[1] https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory

And here is a letter signed by numerous historians, the NYT response and a counter-response: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140

> The letter refers to “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing’” and says the project reflected “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” Wilentz and his fellow signatories didn’t just dispute the Times Magazine’s interpretation of past events, but demanded corrections.

The article tries to stain American capitalism by claiming that it originated in plantation slavery and provided the capital that made America rich. The article rests on a superficial and fallacious parallelism that tries to equate slave owners lashing slaves to work harder with capitalists pursing ever increasing efficiency. And the author, being a sociologist and not an economist, commits massive math errors, overstating the economic significance of slavery by a magnitude: https://www.thecollegefix.com/cornell-scholar-cited-in-nyts-... https://www.aier.org/article/the-statistical-errors-of-the-r...

> Coates’s numbers come from Cornell University historian Ed Baptist’s 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told. In a key passage in the book, Baptist purports to add up the total value of economic activity that derived from cotton production, which at $77 million made up about 5 percent of the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States in 1836. Baptist then committed a fundamental accounting error. He proceeded to double and even triple count intermediate transactions involved in cotton production — things like land purchases for plantations, tools used for cotton production, transportation, insurance, and credit instruments used in each. Eventually that $77 million became $600 million in Baptist’s accounting, or almost half of the entire antebellum economy of the United States.

See also: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/1619-project-new-york...

In fact, slavery kept the south poor (as economic theory would predict—you can’t make a society richer by enslaving labor; that makes the society poorer even if it enriches a minority of slave owners). Productivity and ultimately industrialization took off dramatically in the south after slavery was ended: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html

I guess it’s true that history is written by the victors. I guess it’s not so clear who the victors were and if they will remain so.

It’s strange for me, having been brought up on American idealism, and the power of freedom (of speech), democracy, that whole Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness thing.

This civil-warish thing has seemed to have escalated quite dramatically however quite recently and it’s hard not to see TFA within that context based on anti-BLM articles that ZH has been publishing.

History is written by whoever actually writes it. Thus for a century after the US Civil War a view extremely kind to the South, and Sima Qian, who lost at politics so comprehensively he was castrated is where we get most of our knowledge of the Emperor who ordered the deed done.

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2016/11/history-is-writte...

> Thucydides’ obsession with Brasidas is easy to understand once his personal relation to Thucydides is made clear. His portrayal of Brasidas as daring, brilliant, charismatic, and clever beyond measure also begins to make sense—the greater Brasidas' past feats appear, the less damning Thucydides defeat at his hands becomes.

> Thucydides treatment of Brasidas is hardly unique. You can play this game with many other aspects of Thucydides’ History, from his attitude towards Athenian democracy (which voted for his exile) to his unflattering portrayal of Cleon (who replaced him). Thucydides lost battles with them all. The History of the Peloponnesian War was written by a loser.

I'm afraid you've lost a "P" there. Prussia, not Russia. Different places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Prussia

In that light, it is not the advertisers making the decision in this case. It is google refusing to place add for advertisers who presumably want to advertise on zerohedge.

Of course the above is simplistic. For one I don't know if alternative action existed that would not set a precedent of censorship.

It's really astonishing how much of a facade the commitment to free enterprise on the political right was now that some conspiracy websites get the treatment they deserve