The 1619 Project

The 1619 Project is a historical revisionist long-form journalism project developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine which "aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States' national narrative".[1] The project was first published in The New York Times Magazine in August 2019 for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in England's Virginia colony.[2] The project later included a broadsheet article, live events, and a podcast.[3]

"The 1619 Project"
The 1619 Project logo
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Genre(s)Long-form journalism
PublisherThe New York Times
Publication dateAugust 2019

The project has received generally negative reviews from historians.[4][5][6][7] In a letter published in The New York Times in December 2019, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria Bynum and James Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the project of putting ideology before historical understanding. In response, Jake Silverstein, the editor of The New York Times Magazine, defended the accuracy of the 1619 Project and declined to issue corrections.[8] In March 2020, The Times issued a "clarification", modifying one of the passages that had sparked controversy.[9][10]

In September 2020, renewed controversy arose over edits that had been made to the project without accompanying editorial notes, which critics—including Bret Stephens of the Times—claimed showed the New York Times was backing away from some of the project's more controversial claims.[11][12][13] The Times defended its practices.[11][12][14]

Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her introductory essay to the 1619 Project.[15][16]

Background
Further information: Slavery in the colonial history of the United States
Further information: San Miguel de Gualdape

The 1619 Project was launched in August 2019 to commemorate "the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved people arriving" in North America.[17][18] However, the first enslaved African people arrived in North America in 1526.[19] Slavery in North America extends to before the arrival of Europeans[20] and European slavery in the New World is documented as far back as Columbus in 1494, possibly as early as 1493.[21] In 1619, African slaves arrived in the Colony of Virginia. A ship carrying 20–30 people who had been enslaved by a joint African-Portuguese war[22] on Ndongo in modern Angola, landed at Point Comfort in the colony of Virginia.[17][23]

Project

The project dedicated an issue of the magazine to a re-examination of the legacy of slavery in the United States, at the anniversary of the 1619 arrival of the first slaves to Virginia, challenging the notion that the history of the United States began in 1776. The initiative quickly grew into a larger project.[23] The project encompasses multiple issues of the magazine, with related materials in multiple other publications of the Times as well as a project curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center, for use in schools.[23] The project employed a panel of historians and had support from the Smithsonian, for fact-checking, research and development.[24] The project was envisioned with the condition that almost all of the contributions would be from African-American contributors, deeming the perspective of black writers an essential element of the story to be told.[25]

August 14, 2019 magazine issue

The first edition, which appeared in The New York Times Magazine on August 14, 2019, published in 100 pages with ten essays, a photo essay, and a collection of poems and fiction by an additional 16 writers[26] and an introduction by Jake Silverstein, included the following works:[18][27]

  • "America Wasn't a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones
  • "American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond
  • "How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Difference Still Live in Medicine Today", essay by Linda Villarosa
  • "What the Reactionary Politics of 2019 Owe to the Politics of Slavery", essay by Jamelle Bouie
  • "Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?", essay by Wesley Morris
  • "How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam", essay by Kevin Kruse
  • "Why Doesn't America Have Universal Healthcare? One Word: Race", essay by Jeneen Interlandi
  • "Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery", essay by Bryan Stevenson
  • "The Barbaric History of Sugar in America", essay by Khalil Gibran Muhammad
  • "How America's Vast Racial Wealth Gap Grew: By Plunder", essay by Trymaine Lee
  • "Their Ancestors Were Enslaved by Law. Now They're Lawyers", photo essay by Djeneba Aduayom, with text from Nikole Hannah-Jones and Wadzanai Mhute
  • "A New Literary Timeline of African-American History", a collection of original poems and stories

One of the central claims made by Hannah-Jones is that the colonists fought the Revolutionary War in order to preserve slavery.[28][29] The claim was later softened to "some of" the colonists fought to preserve slavery.[30] The essays further discuss details of history as well as modern American society, such as traffic jams and the American affinity for sugar, and their connections to slavery and segregation.[31] Matthew Desmond's essay argues that slavery has shaped modern capitalism and workplace norms. Jamelle Bouie's essay draws parallels between pro-slavery politics and the modern right-wing politics.[25] Bouie argues that the United States still has not let go of the assumption that some people inherently deserve more power than others.[32]

