Well yeah. It already is taken as fact in many circles that the primary purpose and intent of the American legal system and government was the subjugation of minorities.

While I think there is some value and truth in critical analysis of race, gender, or governance that challenge prevailing assumptions, many people have lost the plot and positive context entirely. They mistake the exceptions for the rule and the flaws for the thing itself.

> It already is taken as fact in many circles

You can really say this about anything. Not that I am disagreeing with you, but it’s a dubious way to frame anything you wish to state.

Sure, I agree it isn't very specific, but I wasn't trying to make a general claim, just provide a hopefully recognizable example of revisionist history.

I think it would be different if I was claiming that most people believe this narrative, or something like that.

I could have pointed to some specific academics who feel this way, but I'm not sure that is any more convincing. Basically any example can be ignored with a no true scottsman argument if someone is obstinate instead of curious.

Can you please provide a (credible or somehow representative) source claiming that the primary purpose and intent of the American legal system and government was the subjugation of minorities.

Yes. Look at the 1619 project. Historical revisionism is exactly what that is all about.

Revisionism tries to change facts. 1619 is another interpretation of history that can coexist with others. No one stops you from teaching or believing the traditional narrative.

From Forbes: Jonathan Zimmerman, an educational historian at the University of Pennsylvania, believes that teaching “The 1619 Project” alongside other interpretations of history “represents a huge opportunity to teach students what history actually is: an act of interpretation.”

This is typical conservative misrepresentative simplification and wailing overreaction. Also see "They want to take away our hamburgers".

You don’t get to decide the definitions of terms. Historical revisionism is BY DEFINITION the reinterpretation of history. Which as you have admitted, is exactly what 1619 is doing. Therefore 1619 is historical revisionism.

If you dare to say that 1619 is wrong, you get tagged with the “racist” term like you just did to me. Even though I’m a liberal that calls out bullshit when I see it.

I stand corrected. Yes, 1619 is revisionism, a term which is common usage is actually closer to negationism. But I was sloppy with my choice of words.

Calling out inaccuracy is a good thing. This issue generally is still an overreaction. And I did not call you a racist.