Nikole Hannah-Jones on Opposition to the 1619 Project and Teaching Slavery in Schools ‹ Literary Hub
The assertions about the role slavery played in the American Revolution shocked many of our readers. But these assertions came directly from academic historians who had been making this argument for decades. Plainly, the historical ideas and arguments in the 1619 Project were not new.
What seemed to provoke so much ire was that we had breached the wall between academic history and popular understanding, and we had done so in <em>The New York Times</em>, the paper of record, in a major multimedia project led by a Black woman.
Those outside the academy tend to think of history as settled, as a simple recounting of what events happened on what date and who was involved in those incidents. But while history <em>is </em>what happened, it is also, just as important, how we <em>think </em>about what happened and what we unearth and choose to remember about what happened. Historians gather at conferences, present research, and argue, debate, and quibble over interpretations of fact and emphasis all the time. Scholars regularly publish articles that analyze, question, or disagree with the respected and peer reviewed work of their colleagues.
This belongs in every syllabus
Mary Ellen Hicks, a historian and Black studies scholar
“The discussions about the 1619 project … have made me realize that historians may have missed an opportunity to demystify the production of scholarly knowledge for the public. The unsexy answer is that we produce constantly evolving interpretations, not facts.”
It is the bitterest of ironies that the 1619 Project dispenses this malediction from the chair of ultimate cultural privilege in America, because in no human society has an enslaved people suddenly found itself vaulted into positions of such privilege, and with the consent—even the approbation—of those who were once the enslavers.”
The fact that what he is saying is true, doesn't overcome the overwhelming tone-deafness of him actually saying it. An older white guy professor doesn't get it. "Bitter irony" - really?
What these bills make clear is that the fights over the 1619 Project, like most fights over history, at their essence are about power.
“After all, as several eminent academics have recently reminded us, ‘nations need to control national memory, because nations keep their shape by shaping their citizens’ understanding of the past.’”