Yo the McPherson criticism of the 1619 project both ignores the nuances quite present in the work itself, but is really focused on what Hayden White famously described as the ethical and aesthetic frameworks undergirding all historical narratives.
Every history has an ethical and aesthetic framework to it. McPherson’s is different from the contributors to the 1619 project. But that’s obviously the entire point of the project: to argue for a different ethical centering of understanding American history.
White argued that assuming the facts are themselves correct and nothing is being deceptively ignored, there is no logical way to judge between different ethical and aesthetic frames. McPherson wants to emphasize a more hopeful, positive core to American history.
The 1619 Project authors are more critical, seeking to force their readers to confront less pleasant truths about the American past. It will resonate with—or persuade—different people. But McPherson’s work is no less ethically laden than 1619.
