I have now read 72 pages of the 85 pages of text of The New York Times’ 1619 PROJECT, which appeared a week ago as the Sunday Magazine
Section, and I want to respond to TheDudeDiogenes’ request for my evaluation of
it. I hope everyone reads what I say
here carefully, because I suspect no matter what I do, a good many people will
misunderstand me.
What do I think of the text?
I think it is terrific. It is
very well done, very powerful, very much up on the latest scholarship, and of
course beautifully produced. I don’t
agree that it provides ideological cover for capitalism, which anyway has no
need for such cover, so far as I can see, inasmuch as no one currently on the
political scene, not even Bernie, poses the slightest threat to capitalism.
Indeed, the text is an enormously skillful and effective
popular rendition of several generations of revisionist American historiography, the authors of which have been devoted to telling the American story in the most honest,
confrontational, accurate, and racially sensitive manner possible. It is vastly better than any of the American
History textbooks I have seen, and would serve well as an assignment in high
school and college American History courses.
Its only fault is that it is the wrong story. I am not going to say here what the right
story is, because I wrote a book about that subject, and although virtually no
one has read my book, I am enough of an author and not propagandist to let that book
stand as my say on the subject.
4 comments:
I read the book, but I’ll be damned if I can remember why it’s the wrong story. Hints?
I will post an explanation tomorrow
I maybe should have just re-posted a comment I made on a different site, which I think was clearer and more precise.
It's not the 1619 series PER SE, but the decision to publish such a series NOW, that makes me think that it is carrying water for the corporate wing of the DNC.
The Times could have decided to publish a series about the devastation that neoliberalism has wrought across the country over the past 30 years, for example; but that wouldn't serve the interests of the 1% - who want a divided, atomised public, not a united, solidaristic one - nearly as much.
This tweet from a co-host of the "What is Left?" podcast makes my point in a much more pithy manner:
"2016 Trump: make America great again
2016 Hillary: America is already great
2020 Democrats: Amerikkka has never been great
What could possibly go wrong?"
Just a reminder that some of your readers are still awaiting your explanation of why the 1619 Project is telling "the wrong story." I say this seriously, not snarkily--would really love to hear your thoughts.
Post a Comment