By Rich Lowry
Friday, January 03, 2020
The reviews of the 1619 Project are in.
It is “a very unbalanced, one-sided account.” It is
“wrong in so many ways.” It is “not only ahistorical,” but “actually
anti-historical.” It is “a tendentious and partial reading of American
history.”
This is what top historians have said of the splashy New
York Times feature on slavery in the U.S. that aspires to fundamentally
reorient our understanding of American history and change what students are taught
in the schools.
Given that the Times can’t necessarily be trusted
to give a straight account in its news pages of Mitch McConnell’s latest
tactical maneuver, it wouldn’t seem a natural source for objective truth on
sensitive historical matters, and sure enough, the 1619 Project is shot through
with an ideological radicalism that leads to rank distortions and laughable
overreach.
The project has been controversial since it was first
published in The New York Times Magazine last year, but its architects
sneered at the critics as troglodyte conservatives (or “white historians”)
unwilling to grapple with the country’s racial sins. Then the World Socialist
Web Site — of all things — begin publishing interviews with eminent historians
slamming the project.
All of the above quotations come from the website’s
interviews with highly accomplished and respected historians — the Princeton professor
James McPherson, author of the magisterial history of the Civil War, Battle
Cry of Freedom; the formidable historian of the Revolutionary War period,
Gordon Wood; the CUNY professor James Oakes, who specializes in the Civil War
period; and the Lincoln scholar Richard Carwardine of Oxford University.
At the end of the year, the Times published an
extraordinary letter from McPherson, Oakes, and Wood, as well as Sean Wilentz
of Princeton and Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, demanding “prominent
corrections of all the errors and distortions presented in the 1619 Project.”
“These errors, which concern major events, cannot be
described as interpretation or ‘framing,’” the historians wrote. “They are
matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship
and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding
by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the
objections of only ‘white historians’ — has affirmed that displacement.”
The Times, in a response from the editor in chief
of the magazine, Jake Silverstein, countered, “Historical understanding is not
fixed; it is constantly being adjusted by new scholarship and new voices.” In
other words, just wait, and the supporters of the 1619 Project will enshrine it
as a new orthodoxy.
One focus of the historians is the preposterous claim of
the 1619 Project that a primary reason that the colonists launched the American
Revolution was to protect slavery. “This is not true,” they say. “If
supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered
by the project to validate it is false.”
Silverstein counters by invoking disquiet among American
slaveholders over the landmark Somerset decision in England in 1772 that found
that chattel slavery wasn’t supported under the “natural law.” Yet nothing in
the historical record suggests that the decision, which didn’t apply to the
colonies, played a role in precipitating the revolution. Silverstein also notes
the so-called Dunmore’s Proclamation by the royal governor of Virginia in late
1775 offering freedom to slaves who joined with British forces. By this point,
though, the revolution was already underway (the First Continental Congress met
in 1774; Lexington and Concord came earlier in 1775).
Nothing is going to budge the Times from its view
that slavery is the central story of America, because establishing that is the
entire point of the 1619 Project. Nonetheless, the dissenting historians are
performing an important public service. They are making the dishonesty of the
project a matter of record, and might, in so doing, cause educational
institutions to think twice before adopting it wholesale into their curricula.
At least the Times’ assault on the nation’s
historical memory is not going unanswered.
No comments:
Post a Comment