EXCERPT:
The 1619 Project is a
long-form journalism endeavor developed by
Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from
The New York Times, and
The New York Times Magazine focused on subjects of slavery and the founding of the United States.
[1] The first publication from the project was in
The New York Times Magazine of August 2019.
[2] The project developed an educational curriculum, supported by the
Pulitzer Center, later accompanied by a broadsheet article, live events, and a podcast.
[3] Historians, journalists, and commentators have described the
1619 Project as a
revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally reverenced events and people in
American history, including
the Patriots in the
American Revolution, the
Founding Fathers, along with later figures such as
Abraham Lincoln and
the Union during the
Civil War.
[4][5][6][7] On May 4, 2020, the
Pulitzer Prize board announced that they were awarding the 2020
Pulitzer Prize for Commentary to Hannah-Jones for her introductory essay.
[8][9]
The 1619 Project has received criticism from numerous historians, both from the political left and right, who
question its historical accuracy.
[6][10] In a letter published in
The New York Times in December 2019, historians
Gordon S. Wood,
James M. McPherson,
Sean Wilentz,
Victoria E. Bynum, and
James Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the project's creators of prioritizing ideology over historical accuracy. The scholars denied the project's claim that
slavery was essential to the beginning of the
American Revolution. In response,
Jake Silverstein, the editor of
The New York Times Magazine, defended The 1619 Project and refused to issue corrections.
[11]
In March 2020, in light of persistent criticism of the project's portrayal of the role of slavery,
The Times issued a "clarification", modifying one of the passages on slavery's role that had sparked controversy.
[12][13] In September 2020, controversy arose over when the
Times updated the opening text of the project website to remove the phrase "...understanding 1619 as our true founding..." without accompanying editorial notes. Critics, including
Bret Stephens of the
Times, claimed the differences showed that the newspaper was backing away from some of the initiative's controversial claims.
[14] The
Times defended its practices, with Hannah-Jones claiming that most of the project's content had remained unchanged.
[15][16][17]
...
en.wikipedia.org