I would not do that, but I do think the 1619 project requires the level of critique we give most historical topics. It barely recognizes the other side of the Baptist thesis on violence: the WSWS series introduced me to Oakes' fine work and in turn to the evidently quite 1/
and analytic scholarship of Caitlin Rosenthal, who says "integrating both sides of the debate yields a fuller picture of a system that knit together biological innovation and violence." Rosenthal and Oakes, not to mention Olmstead and Rhode, were easily accessible when the 2/
1619 essay was composed, and a more rigorous editor (we all need these) would likely have compelled the author at least to _mention_ them. Historians who make these complaints are often people who _care_ as deeply about the issues as do their targets, because they know 3/
that accuracy brings lasting respect, while _inaccuracy puts a target on one's back_. The lapses in the 1619 issue bother me because it could, with better editing, have achieved far more. (That the editor then 4/
rebuked historians without any _argument_ was dispiriting.) I did look for "accuracy" in The Philadelphia Negro and Souls of Black Folk: Du Bois considers it central. (E.H. Carr vividly remembered his tutor Enoch Powell: "Accuracy is not a virtue: it is an obligation." ) 5/
Still, I would def not compare 1619 to Dunning, or endorse the comparison.
One benefit of all this was the intro to Oakes's work, and Rosenthal's. Both admirable. 6/
One benefit of all this was the intro to Oakes's work, and Rosenthal's. Both admirable. 6/
