+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: News and Announcements (/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) (/thread-4248.html)
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - David Lockmiller - 10-10-2020 04:22 PM
(10-10-2020 01:54 PM)Amy L. Wrote: I've read maybe a half-dozen articles on the demise of Nikole Hannah-Jones' 1619 Project.
I rather like this one, from the NYT itself (Oct 9, 2020):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-criticisms.html
Amy, thank you for the post that you made.
“The 1619 Chronicles”
By Bret Stephens, New York Times Opinion Columnist, Oct. 9, 2020
[C]oncerns came to light last month when a longstanding critic of the project, Phillip W. Magness, noted in the online magazine Quillette that references to 1619 as the country’s “true founding” or “moment [America] began” had disappeared from the digital display copy without explanation.
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.”
That doesn’t mean that the project seeks to erase the Declaration of Independence from history. But it does mean that it seeks to dethrone the Fourth of July by treating American history as a story of Black struggle against white supremacy — of which the Declaration is, for all of its high-flown rhetoric, supposed to be merely a part.
In a tweet, Hannah-Jones responded to Magness and other critics by insisting that “the text of the project” remained “unchanged,” while maintaining that the case for making 1619 the country’s “true” birth year was “always a metaphoric argument.” 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.
[This email exchange response reminds me of Nikole Hannah-Jones’ description of the of the August 14, 1862 meeting in the White House with the five black free men committee on the subject of colonization that was also published in the New York Times. See my post #17 dated May 25, 2020 on the thread titled “RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine).”
And, it also reminds me of the famous Dr. Johnson statement published in The life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. (London: Printed by Henry Baldwin, for Charles Dilly, 1791), by James Boswell (1740-1795), Scottish lawyer, diarist and biographer of Samuel Johnson:
I described to him an impudent fellow from Scotland, who […] maintained that there was no distinction between virtue and vice. [Dr. Johnson’s response:] “If he does really think that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses, let us count our spoons.”]
Mr. Stephens' opinion piece continues:
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:
“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?”
In an email, Silverstein told me that the changes to the text were immaterial, in part because it still cited 1776 as our nation’s official birth date, and because the project’s stated aim remained to put 1619 and its consequences as the true starting point of the American story.
Readers can judge for themselves whether these unacknowledged changes violate the standard obligations of transparency for New York Times journalism. The question of journalistic practices, however, raises deeper doubts about the 1619 Project’s core premises.
In his introduction, Silverstein argues that America’s “defining contradictions” were born in August 1619, when a ship carrying 20 to 30 enslaved Africans from what is present-day Angola arrived in Point Comfort, in the English colony of Virginia. And the title page of Hannah-Jones’s essay for the project insists that “our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written.”
Both points are illogical. A “defining contradiction” requires a powerful point of opposition or inconsistency, and in the year 1619 the points of opposition were few and far between. Slavery and the slave trade had been global phenomena for centuries by the early 17th century, involving Europeans and non-Europeans as slave traders and the enslaved. The Africans who arrived in Virginia that August got there only because they had been seized by English privateers from a Portuguese ship headed for the port of Veracruz in Mexico, then a part of the Spanish Empire.
In this sense, and for all of its horror, there was nothing particularly surprising in the fact that slavery made its way to the English colonies on the Eastern Seaboard, as it already had in the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
What was surprising was that in 1776 a politically formidable “defining contradiction” — “that all men are created equal” — came into existence through the Declaration of Independence. As Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1859, that foundational document would forever serve as a “rebuke and stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.” It’s why, at the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetery, Lincoln would date the country’s founding to “four score and seven years ago.”
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - David Lockmiller - 10-11-2020 10:40 AM
(10-10-2020 04:22 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote: 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:
“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?”
In an email, Silverstein told me that the changes to the text were immaterial, in part because it still cited 1776 as our nation’s official birth date, and because the project’s stated aim remained to put 1619 and its consequences as the true starting point of the American story.
To be clear, what is now immaterial, according to Mr. Silverstein, is the subsequently deleted statement of fact by Mr. Silverstein from his August, 2019 published article on the 1619 Project, to wit:
"this fact [that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth], which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong . . . "
Better start "counting your spoons."
