@BenWPYes SE CT Thanks for the correction
@LewisBrahamI don't want the following to be too detailed or political, but comments deserve a specific response.
I am deeply hurt that you believe my complaints about the original
16
19 project are based on “prejudice” and are “foolish” and “worse”. I do not think these adjectives improve the tenor of our discussions here. Many other people share my concerns about the lead essay of
16
19 for similar reasons, and these concerns limited it's impact considerably.
I was using
16
19 as an example of the ideological and political agenda that seems to frame almost all media today, from the WSJ (whose editorials I occasionally read although they always seem to cherry pick facts that support their anti- Biden agenda) and the NYT on the left.
I was referencing the opinion of five well known professional historians (who I have read and greatly respect), about the statement of Nikole Hannah-Jones (
169
1 lead editor, a journalist, not a historian), that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery”.
These historians believe this key statement in the lead essay is “factually inaccurate” and a “displacement of historical accuracy by ideology”. This made a lot of people suspect ideology and inaccuracy might be common here, and made them suspicious of the motives around the entire effort. It ignited a controversy that was a significant distraction to the impact
16
19 could have had.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.htmlGordon Wood, James McPhearson and the other historians say in their letter
“We applaud all efforts to address the enduring centrality of slavery and racism to our history. Some of us have devoted our entire professional lives to those efforts, and all of us have worked hard to advance them. Raising profound, unsettling questions about slavery and the nation’s past and present, as The
16
19 Project does, is a praiseworthy and urgent public service. Nevertheless, 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. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the objections of only “white historians” — has affirmed that displacement.”
“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. “(end quote)
There are more detailed refutations available than this letter. Like most controversial subjects, it is not black and white, but it seems to me very unlikely that continued British rule would have abolished slavery more quickly, as it continued in Britain until
1833.
https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-and-its-critics/The Times says they did not assemble a group of experts on the Revolution to get differing views on this critical statement for a debate or analysis. None of the five academics they consulted is a Revolutionary War historian. Their research is focused on economics, poverty, evictions, injustice, racism and civil rights. The two who were trained in History, research the 20th century, not the Revolution.
A penetrating analysis of the Revolution’s origin with factual material on both sides would have eliminated much of the controversy about the original
16
19 statement. But I have to agree with Wood et. al. that ideology seems to have take precedence over a debate about the facts.
Unfortunately, there are few sources that a reader can go to find both sides and facts of an issue without being filtered though a pre-existing viewpoint to score points with their “tribe”.
One of the few I have found that tries to present both sides of an issue in a daily email, using material from pretty much mainstream media is www.theflipside.io. They focus on current issues and try to present both sides (without quoting Fox news). Here is their presentation of the original
16
19 project.
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/the-1619-projectI would look at their recent posts on Kevin McCarthy, Tax policy, and Classified Documents from last week.
