The 1619 Project crowd keeps insisting that they responded to criticisms made in "good faith." That's not my experience.
@nhannahjones originally cited my book...until she realized I was critical of other parts of the project. So she found a replacement.
aier.org/article/the-16…
@nhannahjones originally cited my book...until she realized I was critical of other parts of the project. So she found a replacement.
aier.org/article/the-16…
@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 the book version came out last month however, the claim about Microsoft Excel's connections to slavery was quietly removed.
@nhannahjones @jakesilverstein Here's a 2nd request I sent them in November 2019, asking for a correction to Desmond's reliance of cotton production stats that Ed Baptist misrepresented from a paper by Olmstead & Rhode.
NHJ refused the request.
But in the new book, Baptist is replaced by...Olmstead & Rhode
NHJ refused the request.
But in the new book, Baptist is replaced by...Olmstead & Rhode
Here is what NHJ is saying today about her critics and the revision process.
I witnessed this process directly as one of those critics over the last 2 years. And there's not a word of truth to what she is claiming.
I witnessed this process directly as one of those critics over the last 2 years. And there's not a word of truth to what she is claiming.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
