All the Lies Unfit to Print

Yesterday, we talked of Howard Zinn for a reason. As much as I detest speaking of such a charlatan, his influence has had consequences, amongst them the New York Times 1619 Project. Exactly why a so-called newspaper which is unable to report the news straight thinks it should be entrusted with writing history is unclear to anybody who has a thinking mind. Well, not really, it is quite simply hubris. John Hinderaker at PowerLine had something to say about it recently.

What does it mean to be a liberal in today’s world? More than anything else, to be a liberal is to be anti-American.

Byron York describes a New York Times project of which I was unaware, but by which I am not surprised:

In the Times’ view — which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans — the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.

This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called The 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: “It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

Who we are is the people who killed 600,000 white men to end slavery. That the Democrats and the left never got the memo and still continue to try to enslave black people is well known. Just ask Candace Owen or Lloyd Marcus about the plantation.

But this is what happens when you let history be Zinnified. It becomes a story without facts, but with malice towards many in favor of an elite, not very different than feudal lords, who think they are owed everything they want by their ‘inferiors’ who are actually by far their superiors.

Read John’s article  (linked above), read one by Lloyd Marcus. And here is John Daniel Davidson on why this is simply pandering to John C. Calhoun and the rest of the unreconstructed Confederates.

But there is something worth celebrating this year.  A round hundred years before 1619 in 1519, one of the most bloodthirsty regimes in the history of the world was destroyed. It was so bad that to read its history is to think Hitler and Stalin were beneficent rulers, and that Mao was misunderstood. We don’t celebrate this 1519 project much, because the guy running it was rather flawed. He was greedy, a womanizer, nor was he really interested in liberating anybody, he wanted to rule.

Who was this non-paragon who did some fine work in spite of himself? Don Hernán Cortés de Monroy y Pizarro Altamirano, Marquis of the Valley of Oaxaca, the man who after a desperate battle, overthrew (with indigenous help) the Aztec Empire, which sacrificed something like 50,000 people per year, and ate a fair number of them. Was the rule of the Spanish Empire anywhere near as good for people as the British which developed the entire modern world? No. It was a brutal, hierarchical, scheme much like the one that Slim’s Slimes is advocating above. That said, it was an order of magnitude better than the Aztecs. Something we should remember.

Good article on that here in The Federalist. Worth your time.

And an aside. Guido reminds us that market forces matter. And that is also connected with what we’ve said today.

%d bloggers like this: