Thread by @jeffjarvis

One thing I find fascinating about this exchange, which comes out in @AdamSerwer's very good analysis, is seeing historians fall into the journalists' trap of believing they can be and are "objective." That is the hubris of the controller of the narrative at work. 1/

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1209233955511246856

@AdamSerwer What the complaining historians fail to see is what I believe is the real value of the 1619 Project: @nhannahjones forcing us all to see the inherent bias in our narratives, worldviews, and presumptions about history. They insist on defending theirs. 2/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones To all, I highly recommend Alex Rosenberg's book, How History Gets Things Wrong: The Neuroscience of our Addiction to Stories. I wrote about it here: /3

medium.com/whither-news/a…

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones In the book, Rosenberg says neuroscience debunks the theory of mind that is the basis of so much historians (and journalists) hold dear: the belief that we can ascribe motive to figures in history (or news). Here's a link to buy the book: /4
amazon.com/How-History-Ge…

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones As is so often the case, when established authorities (read: powerful) are challenged to reexamine their worldviews, their first reaction is defensiveness. I know because I've been there. I the historians' complaints, I see much defensiveness. 5/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones The complaining historians' defensiveness blinds them to the lesson that @nhannahjones and the 1619 team are trying to give us all: that we need to question the biases and presumptions that underlie our beliefs about the alleged progress of history and news. 6/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones I also believe that @nhannahjones and 1619 try to push us to move our gaze from motives ("what were the founding fathers, the powerful thinking?"--as if we could know) to the impact of their decisions on the powerless. That is the lens of history the historians ignore. 7/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones What give me the most hope in all this is that @nhannahjones, 1619, and @nytimes see the value in a conversation -- more than the historians do. Is their version perfect? Objective? Of course not. Those are impossible ends. 8/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones @nytimes What 1619 and @nhannahjones do is convene and inform the public conversation that is society and should be journalism and history. That conversation begins with listening. 9/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones @nytimes If he listen to the historians' complaints, we hear their worldview, their narrative, their power, their control on the story of history. In 1619 we hear a challenge. That's what bothers them so--just as new voices on Twitter so irk some journalists. 10/
medium.com/whither-news/j…

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones @nytimes In the end, @nytimes is doing just what I believe journalists must do: convene communities into respectful, informed, and productive conversation. That is the spirit of the Magazine's response. 11/ nytimes.com/2019/12/20/mag…

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones @nytimes I've been critical of @nytimes lately for bothsiderism, especially in headlines. This is not that. This is saying: "Try to look at the world through others' glasses. What do you see?" I consider the historians' complaints a mark of the project's success at meeting its goals. 12/

@AdamSerwer @nhannahjones @nytimes So, finally, I urge you to read 1619, the historians' complaints, The Times' response, @nhannahjones's tweets, and reports about the dispute. In that we begin to hold the conversation we must have. 13/