Editor of *The New York Times Magazines* addresses recent criticisms of the 1619 Project

You can find all of our posts on the 1619 Project here. Here is Jake Silverstein, editor of The New York Times Magazine: Most of the questions around our display language have centered on variations on a single phrase. In some cases, we referred to 1619 as the nation’s “birth year,” in others as our … Continue reading Editor of *The New York Times Magazines* addresses recent criticisms of the 1619 Project

Is the 1619 Project backing-off some of its more problematic claims about the American founding?

It sure seems that way. Here is Tom Mackaman and David North at World Socialist Web Site: The New York Times, without announcement or explanation, has abandoned the central claim of the 1619 Project: that 1619, the year the first slaves were brought to Colonial Virginia—and not 1776—was the “true founding” of the United States. The … Continue reading Is the 1619 Project backing-off some of its more problematic claims about the American founding?

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton opposes “cancel culture.” Unless, of course, it is the 1619 Project

I just learned today that Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton is trying to pass legislation to prohibit schools from using federal funds to teach the New York Times‘s 1619 Project. (If you are unfamiliar with the 1619 Project, read our coverage here. We’ve collected most of the pertinent articles). This week I am doing Q&A sessions with … Continue reading Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton opposes “cancel culture.” Unless, of course, it is the 1619 Project

The 1619 Project Backs-Off a Controversial Claim. World Socialist Website Responds

Recently, The New York Times Magazine editor Jake Silverstein issued a statement to clarify a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project. (See our post here). The passage under consideration, which came from project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones’s essay, argued that the British-American colonists fought the American Revolution to protect the institution of slavery. After … Continue reading The 1619 Project Backs-Off a Controversial Claim. World Socialist Website Responds

*The New York Times* Backs-Off a Controversial Claim in its 1619 Project

The New York Times Magazine offers some nuance. It appears that a recent panel featuring Alan Taylor, Annette Gordon-Reed, and others had something to do with this.  Watch it here: A taste: Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project that has sparked a great deal of online debate. … Continue reading *The New York Times* Backs-Off a Controversial Claim in its 1619 Project

Conservative African American Intellectuals Respond to *The New York Times* 1619 Project

The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) is calling attention to Episode 63 of The Way of Improvement Leads Home Podcast.  This is our interview with Kings College (PA) history professor Thomas Mackaman, a critic of The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project.  Mackaman is the historian who interviewed several prominent American historians–Gordon Wood, James McPherson, … Continue reading Conservative African American Intellectuals Respond to *The New York Times* 1619 Project

*World Socialist Web Site* Responds to the Editor of the *American Historical Review* on the 1619 Project

Here is David North and Tom Mackaman: On January 23, Alex Lichtenstein, editor of the American Historical Review (AHR), posted an online statement defending the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project against criticism from the World Socialist Web Site and several eminent historians. The editorial, “From the Editor’s Desk: 1619 and All That,” will appear in the forthcoming issue of the leading journal among American academic … Continue reading *World Socialist Web Site* Responds to the Editor of the *American Historical Review* on the 1619 Project

Another Group of Historians Criticize the *New York Times* 1619 Project

If you are not familiar with The New York Times 1619 Project you can get up to speed here. The latest group of critics includes American historians Michael Burlingame, Allen Guelzo, Peter Kolchin, George Rable, and Colleen Sheehan.  A letter was sent to The New York Times Magazine, but the newspaper refused to publish it.  Editor … Continue reading Another Group of Historians Criticize the *New York Times* 1619 Project

Sean Wilentz’s Criticism of *The New York Times*’s 1619 Project

Some of you will remember Sean Wilentz‘s letter to The New York Times criticizing the newspaper’s 1619 Project.  You can read it here.  The letter is signed by Wilentz, Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood.  With the exception of Wilentz, all of these American historians criticized the 1619 Project at the World … Continue reading Sean Wilentz’s Criticism of *The New York Times*’s 1619 Project

Clayborne Carson is the Latest to Talk to the World Socialist Web Site About the 1619 Project

Clayborne Carson is professor of history at Stanford University and director of its Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. He is the author and editor of numerous books on King and the civil rights movement, including The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Here is a taste of his interview with Tom Mackaman at World Socialist … Continue reading Clayborne Carson is the Latest to Talk to the World Socialist Web Site About the 1619 Project

University of North Carolina Historian Peter Colcanis Joins the Criticism of *The New York Times* 1619 Project

Peter Colcanis, Albert R. Newsome Distinguished Professor of History at UNC,  writes at Spectator USA: The great French historian Marc Bloch wrote many years ago in The Historian’s Craft about the ‘idol of origins’. When people make the common error of fixating on beginnings, they run the risk of ‘confusing ancestry with explanation’. The principals in the New York Times’s project seem … Continue reading University of North Carolina Historian Peter Colcanis Joins the Criticism of *The New York Times* 1619 Project