Five prominent historians challenged the Project's thesis, first in interviews with a socialist website, then in a letter to the Times urging factual corrections.
Jake Silverstein, editor-in-chief of the Times Magazine, admitted that the paper "Did not assemble a formal panel for this project," but he did identify five "Scholars of African-American history and related fields" with whom the Project consulted.
Neither Silverstein nor Hannah-Jones has explained why the Times chose not to consult with any of the letter's signatories, all leading scholars of eighteenth- or nineteenth-century America and specialists in the issues that the Project addressed.
The Times's weak response, combined with the seriousness of the historians' objections, raises an obvious question: why had so few historians signed onto the letter in the first place? An Atlantic article from Adam Serwer, in which scholars offered unimpressive rationalizations for abstaining from a strong public critique of the 1619 Project, unintentionally answers this question.
The historians, she noted, correctly understood that the American Revolution wasn't "Just a slaveholders' rebellion." But the 1619 Project was right in observing that the Constitution, as originally drafted, protected slavery.
Gordon Wood has argued that the Times's handling of the historians' letter means that "In the long run the Project will lose its credibility, standing, and persuasiveness with the nation as a whole." Perhaps.
The Project's slipperiness with the factual record provided a golden opportunity for professional historians to stand up for scholarship in an era where so many seem indifferent to objective facts.
https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-history-without-truth
Jake Silverstein, editor-in-chief of the Times Magazine, admitted that the paper "Did not assemble a formal panel for this project," but he did identify five "Scholars of African-American history and related fields" with whom the Project consulted.
Neither Silverstein nor Hannah-Jones has explained why the Times chose not to consult with any of the letter's signatories, all leading scholars of eighteenth- or nineteenth-century America and specialists in the issues that the Project addressed.
The Times's weak response, combined with the seriousness of the historians' objections, raises an obvious question: why had so few historians signed onto the letter in the first place? An Atlantic article from Adam Serwer, in which scholars offered unimpressive rationalizations for abstaining from a strong public critique of the 1619 Project, unintentionally answers this question.
The historians, she noted, correctly understood that the American Revolution wasn't "Just a slaveholders' rebellion." But the 1619 Project was right in observing that the Constitution, as originally drafted, protected slavery.
Gordon Wood has argued that the Times's handling of the historians' letter means that "In the long run the Project will lose its credibility, standing, and persuasiveness with the nation as a whole." Perhaps.
The Project's slipperiness with the factual record provided a golden opportunity for professional historians to stand up for scholarship in an era where so many seem indifferent to objective facts.
https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-history-without-truth
No comments:
Post a Comment