1619 Project critic details issues related to Nikole Hannah-Jones’ historical work

[ad_1]

CHAPEL HILL, NC (WNCN) – One of the biggest critics of Project 1619 detailed his problems with it when Nikole Hannah-Jones decided to teach at Howard University on UNC-Chapel Hill .

“Both historians and journalists have a fundamental duty to be honest with their readers, to be factually correct with their readers. And that’s one of the problems with Project 1619, ”said Sean Wilentz, professor of American history at Princeton University.

Not a decision I wanted to make: watch the full interview with Nikole Hannah-Jones after declining the UNC tenure offer

Wilentz was among the first historians to speak out against the publication of Project 1619.

“When I first read the main essay, in particular, I kind of hit the roof, metaphorically, you know? There was so much in there that was incorrect and mistaken basic facts about American history that don’t help the cause of enlightenment, only undermine it, ”Wilentz said.

Joined by other historians, Wilentz wrote to The New York Times saying that raising troubling questions about slavery is “a commendable and urgent public service.” But, he takes issue with Nikole Hannah-Jones’ version of why the Founding Fathers wanted to break with England.

UNC Chancellor disappointed Nikole Hannah-Jones won’t join university faculty

“The fundamental mission of the United States at the beginning of its existence was to protect slavery. It’s wrong. It just gives a misconception of both the history of slavery and the history of anti-slavery and then the history of the United States, ”Wilentz said. “All are canceled by this simple declaration.

“The fact that there was anti-slavery in the founding of the nation has been obscured. Not just people like John Adams, who are well known, but lesser known people like Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense. He was also anti-slavery. He wrote on the elimination of slavery. So there was a struggle from the start, that’s what’s missing.

The story of anti-slavery sentiments, according to Wilentz, is what is missing from Project 1619.

Protesters boo and scream in shame as UNC board meets on Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure

“Far from 1619 and 1776, which marks the beginning of the rise of the very first anti-slavery opinion, of the very first anti-slavery policy, it takes place in the North American colonies. In 1775, the first anti-slavery society was founded in Philadelphia. Massachusetts got rid of slavery in 1783 for the first time in millennia, ”he noted.

“Slavery has a history that dates back to classical times. During the colonization of the Atlantic world, there is an anti-slavery backlash that is bubbling up, but it is very late in the game. It’s very close to the American foundation, and the American foundation, I think, is as much a part of the anti-slavery momentum, which is very new, as it is the continuation of the institution of slavery, which is also there, as well as. “

“There is no doubt that slavery was tolerated in places like North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia. But, it was not integrated into the national project as the 1619 project imagines. In Project 1619, slavery is the essence of American history. It is the heart of American history, it is the fundamental principle in which America was organized. It’s just incorrect.

Sean Wilentz, Professor of American History at Princeton University

Another error pointed out in the letter to The Times included President Abraham Lincoln’s take on racial equality ignoring Lincoln’s belief that the Declaration of Independence “proclaimed universal equality.”

The letter was also signed by history professors Victoria Bynam of Texas State University, James McPherson of Princeton University, James Oakes of City University of New York, and Gordon Wood of Brown University.

Wilentz believes there is a basic principle to follow in order for honest conversations about race and the future in this country to be productive.

“I’m not saying there’s only one way to look at it, but to give a version that’s so filled with inaccuracies, it’s not a place to start a discussion or a conversation. You have to know the facts before you can start, ”he said. “It becomes so much a part of the political propaganda on both sides, of the polarization on both sides, that just defending the writing of a specific story is drowned out, and that’s unfortunate.

“We are living in difficult times when it comes to race relations. The murder of George Floyd was a terrible and burning event for this country. We are going through a very difficult time, which makes it all the more imperative not only to understand our history, but also to do it right. “

[ad_2]