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - David Lockmiller - 10-12-2020 09:27 AM
The New York Times published today the following summary of the "1619 VS. 1776" controversy with a number of hyperlinks. Bold high-lighted references below have hyperlinks.
IDEA OF THE DAY: 1619 VS. 1776
The 1619 Project — a series of articles, podcast episodes and more about slavery’s role in American history — caused a passionate debate when The Times Magazine published it last year. It argued that 1619, when enslaved Africans first landed in Virginia, was as much of a founding date for the United States as 1776.
The series received widespread praise, and its creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, won a Pulitzer Prize for her “sweeping, provocative and personal essay” at the center of the project. The series also received criticism from prominent historians who argued that it contained inaccuracies, like the claim that the American Revolution was in large part an attempt to protect slavery from Britain.
If you’ve heard about this debate but not yet dug into it, now is a good time to do so. Bret Stephens, a Times Opinion columnist, has published a column explaining why he agrees with the critics. You can also read a letter from five historians, followed by a response from Jake Silverstein, the Magazine’s editor in chief. Jake later followed up with a second note, making a change. And last month, Nikole gave a lecture about the project in Iowa, where she grew up.
Adam Serwer of The Atlantic has written an overview that includes interviews with people on both sides of the debate.
Notes from above:
- Bold high-lighted references have hyperlinks. If there is any interest in a particular subject, I could post the hyperlink.
- Regarding the subject of "a second note," please see my previous post on this thread.
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - David Lockmiller - 11-26-2020 12:37 PM
(05-30-2020 06:09 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:(05-29-2020 07:16 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote: Does anyone know why CBS "60 Minutes" has not done an entire hour-long show on the 1619 Project controversy with the preeminent Lincoln and American History scholars, the principal 1619 Project essayist and New York Times Magazine editor, and Washington Post columnist George Will?
I believe that I have the correct answer to this last question and it involves big, big, big money (as a hint).
The following are three big clues as to the correct answer to this question:
Corporate Synergy
In recent years, the “60 Minutes” program has been accused of promoting books, films, and interviews with celebrities who are published or promoted by sister businesses, [such as CBS’s iconic book publisher Simon & Schuster]. (Source: Wikipedia)
Random House to Publish Multi-Book Series Based on The New York Times’s “The 1619 Project”
November 20, 2019
Random House, a division of Penguin Random House, has acquired a multi-book series based on The New York Times Magazine’s acclaimed and groundbreaking special issue, “The 1619 Project.” One World Publisher Christopher Jackson acquired world rights from Alia Hanna Habib of the Gernert Company, who represented The New York Times. The core project will be a boldly expanded version of the special issue, including new and expanded essays, fiction, and poetry from a variety of noted contributors, and published by One World.
Additionally, Random House Children’s Books will publish four 1619 Project books for young readers—one young adult, one middle-grade, and two picture books—under the Delacorte Press and Crown Books for Young Readers imprints. The Random House Clarkson Potter imprint will publish a special 1619 Project illustrated edition; while the Ten Speed Press imprint will publish the graphic novelization of the core project.
The creative team at The New York Times editing the book series will be the same group behind the original initiative: award-winning New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones; Jake Silverstein, editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine; Ilena Silverman, the magazine’s features editor; and Caitlin Roper, the magazine’s special projects editor.
“Iconic book publisher Simon & Schuster is on the auction block”
Los Angeles Times March 4, 2020
The move comes just three months after the merger of Viacom and CBS. The company’s new leadership has concluded that the New York publishing house, known for the works of such authors as Stephen King, Susan Orlean, Bob Woodward and Hillary Clinton, no longer is a core part of the company.
Simon & Schuster has some of the world’s most recognizable authors, including Mary Higgins Clark, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCullough. It ranks fifth worldwide, behind Penguin Random House, Hachette Livre, HarperCollins and Macmillan Publishers.
When the stand-alone CBS controlled Simon & Schuster, the company created synergies by booking its authors on “60 Minutes,” which explored timely and provocative subject matter.
