THE CASE FOR THE 1619 PROJECT: ADDRESSING THE CRITICISMS
America’s Imperialistic Censorship & The 1619 Project
The power of political narrative and the fight to reclaim it
I read a brilliant article about how the BBC spends an exorbitant amount of money every year through a government grant from The UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office to reach millions of viewers in Africa, Asia, Latin Americas, and the Middle East. Of course, it’s not just the BBC; it’s CNN, Radio France, and the rest of the gang. As the author Lanu Pitan put it: The question is, why would foreign governments spend that much investment to inform the East about themselves?
Because shaping information to suit the narrative you want to sell is power.
If you live outside the USA, you get it. We are constantly bombarded with Western whitewashed propaganda that has become embedded in our culture. It’s even part of our inside jokes. While the vast majority of the East recognizes this new form of colonization, we cannot deny that Western news and education have inevitably shaped our perceptions. The flooding of propaganda is a control tactic in the name of entertainment and information.
But that’s us looking from the outside into the USA — I never thought of it from the inside looking inside. The USA against The USA? It’s foul. It begs the question, why is the USA applying the same propaganda tactics on its own people?
In her article, Lanu goes on to explain that because of how Africa is portrayed in Western media, it’s almost as if African Americans think they are better off than their brothers and sisters in the homeland; creating this fake illusion that their enslaved ancestors did not die and get tortured in vain. It’s one hell of a gaslighting tactic.
That’s why the uproar surrounding The 1619 Project is massive. Now, why would anyone want to censor the truth? Why would Americans not give other Americans credit where credit is due?
The 1619 project is an initiative focused on bringing the truth about Black American history to light. Its purpose is to give a more comprehensive picture of the birth of America, rather than the white-washed version taught in schools. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the center stage of the national narrative. Ultimately, the project’s mission is “to reclaim a sense of pride for being African American instead of shame.”
Nikole Hannah-Jones is an investigative journalist for the New York Times and the creator of The 1619 Project. While the project started as a collection of smart, provocative magazine articles about how slavery shaped the USA, it later expanded to include a broadsheet section of the newspaper, a podcast series, and a collaboration with the Pulitzer Center to develop a free school curriculum. This took off, and more than 4,000 educators from all 50 states have reported using its resources.
It is an empowering shift in the narrative, one that assigns accountability to America’s colonial past- and present. One that acknowledges the contributions made by Black people’s stolen labor which turned the US into the prosperous nation that it is today. While The 1619 Project aims to teach Black history in schools, for some reason, including the truth in the curriculum is controversial- dangerous even, producing a slew of anti-1619 Project bills to counter it.
Even though Hannah-Jones has opened the project to further discussion and debate, critics aim to discredit Hannah-Jones’ personal life and dismiss the Project altogether without pointing out specifics.
It’s incredibly disheartening to see the backlash Nikole Hannah-Jones received for presenting a more comprehensive understanding of American history. Why would the USA not cheer on the USA? Why don’t you want an integral part of your country to feel prideful about their contributions? Why don’t you want every American kid to have a sense of real ownership in this land?
Are you ready? The arguments against the 1619 Project are so ridiculous.
- Not All Colonists
I never imagined that I would find something more loathsome than not all men, but damn, “not all colonists” wins the loathsome contest here.
In her original report, Hannah- Jones claims that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery” at a time when “Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution.”
Allen — a former chair of the Pulitzer Prize board and contributor to The Washington Post opinion page, warned, “If it instead said, ‘some colonists’ or ‘one of the primary reasons motivating influential factions among the colonists’ it would be correct. But as it stands, the sentence is false.”
Oh no, that’s not all, folks; Hannah-Jones actually had to explain herself by stressing that she didn’t mean every single colonist, just some.
2. What About Us?
White people died too. We get it, Karen, but I could have sworn the point of this initiative was about Black American contributions. We’ll cheer you on later, like in some other era.
