Yes, I Use the 1619 Project in the Classroom. Fight Me.
image: Words & Deeds
I am a high school history teacher and I use the 1619 Project in the classroom. Now, if you assume that I am a Godless Communist anti-American radical who is trying to indoctrinate the nation’s youth - well…you can just stop reading. I mean, you’re wrong - I’m not any of those things. But my guess is that you’re not big on things like reason and substantive discourse. So there’s not much I can do for you.
But if you’re open-minded then stick around. You might come away with a few useful insights. Here’s the story: I am in fact and deed fairly critical of the 1619 Project - an ambitious but worthwhile effort styled as a reframing of the historical narrative in which the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans take center stage. The Project was published as a special edition of the New York Times Magazine in August, 2019. When I first read Nikole Hannah-Jones’s introductory essay - through the analytical and critical lens of a historian - I immediately had concerns about the merits of the Project as a work of history. Similar to what historian/critics such as James McPherson, Victoria Bynum, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood observed, I was troubled by some of the project’s assertions - especially those concerning the American Revolution and the Civil War. They have explained in detail the project’s interpretive leaps, and I echoed many of their reservations.
Here’s where I side with the critics. Concerning the Revolution, in the lead essay Hannah-Jones asserts that the protection of chattel race-based slavery was among the primary reasons - an “undisputed fact” - that British colonists sought independence. Those of you familiar with the 1772 Somerset Case and the 1775 Dunmore Proclamation will note that these events may have compelled a few colonials to side with the patriot cause - but from where I sit the project’s claims are a vast exaggeration. Those concerned that British policy might cost them their slave property were late to the party, to speak…as colonials had been pushing back against perceived oppression for some time. And then there’s the fact that some of the founding generation were opposed to the institution. Still, those of you interested in the centrality of slavery in 1770s British North America might have a look at Alfred, Ruth, and Steven Blumrosen’s Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies & Sparked the Revolution. They make valuable points about Somerset especially - but in my opinion fail to show causal links between the institution and independence. You can weigh the evidence yourself and be the judge.
On Lincoln, again as portrayed in the Hannah-Jones lead essay, I tend to agree with critical assessments illustrating how the Project failed to offer a balanced review of Lincoln’s attitudes and policies concerning slavery. But, and I think this is absolutely crucial, I applaud the project’s acknowledgement of Lincoln’s sometimes troubling racial politics - specifically: Black post-emancipation colonization. Though the project tends to cast Lincoln as one-dimensional, I think it is necessary to look beyond the “great emancipator” deification (as they most certainly do) often associated with the 16th president. I just believe that we need to do so in a way that weaves the complex threads together and reveals a flawed, and thus very much human president who opposed the institution yet felt compelled to act on his instincts (and duty…) to preserve the Union above all else.
So, considering my reservations about the Project - you might ask why I use it in the classroom. Now that’s a good question.
The 1619 Project is a public exercise in historical memory that forces a questioning of the traditional narrative. None other than Hannah-Jones herself has recently moved away from defending the Project as a work of history (as understood in the traditional sense, I suppose) and placed it squarely in the historical memory studies category, which I commend. In my experience with historical memory studies of the Civil War (among other things) I think such efforts can bring up questions of the dominant culture and why said culture is the standard by which so many things are measured: success, belonging/citizenship, virtue, identity, and any number of other things. Of course, practitioners of historical memory, such as those who erect monuments, lets say…cast a “history” that tends to be shaped by contemporary predilections rather than historical reality. Such efforts can reveal shortcomings, but I am not necessarily mad about it - for what they do in practice is amplify a voice or worldview that is quite real to the practitioner, yet peripheral (at best) to the traditional historical narrative. Look friends, you don't have to necessarily embrace ideas in their entirety to take them seriously. And the inability of many to take the Project seriously is precisely what has happened here. The reframing, as undertaken by Hannah-Jones and the other contributors to the Project, offers valuable contributions to the discourse on slavery and its legacy - contributions that indeed merit our attention. To think otherwise is to necessarily close oneself off to a long-overlooked layer of the American experience.
Historian Leslie Harris (no relation) authored my personal favorite critique. Though Harris revealed how the Times ignored her fact-checking contributions regarding the Project’s assertions about slavery (a terrible call, in her estimation) she acknowledges the value of the Project beyond its clear flaws and laments how the shortcomings apparent in the lead essay could discredit the Project in its entirety.