Accompanying material and activities

The magazine issue was accompanied by a special section in the Sunday newspaper, in partnership with the Smithsonian, examining the beginnings of the transatlantic slave trade, written by Mary Elliott and Jazmine Hughes. Beginning on August 20, a multi-episode audio series titled "1619" began,[31] published by The Daily, the morning news podcast of the Times.[23] The Sunday sports section had an essay about slavery's impact on professional sports in America: "Is Slavery's Legacy in the Power Dynamics of Sports?".[23][33] The Times plans to take the project to schools, with the 1619 Project Curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center.[34] Hundreds of thousands of extra copies of the magazine issue were printed for distribution to schools, museums and libraries.[17]

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting has made available free online lesson plans, is collecting further lesson plans from teachers, and helps arrange for speakers to visit classes.[35] The Center considers most of the lessons usable by all grades from elementary school through college.[36]

Reception

Reaction from fact checkers

Before publication, the Times own fact checkers disputed the accuracy of the project. They cautioned against publishing and cited the need for corrections, such as the confusion of Colonial and Antebellum eras and the inaccurate depiction of the lives of first-generation enslaved peoples.[37] In particular, they took issue with the claim that slavery was a motivating factor for the revolution.[37] The Times did not address these concerns before publishing.

Reaction from historians
See also: Slavery in the United States § Revolutionary era

Beginning in October 2019, the World Socialist Web Site published a series of interviews with prominent historians critical of the 1619 Project, including Victoria E. Bynum, James M. McPherson, Gordon S. Wood, James Oakes, Richard Carwardine and Clayborne Carson.[6][5][38][39] In an essay for The New York Review of Books, historian Sean Wilentz accused the 1619 Project of cynicism for its portrayal of the American Revolution, the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, who Wilentz wrote is "rendered as a white supremacist."[40]

In a December 2019 letter published in The New York Times, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria Bynum and James Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the authors of a "displacement of historical understanding by ideology." The letter disputed the claim, made in the Hannah-Jones' introductory essay to the 1619 Project, 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". The Times published the letter along with a rebuttal from the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jake Silverstein,[8][5] who defended the accuracy of the 1619 Project and declined to issue corrections. Wood responded in a letter, "I don't know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves [...] No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776."[6][41] In an article in The Atlantic, Wilentz responded to Silverstein, writing, "No effort to educate the public in order to advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for basic facts", and disputing the factual accuracy of Silverstein's defense of the project.[42]

Also in December 2019, twelve scholars and political scientists specializing in the American Civil War sent a letter to the Times saying that "The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery." While agreeing to the importance of examining American slavery, they objected to what they described as the portrayal of slavery as a uniquely American phenomenon, to construing slavery as a capitalist venture, and to presenting out-of-context quotes of a conversation between Abraham Lincoln and "five esteemed free black men." The following month, Times editor Jake Silverstein replied with a rebuttal.[43][44]

In January 2020, historian Dr. Susan Parker, who specializes in the studies of Colonial United States at Flagler College, noted that slavery existed before any of the 13 Colonies. She wrote in an editorial in The St. Augustine Record that "The settlement known as San Miguel de Gualdape lasted for about six weeks from late September 1526 to the middle of November. Historian Paul Hoffman writes that the slaves at San Miguel rebelled and set fire to some homes of the Spaniards."[45] Writing in USA Today, several historians among them Parker, archaeologist Kathleen A. Deagan also of Flagler, and civil rights activist and historian David Nolan all agreed that slavery was present decades before the year 1619. According to Deagan, people have "spent their careers trying to correct the erroneous belief," and Nolan said that in ignoring the earlier settlement, the authors were "robbing black history."[46]

In March 2020, historian Leslie M. Harris, who was consulted for the Project, wrote in Politico that she had warned that the idea that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery was inaccurate, and that the Times made avoidable mistakes, but that the project was "a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories."[47] Hannah-Jones has also said that she stands by the claim that slavery helped fuel the revolution, though she concedes she might have phrased it too strongly in her essay, in a way that could give readers the impression that the support for slavery was universal.[5][47] On March 11, 2020, Silverstein authored an "update" in the form of a "clarification" on the Times' website, correcting Hannah-Jones's essay to state that "protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists."[48] This "clarification" was reportedly prompted by a private warning to Silverstein by Harvard classicist and political scientist Danielle Allen that she might go public with criticism if the passage on the revolution were not corrected.[11]

