"New Book: The 1619 Project by Nikole Hannah-Jones" Topic

This has just come out. Is anyone going to get it?

I certainly intend to purchase and read it.

link

I've planned on it. Interesting to read what has so upset people that have not read it, apparently cannot describe what its about and are screaming mad against it even when its not actually being used.

And no idea why the OP is a gaming subject or is in the ACW section.

In her own words…

In a 2019 interview with Vox founder Ezra Klein, Nikole Hannah-Jones said, "If you want to see the most equal, multiracial democ …. it's not a democracy, but the most equal multiracial country in our hemisphere, it would be Cuba. . . . Cuba has the least inequality between black and white people of any place in the hemisphere. In places that are biracial countries, Cuba actually has the least inequality," she added, "That's largely due to socialism."

When you consider her above statement combined with Senator Sanders' claim that Cuba has a better health care system than the US, it's no wonder that people are flocking to Cuba by the millions and not the US … oh, wait.

So respectfully no, I will not be buying nor will I be reading it. I've already read Marx.

Cardinal X – ‌‌‌‌

I'm more interested in the 1358 project.

This book was released just in time for the holidays. If I get this I'll put it on the book shelf next to other publications of similar quality, like the Bubba Gump shrimp recipe book.

Nah. It's an advocacy journalist writing history to support policy she likes. She began this by announcing that the primary motivation for the American Revolution was to perpetuate slavery. When historians pretty much unanimously said "HUH?" instead of--oh, doing research and thinking about it--she just changed to "for some Americans" without mentioning names. I could say that for some Americans, the AWI was about prepping for a Martian invasion. Without names, how would you refute me?

That sort of thing may get you a job teaching Journalism these days, but it does not make you a historian. When I want to learn history, I buy books by historians--people who believe facts are not subjective and truth has value apart from support of a political agenda.

When you buy books like hers, you're paying her money to write such--and you're encouraging more of the same. Would you pay someone to write a life of Napoleon or a history of the Battle of Dresden done to the same slipshod standard? I don't think so.

No

I subscribe to the NY Times and read it when it originally came out. Bottom line it was written by a journalist who had a particular story to tell. Some journalists can write good histories, this isn't one. This is a deliberately slanted perspective; not good history, and certainly written without any context.

I read the first two articles on NYT. I thought they were interesting and while I didn't entirely agree with them, they offered a perspective I hadn't considered.

I haven't made a decision on the book but definitely haven't ruled it out.

I will be checking it out when my local library gets it. Whether I buy it will depend on my assessment. Based on the articles and interviews of Ms. Hannah-Jones I am not optimistic enough to invest in it sight unseen.

Having followed closely the debate, I will not be buying the book, as it is rather unlikely to contain anything about collecting, painting, and playing with little lead or plastic warriors.

My bigger concern is her approach politicizes history, if not outright weaponizing it, in order to influence today's politics. Unfortunately, we are seeing more of this type of history written from multiple political perspectives. Authors pick facts or interpretations that support their modern political viewpoint, and ignore other perspectives or facts that don't support their views.

It has a place on every bookshelf, right next to A. Hitler's "History of the Jewish people".

I will probably not read it because I suspect raylev3 is right.

But I will be interested in hearing some reviews that are not harsh condemnations before it even comes out. These attacks have made me wonder why so many are so afraid of this whole thing.

I cant really see where it has had much influence. But she has a right to publish, just as Mark Levin does. As we say on the Ultramodern Board here, if you don't like something, "just don't click on it!"

I really doubt whether the average American has been affected by 1619 or even knows what it is, just as I think Mark Levin's latest was not as hot a topic for regular folks as some may think. My opinion.

The short version is the 1619 the first slave was imported,, American revolution was fought to preserve slavery, it goes downhill from there.

are screaming mad against it even when its not actually being used.

link

For those who are on the fence and would like to try the original essays, they can be accessed here for free in several different formats.

archive.org/details/1619project

For myself, a retired high school history teacher, I wouldn't have used these in class with my sophomore history students. It would have gone way over their heads. If I was teaching college history, it for sure would have been required reading.

Definitely not. Life's too short to waste on crap like that.

1619 the first slave was imported

Not correct. Black slaves were being imported into the Americas long before the first English colonies were established. The Spanish brought black slaves to North America before the first English colonies were established. The blacks brought to Virginia in 1619 were lifted off a ship taking them from Africa to the Americas. The first blacks imported into the English colonies went to Bermuda in 1616, not Virginia in 1619. The first blacks who were imported into Virginia may not have been treated as slaves but rather as indentured servants.

shh, Don't let facts get in the way of selling the narrative!

"I really doubt whether the average American has been affected by 1619 or even knows what it is, "

The problem is that it is being taught in schools. As noted above it isn't history, it's propaganda.

I just finished reading "Six Days In June. Israel's Fight For Survival." This book, written in June 1967 covers the Arab-Israeli conflict from the end of WWI to the Six Day War. It gives a balanced view of the conflict and I found some interesting insights on Nasser, the UAR, the Egyptian army, and Arab unity. It was quite interesting and well written.

