Like James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes before him, historian Richard Carwardine has criticized The New York Times 1619 Project in an interview at World Socialist Web Site. Here is a taste: Q. Let me begin by asking you your reaction to the 1619 Project’s lead essay, by Nikole Hannah-Jones, upon reading … Continue reading Oxford’s Richard Carwardine is the Latest American Historian to Criticize the 1619 Project
I have said all I want to say about the 1619 Project. You can read my posts here. Over at The Atlantic, David Serwer tells the story behind the opposition to the project coming from historians Sean Wilentz, Victoria Bynum, Gordon Wood, James McPherson, and James Oakes. These historians recently published a letter criticizing the … Continue reading The Fight Over the *New York Times* 1619 Project
Interviews with historians James McPherson, Gordon Wood, and James Oakes at a socialist website are firing-up the political critics of The New York Times‘s 1619 Project. The latest to attack the project is Max Eden of the conservative Manhattan Institute. In his City Journal piece “A Divisive, Historically Dubious Curriculum” Eden concludes: To understand their country, … Continue reading Whose Afraid of the 1619 Project?
Princeton Civil War historian James McPherson has weighed-in. So has Gordon Wood, a historian of the American Revolution. And now it is time for CUNY-Graduate School historian James Oakes to offer his opinion on The New York Times‘s 1619 Project. Here is a taste of the World Socialist Website’s interview with Oakes: Q. Can you … Continue reading Historian James Oakes on the 1619 Project
Earlier this month we did a post on the World Socialist Website’s interview with James McPherson. The topic was The New York Times‘s 1619 Project. And now the same website has published an interview with historian Gordon Wood. Here is a taste of the interview: Q. The 1619 Project claims basically that nothing has ever … Continue reading Gordon Wood on the 1619 Project
What is the 1619 Project? Get up to speed here. Prize-winning Civil War historian James McPherson talks to Tom Mackaman at the World Socialist Website. Here is a taste of the interview: Q. What was your initial reaction to the 1619 Project? A. Well, I didn’t know anything about it until I got my Sunday … Continue reading Civil War Historian James McPherson on the Problems with the 1619 Project
My friend Wilfred McClay has weighed in on the New York Times 1619 Project in a Commentary magazine article. Several people have asked me to respond to it. Here we go: When the 1619 Project hit the pages of the Times, I defended it. I wrote several blog posts and published an op-ed in the Harrisburg Patriot-News. That op-ed appeared in other … Continue reading Does the 1619 Project Distort American History?
If you want to get conservatives riled-up these days, just mention the “1619 Project.” Last week I published an op-ed about the The New York Times project designed to commemorate 400 years of slavery in America and all hell broke loose. You can read my piece in the Harrisburg Patriot-News here. (Read some of the 155 comments). … Continue reading Michael Gerson: Conservative reaction to the “1619 Project” is “disappointing”
Over at Boston Review, Princeton graduate student David Walsh wonders why the conservative view of “patriotism” is so “fragile.” He comes up with three reasons for this: The conservative propensity for “viewing freedom and equality as incompatible.” Conservatives are invested in the “explicitly racist power arrangements that the 1619 Protect criticizes. Conservatives “revere history as a … Continue reading The 1619 Project: A “patriotism not of hagiography but of struggle”
I am guessing, and it is only a guess, that most critics of the 1619 Project have not read much serious American history, particularly the history of American slavery and race. Here is Jeet Heer of The Nation: I honestly don’t know how anyone can read those essays and conclude they portray the USA as “intrinsically … Continue reading The Attack on the 1619 Project is an Attack on Mainstream Historical Scholarship and Teaching
Jim Geraghty writes about everything that is missing from the story of African-American history told in The New York Times 1619 Project. The National Review writer seems to think that the project is an African-American history textbook that must cover everything. But David French sees some merit in the project: The black American argument for liberty is … Continue reading This is the Best You Will Get from the *National Review* on “The 1619 Project”
We introduced readers to The New York Times 1619 Project in this post. It now looks like there are some people who do not like the newspaper’s attempt to observe the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. Here are a few examples: Limbaugh spent his first hour today talking about the New York Times’ new “1619” … Continue reading Some Thoughts on the Opposition to the 1619 Project
Yesterday we introduced readers to the 1619 Project, a New York Times website on the history of slavery and its legacy in America. Over at the website of the Pulitzer Center, history teachers will find tools for teaching the project. The page is loaded with lesson plans, activities, and reading guides.
Here is what it’s all about: The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the … Continue reading *The New York Times* Introduces the “1619 Project”
Historian John Turner, author of a new book on the Plymouth Colony, helps us sort this out. Here is a taste of his piece at The National Review: Some of the critics have gone so far as to propose alternative “birth years.” Last fall, the National Association of Scholars launched a 1620 project, a series of … Continue reading 1619 or 1620?
The debate over the 1619 Project continues. What is the 1619 Project and how has the debate over its publication unfolded thus far? Click here and read our posts. Here is Conor Friedersdorf a The Atlantic: America’s original revolutionaries, along with Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King Jr., all placed the universalist ideals of the … Continue reading 1619 or 1776?
The “20 And odd negroes” who arrived in Virginia in 1619 were the first slaves in English North America, but slavery existed in North American well before this. Here is Olivia Waxman at Time: The 400th anniversary being marked this month is really the 400th anniversary of the Anglo-centric history of Africans in the U.S., says Greg Carr, … Continue reading Let’s Remember That Slavery in North America Pre-Dates 1619
The 1776 Commission. The 1619 Project. The renaming of San Francisco schools. I have weighed-in on all three of these cases and in every case I wondered why more historians were not involved. Here is James Grossman, director of the American Historical Association: I’m wrestling with a dilemma, a paradox. Media, social and otherwise, want … Continue reading Can we have a history without historians?
Read previous installments in this series here. Part Four of the 1776 Commission Report covers what it calls’ “Challenges to America’s Principles.” Slavery is identified as one of these “challenges.” At this point in our series it is important to remember that the 1776 Commission was formed as a reaction to the 1619 Project, a series … Continue reading What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report? Part 4
Read previous installments in this series here. It is now difficult to find the 1776 Commission Report, but I managed to locate a copy in the Internet Archive. The authors begin with the Articles of Confederation. The report teaches a “critical period” approach to the 1780s, arguing that “American statesmen and citizens alike concluded that … Continue reading What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report? Part 3