Unannounced revision of initial claims

In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding."[11] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[11] Philip Magness noted in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice. Magness argued that this showed that the Times was quietly revising its position.[11][49][50] This unannounced substitution was decried by the conservative National Association of Scholars, which published a public letter in reaction to the change, asking for the revocation of the project's Pulitzer prize.[11][51]

Responding to the criticism, Hannah-Jones said that the argument about dating the founding to 1619 was self-evidently metaphorical.[49] In an opinion column in the New York Times, Bret Stephens wrote, "These were not minor points. The deleted assertions went to the core of the project's most controversial goal, 'to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year'", and argued that "The question of journalistic practices, however, raises deeper doubts about the 1619 Project’s core premises."[49] This column led to tension within the Times, and prompted statements by Times executive editor Dean Baquet, publisher A. G. Sulzberger and New York Times Magazine editor Jake Silverstein in support of the 1619 Project.[11][12][14][52] Responding to criticism, Hannah-Jones wrote on Twitter, "Those who've wanted to act as if tweets/discussions about the project hold more weight than the actual words of the project cannot be taken in good faith", and that "Those who point to edits of digital blurbs but ignore the unchanged text of the actual project cannot be taken in good faith."[11]

Motivations for the Revolution

Significant controversy has centered on the project's claim 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." In 1776, there was little if any opposition to colonial slavery in England.[53] After Somerset v Stewart, slavery was outlawed in the British Isles but this did little to change slavery in the colonies.[53] The project claims that "[If the Revolution had caused the ending of the slave trade, this] would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South", without regard to the fact that, by 1776, several northern states had already outlawed slavery or made it prohibitively expensive.[53] In defense of the claims, Jake Silverstein wrote that Somerset caused a "sensation" in colonial reports. However, the decision was reported by only six British American newspapers in the southern colonies, and the tone of coverage was neutral.[53]

Journalistic reaction

The 1619 Project received positive reviews by Alexandria Neason in the Columbia Journalism Review,[23] and by Ellen McGirt in Fortune magazine, which declared the project "wide-reaching and collaborative, unflinching, and insightful" and a "dramatic and necessary corrective to the fundamental lie of the American origin story."[27]

Andrew Sullivan critiqued the project as an important perspective that needed to be heard, but one presented in a biased way under the guise of objectivity.[54] Writing in The Week, Damon Linker found the 1619 Project's treatment of history "sensationalistic, reductionistic, and tendentious."[55] Timothy Sandefur deemed the project's goal as worthy, but observed that the articles persistently went wrong trying to connect everything with slavery.[56] In the National Review, Phillip W. Magness wrote that the Project provides a distorted economic history borrowed from "bad scholarship" of the New History of Capitalism (NHC),[57] and Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans[58]), smears the Revolution, distorts the Constitution, and misrepresents the founding era and Lincoln.[59] The World Socialist Web Site criticized what its editors consider the Times' reactionary, politically motivated "falsification of history" that wrongly centers around racial rather than class conflict.[6][5][60] Marxist political scientist Adolph L. Reed Jr. dismissed the 1619 Project as "the appropriation of the past in support of whatever kind of 'just-so' stories about the present are desired."[61]

On October 9, 2020, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens stated in an op-ed that the 1619 Project "has failed", pointing to "avoidable mistakes" in the Project's central claims.[62][12] Calling it "a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around," Stephens cites historians who have been critical of the Project themselves, and argues that the editors at The Times, "however much background reading they might have done, are not in a position to adjudicate historical disputes." Stephens also criticized the New York Times Magazine for surreptitiously editing the published text of the Project.[62]

Political reaction

The publication of the project received varied reactions from political figures. Democratic Senator Kamala Harris praised the project in a tweet, stating "The #1619Project is a powerful and necessary reckoning of our history. We cannot understand and address the problems of today without speaking truth about how we got here."[25]

