Kid Gloves

  |  

If the 1619 Project is bad history why won’t more historians say so?

Historian Johann Neem’s recent review of a book on American “myths” is getting some attention on social media. In case you missed it, the Western Washington University historian had the courage to wonder—in print—if left-leaning politics is damaging the historical profession. Academic historians like to believe that they are speaking truth to conservatives who want to change the way the discipline of history is taught and practiced. But when it comes to speaking truth, Neem says, “perhaps the truth is that we are afraid to do so when it endangers our reputations or politics.”

The last person to make a public argument like this was University of Wisconsin historian James Sweet, the president (at the time) of the American Historical Association. You may recall that the Twitter mob and much of the historical profession called for his head.

Neem has his supporters. Stanford scholar Sam Wineburg, whose work has had more of an impact on the way history is taught in K-12 schools than the work of all of Neem’s Twitter critics combined, tweeted: “A must read. Johann Neem is emerging as one of the most incisive and thoughtful commentators on the contemporary history curriculum. Brave, too.” Neem also has his critics, and some of them, at least, should be commended for taking him seriously. 

The central question driving Neem’s piece is this: Why are academic historians quick to point out historical myths emanating from the Right but tend to ignore, or at least downplay, historical myths propagated by those on the Left? Though he has much to say about Kevin Kruse’s and Julian Zelizer’s book Myth America, he also addresses the historical profession’s response to Nikole Hannah-Jones’s The 1619 Project: A New Origins Story. After reading the American Historical Review’s forum on the book Neem concludes: “It is unusual for historians to be so gentle.” 

For example, Cornell University historian Sandra Greeene, a contributor to the forum, said that the The 1619 Project contains flaws, factual errors, and distortions of the historical record, but was still “important.” I imagine that Greene would have a very different opinion of a book filled with flaws, errors, and distortions that did not line-up with her political sensibilities. Her kid gloves can only be explained by politics. As Neem writes, “One need not deny slavery’s and racism’s historical significance to ask whether historians should defend public narratives that simplify to the point of distortion. . . .”

Compare the American Historical Review forum on The 1619 Project (or at least Neem’s take on it, of which I agree) to David North and Thomas Mackaman’s edited collection, The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History. Those who have followed the debates over the 1619 Project since it first appeared in The New York Times Magazine in 2019 know that the Trotskyist World Socialist Web Site published several convincing take-downs of it written by prominent historians such as Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, Richard Cawardine, and Clayborne Carson. North’s and Mackaman’s book collects these interviews and articles into one volume.

In his blurb for the Trotskyists’ book, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz says that “this volume vindicates W.E.B. Du Bois’s condemnation of propaganda disguised as history.” In another blurb, civil rights movement historian David Chappell chided his fellow academics for failing to hold The New York Times accountable for its falsehoods “even as that once distinguished paper began to hype its false mythology as a prefab curriculum for unsuspecting public schools.” For Chappell, “The 1619 Project” enabled the “Trump administration’s equal and opposite mythology, ‘1776,’ to occupy the only alternative space in the broad public view of our mass-mediated world.” (Full disclosure: I also blurbed thisThe New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History, though I failed to muster Chappell’s courage or his prophetic voice.)

It seems like the Trotsykists may understand the vocation of the historian better than many of the historians who contributed to the American Historical Review’s forum. Historian John Haas put it well in the comments section of this post: “[The] most depressing thing to me . . . is the assumption that scholars should trim their statements in accordance with how they read the power dynamics of the moment. [That’s] not what scholars do . . . Scholarship cannot muzzle itself with any such consideration [or] it becomes just another cheerleader.”

Why were the original critics of the 1619 Project nearly all senior historians, either with tenure or retired? Because few younger scholars or graduate students are willing to risk their careers to call out a bad narrative on the history of race in America. 

Let’s take Neem’s argument a step further. Is it possible for a young historian to land a job at a history department in an American university if they are vocal about the many problems with the 1619 Project? 

Or to go even further, what if it came out during a job interview with a history department that a candidate is pro-life ,or believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or opposes anti-racist politics because it breaks up the solidarity of the working class? I am not talking here about a MAGA Republican, a defender of Mom’s for Liberty, a Christian nationalist, a vaccine denier, or a champion of the January 6th insurrectionists. The person I have in mind is a promising scholar, an effective teacher, and a congenial colleague committed to intellectual pluralism in the academy. I am sure the American Historical Association would welcome such a person as a member. But would they really have a chance to compete for a job in a school other than Hillsdale College, Ron DeSantis’s New College-Florida, The University of Austin, Liberty University, or a conservative evangelical or Catholic institution?

There is no moral equivalence between good scholarship and some of the stuff churned out by right-wing activists who use the past to promote a political agenda. But that doesn’t mean the historical profession couldn’t benefit from a good look in the mirror and, as Neem recently tweeted, “take seriously our obligation to be honest brokers.”

John Fea is Executive Editor of Current 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. As a European historian, the debate over “The 1619 Project” reminds me to some degree of the debate among European historians about Germany’s “Sonderweg” in the 1980s, and especially of the heated controversy in the 1990s over Daniel Goldhagen’s book book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” Critics then raised valid concerns about the teleological, ahistorical arguments that the “Sonderweg” and Goldhagen’s book advanced, as well as errors and exaggerations on Goldhagen’s part. While many prominent historians did not hesitate to criticize Goldhagen, who largely faded from influence in the aftermath of the scholarly criticism that his book provoked, this is not the case with “The 1619 Project.”

