Bret Stephens / 1619

Long essay here.

Opinion | The 1619 Chronicles

I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as “our true founding” had been merely metaphorical. Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically should have been so obvious that it went without saying.

Might have left it at that. But of course does not.

At least he doesn't invoke the National Association of Scholars.

 

I don’t understand this “all or nothing” type of thinking.

Why can’t we all acknowledge that it was a part of what got us to where we are today, and part of what makes us “us”?

 

I think there are legitimate questions of historical scholarship with the original 1619 Project - as Stephens points out. And history is in many ways more malleable than any of us would like.

But the whole thing was so quickly politicized it was hard to distinguish error from agitprop. Or constructive criticism from counter-propaganda.

And the ways the Times chooses to edit pieces online after the fact is problematic.

 

What did you think of the essay?

 

I think it's a fair summary. And I think he lands it fairly, by saying that some of the attacks on the piece are legitimate, but that others are not.

I'd have liked some more introspection or elaboration as to how the 1619 Project became a hobbyhorse of the aggrieved right.

 

2 and the foul for Brett ...

She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that “using 1776 as our country’s birth date is wrong,” that it “should not be taught to schoolchildren,” and that the only one “that should be taught” was 1619. “Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that,” she added.

Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by The New York Times Magazine’s editor, Jake Silverstein, as it appeared in print in August 2019 (italics added):

“1619. It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?”​

Now compare it to the version of the same text as it now appears online:

“1619 is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that the moment that the country’s defining contradictions first came into the world was in late August of 1619?”​

 

It's more critical of the lead editor than Hannah-Jones. And, based on reading that, it seems right.

 

Of all the in-house people to criticize the project, was using the whitest man in America really the right choice? It's just not a good look.

 

You or just about anyone else would have been a better choice to make those points than Bret Stephens.

 

I should have been clearer.

By "aggrieved right" I mean the usual suspects who condemned the 1619 Project without ever reading it, and who wouldn't have known what was debatable in it even if they had.

I don't disagree the 1619 Project has a point of view. How well it supports that point of view is arguable.

Lots of people are still angry with Howard Zinn.

 

Her lead essay has been the thing most often - and most aggressively - challenged in critiques of the whole project.

The entire mess really illustrates why big newspaper projects need better fact-checking.