On the other hand, several high-profile conservatives criticized the project. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, criticized the project as "brainwashing" "propaganda," in a tweet,[25] and later wrote an op-ed characterizing it as "left-wing propaganda masquerading as 'the truth'."[63] Republican Senator Ted Cruz also equated it with propaganda.[31] President Donald Trump, in an interview on Fox News, said,

I just look at—I look at school. I watch, I read, look at the stuff. Now they want to change—1492, Columbus discovered America. You know, we grew up, you grew up, we all did, that's what we learned. Now they want to make it the 1619 project. Where did that come from? What does it represent? I don't even know.[64]

In July 2020, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas proposed the "Saving American History Act of 2020", prohibiting K-12 schools from using federal funds to teach curriculum related to the 1619 project, and make schools that did ineligible for federal professional-development grants. Cotton added that "The 1619 Project is a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded."[44][65] On September 6, 2020, Trump responded on Twitter to a claim that the State of California was implementing the 1619 project into the state's public school curriculum. Trump stated that the Department of Education was investigating the matter and, if the aforementioned claim was found true, federal funding would be withheld from Californian public schools.[66][67][68] On September 17, Trump announced the 1776 Commission to develop a "patriotic" curriculum.[69][70]

In October 2020, the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy group, published an open letter with 21 signatories calling on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind Hannah-Jones' prize due to its claim that "protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence."[51][11]

In November 2020, then-President Trump established the "1776 Commission" by executive order,[71] organizing 18 conservative leaders to generate an opposing response to the 1619 Project.[72] The 1776 Report, released on January 18, 2021, was widely criticized for factual errors, incomplete or missing citations, and lack of academic rigor.[73] The commission was terminated by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.[74]

Awards

Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for the introductory essay to the 1619 Project.[15][16] The award cited her "sweeping, provocative and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America's story, prompting public conversation about the nation's founding and evolution."[75]

In October, 2020, New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute named the 1619 Project as one of the 10 greatest works of journalism in the decade from 2010 to 2019.[76]

