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 projec

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...