The NYT Should Explain Its Stealth Edits to the 1619 Project

The paper is walking back its claim that the year that slaves arrived in Jamestown was our 'true founding.'

By
79

Something strange is going on with the New York Times and the 1619 Project. 

By now you’ve probably heard of the 1619 Project. It began as a special issue of the Times’ Sunday magazine to mark the 400th anniversary of African slaves being brought to the Jamestown colonies. But it’s become a multiplatform, multimedia movable feast with saturation coverage and promotion. Oprah Winfrey is going to develop it for film and television. It’s being incorporated into curriculums from grade schools to universities through the Pulitzer Center. Not surprisingly, it won a Pulitzer Prize. Or, rather, the lead author and director of the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, won in the commentary category. 

It was a huge cultural event for journalism and a huge journalistic event in the culture. Critics and fans alike agree that it was agenda-setting in unprecedented ways. 

Which is why it’s so odd that Hannah-Jones and the Times are quietly taking back the project’s most controversial claim: that 1619, not 1776, was America’s “true founding.”

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
79
By
Comments (79)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Joe1776

    “Walking back” Is a very mild way to describe lying and saying you never said it to begin with and trying to alter documents to fit the New lie.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    I just want to say that the swaths of these comments that I've just been through are a tonic. People writing judiciously, taking each other seriously and, though opinionated, open to discussion.

    Sadly, this is all rare enough to merit comment.

    Thanks to you all.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    JAB

    This is what I find curious about the whole thing.

    There was previously another group in this country that firmly believed that the history and nature of our nation could not be separated from the experience of slavery. That 1619 was our true founding so to speak.

    There was also an opposing group of people that firmly believed that slavery did not need to be an integral part of the American story and character.

    The first group was called "The Confederacy", and the second group was called "The Union". Maybe you have heard of them.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CoArch

      Fighting another civil war over slavery would be pure insanity. Would it not? Is this the suggestion? I guess I see you leading us but the end is not clear to me.

      Collapse
  4. Dylan Paul

    I work in multiple homes a day, often in bedrooms: bedrooms that have shelves of school textbooks. Howard Zinn is a common sight. The 1619 Project is not trivial, not trivial at all.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CoArch

      I was a history major in college. Which means that I spent around 60 more credit hours studying certain time periods and certain cultures than the typical undergrad student with a different major. So I don't really pretend to have too much more than a casual knowledge of the past and certainly am no historian. What I do know is that being aware of the possible biases of especially primary but also secondary sources was always stressed as germane to the understanding of any historical texts being studied.

      There are obvious reasons why the 1619 Project is titled as such. To be provocative. To grab attention. To be reviewed and read. We all know this. Once we've calmed down about the title - is there anything in it that is new or adds to the available body of scholarship? There is much in it most of us would be willing to stipulate. Most surely there is much in it that at least lies by omission. In true college essay fashion it cherry picks facts, relies on hyperbole, assigns simple and convenient conclusions to vastly complex events and eliminates context to support an opinion that black Americans are integral to freedom and democracy in this country. Which is neither radical nor provocative in my opinion and can be argued much more easily in far fewer words. Adding to the context of the founding for a broader audience is perhaps its best aspect if it even does that. Calling 1619 the real founding is just patently absurd and is clearly false and can only be taken seriously in the context of a provocative narrative device. But it did get you to read the rest of the paper, right? The author's career and education is focused on ethnic studies. Draw your own bias conclusions from there.

      The one other thing those 60 credit hours taught me was to recognize a polished term paper when I read one. Its set up in classic term paper fashion. But, if I was supposed to walk away from reading it being convinced that the country did begin in 1619 then the paper is a failure. 1619 is an unconvincing narrative device that is just to convenient and too packaged. What I don't read (at least in the initial essay by Jones) are a cumulative list of demands in sort of therefore fashion. So why is this so political? What context am I missing?

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    In 1619, European society (including its colonies) still had one foot in the Middle Ages. By 1776, not only had the Enlightenment taken hold among all educated people, they were actively looking for ways to put its principles into practice.

    What *do* they teach them in these schools?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    bitteroot77

    I don't understand the comment about "slavery being treated as an asterisk". Does this mean that we don't really count that portion of our history?

    Another question: how far away in time from American's slave past do we have to get before we consider it too far away to matter (or, to have appreciable effect on our lives)?

    PS. This 1619 project will matter in 5 yrs because its being integrated into school curriculum!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Criticizing the Times is a waste of bits and pixels.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Most arrogant persons & entities in the world, when it comes to refusing to confess error and instead pressing full-speed ahead:

    (1) Donald J. Trump
    (2) New York Times
    (3) Washington Post
    (4) Millions of fourth-runners up.

    Collapse
  9. Dave Sheridan

    In this had appeared in most other publications we'd justifiably call it clickbait. IMO the Times has outlived its exemption from this kind of assessment.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I think Hannah-Jones realizes the Cisnormativeheteropatriarchy has always been at war with Eurasia, and she simply wants everyone to know that.

    Cisnormativeheteropatriarchy: I swear that looks like a Deutsche term, but what do I know?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      Gesundheit! God bless you.

      Collapse
Load More