- Jul 2019
- New Jersey
You may want to go back and look at the previous few pages, in which I link three leading historians in their fields, who harshly criticize the 1619 Project as bunk history. As a matter of fact, they all say that the NYT hasn't reached out to them or any of the experts they know (!) to ask for contributions for the project. And these aren't right-wing historians, mind you. Pretty much every serious historian recognizes the 1619 as ranging between negligent and deliberately distorted history, for the sake of political activism.That's fair enough, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you are expressing an opinion about the causes of the Revolution, not a fact. You may well be right, but that doesn't permit you to write off other views as inherently flawed by reason of a dogged adherence to doctrine.
I don't know much about the 1619 project, but as I understand it, it represents respectable historical research. So, would it not be better to engage with (and rebut if you can) the arguments through proper discourse and debate, rather than hiding behind the straw man of political correctness?