Seeking to discredit those who wish to explain the persistence of racism, critics of the New York Times’s 1619 Project insist the facts don’t support its proslavery reading of the American Revolution. But they obscure a longstanding debate within the field of U.S. history over that very issue—distorting the full case that can be made for it.
Incidentally when I read this article, I saw a pop up of a book by the paper that is an anthology of essays presumably published by the site. Is this becoming a common thing now to help create ancillary streams of revenue for newspapers and magazines? I saw one the other day for a series by Colin Woodard as the first.
Originally bookmarked at January 24, 2020 at 02:48PM