The kicker is that it was written by the staff of The Los Angeles Times. Sad to say I can't imagine something like that being written today. Today things have been so politicized by people like Hannah-Jones there's no chance of actual history slipping into a book.

Some seem to think 'politicised' history is a new thing.

It isn't. For example, 'Richard III' by some bloke called Shakespeare…

Slaves were imported into South America in much greater numbers and for a longer period of time than to the American colony then United States. Don't think this essay cares about other countries.

Richard III was sold as entertainment. 1619 is the Hannah-Jones' Mein Kampf.

Dn Jackson

IMO, I don't think it represents a shift in school curriculum . It may be used as an adjunct in a few thousand schools. Maybe the threats to censor it only increase the interest in it. It can be used in a variety of ways to inform freedom of speech values. It gets more people thinking more about the traditional bias of our curriculums regarding race. If there are outright factual errors they must be addressed.

Regarding schools in general, I will be happy when more Americans can find Chicago on a map.

And what do we do when the leader of the free world tells billions of people that Washinton's army secured the airports during the American Revolution, while threatening to cut funding to schools who have this book in their libraries? We teach and learn from all sides, I hope, and seek the truth.

I haven't read it yet. Even though the author has a history undergraduate degree, she is no historian.

One of the thumpers she wrote is that the Revolution occurred to save and support slavery. That is not fact and is not true.

She was being interviewed on television the other day and proposed the idea that 1619 was as important as 1776. It isn't and to say so only reveals that she is writing and promulgating a revisionist agenda based on the institution of slavery and that isn't the accurate definition of revisionism, but the inaccurate one.

I do believe that it should be read, if only to find and talk about the inherent inaccuracies in the book.

If I was still teaching, I would most certainly use it to point out the author's bias and historical inaccuracies.

Good posting Tortorella.

I wonder if the author of 1619 figures out that the landing and buying of twenty African slaves in that year was an accident? I have found no evidence that it was a planned event on the part of the English colonists.

Slavery existed in what became the USA prior to the first white person ever set foot on its shores. Slavery is alive and well in the world currently and all those interested in the type of slavery that once existed in the USA seem unaware or uninterested in that fact. (Open slave markets in some arab countries, permanent indentured servants in others.) In fact, sex slaves (often white, often underage) are still in the USA currently and I would think that the anti slavery lobby would be more interested in stamping that out than trying to fix the past, which is a useless exercise.

Well said mildbill. This book has no purpose for posting here. No modeling, no figure or rules review, no history. ZERO relevance to TMP.

Thanks Brechtel, good thread.

No history? This is certainly relevant to ACW media, and connects somewhat to the TMP Talk thread going on now about how some gamers and their armies may get tied up a bit with their politics when the relevance of some eras continue today.

What is a let down here is that this topic could have used a good accessible historical treatment by an objective author who can write in an engaging narrative style.

I would much rather train flies to do the hokey-pokey than read an obviously political tract written by a hack who is cashing in on the latest "bash historical white people" craze.

Her 'book' is about as useful as lipstick on a pig for studying American history and the pig probably looks and smells better too. At least the pig gives us yummy pork chops and sausage. I wouldn't line my birds' cages with anything written by Hannah-Jones and her ilk for fear my birds would become Commie slime and burn down their cages just to show how ingrained 'racism' is in my house!

This book has no purpose for posting here. No modeling, no figure or rules review, no history. ZERO relevance to TMP.

Please check the title of the discussion forum:

"For discussion of anything related to the American Revolution/War of American Independence."

Any discussion of slavery is directly related to the forum as stated above.

+1 mildbill

I reject the premise of her argument, which demonstrably isn't valid, and therefore renders the rest of her words expanding upon it null and void.

"The open hostility to even considering the validity of the thesis is interesting."

Say what now? I'm open to considering the validity of any thesis, including this one. I considered it and rejected it as being tripe reading what is available currently (her thesis has been around for awhile now). There is a big difference between having an open mind and then judging something crap upon evaluation and what you describe.

Only if the local grocery store is out of TP.

Swampking! Did you get an advance copy? I am still thinking about flies doing the hokey pokey! And somehow this makes me think of all the political history books that are coming out. Mr. Levin goes back over 100 years to show us how Marxism has been getting ready to take over America. Any day now. Soon. Won't be long, here's who to blame. (Hint – its not Marx, who barely appears in this book).

Useful as American history? Not for me, but I got through some of it and learned about Levin and his influence.

And now I have images of flies doing the hokey pokey stuck in my head, and especially that last line – "that's what its all about!"

+1 Bill N

I just finished 1493, by Charles Mann. It's about how Columbus' "discovery" of America set off all sorts global trade. Not surprisingly, slavery was very much a part of this. Mr Bill N gives a good summary of this.

I don't mind revisionist history as long as it's well-documented. A lot of it goes on here at TMP, although usually the history being revised is what facing color the Grand Poobah's regiment wore in 1717. Such revisions are good if they are supported by objective evidence. Not so much if supported by self-righteousness or a political agenda.