Simon & Schuster probably will be sold to another publishing firm looking to merge assets and create cost savings. Potential buyers may include Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns HarperCollins; the French company Lagardère Publishing, which owns Hachette Livre; German media giant Bertelsmann, which owns the majority stake in Penguin Random House; or perhaps a private equity firm such as KKR, which has shown interest in digital publishing.
In December, Bertelsmann announced that it would pay $675 million for the remaining 25% stake in Penguin Random House from the British firm Pearson, which would make Bertelsmann the sole owner of the world’s largest book publishing operation. That deal is undergoing regulatory review.
Bertelsmann’s move to own all of Penguin Random House came six years after it and Pearson stunned the industry by combining Penguin and Random House. That tie-up, which trimmed the Big Six to five, prompted others.
ViacomCBS’ stock has been bludgeoned since the merger was announced in August. Back then, the two companies together were worth nearly $30 billion. But since the combination was completed in early December, shares have continued to decline. On Wednesday, ViacomCBS shares closed up 2 cents at $23.10, valuing the business at less than $14.5 billion.
The company previously announced the sale of the landmark CBS headquarters building in Midtown Manhattan, known as Black Rock. ViacomCBS plans to use the proceeds from the two sales to pay down debt, pay dividends to shareholders and buy back stock.
Penguin Random House to Buy Simon & Schuster
ViacomCBS agreed to sell the 96-year-old company in a deal that potentially creates a megapublisher.
New York Times -- Nov. 25, 2020
The biggest book publisher in the United States is about to get bigger. ViacomCBS has agreed to sell Simon & Schuster to Penguin Random House for more than $2 billion in a deal that will create the first megapublisher.
Penguin Random House, the largest book publisher in the United States, is owned by the German media conglomerate Bertelsmann. Adding Simon & Schuster, the third largest publisher, would create a book behemoth, a combination that could trigger antitrust concerns.
While in high school, Max Schuster adopted "Lincoln" as his middle name to honor his interest in President Abraham Lincoln. Schuster entered college at age 16, and attended the Pulitzer Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University and received a degree in 1917. (Source: Wikipedia.)
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - Amy L. - 01-24-2023 11:43 AM
I've been listening to a Podcast series on the history of Virginia, and I was excited to come upon discussion of The 1619 Project.
There are presumably many podcasts that discuss The Project, but...
This is an excellent interview with Phillip Magness -
https://vahistorypodcast.com/2021/08/28/magness-interview/
(Immediately following is a less excellent interview (with more discussion of Lincoln) with Mary Grabar.)
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - David Lockmiller - 01-25-2023 08:29 AM
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) Post #17
Attendees at the August 14, 1862 White House meeting were the Committee of five prominent black men and the members of the press called to the White House for the purpose of disseminating the contents of President Lincoln's speech on "Colonization" to the nation. All of the attendees were fully aware of the purpose for the meeting. Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her book Team of Rivals, at page 469, described the purpose of the meeting as follows: "On August 14, Lincoln invited a delegation of freed slaves to a conference at the White House, hoping to inspire their cooperation in educating fellow blacks on the benefits of colonization."
The New York Times reported President Lincoln's speech the following day with a story title: THE PRESIDENT AND COLONIZATION.
Presumably, historian Nikole Hannah-Jones used this same August 15, 1862 detailed reporting of President Lincoln’s August 14th Colonization speech by the New York Times as her authoritative source in creating her own narrative describing the important events of that day in the White House, August 14, 1862. Therefore, there should be no major unexplained discrepancy between the New York Times published narrative regarding the meeting and the narrative that she provides in her New York Times essay that won for her the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.
Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones writes in her 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary essay describing her own presumed response of the members of the Committee: “You can imagine the heavy silence in that room, as the weight of what the president said momentarily stole the breath of these five black men. . . . As Lincoln closed the remarks, Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition. ‘Take your full time,’ Lincoln said. ‘No hurry at all.’”
The Committee of five prominent black men had been invited to the White House to hear President Lincoln's speech on the subject of a proposed colonization project, including the President's reasoning by which these men should support and even participate in the experiment themselves.
The first paragraph of the New York Times coverage reads:
"This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. . . . E.M. THOMAS, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation, to hear what the Executive had to say to them."
Nevertheless, historian Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote: “You can imagine the heavy silence in that room, as the weight of what the president said momentarily stole the breath of these five black men."
