1619: The Podcast from The New York Times

The first African slaves arrived on the coast of Virginia in 1619, and the 400th anniversary of this event presented the opportune moment for the 1619 Project to be launched. The 1619 Project was first executed through publication of articles on The New York Times Magazine and The New York Times by various writers. While it was generally well received by audiences and critics, earning its developer Nikole Hannah-Jones a Pulitzer Prize, several acclaimed historians reviewed it negatively citing the existence of factual errors. However, it has been defended vehemently by the Times who have made corrections severally to manage the backlash. Of essence, however, is that the impact of the 1619 Project is undeniable, having vehemently challenged the historical foundations on which the current American social, political and economic landscape is built. 

The 1619 Project makes several bold claims, all pivotal to the history of America and to the perception that the citizenry carry, of their nation. For this reason, it is understandable that the project would evoke such deep emotions among all audiences, albeit for different reasons. The history scholars who expressed reservations regarding the authenticity of the facts presented or implied by the projects developers did so because they believe that further research could have produced deeper insights into the project and debunked some of the alleged falsehoods therein. The project undoubtedly has an affirmative effect on the African-American populace who may find it a partial acknowledgement for their contribution and that of their forefathers in the wholesome growth and development of their nation. To the student, the project is a source of important historical information useful in building perspective. 

Among the most prominent claims in the Project is the proposal that the defense of slavery was a major factor that fueled the American Revolution. Most notably, the Somerset v. Stewart case and Lord Dunmore's famous 1775 Proclamation are the two main factors that form the basis of Hannah-Jones’ argument (Hannah-Jones et al., 2019). Somerset’s ruling established the nonexistence of any part of positive law that legalized slavery, and that Somerset, a black escapee, could therefore not be held against his will by Stewart who had been his master. The 1775 proclamation offered freedom to slaves belonging to the rebelling Americans if they registered to fight for the British cause (Hannah-Jones et al., 2019). Hannah-Jones (2019) uses these two cases, and related arguments to support the claim that Britain was quickly moving to abolish slavery. Given that slavery was crucial in maintaining the wealth of slave owners and in sustaining the burgeoning American economy, it was found necessary to attain independence and therefore quell the influence of the British colonists, protecting the institution of slavery. Prominent historians have, however argued against this claim, stating that it has exaggerated British efforts to abolish slavery. In fact, slavery would not be abolished in Britain for five decades and the abolishment of slavery in the mainland posed little threat, if any at all, to the slavery institution in British colonies. 

The contribution of slavery in America’s economic growth as expressed in the 1619 project is heavily contested. Matthew Desmond wrote his thesis on the origins of Americans current “brutal” capitalist culture in slavery (Hannah-Jones et al., 2019). As an experienced Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, Desmond can be considered an authority figure in the project. However, the stance taken in the article appears radically anti-capitalist and against numerous tenets of the Republican Party potentially veering towards bias subjectivity. The bigger problem, however, is the evidence supporting Desmond's claims given that it is embedded deep in the New History of Capitalism school of thought which is already controversial. Much of the scholarship in this school of thought has been heavily criticized without any substantial responses to the criticism. The credibility of the arguments presented in support of the link between modern capitalist practices and slavery, is therefore questionable. 

The inadequacy of scholarly guidance is one of the main criticisms directed at the project. Admittedly, the project was not short of acclaimed scholars as contributors. The question, however, is on the conspicuous lack of scholars who have specialized in the history of events that happened in the period marking the beginning of slavery to the Revolutionary War and to the abolition of slavery. Most of the scholars have their specialization in later historical periods, most prominently the 19th and 20th centuries. Others like Desmond appear to be experts in fields that are significantly different from the major focus of the project. The inadequacy of scholarship dents the credibility of the project. 

One of the other notable discourses is one of Abraham Lincoln’s true standing in the debate between slavery and abolitionism. Lincoln has been painted as a major contributor in abolitionism but Hannah-Jones attempts to oppose this belief by offering instances in which Lincoln clearly revealed himself to be in support of slavery (Hannah-Jones et al., 2019). Granted, Lincoln’s position remains significantly vague among historian scholars, particularly because of his pro-slavery political stances. These stances have often been considered gimmicks designed to maneuver through the political landscape, but the evidence offered in support of Hannah-Jones proposition is convincing. 

In conclusion, the controversy that follows the 1619 project is well founded. It is expected that a project that has an immediate emotive effect and long term consequences on the understanding of American history will face rigorous vetting. It is important to acknowledge that the project tries to address the current issue of racism through the mere acknowledgement of African Americans contribution to the nation as well as revealing the root of the deep seated hindrances faced in the fight against racism. 

Reference 

Hannah-Jones, N., Elliott, M., Hughes, J., Silverstein, J., New York Times Company. & Smithsonian Institution. (2019).  The 1619 project: New York Times magazine, August 18, 2019 .