Talk:The 1619 Project

Conflicting provable history

We have a huge problem on our hands here with this. It will likely mean that the background section and other parts of this article might need to be re-written, or else this could spill over in an ugly way into other wiki articles. A small but notable example(there are many) is the article about San Miguel de Gualdape, which states that 93 years prior in 1526: "The enslaved Africans brought by the settlers became the first documented instance of Black slavery in mainland North America and carried out the first slave rebellion there."

Someone could easily remove that line citing a reliable source, The New York Times, because there was no slavery of any kind prior to 1619, the "400th anniversary of the first enslaved people arriving in America". And if there was no slavery, there obviously couldn't have been a slave rebellion either. This is the whole premise of the project, it's exactly what they are saying every time you see the number 400. Here's one example:

Four hundred years after enslaved Africans were first brought to Virginia, most Americans still don't know the full story of slavery. The 1619 Project examines the legacy of slavery in America.[1]

Here's another:

Since January, The Times Magazine has been working on an issue to mark the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved people arriving in America.[2]

Another here: ([3]) uses very similar language to the first cited above.

If on the one hand, I could completely prove that this started in 1619 citing reliable sources; but then on the other hand, I could completely prove that this started prior to 1619 citing reliable sources, how can we write comprehensive and accurate wiki articles this way when now both hands are 100% correct with cites? I'll try to make a small fix to the background to start but we have a much larger issue here. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The arrival of slaves in Spanish colonies in North America in the 16th Century and uncertainty about the status of the Africans who were brought to Virginia in 1619 are both tricky questions for this article. It's difficult to describe the 1619 Project succinctly and accurately, without simplifying or misrepresenting these issues. For example, the lede says:

The project was timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the Virginia colony in 1619

Yet the status of the Africans who arrived in Virginia in 1619 is not settled, and is the subject of a longstanding historiographical debate. There is a view that slavery did not exist in the colony in 1619, and that the institution of slavery only developed decades later, and there is indeed evidence that some Africans brought to the colony early on were treated as indentured servants, and later gained their freedom. There is another view that says that at least some Africans were essentially treated as slaves (lifetime indentured servitude), even if the legal framework of slavery did not yet exist. The problem is that the evidence is very patchy, and historians are trying to draw conclusions from quite indirect types of evidence.

In any case, I think we should try to find a way to modify the description in the lede to describe the intention of the NY Times (to mark the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first slaves in Virginia), without actually stating definitively that the people who arrived were treated as slaves (because this is a contentious issue among historians). It's a tricky thing to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a contentious issue among historians anymore that the First Africans in Virginia were enslaved, though it was a few years ago. There seems to be pretty wide consensus now for this, quite unrelated to the 1619 Project.--Pharos (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That wikipedia article says they were enslaved (in the original sense of having been free people made slaves), which is not in doubt, but not that they were indefinitely treated as slaves in Virginia. LastDodo (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to modify the description to use the "intention" of the NY Times to make it accurate. We should describe what the Times said and note its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported partisan claim worded as fact

I call attention to this sentence in the Journalistic Reaction section

"Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans), smears the Revolution, distorts the Constitution, and misrepresents the founding era and Lincoln."

This claim "Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans" is a serious allegation and not common knowledge. It is preceded by "unwelcome facts" which implies that this claim is a fact. The only source provided for this sentence is the same National Review opinion piece written by Lowry. If this is true, then it needs to be backed up by a much stronger source than an opinion piece from a partisan source which "there is no consensus on the reliability of".

I have never seen any other source support the claim. Therefore, I propose the sentence to be changed to one of the following:

1. Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Africans allegedly captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans) [...]

2. Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Lowry claims Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans) [...]

3. Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay "leaves out unwelcome facts" about slavery (e.g. Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans) [...]

4. If an independent source supports the claim, add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.135.61 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That it is 'not common knowledge' we can certainly agree upon. That is a reflection of how well people have been misled. But it is not 'a serious allegation', it is well established fact. Go read any decent history of the slave trade - any one at all - and you will find it to be the case. Go read any slave narrative (e.g. Olaudah Equiano's), and you will find the same thing. Europeans, with the partial exception of Portugal, traded for slaves from tiny forts on the coast that were in most cases highly vulnerable to the power of the African states with which they traded, as well as African diseases, which would gurantee a high mortality rate for any group of Europeans travelling inland. That is not to say that kidnappings did not happen, they certainly did, but only a minority of Africans were enslaved this way. Many were trafficked for months across land before they saw a single European. Many died in this part of the journey - probably more than died during the Middle Passage, since it came earlier in the journey, and took much longer (the Middle Passage killed people faster but was much shorter). None of this is at all controversial. Reflecting all this, I have added the fact back in, as an example cited by Rich Lowry. LastDodo (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

infobox change

Template:Infobox short story is obviously inappropriate for this topic. What alternative infobox should be used? إيان (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Blaming England a bit?

This article seems to play a little too fast and loose with the facts. Everybody knows that the United States government enslaved black people for 400 years and that England led by Wilberforce abolished slavery in 1833. I added these four reputable sources below from CNN, The Philadelphia Enquirer, USA Today, and even America's own U.S. House of Representatives recognizes that the United States government engaged in slavery for 400 years. I hope this new information can help begin to clean this article up a bit with all of the right wing bias that is present. When the United States government itself admits that it enslaved black people for 400 years, there shouldn't be any question and there should NOT be blaming any other countries and especially the ones who never had any slavery at all. Sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.95.250 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The United States government hasn't yet existed for a span of 400 years. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone think it is not Revisionist?

