Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
- Mar 28, 2010
- Reaction score
- Rocky Mountains
The 1619 ProjectFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the New York Times project.
"The 1619 Project"
The New York Times
Publication August 2019
The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine which "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." The first publication stemming from the project was in The New York Times Magazine of August 2019 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the English colony of Virginia. These were also the first Africans in mainland British America, though Africans had been in other parts of North America since the 1500s. The project later included a broadsheet article, live events, and a podcast.
The project has sparked criticism and debate among prominent historians and political commentators.
In a letter published in The New York Times in December 2019, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria E. Bynum and James Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the project's creators of putting ideology before historical understanding. In response, Jake Silverstein, the editor of The New York Times Magazine, defended its accuracy and declined to issue corrections. In March 2020, The Times issued a "clarification", modifying one of the passages on the role of slavery in the American Revolution that had sparked controversy.
On May 4, 2020, the Pulitzer Prize board announced the award of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary to project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones for her introductory essay.
In September 2020, controversy arose over changes that the Times had made in the published text without accompanying editorial notes. Critics, including Bret Stephens of the Times, claimed the differences showed that the newspaper was backing away from some of the initiative's more controversial claims. The Times defended its practices.