See also

References
  1. Project, The 1619 (August 14, 2019). "The 1619 Project". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 17, 2019. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  2. Silverstein, Jake (December 20, 2019). "Why We Published The 1619 Project". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on January 31, 2020. Retrieved January 31, 2020.
  3. "In '1619' Project, the Times Puts Slavery Front and Center of the American Experience". WNYC. August 16, 2019. Archived from the original on August 17, 2019. Retrieved August 16, 2019.
  4. "The '1619 Project' Gets Schooled - WSJ". Archived from the original on January 6, 2021.
  5. Serwer, Adam (December 23, 2019). "The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on December 24, 2019. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  6. Friedersdorf, Conor (January 6, 2020). "1776 Honors America's Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on July 16, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  7. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-story-about-capitalism-too-11588956387
  8. Silverstein, Jake (December 20, 2019). "We Respond to the Historians Who Critiqued The 1619 Project". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 15, 2020. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  9. "An Update to The 1619 Project". The New York Times. March 11, 2020. Archived from the original on March 12, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  10. Butcher, Jonathan (March 16, 2020). "The New York Times Begins Correcting the Historical Record on "1619 Project"". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on December 21, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  11. Ellison, Sarah (October 13, 2020). "How the 1619 Project took over 2020". Washington Post. Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
  12. Stelter, Brian; Darcy, Oliver (October 12, 2020). "1619 Project faces renewed criticism — this time from within The New York Times". CNN. Archived from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved October 14, 2020.
  13. Pompeo, Joe (October 14, 2020). ""This Isn't Jayson Blair": With 1619 and Caliphate Controversies, the New York Times Turns on Itself". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved October 17, 2020.
  14. Stephens, Jake (October 16, 2020). "On Recent Criticism of The 1619 Project". New York Times. Archived from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved October 17, 2020.
  15. Barrus, Jeff (May 4, 2020). "Nikole Hannah-Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize for 1619 Project". Pulitzer Center. Archived from the original on May 6, 2020. Retrieved May 4, 2020.
  16. "Commentary". The Pulitzer Prizes. Columbia University. Archived from the original on May 4, 2020. Retrieved May 4, 2020.
  17. Gyarkye, Lovia (August 18, 2019). "How the 1619 Project Came Together". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 19, 2019. Retrieved August 19, 2019.
  18. "The 1619 Project". The New York Times Magazine. August 14, 2019. Archived from the original on December 26, 2019. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  19. Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara (August 23, 2019). "Perspective - Everyone is talking about 1619. But that's not actually when slavery in America started". Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 7, 2019. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  20. Snyder, Christina (2010). Slavery in Indian country : the changing face of captivity in early America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-06423-2. OCLC 440562939.
  21. Lydersen, Kari (May 18, 2009). "Dental Studies Give Clues About Christopher Columbus's Crew". The Washington Post.
  22. Painter, Nell Irvin. (2006). Creating Black Americans: African-American history and its meanings, 1619 to the present. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0-19-513755-8. OCLC 57722517.
  23. Neason, Alexandria (August 15, 2019). "The 1619 Project and the stories we tell about slavery". Archived from the original on August 16, 2019. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  24. Tharoor, Ishaan (August 20, 2019). "The 1619 Project and the far-right fear of history". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  25. Charles, J. Brian (August 19, 2019). "Why conservatives are bothered by the New York Times' project on slavery". Vox. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  26. Geraghty, Jim (August 20, 2019). "What The 1619 Project Leaves Out". National Review. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  27. McGirt, Ellen (August 14, 2019). "The New York Times Launches the 1619 Project: raceAhead". Archived from the original on August 17, 2019. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  28. "Mediaite's Most Influential in News Media 2020". Mediaite. December 21, 2020. Archived from the original on December 25, 2020. Retrieved December 25, 2020.
  29. "1619 Project's Nikole Hannah-Jones wants Black people to know the role they play in America's democracy". TheGrio. March 9, 2020. Archived from the original on August 1, 2020. Retrieved December 25, 2020.
  30. "New York Times Quietly Edits "1619 Project" After Conservative Pushback". The Heritage Foundation. September 26, 2020. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  31. Asmelash, Leah (August 19, 2019). "The New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project takes a hard look at the American paradox of freedom and slavery". CNN. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  32. Covucci, David (August 19, 2019). "Conservatives are livid the New York Times is writing articles about slavery". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  33. Kurt Streeter (July 18, 2019). "Is Slavery's Legacy in the Power Dynamics of Sports? - The New York Times". Nytimes.com. Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved August 23, 2019.
  34. "New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too". Washington Examiner. August 17, 2019. Archived from the original on August 18, 2019. Retrieved August 18, 2019.
  35. "The 1619 Project Curriculum". Pulitzer Center. Archived from the original on May 6, 2020. Retrieved May 4, 2020.
  36. "Pulitzer Center Lesson Builder". Pulitzer Center. Archived from the original on December 12, 2019. Retrieved May 4, 2020.
  37. Harris, Leslie M. (March 6, 2020). "I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me". POLITICO. Retrieved February 9, 2021. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.
  38. Mackaman, Tom (November 28, 2019). "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times' 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site. Archived from the original on November 28, 2019. Retrieved November 28, 2019.
  39. Mackaman, Tom (November 14, 2019). "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times' 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site. Archived from the original on November 28, 2019. Retrieved November 28, 2019.
  40. Wilentz, Sean (November 19, 2019). "American Slavery and 'the Relentless Unforeseen'". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on August 14, 2020. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
