The 1619 Project
The 1619 Project is a collection of revisionist history developed by The New York Times to "reframe"[1] American history exclusively around slavery and racism, reading into history what the liberal revisionists can only wish was the reality.
The 1619 Project is named after the tragic year slaves from Africa first arrived in Virginia, and its premise is that Americaâs 18th-century founders fought a revolution âto ensure that slavery would continue,â that slavery was part of âthe brutality of American capitalism ⦠low-road capitalism ⦠winner-take-all capitalism ⦠racist capitalism.â
Criticism
The work has been roundly criticized,[2] including by prominent historians James Oakes,[3] Gordon S. Wood,[4] Victoria Bynum,[5] James McPherson of Princeton University,,[6] Richard Carwardine,[7] and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University.[8] Historian Leslie M. Harris has also criticized the project. Harris was one of the historians who was consulted by the Times during development of the 1619 Project. She wrote in Politico that despite her warnings as to the historical inaccuracy of the idea that the 13 colonies went to war to protect slavery, that the Times was more interested in its narrative than it was with the facts, so it ran with the story anyways.[9]
Another scholarly rebuke was from Princeton historian Allen Guelzo, who criticizes the misrepresentative 1619 Project, finding that it presents:
- "slavery not as a blemish that the Founders grudgingly tolerated with the understanding that it must soon evaporate, but as the prize that the Constitution went out of its way to secure and protect. The Times presents slavery not as a regrettable chapter in the distant past, but as the living, breathing pattern upon which all American social life is based, world without end.â "The 1619 Project is not history: it is polemic, born in the imaginations of those whose primary target is capitalism itself and who hope to tarnish capitalism by associating it with slavery." [10]
Although multiple top historians pointed out glaring factual inaccuracies within days of its launch, their concerns were largely ignored by the NYT, except for one response from editor Josh Silverstein who essentially dismissed a letter sent by five of the historians mentioned above (professors Wilentz, McPherson, Oakes, Wood and Bynum). Historian Gordon Wood sent a follow-up letter to NYT editor Silverstein, with permission to publish it, but which never was.[11][12]
Meanwhile in 1975 the future Vice President Joe Biden stated,
- âI donât feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and Iâll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.âhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/opinion/joe-biden.html
References
- â The 1619 Project: A Symposium On Reframing History, Smithsonian Institute
- â Lowry, Rich (January 3, 2020). Historians Roast the 1619 Project. National Review. Retrieved January 5, 2020.
- â An interview with historian James Oakes of the City University of New York on the New York Timesâ 1619 Project
- â An interview with historian Gordon Wood of Brown University on the New York Timesâ 1619 Project
- â Historian Victoria Bynum of Texas State University on the inaccuracies of the New York Times 1619 Project
- â An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Timesâ 1619 Project
- â Oxford historian Richard Carwardine on the New York Timesâ 1619 Project, World Socialist Web Site
- â A Matter of Facts
- â I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me., Politico
- â Marvin Olasky (March 01, 2020) Misplaced Blame: Using 1619 For Propaganda in 2020 Townhall.com. Retrieved March 05, 2020
- â Shelby Talcott (March 07, 2020) As Top Historians Ring Alarm Bells About NYTâs 1619 Project, Defiant Public Schools Refuse To Answer Questions The Daily Caller, Retrieved March 08, 2020
- â https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/22/historians-rip-nyt-request-correction-1619-project/