Revisionist history is of two types-one valid the other invalid. The valid one adds to facts and knowledge usually by finding material that has not been previously published.

The other is agenda-driven, does not follow historical inquiry, and does not rely on facts, but opinions.

It appears that 1619 is of the latter type.

It's certainly a fit topic for college history students.

Agreed. On the other hand teaching it to 3rd graders is indoctrination.

link

If the huge publicity given this one elevates propaganda to a "history" best-seller, the purchasers will have no one to blame but themselves when editors buy more like it next year and stiff actual historians. If you want thorough research and clear reasoning, that's what you should pay for.

Mind you, Brechtel is quite right about there being legitimate revisionist history. But the 1619 sort is much easier and more fun to write.

Bad Die Roller, if she'd written a book on Texan history, you'd have a point. You'd have something of a point if Lord Dunmore's proclamation hadn't been issued after Lexington, Concord, the creation of the Continental Army and Washington's appointment as Commander--and if Dunmore hadn't confined it to disloyal slaveholders--HM government having in fact vetoed all efforts to restrict importation of slaves to the colonies. All honor to Sir Guy Carleton for adhering to the British Army's promises and giving freedom where it had promised to do so, but the Loyalist refugee fleets also carried thousand of slaves to continued slavery in Canada and the West Indies. There simply was no British anti-slavery movement for colonists to fear in 1775, and real historians knew it.

If you take a look at her Wikipedia site, you can find in the notes the replies of various actual historians to the 'Project.'

And, no, I am not recommending Wikipedia, just the availability of references.

This is an interesting article on the subject:

link

Thanks, Brechtel, that was a very useful article.

Yes, thank you, I feel I have a better understanding. Hannah-Jones does not deserve the personalized vitriolic treatment she has suffered, but she has made academic errors that really undermine her work – along with the NYT itself, according to this article.

At least Mark Levin makes little pretense of being a scholar and he is laser focused on his own rants. Hannah-Jones seems to want to shape history to her beliefs without doing the work needed to prove some of her major revisions.

I don't believe that there is much difference between the two-both are hurting the nation.

Hey Tortorella,

Nah – but I encountered some of H-J's ideas way back when I was in grad. school in the early '90s because they were quite popular among some professors at my university.

I don't mind entertaining certain theses or ideas that give all of us a different perspective on history – whether world or U.S. The problem that I have with H-J is exactly what you pointed out in your last post,

"Hannah-Jones seems to want to shape history to her beliefs without doing the work needed to prove some of her major revisions."

I also will not argue with various posts in this thread that the preservation of slavery has been the driving force behind many decisions of various historical personages or groups. My point is mainly that a "bash dead white males" historical perspective informed by cultural Marxism is the last thing the U.S. needs at this time.

From my outside perspective (I live in Poland), the United States is fractured and H-J (I read the first 'article' of her 'project' and damn near threw my computer out the window!) and Levin (some interesting points but he also appears to be somewhat of a hack) are the worst type of people to be publishing books on topics that are fraught with professional pitfalls – as most historians of American history have recognized.

Regarding Faulkner – who was writing at a time when there were still ex-Confederates running around and the 'Lost Cause' was alive and well – he was a product of his times. However, the 'Lost Cause' in the South has very few supporters in the modern South. And H-J's ranting and raving doesn't shed much light on any new issues but produces a massive amount of heat among the more "destructive" sorts who have no plans to build or create but only wish to destroy – history, statues, institutions, etc. – it doesn't matter, as long as the 'old' is washed clean and replaced with some utopia that will never exist.

Sorry for torturing you with the "flies learning the hokey-pokey" – I was just watching an old Jim Breuer routine and thought it was appropriate.

Regarding Mark Levin being a hack, I would suggest an objective look at his background (not Wikipedia) and the extensive footnotes and references in his books which he writes himself unlike many who use teams of ghost writers.

Why would anyone want to read this book? It is so "last year" and the premise is settled science. The US is structural racist and not redeemable. Everyone knows that…

Instead you need to read, "Eros and Civilization". This is the current year… and what is coming… if you are following the current trends.

Joe Collins

Swampking, the hokey pokey flies are brilliant! "You put your right wing in.."

I agree that Levin and Hannah-Jones are negative forces.

Cardinal, I did look into Levin. His positive days seem to be behind him IMO. The book is footnoted because it is mostly page long quotes from other writers, as selective as Hannah_Jones seems to be. IMO he is too radicalized and short on facts to make his case on Marxist history and America. "One angry millionaire calls for radical action" could be a subtitle.

Hannah-Jones also wants to use history to fit her views, but she is less strident than Levin. Will we find out whether she manages to make some of her conclusions convincing with what seems like thin historical evidence? I am guessing that there is no smoking gun hidden some where that proves her idea about slavery and the Revolution.

Swampking, thanks for the background, I did not think she had been on the scene that long.

Sorry, Swampking, but the "Lost Cause" is alive and thriving in the US today as it existed 100 years ago and under its new guise.