  41. "Historian Gordon Wood responds to the New York Times' defense of the 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site. December 24, 2019. Archived from the original on August 19, 2020. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
  42. Wilentz, Sean (January 22, 2020). "A Matter of Facts". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on May 30, 2020. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
  43. "Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds". History News Network. January 26, 2020. Archived from the original on August 4, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
  44. Skurk, Krystina (August 11, 2020). "8 More Big Takedowns Of The 1619 Project For Its One-Year Anniversary". The Federalist. Archived from the original on August 17, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
  45. "'1619 Project' ignores fact that slaves were present in Florida decades before". Archived from the original on December 26, 2019. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  46. Ellis, Nicquel Terry (1 January 2020). "Forget What You Know about 1619, Historians Say. Slavery Began a Half-Century before Jamestown." Archived February 1, 2021, at the Wayback Machine USA Today. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
  47. Harris, Leslie M. (March 3, 2020). "I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me". Politico. Archived from the original on June 7, 2020. Retrieved June 9, 2020.
  48. Silverstein, Jake (March 11, 2020). "An Update to The 1619 Project". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 12, 2020. Retrieved March 12, 2020.
  49. Stephens, Bret (October 9, 2020). "The 1619 Chronicles". New York Times. Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved October 14, 2020.
  50. Philip, Magness (September 19, 2020). "Down the 1619 Project's Memory Hole". Quillette. Archived from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
  51. Wood, Peter (October 6, 2020). "Pulitzer Board Must Revoke Nikole Hannah-Jones' Prize". www.nas.org. Archived from the original on October 15, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
  52. Baquet, Dean (October 13, 2020). "A Note From Dean Baquet on The 1619 Project". New York Times. Archived from the original on October 20, 2020. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  53. Wilentz, Sean (January 22, 2020). "A Matter of Facts". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on May 30, 2020. Retrieved January 14, 2021.
  54. "The New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism". New York Magazine. September 13, 2019. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  55. "The New York Times surrenders to the left on race". theweek.com. August 20, 2019. Archived from the original on July 13, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  56. "The Founders Were Flawed. The Nation Is Imperfect. The Constitution Is Still a 'Glorious Liberty Document.'". Reason.com. August 21, 2019. Archived from the original on March 14, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  57. "How the 1619 Project Rehabilitates the 'King Cotton' Thesis". National Review. August 26, 2019. Archived from the original on June 23, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  58. Robin Law, "Slave-Raiders and Middlemen, Monopolists and Free-Traders: The Supply of Slaves for the Atlantic Trade in Dahomey c. 1715-1850", The Journal of African History, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1989), p. 46
  59. "The Flagrant Distortions and Subtle Lies of the '1619 Project'". National Review. October 7, 2019. Archived from the original on July 13, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  60. "The New York Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history". World Socialist Web Site. September 6, 2019. Archived from the original on July 30, 2020. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
  61. Mackaman, Tom. "An interview with political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. on the New York Times' 1619 Project". www.wsws.org. Archived from the original on August 13, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
  62. Stephens, Bret. October 9, 2020. "The 1619 Chronicles Archived February 1, 2021, at the Wayback Machine." The New York Times.
  63. Gingrich, Newt (September 27, 2019). "Did Slavery Really Define America for All Time?". Newsweek. Archived from the original on July 25, 2020. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  64. Foran, Clare. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton pitches bill to prohibit use of federal funds to teach 1619 Project". CNN. Archived from the original on July 27, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  65. "Cotton Bill to Defund 1619 Project Curriculum". Tom Cotton: Arkansas Senator. July 23, 2020. Archived from the original on August 10, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
  66. Liptak, Kevin (September 6, 2020). "Trump says Department of Education will investigate use of 1619 Project in schools". CNN. Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  67. Blitzer, Ronn (September 6, 2020). "Trump warns schools teaching 1619 Project 'will not be funded'". Fox News. Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  68. Donald J. Trump [@realDonaldTrump] (September 6, 2020). "Department of Education is looking at this. If so, they will not be funded!" (Tweet). Archived from the original on September 7, 2020 – via Twitter.
  69. Mason, Jeff (September 17, 2020). "Trump plans panel to promote 'patriotic education' in appeal to conservative base". Reuters. Archived from the original on October 26, 2020. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  70. "Trump order seeks to ban military, government contractors from some diversity training". Reuters. September 23, 2020. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  71. "Executive Order on Establishing the President's Advisory 1776 Commission | The White House". web.archive.org. January 1, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
  72. "Trump Announces Commission Focused on Teaching Youth About Founding". web.archive.org. January 5, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
  73. Johnson, Martin (January 19, 2021). "Trump's '1776 Report' released on MLK Day receives heavy backlash". TheHill. Archived from the original on January 20, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
  74. Shear, Michael D. (January 20, 2021). "On Day 1, Biden Moves to Undo Trump's Legacy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on January 20, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
  75. "Nikole Hannah-Jones of The New York Times". The Pulitzer Prizes. Archived from the original on May 4, 2020. Retrieved May 4, 2020.
  76. Sullivan, Margaret. "Perspective | Here's a list of the 10 greatest works of journalism of the past 10 years. Care to argue about it?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on October 15, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020.

Further reading

Implementation in schools
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.