Read this Email from the ignorant leftist State School Superintendent Paolo DeMaria who thinks that the most Trusted Source for Information on the totally discredited racist “1619 Project” is the NEW YORK TIMES!! Are you insane!

No, DeMaria and the Democrats are just Communists who hate America and will destroy your kids education in order to destroy America IF WE LET THEM!

*****

1. The best layout of the differing points of view that I found was this critique-and-response in the New York Times – where those who have issue with the Project lay out their case, and the New York Times editor provides the supporting point of view. (Seriously??? The propagandist who said in writing three years ago that they no longer can tell the truth and must do whatever it takes to defeat Trump?) This is at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html
2. To me, the best unbiased review (WTP: Not even close) reflecting on the differing points of view comes from the American Historical Review (AHR) at https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/125/1/xv/5714757 published in Feb. 2020. The American Historical Review is the official journal of the American Historical Association. In the editorial, the chief editor of the Review makes the point that while one essay in the 1619 Project collection may have a few debatable representations (WTP: REALLY??), it is hardly a good reason to dismiss the entire body of work.Specifically he says, “So far, the critiques by historians have paid little or no attention to the section based on the NMAAHC [National Museum of African American History and Culture] material. I have yet to see mention of Khalil Muhammad’s essay on sugar, Tiya Miles’s reflections on the entangled histories of Wall Street and enslavement, or Kevin Kruse’s account of the racist origins of urban sprawl. Essays on music, public health, mass incarceration, and more seem to go unmentioned either by the Trotskyists [critics] or in the [critical] historians’ letter.

   To my knowledge, no specific, detailed analysis of the proposed K-12 curriculum accompanying the 1619 Project has yet been offered by teachers or scholars of history-teaching. I find these lacunae puzzling and ultimately inadequate to the vigor of the objections.” So the AHR found no reason to dismiss the Project. (What a surprise the communists would find no reason to dismiss this pack of lies about American History!)

3. The Project is listed as a resource by the Ohio History Connection as part of a recent (June 2020) civil rights history blog post at https://www.ohiohistory.org/learn/collections/history/history-blog/june-2020/civilrightshistory

The one reference to the 1619 Project on the ODE webpage is three lines at the very end of the Nov. 2019 Social Studies newsletter and its accompanying EdConnection entry. This was published before the emergence of the different points of view and was based on favorable recommendations from the Public Broadcasting Service, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Council of State Social Studies Supervisors – all reputable sources for social studies resources. (WTP: Ha ha ha, yea “reputable sources” if you are a card carrying communist!)Given the points of view of the American Historical Association and the Ohio History Connection discussed above it would seem that the 1619 Project is not an inappropriate resource. The history teachers of Ohio have the capability and professional judgement to determine its usefulness in their classrooms.