The 1619 Project is by and large loathed and rejected by the broader society of American history academia. Even those who would be the most historiographically inclined to defend it (liberal revisionists) think it's a garbage piece will little actual value as a piece of historical inquiry. As a historian I think it's a shame, albeit not a particularly surprising one, that yet another sensationalist piece of liberal history conducted by amateur historians with little concern for the historical method of inquiry has come to dominate the conversation.
It's frankly frustrating this keeps happening. I'm tired of having the same conversations over and over and over again. To an extent I blame liberal (in the historiographical sense) academics, professors, and their grad student foot soldiers for doing this. The academics for enabling it when they know it's trash, and their lackeys for falling for it hook, line and sinker. The venn diagram of history students taken in with whig ideology and history students who still read the failing New York Times is a circle. These kids suck. And I don't have the patience to listen some lily-white private school kid reading about Charlemagne on daddy's money tell me every other month about "how we need to rethink whiteness" or recognize "the integral role white supremacy plays in American history". It's not that I disagree with those concepts in a vacuum, and I think both are vital conversations to have in the study of American history. But it does get a little tiresome when it's advocates are always amateurs with only a shallow understanding of the historical method, like the journalists who wrote the 1619 Project.
It's just straight up bad history. It's equally distressing to me that the majority of the criticisms of the 1619 Project in this thread have been on the basis that it is "anti-American". Are y'all really that f##king soft? Do you expect histories to just be a glorification of the United States? Is every history book supposed to further confirm your romantic, and misguided notion that the United States is a uniquely moral and benevolent country? If so then I'd recommend School House Rock, leave the serious historical inquiry to the folks not as blinded by their emotions. Snowflakes the lot of you.
The fundamental issue with the 1619 Project isn't that it's "anti-American". Jesus. It's the fact that its methodology is sloppy, its primary sources are few and cherrypicked, and that its conclusions require too many assumptions to hold water.
I don't believe for a second that OSR has actually read it.
What's wrong with whiggery? Are you some sort of tory absolutist? 
Hell yes! The only good guys in the english civil war.
