This is someone who has plainly not read the criticisms. In particular, pay attention to the problems with the Matthew Desmond essay. They are substantial and cut to the core of his argument about what he mislabels as "capitalism."
As for NHJ's essay, it is hardly a fresh or novel account. It is historiographically an extension of decades-old arguments by Lerone Bennett (on both the Revolution and Lincoln/the Civil War), although much less persuasively presented.
Bennett was at times a polemicist (I met him a decade ago and he openly admitted that!) but had a grasp of scholarly debates & made original contributions. Before my work, he was one of the only sources to give a serious look at Lincoln's colonization commissioner James Mitchell.
Of the 12 feature essays in the original 1619 Project, only *two* were written by historians. Both were historians of the 20th century - not experts in the Am. Revolution, the Civil War, or slavery.
@nhannahjones One of those essays is by Khalil Gibran Muhammad - a specialist in 20th century urban history - and received little if any criticism.
@nhannahjones The second was by Kevin Kruse, another 20th century historian who is better known for his twitter feed than his scholarship.
Also, a month ago I caught Kruse in what appears to be an act of plagiarism in his published academic work.
@nhannahjones I will have a longer review of the book out shortly that also examines the errors I found in Matthew Desmond's original 1619 Project essay. @Jakesilverstein and the NYT outright refused to correct those errors...then quietly did so without acknowledging it in the book version.
@nhannahjones@jakesilverstein I also have receipts. Here is one of the corrections that Silverstein refused to make in February 2020.
When the book version came out last month however, the claim about Microsoft Excel's connections to slavery was quietly removed.
When recently asked to comment on the Collins/Fauci email scandal over the ordered "take down" of the Great Barrington Declaration, the NIH referred a reporter to the Wikipedia page of the GBD.
Because "science," or something.
And speaking of Wikipedia, here's an experiment for you. Try proposing an edit on that page that documents Collins and Fauci's collusion to launch a media smear campaign against the GBD.
Up next we have the Washington Post, which sent Fauci's underlings a request for comment on the Great Barrington Declaration.
The message didn't make it to Fauci in time for the story though, which ran on the 16th. By the time his chief of staff got it on the 18th it was already out.
Keep in mind that Fauci was away for an unspecified reason on 10/16 that was redacted from the emails.
Thread summarizing what we've learned so far of the Fauci/Collins email dump on the Great Barrington Declaration:
It starts on 10/14/20 when Collins instructs Fauci and his staff to "take down" the GBD and the "fringe" scientists behind it.
Fauci responds immediately by circulating an article against the GBD from that austere scientific authority, @WiredUK.
The Fauci-endorsed Wired article is noteworthy for having one of the single worst hot-takes of the entire pandemic. It declared in October 2020 that the GBD should be ignored, because lockdowns were a thing of the past and would not be returning!