1619 Project is Commentary

Primary author of the 1619 project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, recently admitted what established scholars knew all along- the project is not history, but solely commentary.

This is why the Pulitzer prize awarded to the project was for commentary, not history. The New York Times was forced to amend the more egregious falsehoods presented by the authors as facts. The Editors still refused to relent on the validity of the essays. They instead utilized a social media campaign to discredit the scholars who criticized the project. A sad state academic circles are in when luminaries like Gordon Wood, Sean Wilentz, and James McPherson are labeled racists.

Secondary social studies educators around the country continue to be offered this project as curriculum. Efforts in the US Congress to prevent this are misguided. The 1619 project is far too politicized on its own grounds. The real choice for educators is between editorials based on dubious interpretations, or well established and peer reviewed historical scholarship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: