I find it, let’s say relevatory, that people keep posting the same interview with a single historian to refute the 1619 Project when said historian acknowledges he mostly skimmed it and did not bother to fully engage its text. Tell me, where else would such a lack of rigor stand?
They are using a scholar who did not feel inclined to study the work he is dismissing in order to attempt to make an argument about the faultiness of the scholarship in the 1619 Project. What they are actually doing, without knowing, is demonstrating why this project must exist.
As a black woman, I literally cannot *imagine* sitting down for a recorded interview on a major work that I haven’t bothered to read thoroughly. I wld have either declined the interview or read the project & gathered detailed thoughts about it. That he did not speaks for itself.
Lastly, said scholar is a Civil War historian. The 1619 Project scans 400 years and is absolutely not a history of the Civil War.
