Historians critique the 1619 Project <> NYT mag. editor responds

[Red Shield]

those people are gonna bytch and moan about anything dealing with us.

 

[NZA]

i havent read this project yet and im sure these laypersons made factual errors, but i do look at the signers of that letter funnystyle. they didnt even bother starting this dialogue in person. they were quick to publicly accuse the writer of being ideological, but not criticizing their own leftist class reductionist motivations, not to mention the general cacery that has persisted in making american historical education and discourse as bad as it is.

i agree with the historians who were asked to sign the letter but refused to do so. this project needed to be edited by more serious historians, but the letter is malicious and an attempt to maintain the status quo in historical narrative.

 

[Allah]

This whole problem would have been solved by a symposium or conference of vetted historians that debate and draft proposals

...but why would the NYT, a propaganda mouthpiece for the American establishment, care about making a contribution like that? Im glad these historians said something but is it really that beyond them to organize something like this independent of a clearly biased media outlet?

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

So are there errors or not?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Ehh, why they made it the 1619 project, when if we’re really to dig into history, you need to go back to the very early 1500’s and the first slaves of the Dutch. I think we need to stop highlighting 1619 and ignoring the century of slavery, racism and indentured servitude preceding it

 

[Starman]

Ehh, why they made it the 1619 project, when if we’re really to dig into history, you need to go back to the very early 1500’s and the first slaves of the Dutch. I think we need to stop highlighting 1619 and ignoring the century of slavery, racism and indentured servitude preceding it

Was that on what is now the US?

 

[afterlife2009]

I always looked at Nikole Hannah-Jones funny but this had me

 

[EndDomination]

Knew there would be white backlash.

 

[EndDomination]

i havent read this project yet and im sure these laypersons made factual errors, but i do look at the signers of that letter funnystyle. they didnt even bother starting this dialogue in person. they were quick to publicly accuse the writer of being ideological, but not criticizing their own leftist class reductionist motivations, not to mention the general cacery that has persisted in making american historical education and discourse as bad as it is.

i agree with the historians who were asked to sign the letter but refused to do so. this project needed to be edited by more serious historians, but the letter is malicious and an attempt to maintain the status quo in historical narrative.

There were historians and academics throughout the piece, not necessarily “laypersons.”

This whole problem would have been solved by a symposium or conference of vetted historians that debate and draft proposals

...but why would the NYT, a propaganda mouthpiece for the American establishment, care about making a contribution like that? Im glad these historians said something but is it really that beyond them to organize something like this independent of a clearly biased media outlet?

What exactly was the biased portion?
I’ve been watching historians who didn’t actually read the piece go after Nikole on social media just to air general grievances. Not anything of value.

So are there errors or not?

There aren’t.
This is more of a grievance letter from (mostly white) moderate historians who were offended they weren’t called in on the project.

I always looked at Nikole Hannah-Jones funny but this had me

Most symposiums and speaker series have corporate sponsors.
It’s not shocking.
This is how capitalism works.

 

[NZA]

There were historians and academics throughout the piece, not necessarily “laypersons.”

What exactly was the biased portion?
I’ve been watching historians who didn’t actually read the piece go after Nikole on social media just to air general grievances. Not anything of value.

There aren’t.
This is more of a grievance letter from (mostly white) moderate historians who were offended they weren’t called in on the project.

Most symposiums and speaker series have corporate sponsors.
It’s not shocking.
This is how capitalism works.

i was talking about editing. did those historians have final say over the project, or where they merely interviewed?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

They declared independence in part so they could harass Native Americans more and drive them off their land. That's literally written into the Declaration. They were all pissed off that the Brits were holding back.

So far as the slavery angle goes...I don't know. My impression of the time was that there were Americans, including Patriots, on both sides of the issue as well as Brits on both sides and a lot of the slaveowners were loyalists, so I would think the dynamics would be a bit complex to really attribute it heavily to that issue alone. But I haven't seen the 1619 series yet.

 

[Conan]

What gets me in these critiques is that the status quo is so desperate to maintain the viewpoint that the founders "meant well", and that despite all the bullshyt of slavery and oppression, we can't be cynical about the United States' journey because it's arc bends towards righteousness or some other crap.

They had the same level of critique for "A People's History of the United States" which was more rigorous in terms of using primary sources. fukk their privileged optimism.

 

[Allah]

There were historians and academics throughout the piece, not necessarily “laypersons.”

What exactly was the biased portion?
I’ve been watching historians who didn’t actually read the piece go after Nikole on social media just to air general grievances. Not anything of value.

There aren’t.
This is more of a grievance letter from (mostly white) moderate historians who were offended they weren’t called in on the project.

Most symposiums and speaker series have corporate sponsors.
It’s not shocking.
This is how capitalism works.

NYT is a corporation, nothing objective about its perspective. This project reflects their bias clearly which they should embrace instead of trying to be "above bias"

 

[ogc163]

 

[EndDomination]

NYT is a corporation, nothing objective about its perspective. This project reflects their bias clearly which they should embrace instead of trying to be "above bias"

What are their “biases” exactly?