1. The thesis of the project's lead essay by N. Hannah Jones features an obvious mistruth, namely the idea that the motivating factor for the Revolution was to preserve slavery. Setting aside everything that comes after, this is such an obvious mistruth -- besides about half the Founders being anti-slavery, there was no indication the British intended to do anything to change the status quo of slavery in the colonies -- that whoever wrote it is either an idiot or purposely lying.

2. N. Hannah Jones's handpicked factchecker points this out to her pre-editing. N. Hannah Jones refuses to change it, but even worse, *doesn't tell her factchecker that she ignored her advice*. This is a serious journalistic breach. A factchecker in effect lends credibility to a project by implicitly vouching for its veracity. Not even discussing this with her for such a high profile piece is inexcusable.

3. When it publishes, notable historians -- including some N Hannah Jones herself cites to argue *for* her work -- level the same critique that her factchecker did. N. Hannah Jones, knowing her own factchecker had the same issue with the writing, chooses to publicly accuse the historians of racial bias.

So to sum up: the author of this work includes an obvious mistruth against the advice of her factchecker then impugns the credibility of historians for daring to criticize it. And she won a Pulitzer for her trouble, and its going to be mandatory reading for millions of kids.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4590826&forum_id=2#40653207)

As is the distinction between having to pick cotton or having to assemble iphones or glue pieces of fabric together to make dresses or sneakers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4590826&forum_id=2#40654462)

Im all for making moral arguments, but they need to begin from a place of accurate description. Youre not really your employers slave, but some kid in Bangladesh making Kardahsian purses is. Some lady in China is.

The pretense I most want to burst is the idea that there has been a moral progression, and we 21st Centurymos are "better people" than 18th C people. We're not. Nothing has changed but the wrapping.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4590826&forum_id=2#40654823)

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html

XO Jefferson:

"Q. There’s the famous quote from Jefferson that the Missouri crisis awakened him like a fire bell in the night and that in it he perceived the death of the union...

A. Right. He’s absolutely panicked by what’s happening, and these last years of his life leading up to 1826 are really quite sad because he’s saying these things. Reading his writings between 1819 and his death in 1826 makes you wince because he so often sounds like a southern fire-eater of the 1850s. Whereas his friend Madison has a much more balanced view of things, Jefferson becomes a furious and frightened defender of the South. He sees a catastrophe in the works, and he can’t do anything about it."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4590826&forum_id=2#40655030)