It is sad that
basquebromance ’s OP on the “1619 Project” led to two outrageous responses. This is old news, but the hysteria and mad partisanship is a salutary reminder of the hysteria the culture war has generated.
There were indeed serious problems with the “1619 Project.” There is no space here to properly outline those problems, or to talk about “critical race theory.“ The “historical errors” in this case many educators and historians quickly recognized, but liberal journalists were way too slow in catching on. Such problems cannot be countered by re-introducing 1950s-style “patriotic education,” which was just hagiography of the USA.
The “1619 Project” launched in 2019 by
New York Times Magazine and led by Op-Ed columnist Nicole Hannah-Jones, was not a “radical left” perspective. Bad history is bad history, and those who early pointed out the errors of the
NYT’s 1619 Project included most notably Trotskyist leftists as well as diverse African American scholars such as Princeton historian Nell Painter, leftist Professor Adolph Reed, Columbia's John McWhorter (a liberal centrist) and Brown's George Loury (a moderate conservative). These were not minor African-American scholars.
Of course other professional liberal and conservative historians, not merely these African-Americans, were quick to point out the exaggeration of interpretation and shortage and distortion of facts in the journalistic piece by the non-historian director of the Project. For example notable historian James McPherson, who has done much to mold contemporary views of the Civil War due to his remarkable book Battle Cry of Freedom and narration of the PBS special “The Civil War,” quickly opposed the mistakes in the 1619 Project.
I disagree with the views of Brian Kilmeade but it is true that liberal identity politics and the more general tendency to twist history to better support political partisanship, affects not just the teaching of history, sociology and curriculum at colleges, but also the news media, and ultimately sometimes even political policy. Imo, the
New York Times only hurt it’s own credibility in this whole episode.
Of course much rightwing demagogy on the issue didn’t aim simply at rejecting errors of the 1619 Project, but advocated a “patriotic education” that equally distorts American historical reality. I remember some cringing speeches on this subject … one by Donald Trump in particular.
More generally, it is simply not possible to “do history” correctly if we see it as only reflecting “liberal” vs “conservative,” or “national patriotic” vs. “humanistic universalist,” counterposed perspectives. History is not a hard science and treating “patriotic history” always and everywhere involves dealing with deeply emotional national myths. Of course children need to learn some basic “facts” of history before getting lost in theory, but an awareness that there are dangers posed by all varieties of national mythmaking should at least begin in our High Schools.
Teaching historiography is crucial at the university level. The old hagiography of our Founding Fathers and much “Lost Cause” apologetics disappeared after the Civil Rights Movement and new historical research revealed their inadequacies. I am confident the faddish inadequacies associated with liberal identity politics, and much “critical race theory” too, will also pass.
But we must not look backwards and throw out the baby with the bath water. I myself stand with men like the aging Noam Chomsky, who supported the critical “Letter to Harper’s Magazine” signed by some 150 scholars and intellectuals.
Here are some thoughtful articles for those who want to look further at this important dispute:
1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not
U. professors send letter requesting corrections to 1619 Project
How we think about the term 'enslaved' matters
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate | Harper's Magazine
