The debate among historians about the NYT’s #1619Project has actually intensified over the past few weeks – and the reactions not just among scholars, but particularly among journalists/pundits are very revealing. A few thoughts./1
On 20 December a group of five historians – renowned academics who, it should be noted, all belong to an older generation, ranging in age from 66 to 86 – sent a letter to the NYT criticizing the #1619Project./2
This intervention has, however, been widely criticized by other historians as inadequate. Not because the #1619Project is beyond reproach (it isn’t, of course), but because this particular critique, quite frankly, lacks substance./3
It was not surprising, therefore, to learn that attempts by the Disgruntled Five to recruit more colleagues as signatories proved futile, as @GilmoreGlenda pointed out./4
@GilmoreGlenda Many colleagues have put a lot of effort into formulating extensive, thoughtful critiques of the intervention by the Disgruntled Five, and into reflecting the actual strengths as well as weaknesses of the #1619Project./5
@GilmoreGlenda Here’s a collection of some of those thoughts and reflections by @rothmanistan /6
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt So while the critique by the Disgruntled Five was not convincing, it still sparked an extremely interesting discussion. Here’s @AdamSerwer with an attempt to distill what the debates over the #1619Project are actually about./8
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer And here’s @SethCotlar brilliantly outlining some additional dynamics that are shaping these debates./9
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar All of these debates have of course played out publicly, and they were never limited to professional historians. So how has the media / how have journalists and political pundits handled these discussions?/10
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar Some journalists take the time and effort to actually follow, understand, take part in the scholarly debates, and translate them to a larger audience to make sense of struggles over history, identity, and culture. @jbouie and @AdamSerwer come to mind, amongst many others./11
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie Yet depending on where you look and who you follow/read, you would have heard nothing of these interesting, nuanced debates among historians, or at least get a very different impression of where the historical profession stands regarding the #1619Project. /12
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie Two brand-new reactions stand out to me as particularly inept. One comes from @jonathanchait. He’s lauding a new article by Phil Magness that sharply criticizes the #1619Project (Magness uses the letter by the Disgruntled Five as his stepping stone)./13
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait So Chait has decided to highlight the voice of a “historian,” – but why now, and why this one? Magness, in case you’re not aware, works at a libertarian think tank, and is not exactly someone most experts would describe as a paragon of academic honesty./14
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait Actually, Magness is rather infamous for disingenuously attacking historians he doesn’t like – and then blocking them on twitter when they call him out on his BS, as @KevinMKruse does here./15
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse What about Magness’s critique of the #1619Project though? Well, here’s a great thread by @TheTattooedProf analyzing what the problem with Magness’s arguments and the way he presents them are./16
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf Does any of that register with Chait? Nope. Why not? Well, because he’s not really interested in the substance of the debate – but see’s Magness as an opportunity to “both sides” the #1619Project and criticize what he perceives as “the left.”/17
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf Those are two extremely powerful biases that self-proclaimed “serious” liberals/moderates like Chait simply cannot shake or even reflect, as @DavidAstinWalsh points out./18
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf @DavidAstinWalsh And then, to mention one other reaction to Magness’s article, there’s Andrew Sullivan. Again, no contextualization of who Magness is, or how his critique compares to what most experts with much more positive evaluations of the #1619Project have said./19
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf @DavidAstinWalsh For Sullivan, the article is simply a chance to slander the #1619Project – and what he sees as the dangerous spread of leftwing “critical race theory,” of which he wants less (because it annoys the privileged white man)./20
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf @DavidAstinWalsh Where does all this leave us, from a historian’s perspective? Not sure. But I will say this: The critique that historians, if they think their work/debates are not adequately represented in the public discourse, should simply try harder and do more to be heard is silly to me./21
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf @DavidAstinWalsh The reason why Chait, Sullivan, et al. fail to convey the actual state of academic debates is not that historians fail to make themselves heard/accessible, but that they pick and choose whatever fits their political/ideological agenda. And we should call them out on it./end
@GilmoreGlenda @rothmanistan @NicholasGuyatt @AdamSerwer @SethCotlar @jbouie @jonathanchait @KevinMKruse @TheTattooedProf @DavidAstinWalsh Addendum: I'm getting this “ad hominem attack” line from people. In the thread I link to a lot of scholars who strongly disagree with Magness and the Disgruntled Five on substance. The “ad hominem” crowd seems decidedly uninterested in acknowledging that.