In the lede it says 'Some historians, journalists, and commentators have described the 1619 Project as a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with later figures such as Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.'

Is the 'some historians, journalists and commentators' part necessary? Is there anyone, on either side of the debate, who doubts that the work is revisionist? Here is what wikipedia says historical revisionism is:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or timespan or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.

I can think of few pieces of work for which this description is more apt than the 1619 Project. If its not revisionist, then what exactly was the point of it? Why has it generated so much support and opposition if it is just recapitulating the orthodox view? Why award it a Pulitzer? Of course the answer is that it certainly is revisionist. So why not replace the above paragraph with:

'The 1619 Project is a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, such as the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, and later figures like Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.'

Thoughts? LastDodo (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, hard to think what its point is except to be revisionist. Has anyone said that it isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I await to see what others say. But as it stands the paragraph in question implies they have, simply by qualifying the claim as being made by 'some'. LastDodo (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of counter-criticism that the project is not revisionist, either. For what it's worth, Nikole Hannah-Jones' reported response to a letter criticizing the NYT Magazine for an "inaccurate reframing of history" is "We were not hiding this,” she said. “If you are a historian, you know that all history is revisionist."[8] although I can't find this quote elsewhere.

The editor's note on "The 1619 Project" also states that the goal is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year."[9] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

United States Slavery

Hello everyone! In the most recent edit someone pointed out that the U.S. had slavery for 246 years which is an important point of the whole effort of The 1619 Project, so it is curious that another user would immediately revert that edit despite its relevance. Could we have a discussion and build a consensus? Thanks!!! 72.17.70.228 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP! Remember, relevance alone does not necessarily merit inclusion. While I don't doubt the statement, are there reliable sources mentioning that as the specific timespan? That would help. Also, if you could talk about how you wanted to integrate the information into the article, that would be perfect. Happy Holidays! Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that it is a direct part of the 1619 Project itself. This article [10] written together in a partnership with the Smithsonian specifically states that the United States had slavery for 246 years. "The Stono Rebellion was only one of many rebellions that occurred over the 246 years of slavery in the United States." This article is featured prominently in the main body of the Wiki article already, so I need no additional cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.54.178 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I will add that The 1619 Project directly mentions this too, but rounds up to 250 years. "No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed." among other quotes [11] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I may be a little late to this, but I do not think it should be included as it would be very multifaceted. It also highlights how useless using the ambiguous word of "America" is. The U.S. purchase of Spanish Florida where there was slavery means that slavery was inherited. From purchase in 1819 to abolition in 1865 means that slavery in the U.S. in the former Spanish territory is 46 years. The rest of the responsibility for slavery in Spanish America lies with Spain. The same is true for slavery in the French slave colony of Louisiana that was purchased by the United States. Slavery there as it regards the U.S. is 62 years and for France, many many more years. With the 13 colonies and the original Founding of the United States it means that the United States had slavery for 89 years. In most instances, slavery was conducted by European powers when there was no United States at all. Progressingamerica (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Abolitionists ignored

In James Oakes' Dec. 2023 article referenced in the Wikipedia article, he points out that abolitionism was ignored by the authors of The 1619 Project, saying:

The rise of Anglo-American slavery gave rise to Anglo-American antislavery. But it was the revolution itself that put slavery in jeopardy.

This is quite a monumental thing to say in light of how 1619 originally tried claiming that the whole point of the revolution was to protect and defend the institution of slavery. I do happen to think that a small bit about the role of abolitionism has a place in the article, perhaps the following two history books would become useful for that purpose and potentially even out the preferential message contained in The 1619 Project? Particularly abolitionist sentiments/persons known to have existed prior to Independence.

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808) - Librivox audiobook [12]
An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers - Librivox audiobook [13]

Progressingamerica (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Were there abolitionists? Of course there were. But they were relatively small in number and had little actual success until the Civil War. And you know what? They have been studied and covered ad nauseam over the last century and a half. Thank you for providing two works with which you are associated on Librivox, but we would really need something like more contemporary criticism making the points you wish to include. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the audiobooks. I agree with Dumuzid on their size and success, but there are more modern works that discuss pre-independence abolitionism. I think a bigger point of criticism is how the premise The 1619 Project made for its claim about the American Revolution, that Britain was "deeply conflicted" about slavery in the American colonies and the slave trade, was incorrect. The 1619 Project overstates the influence and effect of British abolitionism. I read about that and historians' responses in Peter Wood's book 1620 and more of this criticism could be included in the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a little bit of WP:MANDY to Wood's criticisms, not that they are therefore unfair, but it does tend to make them less notable. I, personally, would want to see more coverage of the 1620 book before I would think it due for inclusion in the article. But as ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. To avoid confusion, are we confusing historian Gordon S. Wood, who has had back-and-forth criticism of The 1619 Project, with Peter W. Wood, who wrote the 1620 book? I can't find allegations against Peter Wood or Peter Wood denying something per WP:MANDY about himself or his content in this topic area, but would like to include them if there are any. The book has received reasonable attention and has been a popular seller[14][15][16][17], and reflects mainstream research on early US history. It also appears to be the most substantial criticism of The 1619 Project. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)