Settings
Light Theme
Dark Theme

Why the 1619 Project is Dangerous and Should Be Totally Rejected

Why the 1619 Project is Dangerous and Should Be Totally Rejected
Nov 30, 2021 · 46m 40s

The biggest and most controversial historical debate in 2021 is the 1619 Project. Released last year in a special issue of the New York Times Magazine, it is a collection...

show more
The biggest and most controversial historical debate in 2021 is the 1619 Project. Released last year in a special issue of the New York Times Magazine, it is a collection of articles which "aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of [the United States'] national narrative.” More specifically, it claims that the United States is fundamentally and irrevocably racist. Slavery, not the Constitution or 1776, are at the core of American identity. It reviews slavery not as a blemish that the Founders grudgingly tolerated with the understanding that it must soon evaporate, but as the prize that the Constitution went out of its way to secure and protect.

Specific claims include the following: the Revolutionary War was fought above all to preserve slavery, that capitalism was birthed on the plantation, and features of American society like traffic jams or affinity for sugar are connected to slavery and segregation.

The project was condemned by historians from left to right. Princeton historian Allen Guelzo said that “the 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory. And like all conspiracy theories, the 1619 Project announces with a eureka! that it has acquired the explanation to everything.” Fellow Princeton historian Sean Wilentz has circulated a letter objecting to the project, and the letter acquired signatories like James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes, all leading scholars in their field who object to very basic factual inaccuracies in the project.

Despite the 1619 Project’s numerous historical inaccuracies, the project has spread like wildfire. The creator Nicole Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize in 2020 for Commentary. Hundreds of newspapers have endorsed it. Most concerning, public schools began incorporating into their curricula early this year. The Pulitzer Center helped turn the 1619 Project into a curriculum that’s now taught in more than 4,500 schools across the nation. It threatens to destroy civics education as it has been taught for generations in K-12 education. History teachers, under such a program, would abandon the narrative of the Civil War, emancipation, and the Civil Rights movement. Instead, they would ask students how societal structures perpetuate the enslavement of black people.

Today’s guest is Dr. Mary Grabar, author of “Debunking The 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America.”

She provides an extensive look at the divisive and false tactics used to associate America with the exact opposite values of its founding.

This episode is different because I am explicitly endorsing the argument of this author and denouncing the 1619 project. I almost never do this because I don’t want to tell you, the listener, how to think. Rather, I let a guest present his or her arguments, make the case as best as possible, play devil’s advocate when needed, but ultimately provide the best historical raw material so that you, the audience, and be the judge.

I’m making an exception with the 1619 project because I think the arguments are so poorly constructed, juvenile, and political in nature that they don’t deserve the dignity of being taken seriously. Normally, I would ignore such poorly crafted arguments, in the same way that I wouldn’t have on a guest who says that aliens built the pyramids, or that a German U-Boat sunk the Titanic. At the risk of being political, I think that the 1619 project is at the same intellectual level as UFO conspiracy theories. The problem is that it has elite support. But the effects of 1619 are seeping into public school curricula. The date of 1619 is entering public consciousness. This is only because of politics, because the political claims of the project line up with the political beliefs of certain teachers, Pulitzer committee members, and others.
show less
Comments
Claude Butland

Claude Butland

2 years ago

I have quite a few questions after this episode. Perhaps there have been a few historical inadequacies in the 1619 project, but to profess because there were African-American slave owners disqualifies the ideology that America is far from drenched in racial ideologies and exeptionilism to this day misses the mark. The statement that African nations are still destitute and conduct slavery when they are continually interfered and oppressed by imperialistic capitalism is ... by all means ...deplorable Scott. This episode was disappointing to say the least. To ignore that the Us is barreling towards fascism and a police state that targets races is willfully blind. I don't think CRT should be taught ti young children, but ignoring systemic racism is much more dangerous than perhaps 1619 project.
David Street

David Street

2 years ago

This was a very disheartening podcast. This is a fairly light history podcast - with most eppisodes well under an hour - so tacking as big an issue as the history of slavery is always going to be tough. But this was AWFUL. I lasted about half an hour of self contradictory and nonsensical statements about slavery from - Jefferson perpetuating slavery to keep people from being sad (the battle to preserve chattel slavery is at the heart of CRT) to saying Jefferson was no angel but he was an "Apostle of Liberty." It is difficult to accept that there was an evil core to the foundation of the US. But thinking that leaving small kids in the care of people a slave owner could leagally beat to death as an example of an Eden-like relationship to the heirs of a slave-owner and his slave is beyond the pale tone-deaf. It was an economic system that used humans as machinery that was owned in perpetuity and along racial lines. It was and is evil. I don't know about reparations and all that but not accepting the core evil here is a failure of intellect and conscience. I'm profoundly disappointed.
P

Paul

2 years ago

When I first started listening to History Unplugged, I wasn't sure where Scott Rank fell politically, and after several episodes I came to the conclusion that he was moderate, that he abstained from looking at history with a strong political bias. My problem isn't that he has critized The 1619 Project, but how he's critized it, interviewing a biased historian who is also politically motivated, and now supporting the 1776 Project. I expected Scott to be more fair, reasonable, and level-handed, but I think my hopes were too aspirational and that's why I can no longer listen to this podcast.
Irish American

Irish American

2 years ago

Wow!!! You endorse the far right Trump-backed 1776 Project??? Talk about lies...
Information
Author Parthenon Podcast Network
Website -
Tags
-

Looks like you don't have any active episode

Browse Spreaker Catalogue to discover great new content

Current

Looks like you don't have any episodes in your queue

Browse Spreaker Catalogue to discover great new content

Next Up

Episode Cover Episode Cover

It's so quiet here...

Time to discover new episodes!

Discover
Your Library
Search