Excluding Experts

Rewriting History with the 1619 Project

National Association of Scholars

In a recent essay at American Greatness, NAS president Peter Wood draws out the type of discussion the New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones would like to have about the 1619 Project—essentially none. Since the Project’s publication, a bevy of historians have critiqued its aim of “recasting all of American history,” only to be all but completely ignored by the Times and the Project’s contributors.

Peter notes that since the Project’s release, Hannah-Jones has scheduled at least 40 speaking engagements. Of these, 18 are monologues, and the remaining 22 include other panelists and speakers. Only 3 of these feature trained historians. As Peter explains:

“The result is a series of overwhelmingly nonhistorical monologues and dialogues designed to achieve an overtly historical end. . . . This is not to imply that nonhistorians cannot contribute to the historical discourse, but rather that an unambiguously historical project ought prominently to feature historians.”

The New York Times has continuously cast historical criticisms by the wayside, explaining that “Historical understanding is not fixed.” Yet, even their desire to “expand the reader’s sense of the American past” can’t bring them to have a discussion with critical historians. “Why are they so afraid?,” asks Peter.

“If the writers of The 1619 Project are concerned with earnestly presenting a new historical theory, then they should gladly accept scrutiny and critique from credible sources. This is how history works, to separate truth from falsehood. Instead, Hannah-Jones leapfrogs straight from historical theory to established fact. The 1619 Project is not concerned with uncovering historical truths, but instead uses pseudo-history as a means to undermine rational, non-partisan historical inquiry.

. . . .

Nikole Hannah-Jones should step up, be courageous, and debate the historians with whom she disagrees. They’re waiting. All historical claims, particularly those with as wide-reaching and radical ramifications as these, must be discussed and scrutinized by trained scholars. The failure to engage in this way will result in the widespread proliferation of lies that have disastrous consequences for the future of our country.”

Read the full essay at American Greatness

  • Share

Most Commented

January 24, 2024

1.

After Claudine

The idea has caught on that the radical left overplayed its hand in DEI and is now vulnerable to those of us who seek major reforms. This is not, however, the first time that the a......

February 13, 2024

2.

The Great Academic Divorce with China

All signs show that American education is beginning a long and painful divorce with the People’s Republic of China. But will academia go through with it?...

October 31, 2023

3.

University of Washington Violated Non-Discrimination Policy, Internal Report Finds

A faculty hiring committee at the University of Washington “inappropriately considered candidates’ races when determining the order of offers,” provided “disparate op......

Most Read

May 15, 2015

1.

Where Did We Get the Idea That Only White People Can Be Racist?

A look at the double standard that has arisen regarding racism, illustrated recently by the reaction to a black professor's biased comments on Twitter....

October 12, 2010

2.

Ask a Scholar: What is the True Definition of Latino?

What does it mean to be Latino? Are only Latin American people Latino, or does the term apply to anyone whose language derived from Latin?...

September 21, 2010

3.

Ask a Scholar: What Does YHWH Elohim Mean?

A reader asks, "If Elohim refers to multiple 'gods,' then Yhwh Elohim really means Lord of Gods...the one of many, right?" A Hebrew expert answers....