This post is closely related to my June 19 article regarding critical race theory (CRT). Most of the legislation seeking to curtail the teaching of CRT has included criticism of The 1619 Project as well. CRT and “1619” both raise the question of how history is understood and taught.
The Problem of Microhistory
Each one of
us has our own personal history, which should, one would think, be rather
straightforward and non-problematic. But in writing my life story, now available in print, some historical “facts” came under
question. June did not remember some of our family history the same way I did.
The two siblings in Ann Patchett’s intriguing book The Dutch House
(2019) discuss their family’s microhistory. One asks, “Do you think it’s
possible to ever see the past as it actually was?” The other reflects on how we
humans
overlay the present onto the past. We look back through the lens of what we know now, so we’re not seeing it as the people we were, we’re seeing it as the people we are, and that means the past has been radically altered (p. 45).
The Problem of Macrohistory
Recently I
also read The Sense of an Ending (2011) by British author Julian Barnes. In that novel, one “high school” student remarks, “History is the lies
of the victors.” The teacher retorts that “it is also the self-delusions of the
defeated.”
At that
point, the most brilliant student in the class says, rather cynically, “History
is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet
the inadequacies of documentation” (pp. 16-17).
If that is true
in personal or family history; it is especially true in writing macrohistory. But
the problem is more than just the imperfections of memory and the inadequacies
of documentation.
The most
serious problem is the biases of the historians and the conscious or
unconscious interpretation of past events for the benefit of a particular
segment of society.
Thus, the
squabble over The 1619 Project continues.
U.S. History: “1619” or “1776”?
In 2019, The New York Times Magazine published
The 1619 Project, developed by journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and others.
The year 1619 was when the first African
slaves set foot in North America. The 1619 Project, then, “aims to reframe the
country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions
of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national
narrative" (from this
link).
The 1619 Project was strongly criticized by
politicians such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (see
here) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who proposed the Saving of American History
Act of 2020 (see
here), and especially by former Pres. Trump.
On the day before the 2020 presidential
election, by executive order DJT established the 1776 Commission. Republican
politicians continue to praise the flawed 1776 Commission report and to
castigate The 1619 Project.
The “1776 Pledge to Save Our
Schools” is being signed by numerous politicians, such as the two current Republican
gubernatorial candidates in Kansas, who were rebuked by an editorial
in the June 28 issue of the Kansas City Star.
There are some obvious problems with The 1619
Project, including some historical inaccuracies (as noted in this 3/6/20
Politico article). It also fails to link the beginning of U.S. history to
the mistreatment of Native Americans (as this 9/26/20
opinion piece explains).
But most who oppose teaching CRT and “1619” want to shield students from much of the “ugly” history of the past. They need to consider, though, the truth of the following meme. (The painting depicts some dreadful history of Canada’s First Nations children, similar to what happened in the U.S.)
**Of the many articles I have read related to this post, I am linking here to only one, Eugene Robinson’s 6/28 opinion piece in The Washington Post, which is accessible here without a paywall. The sixth paragraph on is directly about The 1619 Project.
.jpg)