![]() More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times missed: White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in their territory, but white Northerners were much more conflicted, with many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave colonies. An accurate understanding of our history must present a comprehensive picture, and it’s by paying attention to these scholars that we’ll get there. history-one that centers on race without denying the roles of other influences or erasing the contributions of white elites. Over the past half-century, important foundational work on the history and legacy of slavery has been done by a multiracial group of scholars who are committed to a broad understanding of U.S. And the argument among historians, while real, is hardly black and white. The United States was not, in fact, founded to protect slavery-but the Times is right that slavery was central to its story. Some observers, including at times Hannah-Jones herself, have framed the argument as evidence of a chasm between black and white scholars (the historians who signed the letter are all white), pitting a progressive history that centers on slavery and racism against a conservative history that downplays them.īut the debates playing out now on social media and in op-eds between supporters and detractors of the 1619 Project misrepresent both the historical record and the historical profession. Senate when, during the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump’s lawyer cited the historians’ letter to slam the project. (This plan is already inviting its own correction request, since Plymouth Rock is not actually the site of the Pilgrims’ first landing.) The project was even criticized on the floor of the U.S. The right-wing publication The Federalist is extending the fight with a planned “1620 Project” about the anniversary of the Mayflower Landing at Plymouth Rock. The criticism of the Times has emboldened some conservatives to assert that such “revisionist history” is flat-out illegitimate. For her part, Hannah-Jones has acknowledged that she overstated her argument about slavery and the Revolution in her essay, and that she plans to amend this argument for the book version of the project, under contract with Random House. They have demanded that the New York Times issue corrections on these points, which the paper has so far refused to do. A letter signed by five academic historians claimed that the 1619 Project got some significant elements of the history wrong, including the claim that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery. Now it’s back in circulation the Times is promoting it again during journalistic awards season, and it’s already a finalist for the National Magazine Awards and rumored to be a strong Pulitzer contender.īut it has also become a lightning rod for critics, and that one sentence about the role of slavery in the founding of the United States has ended up at the center of a debate over the whole project. The Times produced not just a magazine, but podcasts, a newspaper section, and even a curriculum designed to inject a new version of American history into schools. The 1619 Project became one of the most talked-about journalistic achievements of the year-as it was intended to. So far, that’s exactly what has happened. ![]() I was concerned that critics would use the overstated claim to discredit the entire undertaking. Overall, the 1619 Project is a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories that once dominated our understanding of the past-histories that wrongly suggested racism and slavery were not a central part of U.S. ![]() In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.īoth sets of inaccuracies worried me, but the Revolutionary War statement made me especially anxious. I explained these histories as best I could-with references to specific examples-but never heard back from her about how the information would be used.ĭespite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. ![]() The editor followed up with several questions probing the nature of slavery in the Colonial era, such as whether enslaved people were allowed to read, could legally marry, could congregate in groups of more than four, and could own, will or inherit property-the answers to which vary widely depending on the era and the colony. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |