Leftist racist tries to re-write history, gets called out in the Washington Post

Morons on the Left are praised and rewarded for re-writing history to support a Leftist agenda.  Case in point:  the rantings of racist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who led the NY Times' "1619 Project" claiming that the U.S. was actually founded in 1619 instead of 1776.  More recently she's claimed that the Revolutionary War was actually started after slave-owning colonists were angered by a British offer to free blacks who fled and joined British forces.

Now columnist George Will has taken on Hannah-Jones in the pages of the WaPo.  Will is something of a historian, and quickly saw that Hannah-Jones's had simply ignored the clear historical record.  That is, she'd re-written history:

So, Hanna-Jones claims the war of independence began in November of 1775, after the British offered freedom to Blacks who fled slavery and joined British forces.  If any of you learned about the war of independence in school, do you recall reading about the battles of Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill?  Would you say that those battles meant the war was on by the first one?

While the Brits did indeed make the clever offer in November of 1775 to free slaves who would join their ranks, propagandist Hannah-Jones overlooks many punitive acts and lethal fights that occurred before that date: 

• The Stamp Act (1765). 
• The Boston Massacre (1770)
• The Boston Tea Party (1773) 
• The Coercive Acts (1774, which included the British closing Boston’s port) 
• April 19th, 1775: the battles of Lexington and Concord
• June 17th, 1775: the battle of Bunker Hill 
• July 3rd, 1775:  George Washington assumes command of the Continental Army.

So by November of 1775--the date Hannah-Jones claims started the Revolutionary War--that war was already well underway--something that even a cursory fact-checking attempt would have shown.

But if her claim that our war of independence was caused by that clever British offer could so easily be shown false, why would she make that claim?

My guess is she didn't know the actual chronology, and made no effort to learn it, since actual history shows her claim to be utterly false.

But having watched communists write propaganda for decades, there's another equally plausible possibility:  She did research the history but chose to ignore it, confident no one would call her on it.

Propagandists like Hannah-Jones know they can get away with brazenly, totally re-writing history to their advantage because no one in the Mainstream Media will call them on it, and few Americans actually know the history the Left is lying about.

(For the benefit of young readers and Democrats not familiar with logic:  For event A to rationally be claimed as causing event B, event A had to happen before event B.  But in this case the British offer was only made after the war had been underway for seven months.)

H/T Legal Insurrection.