>>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

>>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. I have no idea what you are personally told or what views your friends, whatever their qualifications, have. The article's author is generally favorable to revisionist interpretations and even she has serious doubts. As a historical matter one of the central claims of the 1619 project is false and is mostly asserted without evidence. Now, if you produce a work with a thesis and one of the most important (as asserted by the work itself!) test cases of that thesis is false the credibility of that work is clearly undermind. >>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. [...] 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. The difference is that those works advanced the field even where they had shortcomings. They did so by rigorously supporting claims and providing evidence. The 1619 project does neither.