The New York Times v. history: Five years after the 1619 Project

Today is the fifth anniversary of the release of the 1619 Project, a New York Times Magazine feature that attempted to recast the American founding as a triumph for slavery.

The InfluenceWatch profile introduced it this way:

The 1619 Project is an artistic and journalistic project of the New York Times Magazine that asserts the central event in the founding of the United States was the first importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 and not the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The project further asserts that U.S. history and modern America are best understood as completely dependent upon the institution of slavery. Project director and creator Nikole Hannah-Jones has told interviewers that her “ultimate goal” for the 1619 Project is passage of slavery reparations legislation that would provide monetary payments to African Americans. New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet has said the project was approved as part of the newspaper’s effort to “hold the [Trump] administration to account” and “try to understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump.”

Many prominent academics, including Pulitzer Prize-winning and Pulitzer-nominated historians such as Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, and Sean Wilentz. have criticized the factual accuracy of the 1619 Project and its use as a teaching tool in many large urban school districts. Among some of many concerns, historians have criticized the 1619 Project for including a “ludicrous” assertion that slavery was the motivation for the American Revolution; a “ridiculous” characterization of Abraham Lincoln as a racist; and for using a ‘1619’ date that falsely places the start of race-based slavery in America many decades too early. Five prominent historians (including Wood, McPherson and Wilentz) issued a letter to the New York Times, stating they were “dismayed at some factual errors in the project” and requesting corrections, but the newspaper declined to make any changes.

Despite absorbing heavy criticism from so many prominent mainstream historians familiar with its subject matter, and then refusing to adjust the content for their concerns, the 1619 Project was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. (The following year, the NYTimes and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize for their part in amplifying the lies in the Russiagate hoax, so it’s also reasonable to assert the 1619 Project might have won a Pulitzer precisely because it wasn’t telling the truth.)

Among the many interesting critics of the 1619 Project was the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), which deserves credit for providing an early platform for the mainstream historians who later raised their concerns with the NYTimes:

The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), a left-wing outreach of the Socialist Equality Party, was a source of early public and pointed criticism of the 1619 Project. The Trotskyist-influenced group conducted and posted interviews with each of the five historians who signed the letter of objections later printed by the New York Times. In most cases, the WSWS interviews with the prominent historians were posted in the days and weeks prior to the New York Times’ response to the letter from the five academics.

On September 6, 2019, shortly after the 1619 Project was posted, World Socialist Web Site authors Niles Niemuth, Tom Mackaman, and David North published the socialist organization’s initial criticisms. Their concerns prefigured many of the factual objections later voiced by the five academics, but also focused on what the Trotskyist organization believed was a partisan and ideological attempt by the New York Times to divide Americans by racial disputes so as to keep them from uniting based on class differences.

Project director Nikole Hannah-Jones claimed racism was the WSWS’s motive for criticizing her work:

In December 2019 the Wall Street Journal reported Hannah-Jones’ response to the WSWS criticisms:

To the Trotskyists, Ms. Hannah-Jones writes: “You all have truly revealed yourselves for the anti-black folks you really are.” She calls them “white men claiming to be socialists.”

InfluenceWatch features extensive profiles for both the 1619 Project and Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Additional Capital Research Center reports on the 1619 Project and its supporters include:

• Nonprofits and Journalism Update: The 1619 Project
• Why Commies Hate the 1619 Project
• Pulitzer-Winning 1619 Project Couldn’t Even Get Its Own Name Correct
• New York Times’ 1619 Project: All the News that’s Fit for the MacArthur Foundation?