would be ridiculous and unjust to blame a 20-year-old Russian for the heinous atrocities committed by Joseph Stalin more than 70 years ago. It would still be unjust to blame a 90-year-old woman who lived in the Soviet Union while Stalin was alive for the millions who died under his tyrannical rule.

According to crime statistics compiled by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, 2,925 black Americans were murdered in 2018. The details show that 88 percent of the perpetrators of these homicides were black themselves. Yet no logical, honest person would blame all black Americans for these deaths. To do so would throw blood onto innocent hands. The radical left, however, has been attempting this sort of collectivization of guilt with renewed vigor ever since the New York Times published its first “1619 Project” essays in August 2019.

A Natural Extension of the 1619 Project

The 1619 Project isn’t about making you feel contempt and anger for those who brought the first black slaves from Africa to Virginia four centuries ago. It’s about making all Caucasians and all Westerners feel as if they piloted the slave ships themselves. Its main thesis—and heinous lie—is that America is an irredeemably vile nation, conceived in sin.

In a disturbing example of the confluence of the 1619 Project and modern corporate guilt-tripping, Ben & Jerry’s issued a statement that reads like an updated version of the radical Port Huron manifesto—only it’s angrier and more incendiary. What does an ice cream company have to do with any of this? You’re not allowed to ask. Sit down and take your medicine.

“The murder of George Floyd,” the dairy brothers proclaim, “was the result of inhumane police brutality that is perpetuated by a culture of white supremacy. What happened to George Floyd was not the result of a bad apple; it was the predictable consequence of a racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning.”

Then, to prove their outrage bona fides, they go for the gold and tag 1619 for the finisher: “What happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis is the fruit borne of toxic seeds planted on the shores of our country in Jamestown in 1619, when the first enslaved men and women arrived on this continent.”

The statement closes by calling on “white America” to “collectively acknowledge its privilege” and “take responsibility for its past.”

Of the host of problems with the screed published by Ben & Jerry’s is that even if it were legitimate for Americans to “take responsibility” for all of the nation’s past sins, not only is it functionally impossible to do so, but radical leftists aren’t interested. That’s not the point. The point is to keep the anger machine firing on all cylinders. That’s the only way they get the permanent revolution they’re after.

Unlike the sin that man commits to his fellow man, for the authors of the 1619 Project, there is no hope for forgiveness, no chance for reconciliation, no way to atone.

If, as the 1619 advocates claim, the seeds are toxic and the tree is poisonous, then the only thing left to do is burn it all down. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the author of the lead 1619 essay, recently told CBS News, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” While all Americans are indeed created equal, Pulitzer Prizes are clearly not.

Rebuilding Brotherhood—One Brother at a Time

Americans want to stand with those peacefully protesting injustice. But the radical Left offers either the choice of self-condemnation for evils Americans had no hand in, or to be silent and stay that way. If the second option is chosen, that very silence is viewed as an indictment of “complicity” often seen by the Left as akin to violence itself. Ultimately, that’s no choice at all.

It now appears that Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin will be charged with second-degree murder. Justice will be served, and Chauvin will be tried by a judge and jury of his peers. If the court finds him guilty, the penalty—40 years in prison—will be harsh but fair.

It is horrible, it is sad, and it is tragic, but George Floyd will not be the last man to die at the hands of law enforcement. The next time a life is lost to an abuse of police power, it must be denounced once again, and the perpetrators subjected to our civilized courts of trial, deliberation, and justice. But we need to start finally viewing each other as individuals responsible for our actions, and our actions alone.

Every day, we each commit personal acts of vice, virtue, and all shades in between. As individual men and women, we bear the guilt and reap the penalties for our own sins and crimes. As individual men and women, we earn praise for righteous behavior.

This nation isn’t just built on freedom and equality. Central to the American experience is the chance for a new life, and with it, redemption. If we surrender that, we’ll be left with far too much anger and hatred. And we won’t like what follows.


Joshua Lawson is managing editor of The Federalist. He is a graduate of Queen’s University as well as the Van Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College where he received a master’s degree in American politics and political philosophy. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaMLawson.

Behind the Black Mask: The Real Truth About Antifa | Gabriel Nadales


Create your website with
Get started
%d bloggers like this: