The 1619 Project was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary yesterday. The New York Times, from whence this project originated, was quite elated.

“The commentary award went to Nikole Hannah-Jones, a correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, for her essay that served as the leading piece in The 1619 Project, a series centered on reframing United States history by focusing on the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans. The project, led by Ms. Hannah-Jones, included a broadsheet section, a podcast and a curriculum.”

Yes indeed, not only is the fish slime of record elated, they admit that this project was definitively intended to REFRAME, rewrite or ignore history to fit our chosen narrative of white men bad then and still bad now. 

As we noted last summer, The NY Times and the Pulitzer Prize center were working together on this project. So much so that the curriculum was sent to numerous schools across the country to be utilized starting last fall. You see, shoveling this curriculum shoved into our kids brains is necessary. Why? Because the “truth” about slavery in the United States must be addressed.

Here’s the problem with Nikole’s “truth.” It’s flat out wrong. A significant number of historians went public with their disapproval of the 1619 Project and pointedly explained the large number of historical inaccuracies within it. Historian Leslie M. Harris was asked to fact check the project before it went to print. 

“Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.”

Harris goes on to note that many of the inaccuracies reflect what took place pre and post Civil War. Furthermore, she notes that the American Revolution was the START of disrupting the business of slavery rather than preserving it. 

Never mind pointing out how biased and historically wrong the 1619 Project is, the fact that it won a Pulitzer makes it all ok. The Grand Poobah of participation trophies! Wheeee!! 

And that’s just fine, because this guy is here to tell us why a commentary riddled with errors is a must-read.

The pushback to the 1619 project is emblematic of why it's so necessary. History is not just about facts/dates, it's the study of the interpretation of events. White men have dominated historical discourse in the US, offering a narrow, skewed view of this nation's complex history

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) May 4, 2020

That entire tweet/opinion is laughable. His follow up tweet doesn’t help matters. 

"Historical interpretations are often contested, and those debates often reflect the perspective of the participants." https://t.co/3zL8xUXiiQ

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) May 4, 2020

In other words, it’s ok if the 1619 Project gets factual history wrong, because it’s the perspective and today’s narrative that matters!

Here’s the thing. The majority of the folks who have been disputing the veracity of the 1619 Project’s assertions are nationally known historians who are …BLACK. Five historians wrote a letter to The NY Times disputing much of the 1619 Project. 

“Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. Those connected with the project have assured the public that its materials were shaped by a panel of historians and have been scrupulously fact-checked. Yet the process remains opaque. The names of only some of the historians involved have been released, and the extent of their involvement as “consultants” and fact checkers remains vague. The selective transparency deepens our concern.”

They asked that The NY Times review and correct all the errors in the project. The NY Times response? 

“Though we respect the work of the signatories, appreciate that they are motivated by scholarly concern and applaud the efforts they have made in their own writings to illuminate the nation’s past, we disagree with their claim that our project contains significant factual errors and is driven by ideology rather than historical understanding. While we welcome criticism, we don’t believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted.”

In other words, SHUT UP. 

Now, it is worth noting that Nikole Hannah-Jones had to make ONE correction in the project. 

The clarification is small — just two words –but important. We add tht slavery was one of the primary motivations for "some of" the colonists to declare independence. As written, it appears that I am saying this was a universal motivation of ALL colonists. I wasn't clear enough

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

Nearly nine months after the project is now curriculum in schools across the country, she issues a condescending ‘if I really have to’ correction. 

The narrative was set last August and the fix was in. The end result? The 1619 Project nabs the Pulitzer super duper participation trophy award for commentary masquerading as history. 

Feature Photo Credit: Peggy_Marco at Pixabay, cropped and modified