Biden administration cites the 1619 project as inspirational in history grant proposal

[Calthrina950]

We've had several "Opinion of the 1619 Project" polls on this forum, all of which revealed it to be extraordinarily unpopular, and none of which uncovered anyone all that interested in defending it. It's favorability peaked at 26% last summer and fell to 10% as of a couple of months ago.

Here are a couple of balanced pieces that point to issues with the project, both of which have been shared here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ - Professor of history and fact-checking collaborator who was rebuked for rejecting one of the project's central claims, that the American War of Independence was fought primarily to preserve slavery. He also expresses concern about criticism of the project taking toxic forms, but this contributes to his critique.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html - Critique from Victoria Bynum, James McPherson and other historians, published as a letter to the editor + response in the NY Times. They argue that the project involves substantial failures in matters of fact, method, and presentation.

Quoting central claims for those too lazy to click:

We are dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it.

These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. [...] On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false. Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”

Still other material is misleading. The project criticizes Abraham Lincoln’s views on racial equality but ignores his conviction that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed universal equality, for blacks as well as whites, a view he upheld repeatedly against powerful white supremacists who opposed him. The project also ignores Lincoln’s agreement with Frederick Douglass that the Constitution was, in Douglass’s words, “a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.” Instead, the project asserts that the United States was founded on racial slavery, an argument rejected by a majority of abolitionists and proclaimed by champions of slavery like John C. Calhoun.

The 1619 Project has not been presented as the views of individual writers — views that in some cases, as on the supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices, have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability and have been seriously challenged by other historians. Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. Those connected with the project have assured the public that its materials were shaped by a panel of historians and have been scrupulously fact-checked. Yet the process remains opaque. The names of only some of the historians involved have been released, and the extent of their involvement as “consultants” and fact checkers remains vague. The selective transparency deepens our concern.

Kendi is even worse, and it's alarming how their influence continues to grow. That said, this is just a grant proposal, and none of the reporting on it so far does a good job of explaining what any of this means.

Last summer, I was at a Barnes and Noble bookstore with one of my former high school teachers, who was buying me a book as a (college) graduation gift. I ultimately ended up getting a biography of Andrew Jackson. One of the books which I looked at before making my choice was one written by Kendi. I don't remember what it was called, but it was some sort of "history about white supremacy", and the language that he used was heated. It came across as a rant against white dominance and white power.

While as a black person, I certainly don't think all aspects of our country's history have been fairly or thoroughly covered, I'm also someone who isn't uncomfortable with works that spin their own mistruths, if you will. Kendi certainly is someone who is favored by the mainstream media; CBS News had him on as a guest at the beginning of their Special Report coverage about the Chauvin trial a few weeks ago.

[Calthrina950]

I don't care for the 1619 Project either, but calling it "Un-American Propaganda" is simply untrue. It is, at the very least, an actual analysis of American history, unlike say, the 1776 commission, which actually is Propaganda.

To say it is an actual analysis is to declare that it has some basis in fact, which it clearly does not.

Any talk of "1776" aside (which obviously was formed in reaction to the "1619 Project"), Miss Hannah-Jones is clearly trying to push an agenda, and while it's maybe not one I would call "unpatriotic," it is very obviously one that is anti-white, which is worse.

Wow. Not even trying to hide your true colors anymore, are you?

Do red avs have any attempt at a witty response any more other than "wow, going full mask off" / "showing your true colors" anymore? I guess not. Pretty sad honestly. I defer to Dule's sig.

"But but but John Dule's sig" is going to be the new right-wing response to everything, isn't it?

If red avs wouldn't dish out the cookie-cutter one liners, invoking Dule's sig wouldn't be necessary.

Also, I'm not a right-winger lol

Yeah you're not a right-winger, you're just anti-transgender, anti-immigration, and anti-BLM and defend the Capitol Terrorists... nothing right-wing about that, right?

Why do you say Big Abraham is anti-transgender and anti-BLM? I haven't derived that impression from what he's written.