3 ms·

I think the GP means that the NYT has a recent history of peddling journalistic rags as academic papers, without the approval of the academic experts they've co

I think the GP means that the NYT has a recent history of peddling journalistic rags as academic papers, without the approval of the academic experts they've consulted. One of those fact checkers even wrote an article about how they were ignored by the NYT: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...

UncleMeat 4y ago
And I'm saying that your portrayal is foolish. From the very article you link > Overall, the 1619 Project is a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories that once dominated our understanding of the past—histories that wrongly suggested racism and slavery were not a central part of U.S. history. The 1619 Project contained historical errors that the authors should have avoided. But historians working in this area do not consider it to be a "journalistic rag" even as they criticize it. As I mentioned in my post, academic criticism is not evidence that a piece is devoid of merit.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  You're misrepresenting that article. That article was not some random historian offering an academic criticism. That person was hand-picked by the NYTimes to "fact-check" their article. They undoubtedly chose her because of her ideological background, thinking that she would be okay with revisionary history. She wasn't. So they ignored her.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I do not believe that I am misrepresenting the article. The reason I do not believe that is because I am personal friends with an unusual number of historians who work in early US history and the history of race in the US. The quote I pulled from the article very neatly sums up their opinion of the 1619 project. The NYT made fairly basic and preventable factual errors in the 1619 project. They should not have done this. This is not new or interesting or controversial information among relevant historians. What is controversial among relevant historians is the conclusion that therefore the 1619 project is ideological bullshit that shouldn't be seen as anything other than garbage. The author of the article you link was indeed correct - factual errors became a lightning rod for reactionaries to dismiss the work as propaganda. But that's not actually how criticism of historical writing works in the academic community. I suspect that if I spoke with the author of this piece, as I have spoken to many people who I suspect she would call colleagues, she'd be more likely to agree with my presentation than yours. All historical writing is "revisionist history." This term is not actually a slur in the academic community because each historian is almost necessarily writing on a topic that many historians have written on before and their work is in dialogue with the work that came before. Presenting a historical narrative from another perspective or through a different methodological lens is not bad nor does it attack or destroy the work that came before. Braudel has claims that are outright wrong but The Mediterranean is heralded as a triumph. Said has claims that don't hold up today but Orientalism is a critical step forward for the field. Heck, even fucking Foucault is seen as essential writing for historians despite him having all sorts of factual errors in his work. Historical writing should seek to be based in fact. But fucking up (even very badly) is not a reason to declare a work to be propaganda.
    - john_yaya 4y ago
      Facts are the foundation that such writing is built upon. If a piece of historical analysis contains a number of basic factual errors, that foundation is shaky at best. How can you or anyone go on to claim that the conclusion of the piece has any value at all, given that?
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        What is "a number"? What is the threshold at which it becomes appropriate to distrust the entire work? Most of the critique from the right seems to start with the point of view that the 1619 Project should be distrusted and works backwards from there, rather than determining its trustworthiness based on a good-faith reading of the work itself.
        refurb 4y ago
        When I did my thesis, the attitude was a factual error of significant magnitude brought the whole thesis into question.
        UncleMeat 4y ago
        What field was your thesis in? Would your committee have considered the entire contents to be propaganda?
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        Says you? Historians should seek to make their writing based on as firm of factual footing as possible and make it clear when they are making an inference due to limitations of the archive. But historians constantly work with material that has factual errors and they do not tend to consider this to be a death sentence for a particular work. I find that a huge number of people have very strong opinions about how historians work and have never actually spoken to one. The large bulk of historians I speak to, whether tenured or tenure track or at various different institutions, do not arrive at the same conclusion that you do. EDIT: We've hit the depth limit but I do not believe that I am more qualified here. I believe that professional historians are and that people should go speak to a bunch of them before developing very strong opinions about historical writing. I do not believe that this is a clubby toxic attitude but instead is valuing expertise and experience.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  But a big part of why people aren’t using stronger language to criticize it is they doing so is a guaranteed path to being called a racist and getting calls for your firing.

