>The 1619 Project has been criticized by some American historians, including historians of the American Revolution Gordon Wood[6] and Sean Wilentz,[43] and Civil War experts Richard Carwardine[5] and James McPherson.[7] McPherson stated in an interview that he was "disturbed" by the project's "unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history." McPherson continued, "slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement."[7] Historian James Oakes criticized Hannah-Jones's assertion that "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country."[44]
That's the real problem. Newspapers get things wrong all the time. There's a conversation, people put forth their views pro and anti, and everyone makes up their own mind. But making a newspaper story that has come under fire from a huge number of respectable scholars part of the school curriculum for children is nakedly ideological.
I think that supports another point made above:
>At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive.
The NYT seems to be beyond "gaffes" at this point, and be entirely focused on promoting their ideology.
- https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html
- https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18.html
Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have spoken about 1619 shortcomings at length:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hWQmzgiKXQ
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xym3kFuBX3Y
As have many historians of the period:
In an era where the journalists are more under attack than ever, we might want to remember it is easier to tear things down than build them up.