Thread by @TheTattooedProf

I find it interesting that the historians who have denounced 1619 have used the one line about protecting slavery being the chief motive of many revolutionaries to characterize the whole thing, which is...much more than that. It's almost like they didn't do all the reading. 1/4

https://twitter.com/JohnFea1/status/1485611878621528065

And Rakove's argument is basically "I disagree with NH-J and Woody Holton because reasons," and while there's a historiographical debate to be had here, the fact it's animating such a vehement denunciation of the entire 1619 Project-covering *all* of US history-is telling. 2/4

The 1619 Project refuses to center whites in the story it tells of whatever expansion of freedoms occurred in the US. "The good ones" take a back seat, and scholars who address slavery via a "not all whites" approach can't abide that. The story of freedom is not a white one. 3/4

Look at the 1619 roster, then Wood's assertion below. "Leading" is doing a lot of coded work here. I still can't help but think this cadre of eminent white male historians is so outraged by 1619 because the Black woman journalist and cool-kid historians didn't call them. 4/4