Read on Twitter
Excellent summary of how works of history are produced. https://twitter.com/mccormick_ted/status/1288182546136801280
It strikes me that few of the conservative critics of the 1619 Project think of history in the way that thread depicts it. Otherwise, they would not have such an extreme and dismissive response to it.
It’s totally legit to criticize the choices the authors made, and to offer counter arguments to some of the interpretive claims. But to dismiss it and seek to cancel it as “not history” is ludicrous.
Now cue all the right wing reply guys who will offer a screenshot of @nhannahjones saying the 1619 Project was journalism, not history.
Which is a cute semantic game they play, but it totally misses the point. The 1619 Project was based on a reading of the work of historians, and was an effort to summarize and convey that historical knowledge in a journalistic medium.
No one who understands how history works ever claims that a work of history is the final & complete word on something. That is not the spirit in which the 1619 Project was produced, nor the spirit in which any good teacher of history would use it (and any text) in the classroom.
History is an argument. And like any argument, its quality is directly proportional to how many different perspectives are brought to bear, how grounded the arguments are in evidence, and how compelling are the reasons people provide for their particular positions.
Every historian I know regards the 1619 Project as a compelling work of history. Are there certain claims they might qualify or contest? Sure. Are there things left out that they think should have been included? Of course. And the same can be said for EVERY WORK OF HISTORY EVER.
They hysterical overreaction to the 1619 Project can be chalked up, almost entirely, to racism. Not necessarily overt, KKK-style racism, but just the racism of a country that can not stand it for a second if black history gets top billing in the New York Times for one f-ing week.
As a point of contrast, here's a thread on the book that was at the center of the bicentennial conversation in 1976. Check out the sorts of choices the authors of this text made, and ask yourself if you agree with them. https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1208439502185779200?s=20
