Largely missing from this assessment is the nearly-complete absence of Frederick Douglass from the print edition of the 1619 Project.
Or to be a bit more frank, the 1619 Project only added Douglass as an afterthought to retroactively shoehorn into its political message.
Or to be a bit more frank, the 1619 Project only added Douglass as an afterthought to retroactively shoehorn into its political message.
https://twitter.com/lkatfield/status/1486755094653718528
The interesting feature of the argument made here is that it rests heavily on Douglass's assessment of Abraham Lincoln from 1876.
While the original 1619 Project took a fairly harsh look at Lincoln, Douglass was completely absent from its discussion.
While the original 1619 Project took a fairly harsh look at Lincoln, Douglass was completely absent from its discussion.
In this essay, Field attempts to supply Nikole Hannah-Jones with material from Douglass to bolster an interpretation of Lincoln that NHJ likely sympathizes with, but also completely omitted from her original essay - either out of sloppiness or ignorance of the literature.
The strange twist, however, is that Field then attacks 1619 Project critics, as if they had somehow undersold or misrepresented NHJ's position on Douglass...when NHJ did not even use Douglass to form her argument.
@TimothySandefur @LincolnDouglass of interest.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