The Committee was fully aware of why they had been invited to the White House and that was "to hear what the Executive had to say to them" on the subject of colonization. In the hour long speech, what could have "momentarily stole the breath of these five black men?" Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones does not say.
But she does say: "As Lincoln closed the remarks, Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition. ‘Take your full time,’ Lincoln said. ‘No hurry at all.’”
The implication of these last two sentences is that the Committee Chairman's immediate reaction to the speech was strongly negative and that the President's last remark to the Committee was of a condescending nature.
However, the New York Times itself describes the close of President Lincoln's speech in the following manner:
I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you, then, to consider seriously, not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race and ours for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind -- not confined to the present generation . . . ."
The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that "they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer." The President said, "Take your full time -- no hurry at all."
Although the President had suggested in the close of his speech that "these are subjects of very great importance -- worthy of a month's study, of a speech delivered in an hour," the Committee chairman, in behalf of the entire Committee, responded to President Lincoln's proposal in a letter two day's later on August 16, 1862 as follows:
“We were entirely hostile to the movement until all the advantages were so ably brought to our views by you,” the delegation chief wrote Lincoln two days later, promising to consult with prominent blacks in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston who he hoped would “join heartily in Sustaining Such a movement.” (Source: Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin, (2005), page 469.)
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) Post #18
Historian Nikole Hannah-Jones is incrementally subverting the factual truth about President Abraham Lincoln and will continue to do so until she is stopped by the truth in opposition. Throughout the 1619 curricula, there will be continuing interpretative denigration of the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln by means of distortion and/or omission of important historical facts. The false historical “truth” contained within the 1619 Project about President Abraham Lincoln and related historical events will be taught in schools throughout this democracy using the 1619 Project curricula. And, if for some reason a person has the audacity to challenge this 1619 Project revised historical “truth,” what would be that person’s basis for simple argument? And, how is it that American History historian Nikole Hannah-Jones won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her 1619 Project essay if much of the 1619 Project curricula is untrue, as alleged?
An example of this historical fact alteration to subvert the truth about President Abraham Lincoln is what I detailed in my previous post. [And, I have made other similar posts on this thread.] The undisputed fact is that President Abraham Lincoln’s August 14, 1862 one hour speech on a black colonization proposal to the Committee of five prominent free black men was unanimously well-received by the Committee members. This historical fact is evidenced by a letter written by the Committee chairman to President Lincoln two days following the meeting at the White House. This “letter fact” of history was conveniently omitted by American History historian Nikole Hannah-Jones in her false narrative describing the same historical event of the August 14, 1862 White House meeting. Nikole Hannah-Jones is trying to cheat posterity out of the truth.
In 1858, when Lincoln was trying to read The Life of Edmund Burke, he threw it aside and said to Herndon:
“No, I have read enough of it. It’s like all the others. Biographies as generally written are not only misleading, but false. The author of this life of Burke makes a wonderful hero out of his subject. He magnifies his perfections – if he had any – and suppresses his imperfections. . . . In most instances [biographies] commemorate a lie, and cheat posterity out of the truth. History is not history unless it is the truth.”
RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine) - Amy L. - 02-01-2023 07:28 AM
This interview is so packed with information/perspectives, I must listen again.
Has anyone read Phillip Magness's book 'Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement'? Was it good?
Magness's book was considered controversial because his research indicates that Lincoln was a "true believer in Colonization."
Magness brought to light diplomatic records that were exchanged after the Emancipation Proclamation was effective, which show that Lincoln was serious about establishing a colony for Americans of African decent in Belize.
Lincoln's death stopped any further work to establish such a colony.
If I can share personally - I started this podcast-series because I'd spent hours digging through genealogy (any link to the Lincoln family??), and I am surprised and disappointed that much of my heritage came out of Virginia, and many owned slaves.
Will the attempt at Reparations ever come to anything? How might they be fairly paid?
PS - The interview reminds me to track down the political writings of Fredrick Law Olmstead -- I see Laurie recommended 'Confederates in the Attic' by Horwitz...
PPS - Is it possible to differentiate scholarship from dogma?
So much to read, so little time.