3 ms·

The 1619 project is at its core flawed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Critical_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Critical_

The 1619 project is at its core flawed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Critical_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Critical_resp... The American Revolution was simply not about protecting slavery. You can't say the birth of America was a racist endeavor - it's factually incorrect. This is historical revisionism.

wahern 7y ago
It's noted on the Pulitzer page for the award (https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-york-times https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-yor...) that the NY Times issued a correction to the original essay: "A passage has been adjusted to make clear that a desire to protect slavery was among the motivations of some of the colonists who fought the Revolutionary War, not among the motivations of all of them." See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the... ("Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project that has sparked a great deal of online debate.")
- newacct583 7y ago
  Which sounds about right to me. This wasn't ever that controversial a suggestion, nor is it unique to this essay. But it was an easy target for people who wanted to oppose the project as a whole. So we get comments like the grandparent, who apparently views this one idea as the "core" of a project that literally covers four hundred years of history. It's tiresome. I mean, I read this stuff when it was published (it was really great, and absolutely Pulitzer-worthy), and I swear when the knives started flying I had to go back and find the passages in question because frankly I didn't even remember them. It's also really upsetting that still, in the year 2020, the idea that black folks experience endemic racism is a partisan idea that has to be opposed by half the population as a matter of faith.
  - seibelj 7y ago
    The idea being pushed is that America was founded centrally on racism, is still racist, and will forever be racist. I disagree entirely.
    - newacct583 7y ago
      That's an extraordinarily maximalist interpretation of what to me was a relatively nuanced take on a complicated subject. I mean, racial politics has absolutely been one critical driving factor in American history. Surely you'd agree with that part? So maybe grant that framing and re-read it? I think you'd be surprised.
untog 7y ago
A more correct way of summarising the link you provided is that some historians contend the 1619 Project is at its core flawed, and it has been criticised by many prominent conservatives. It’s a subject of much debate both in and out of academic circles.
- haberman 7y ago
  > and it has been criticised by many prominent conservatives. ...and Socialists: "Both Wood's and McPherson's remarks were published by the World Socialist Website, a left-wing, socialist website, which claims that the 1619 project's "aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal 'identities'—i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race."[41] The site has also published interviews on the project with historians Victoria Bynum[42] and James Oakes,[43] and promoted a lecture series critiquing the project's alleged "racialist falsification of American and world history."[41]"
- marcusverus 7y ago
  I'd recommend reading the three articles below, which constitute the public back-and-forth between the prominent historians who have been critical of the project and the NYT. I'm not sure how you can read these (especially the brutal Atlantic article) and come away believing that the Times is acting in good faith w/ regards to the publication and defense of the 1619 Project. When you look at the arguments offered up by the Times, they seem to be holding themselves to some standard other than objective truth. Just look at their arguments in defense of Hannah-Jones' claim (which she states as a fact) that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery". The NYT offers their support of this argument in paragraphs 7-10 of the Editor's Response [0](the second half). The author does not even attempt to support the claim was factually correct. He makes no argument that this is the belief of any single individual, let alone a believe as common as Hannah-Jones makes it out to be. Instead he states the existence of a single anti-slavery ruling, and the fact that news of it appeared in the newspaper. QED, defending slavery was a primary motivation for the revolution! To my eye, the author seems to be merely attempting to establish the argument's plausibility, as though the simple act of defending an argument is an acceptable substitution its for objective truth. History is and always should be about inquiry, about discovery of truth first and foremost. Making statements of fact about history without a regard for the truth is dangerous. There's a word for that, you know. And people are pushing to put this into public school curriculum! [0] Original Critique and NYT response: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th... [1] Historians' response: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-proje... [2] NYT Issues Correction: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the...
thaumaturgy 7y ago
There has been some discussion about this in /r/AskHistorians: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/czl900/a_piece_from_the_new_york_times_1619_project/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/czl900/a_pie... I'd encourage people to read the comments there.

wahern 7y ago

It's noted on the Pulitzer page for the award (https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-york-times https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-yor...) that the NY Times issued a correction to the original essay: "A passage has been adjusted to make clear that a desire to protect slavery was among the motivations of some of the colonists who fought the Revolutionary War, not among the motivations of all of them." See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the... ("Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project that has sparked a great deal of online debate.")

newacct583 7y ago
Which sounds about right to me. This wasn't ever that controversial a suggestion, nor is it unique to this essay. But it was an easy target for people who wanted to oppose the project as a whole. So we get comments like the grandparent, who apparently views this one idea as the "core" of a project that literally covers four hundred years of history. It's tiresome. I mean, I read this stuff when it was published (it was really great, and absolutely Pulitzer-worthy), and I swear when the knives started flying I had to go back and find the passages in question because frankly I didn't even remember them. It's also really upsetting that still, in the year 2020, the idea that black folks experience endemic racism is a partisan idea that has to be opposed by half the population as a matter of faith.
- seibelj 7y ago
  The idea being pushed is that America was founded centrally on racism, is still racist, and will forever be racist. I disagree entirely.
  - newacct583 7y ago
    That's an extraordinarily maximalist interpretation of what to me was a relatively nuanced take on a complicated subject. I mean, racial politics has absolutely been one critical driving factor in American history. Surely you'd agree with that part? So maybe grant that framing and re-read it? I think you'd be surprised.

untog 7y ago

A more correct way of summarising the link you provided is that some historians contend the 1619 Project is at its core flawed, and it has been criticised by many prominent conservatives. It’s a subject of much debate both in and out of academic circles.

haberman 7y ago
> and it has been criticised by many prominent conservatives. ...and Socialists: "Both Wood's and McPherson's remarks were published by the World Socialist Website, a left-wing, socialist website, which claims that the 1619 project's "aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal 'identities'—i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race."[41] The site has also published interviews on the project with historians Victoria Bynum[42] and James Oakes,[43] and promoted a lecture series critiquing the project's alleged "racialist falsification of American and world history."[41]"
marcusverus 7y ago
I'd recommend reading the three articles below, which constitute the public back-and-forth between the prominent historians who have been critical of the project and the NYT. I'm not sure how you can read these (especially the brutal Atlantic article) and come away believing that the Times is acting in good faith w/ regards to the publication and defense of the 1619 Project. When you look at the arguments offered up by the Times, they seem to be holding themselves to some standard other than objective truth. Just look at their arguments in defense of Hannah-Jones' claim (which she states as a fact) that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery". The NYT offers their support of this argument in paragraphs 7-10 of the Editor's Response [0](the second half). The author does not even attempt to support the claim was factually correct. He makes no argument that this is the belief of any single individual, let alone a believe as common as Hannah-Jones makes it out to be. Instead he states the existence of a single anti-slavery ruling, and the fact that news of it appeared in the newspaper. QED, defending slavery was a primary motivation for the revolution! To my eye, the author seems to be merely attempting to establish the argument's plausibility, as though the simple act of defending an argument is an acceptable substitution its for objective truth. History is and always should be about inquiry, about discovery of truth first and foremost. Making statements of fact about history without a regard for the truth is dangerous. There's a word for that, you know. And people are pushing to put this into public school curriculum! [0] Original Critique and NYT response: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th... [1] Historians' response: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-proje... [2] NYT Issues Correction: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the...

thaumaturgy 7y ago

There has been some discussion about this in /r/AskHistorians: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/czl900/a_piece_from_the_new_york_times_1619_project/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/czl900/a_pie... I'd encourage people to read the comments there.