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that many historians have in fact treated “The 1619 Project” with “kid gloves” for political reasons. Likewise, the sad reality in many cases is that it does indeed behoove younger scholars interested in a career as academic historians to keep misgivings they may have about “The 1619 Project” to themselves. This does not bode well for our profession, particularly as the public is increasingly skeptical of higher education in general and the humanities specifically. And in polarized times such as ours, people can see through activist driven scholarship and politically motivated defenses of said scholarship as much as they can see through Evangelicals who have chosen to ignore Donald Trump’s many moral failings “because of the other side.” To be clear, Nikole Hannah-Jones is hardly equivalent to Trump. Still, those who place their politics over their Christian witness or their professional obligations as scholars should not be surprised to see their credibility reduced outside their own narrow echo chambers.

    In terms of “myths,” both “The 1619 Project” and Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” before it come across to me as inverted versions of American exceptionalism in which the United States plays more the role of “the Great Satan” than “the City on a Hill.” In all versions, American exceptionalism is simplistic and parochial as it does not adequately compare the history of the United States with the histories of other nations, nor does it situates American History within the sorts of larger global developments examined in World History. In the end, one wonders why a book about American “myths” doesn’t contain chapters about “positive” American exceptionalism (the more right-wing varieties) and “negative” American exceptionalism (the more left-wing varieties), or even the parochial nature of many American “myths.”

  2. Perhaps because the 1619 Project presents history in a way that hurts white people’s feelings. Given that the history profession is still dominated by white men, I doubt anyone is having difficulty with getting jobs because of opposition to it, and will not consider the position stated here unless some evidence is provided.

  3. Thanks for the reply, Bronson. If you go back and search my blog and other public writings, you will see that I have tried to take a nuanced approach to the 1619 Project. I think it has done a great deal to advance the conversation on race in America and for that I am glad. But it is also historically flawed. As a historian, I wonder why more HISTORIANS won’t critique it for its problems in the same way they go after problematic history coming from the right. My only explanation for this is politics.

    I also think my critics who say that a question about the 1619 Project would never come up in an interview are mostly correct. But let’s not pretend that search committees do not spend time on the internet to learn more about candidates and let’s not pretend that those internet searches don’t shape their views of the candidates as the search gets closer to the finalist stage. Moreover, even non-Amercianist historians know about the 1619 project and because they don’t have expertise in the field of early American history they will be prone to see a critique of the project as problematic for a candidate. So I agree with your point about younger historians and job candidates staying quiet.

    I’ve argued before that I would use the 1619 Project in class to teach students how the past is manipulated to advance this or that political agenda. But I would never use it to teach early American history, the American Revolution, or slavery. There is better stuff out there.

  4. John,

    I appreciate the nuanced approach that you have taken on your blog and podcast to the 1619 Project. I particularly enjoyed your February 2020 interview with Tom Mackaman. While I am a European historian by training, I do teach American History survey classes from time to time. Consequently, I have read the 1619 Project and have attempted to keep up with the controversy over it. Since the 1619 Project has brought America’s ugly history of slavery and racism back into public discussion in a new way, it has served some positive purpose. As with other popular accounts, the 1619 Project also illustrates that despite the decline of History in the academy, the general public still has a lively interest in the past. That said, Nikole Hannah-Jones clearly has a political ax grind, namely to advance the cause of reparations. Whether or not reparations is a worthy cause is separate matter. But it does seem to have driven some of the more problematic claims and factual errors of the 1619 Project . In the end, I tend to agree with Mackaman and the prominent historians that he interviewed about the 1619 Project. As you say, for those of us who teach American History, there is simply better stuff out there. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the 1619 Project’s popularity, along with its status as a political football in the culture wars, will fade over time. It is hard to imagine that the 1619 Project will have the staying power of say someone like Edmund Morgan.

    With respect to the job market, of course the bigger problem is the sheer paucity of tenure-track jobs for academic historians. I doubt as well that most search committees would ask candidates directly about the 1619 Project since they could find this out prior to conducting interviews. While this could hurt someone who takes a strong stance against the 1619 Project for the reasons already mentioned, in some situations, it could likewise hurt someone who vocally supports it. For instance, search committees at public colleges and universities in some states might fear retaliation in the form of budget cuts from the state legislature were they to hire someone who could be perceived as a proponent of the 1619 Project or CRT. Even some private schools might fear angering donors or the public. Since search committees have so many good candidates to choose from in the first place, they only need a small reason to eliminate a candidate from consideration. And they aren’t required to tell candidates who are eliminated the reasons why they choose to go with another candidate, who in all likelihood is very solid for many other reasons. I would argue in the current environment that the safe course of action for a graduate student or recent Ph.D. is to avoid any strong public (online, at a conference, in a publication, etc.) statement about the 1619 Project one way or the other. The sad reality is that the gloomy job market for academic historians also has had a negative impact on academic freedom. Sure, budding scholars can make all kinds of controversial arguments about subjects that interest scholars yet attract little attention from the general public. However, at a time when jobs are scarce nationwide, woe to young scholar who sticks his or her neck out on a hot button culture war issue.