UncleMeat 4y ago

And I'm saying that your portrayal is foolish. From the very article you link > Overall, the 1619 Project is a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories that once dominated our understanding of the past—histories that wrongly suggested racism and slavery were not a central part of U.S. history. The 1619 Project contained historical errors that the authors should have avoided. But historians working in this area do not consider it to be a "journalistic rag" even as they criticize it. As I mentioned in my post, academic criticism is not evidence that a piece is devoid of merit.

somenameforme 4y ago
You're misrepresenting that article. That article was not some random historian offering an academic criticism. That person was hand-picked by the NYTimes to "fact-check" their article. They undoubtedly chose her because of her ideological background, thinking that she would be okay with revisionary history. She wasn't. So they ignored her.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I do not believe that I am misrepresenting the article. The reason I do not believe that is because I am personal friends with an unusual number of historians who work in early US history and the history of race in the US. The quote I pulled from the article very neatly sums up their opinion of the 1619 project. The NYT made fairly basic and preventable factual errors in the 1619 project. They should not have done this. This is not new or interesting or controversial information among relevant historians. What is controversial among relevant historians is the conclusion that therefore the 1619 project is ideological bullshit that shouldn't be seen as anything other than garbage. The author of the article you link was indeed correct - factual errors became a lightning rod for reactionaries to dismiss the work as propaganda. But that's not actually how criticism of historical writing works in the academic community. I suspect that if I spoke with the author of this piece, as I have spoken to many people who I suspect she would call colleagues, she'd be more likely to agree with my presentation than yours. All historical writing is "revisionist history." This term is not actually a slur in the academic community because each historian is almost necessarily writing on a topic that many historians have written on before and their work is in dialogue with the work that came before. Presenting a historical narrative from another perspective or through a different methodological lens is not bad nor does it attack or destroy the work that came before. Braudel has claims that are outright wrong but The Mediterranean is heralded as a triumph. Said has claims that don't hold up today but Orientalism is a critical step forward for the field. Heck, even fucking Foucault is seen as essential writing for historians despite him having all sorts of factual errors in his work. Historical writing should seek to be based in fact. But fucking up (even very badly) is not a reason to declare a work to be propaganda.
  - john_yaya 4y ago
    Facts are the foundation that such writing is built upon. If a piece of historical analysis contains a number of basic factual errors, that foundation is shaky at best. How can you or anyone go on to claim that the conclusion of the piece has any value at all, given that?
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      What is "a number"? What is the threshold at which it becomes appropriate to distrust the entire work? Most of the critique from the right seems to start with the point of view that the 1619 Project should be distrusted and works backwards from there, rather than determining its trustworthiness based on a good-faith reading of the work itself.
      - refurb 4y ago
        When I did my thesis, the attitude was a factual error of significant magnitude brought the whole thesis into question.
        UncleMeat 4y ago
        What field was your thesis in? Would your committee have considered the entire contents to be propaganda?
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Says you? Historians should seek to make their writing based on as firm of factual footing as possible and make it clear when they are making an inference due to limitations of the archive. But historians constantly work with material that has factual errors and they do not tend to consider this to be a death sentence for a particular work. I find that a huge number of people have very strong opinions about how historians work and have never actually spoken to one. The large bulk of historians I speak to, whether tenured or tenure track or at various different institutions, do not arrive at the same conclusion that you do. EDIT: We've hit the depth limit but I do not believe that I am more qualified here. I believe that professional historians are and that people should go speak to a bunch of them before developing very strong opinions about historical writing. I do not believe that this is a clubby toxic attitude but instead is valuing expertise and experience.
spoonjim 4y ago
But a big part of why people aren’t using stronger language to criticize it is they doing so is a guaranteed path to being called a racist and getting calls for your firing.