The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine)

[David Lockmiller]

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:

1. Bold high-lighted references have hyperlinks. If there is any interest in a particular subject, I could post the hyperlink.
2. Regarding the subject of "a second note," please see my previous post on this thread.