The question of whether Black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “largely alone,” as Hannah-Jones put it in her essay, is subject to vigorous debate — five historians who signed a letter discrediting the project.
“It is not saying that Black people only fought alone. It is saying that most of the time, we did.” Hannah- Jones.
I’m sorry she even had to explain herself. Besides, real heroes don’t need credit for standing against oppression.
3. Metaphors Are Offensive
“What if I told you that the year 1619 is as important to the American story as the year 1776?” Hannah- Jones.
Hannah- Jones has repeatedly stated that The 1619 project is intended to enhance traditional curricula, not replace them. But apparently, acknowledging the history of the USA from when the first ship carrying enslaved African’s arrived on its shores is offensive to history.
“1776 isn’t just our nation’s official founding,” Stephens, a Pulitzer-winning columnist for the New York Times opinion section, wrote. “It is our symbolic one, too. The metaphor of 1776 is more powerful than that of 1619 because what makes America most itself isn’t four centuries of racist subjugation. It’s 244 years of effort by Americans — sometimes halting, but often heroic — to live up to our greatest ideal.”
Nice try, Stephens. While I like the positive spin, we can file it under some other project. This project is about the 400 years of racist oppression that America continues to subject Black Americans to; you’re missing the point.
5. The Author Sucks
She made a typo, something about getting a date wrong. Thus, she’s disqualified from history altogether. But also, she cannot possibly write about history objectively- because she isn’t objective. She’s Black. I howled when I saw this line. Damn, he’s so monocausal.
Stephens suggested that small errors had accumulated via the authors’ “monocausality” — an insistence on seeing everything through the lens of slavery.
It’s that phrase; the camel can’t see his own hunch. I wonder what colorful lens men like him write from- I’m intrigued.
6. It Was Fine Back Then
Karen? Is that you? What in the gaslighting hell?
Sean Wilentz, a Princeton historian, criticized the project as a “displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” I had to read this statement ten times, slavery as an ideology? Make it make sense.
7. Reporting the truth breeds divisiveness.
In July 2020, Republican Senator Cotton proposed a bill to bar federal funds from schools that used the 1619 curriculum, calling it “a radical work of historical revisionism aiming to indoctrinate our kids to hate America.”
Has he heard of Germany by any chance? Teaching about the Holocaust and the Nazi era is mandatory in German schools and many American schools. In addition to the classroom curriculum, almost all students have either visited a concentration camp or a Holocaust memorial or museum.
By the way, Germany acknowledging their truth in schools didn’t make them any less patriotic or more divisive. They are one of the most progressive countries too.
This brings me back to the beginning of my article—the truth about American history.
Now, why would anyone want to censor the truth? Why would Americans not give other Americans credit where credit is due?
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” Edward Bernays.
Re-claiming control of the narrative is a threat to the invisible ruling class in the USA- oh yeah, and they happen to be white. This is why we need to support Hannah-Jones and The 1619 Project.
Censorship is the oldest trick in the imperialist’s book, and it is used to keep the oppressed further subdued to the truth. America refuses to relinquish any control of the narrative because, at the core, it is indeed a racist country.
Why would acknowledging the contributions of Black people bother anyone unless it threatens someone else’s privilege? I mean, why go so hard on the essence of the project’s message: Be proud of the African American contribution to US history.
It doesn’t suit the narrative they are trying to sell; white supremacy- their claim to the throne. I guess no one wants to share their pedestal. They don’t see it as collectively leveling up but as them losing something. It’s so foul. You’ll never move on without accountability; ask Germany.
People don’t want the truth exposed because they gain something from hiding it. Now ain’t that the truth.
Thank you to my #WEOC fam TC Hails, Q U I N T E S S A, Teressa P. — And a triple thanks to the founders of this project: Allison Gaines & L.A. Justice.
In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near point comfort, a coastal port in the English colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. In the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully -NY Times.
