[catalogia]

I think/hope everybody recognizes that mistakes happen. In this particular case I think it goes beyond a mere mistake. Some points to consider: The 1619 Project refers not merely to "a newspaper story". Originally it was 100 page magazine with ten essays, a variety of poems and stories, etc. It has since become an ongoing multimedia project. Secondly, as mentioned above, the NYTs has not been particularly responsive to criticism from actual historians.

[cmdshiftf4]

> In this particular case I think it goes beyond a mere mistake.

I think that supports another point made above:

>At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive.

The NYT seems to be beyond "gaffes" at this point, and be entirely focused on promoting their ideology.