|
|
|
For those who may be blissfully unaware, Peter Wood's relatively short yet pivotal book shines a spotlight on the New York Times' flawed 1619 Project, the goal of which, as the author sums up, "is arguably part of a larger effort to destroy America by people who find our nation unbearably bad." Wood writes: "The 1619 Project aligns with the views of those on the progressive left who hate America and would like to transform it radically into a different kind of nation." He uses the title 1620 for his work, not only as a starting point for refuting the factual errors of the 1619 Project, but also to show that the Mayflower Compact signed that year is the true starting point for America's form of self-government, with its references to godly purpose and ideals loftier than its motley group of signers. The 1619 Project kicked off in August 2019, purposefully on the 400th anniversary of the landing of an English pirate ship at Jamestown, Virginia containing approximately twenty or so African captives. In announcing the 1619 Project, the nation's "newspaper of record" released a special 100-page issue of its magazine and an accompanying newspaper supplement with the goal of replacing "traditional conceptions of American history with a history refracted through the lens of black identity politics." The Times described the project as an effort "to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation's birth year" with the arrival of slaves in Virginia. The introductory materials consisted of a series of essays and articles in support of this contention, and the Times' weekly online newsletter, "Race/Related" continued the narrative. Rather than adding a fuller account of black history to the established facts of American history, the 1619 Project replaces facts with partial truths and blatant untruths. Its stated tenets are that "Americans have grossly misunderstood the origins and nature of American society, and that slavery is the pivotal institution in American history." Wood points out the unusual role of a newspaper in creating such a "history" project, but perhaps it's easier to understand if the goal is notoriety rather than scholarship, and when one considers the marketing capabilities of the Times as well as its prominence as a media institution. The project has 14 contributors, half of whom are professional journalists and six of whom are Times employees, including its lead architect, Nikole Hannah-Jones. Five are actually historians and one is a practicing attorney. As Wood writes: "The participants weren't invited for the purpose of summoning intellectually diverse views, but because they were known and could be trusted to stay within an agreed-upon framework. They are advocates for a thesis, and it is a thesis that puts racial grievance at the center of America's story." A network of progressive outlets immediately provided numerous avenues for promotion of 1619, including speaking tours, radio and television interviews for lead writer Hannah-Jones, film and TV series opportunities, and most ominously, an avenue into the schools. Wood provides considerable detail on how the Times partnered with The Pulitzer Center (not affiliated with the organization that awards the Pulitzer Prize) to promote the project, with a key goal to "plant a 1619 curriculum in the schools." In addition to the overall premise that the American story began in August of 1619 with the arrival of the first slaves, the 1619 Project contends that the American Revolution was fought solely to prevent Britain from putting an end to slavery in the colonies, that American capitalism began with the Southern plantation system of growing cotton with slave labor, and that President Abraham Lincoln was a racist who had no real interest or intent to grant those who were enslaved real citizenship. These claims prompted a storm of criticism from many prominent historians and scholars, some journalists, and some independent cultural commentators. While Wood recounts their arguments in considerable detail, he likens these critics to moths swarming around a porch light; while their criticisms are mostly valid and in almost any other circumstances would prove devastating, the light continues to shine for the 1619 Project. Regrettably, most Americans' feeble grasp of our nation's history, especially over the past 20 years, have rendered 1619's critics "not voiceless but largely unheeded." Nonetheless, the 1619 Project fable has attracted voices of opposition that may yet make a difference, including a few that Wood terms "hard core Marxists." One opposition project that has resulted is called "1776 Unites," started by Robert Woodson, founder of the Woodson Center. Woodson assembled a consortium of top black academics, columnists, social service providers, business leaders and clergy, all of whom are critical of the 1619 project and "committed to telling the complete history of America and black Americans from 1776 to the present." Peter Wood's 1620 is also important in that it showcases "the mendacity and manipulation that lie at the heart of the 1619 Project." In the book's foreword, one reviewer calls 1620 "a necessary work." And so it is. Encounter Books, 2020 |
While the status of these captives is historically unclear—they were not recorded as slaves and are believed to have eventually been set free—the 1619 Project claims that their arrival "inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last the next 250 years."