Case in point: dismissals by conservative critics ranging from political commentator Ben Shapiro to historian Allen Guelzo, (a historian whose work I generally admire) who wrote a particularly scathing hit piece, focus almost entirely on the lead essay and do not take on the broader scope of the Project, which I believe is a missed opportunity to engage a number of salient issues that the various authors underscore. Others have made accusations that the Project is somehow un-American as President Trump has recently suggested (to be fair, the far lefties have been especially biting in their assessments too…check out the World Socialist Web Site). The contributors to the Project, much to the dismay of those who would cast their collective work aside as divisive pseudo-history, examine the hypocrisy of the stated principles of the United States (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, equality before the law…those things) in contrast to the realities of life for so many women, enslaved people, formerly enslaved people, and Black American citizens in the 20th century. And I am glad they did, for the simple fact that it gives me an opportunity to read their work with students and THEN pose one of the fundamental questions one might ask when studying American history: are these principles transcendent DESPITE our national leaders’ failure to apply them at any given time - and do these foundational principles PROVIDE the FRAMEWORK with which marginalized people have actually forced the issue and demanded both social equality and equality before the law (which, in all honesty, is still a work in progress)? Or…is something far more insidious at work? I am willing to listen to and engage any reasonable and substantive discourse on the subject, provided there is plenty of evidence in the mix.
So…are the contributors to the Project propagandists? Charlatans? I think these accusations are a little harsh and suggest that the Project is an act of malice. Hannah-Jones for one has acknowledged that she has an agenda (fine) but also notes that so does everyone else, including her most forgiving critics. My concern with her assertion here is this: I question her position on objectivity. She seems to think it doesn’t exist. I understand that none of us can be truly objective and that we all draw conclusions based on our worldview. But I would note that at least aspiring to objectivity is a worthy effort and is the hallmark of intellectual honesty, AND that intent is important. As far as I can tell, Hannah-Jones doesn’t see a difference. Whether intentional or not, to Hannah-Jones the end result is the same. Agenda aside, Hannah-Jones, to her credit, has revised a point or two in the face of criticism (a smart move if one does not wish to appear as a mindless ideologue). But on the other hand…does her walking back the statement on the Revolution, for example, work to undermine her primary thesis? Perhaps it does.
To reiterate…is this a work of history? Nah, and it should not be treated as such. As Hannah-Jones has noted herself, this is a work of memory. And I might add a valuable one at that…because it reframes the American story from a Black perspective - memories often left out or marginalized in the traditional narrative. Yet, we might observe that historical memory taken at face value can be misleading…and that’s a potential problem. I think many lay-readers do not see the difference between history and historical memory, which is quite possibly evidence of historical memory in action. Perhaps the best way to understand historical memory is that its foundation rests on a particular perception of reality - entirely true to those who share a common perspective, even if that perspective has a lot, only some, little, or no basis in reality. Take for example, the “memory” of a Confederate effort to secure independence without an association with slavery…and how generations of white southerners memorialized this “truth” in bronze and marble. Hmmmm…swing and miss - but nice try. But at least the monuments do make for great classroom conversation. So there’s that.
I’ve used Hannah-Jones’s lead essay in class to address an intriguing phenomenon: historical memory as the contention between dominant and peripheral reconstructions of the past, how they compete for public space - or print, as it were, and why so many people seemed threatened by counter narratives. This year I have expanded my classroom use of the Project to engage other contributors’ works. For example, the relationship between modern capitalism and slavery…or the lack of one - depending on who you ask, is a highly contested idea among economists and historians. Matthew Desmond’s contribution to the Project asserts that to best understand the brutalities of modern-day capitalism, then one must look to plantation slavery. His conclusions couple well with the work of historian Edward Baptist. But we might also remember that historians and economists hardly agree upon these conclusions, as observed by economic historian Phillip Magness in his critical review of the Project. Wherever one might stand on the issue…there is no doubt that Desmond’s piece will generate substantive discourse. I’ve had many wonderful conversations with students about the subject…this piece only enhances them.
There are a number of other ideas I have for class discussion that will include individual pieces from the 1619 Project, all of which I plan on posting here in the very near future (I have a vision…). And for those who are still not convinced that I am using this work in a productive way - consider the value of this: at the very very very least the 1619 Project will enhance the critical thinking experience. Students will engage in exercises (not indoctrination) that challenge the way we think about the American experience. They will investigate the historical record to see if the Project’s assertions hold up to the evidence. And they might even be inspired to do further research. I call that a win.
With compliments,
Keith
P.S. There are several takes on the 1619 Project, both critical and complimentary (or both simultaneously), that I did not mention specifically in this piece. Apologies to those who might feel slighted. Leave me a comment and we can discuss any particular article you want.