Talk:The 1619 Project

In the lede it says 'Some historians, journalists, and commentators have described the 1619 Project as a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with later figures such as Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.'

Is the 'some historians, journalists and commentators' part necessary? Is there anyone, on either side of the debate, who doubts that the work is revisionist? Here is what wikipedia says historical revisionism is:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or timespan or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.

I can think of few pieces of work for which this description is more apt than the 1619 Project. If its not revisionist, then what exactly was the point of it? Why has it generated so much support and opposition if it is just recapitulating the orthodox view? Why award it a Pulitzer? Of course the answer is that it certainly is revisionist. So why not replace the above paragraph with:

'The 1619 Project is a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, such as the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, and later figures like Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.'

Thoughts? LastDodo (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, hard to think what its point is except to be revisionist. Has anyone said that it isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I await to see what others say. But as it stands the paragraph in question implies they have, simply by qualifying the claim as being made by 'some'. LastDodo (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of counter-criticism that the project is not revisionist, either. For what it's worth, Nikole Hannah-Jones' reported response to a letter criticizing the NYT Magazine for an "inaccurate reframing of history" is "We were not hiding this,” she said. “If you are a historian, you know that all history is revisionist." although I can't find this quote elsewhere.

The editor's note on "The 1619 Project" also states that the goal is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year." Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to note the word 'revisionist' was removed from the lede, and I have now re-added it. But I invite those that disagree to do so here. LastDodo (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

In James Oakes' Dec. 2023 article referenced in the Wikipedia article, he points out that abolitionism was ignored by the authors of The 1619 Project, saying:

The rise of Anglo-American slavery gave rise to Anglo-American antislavery. But it was the revolution itself that put slavery in jeopardy.

This is quite a monumental thing to say in light of how 1619 originally tried claiming that the whole point of the revolution was to protect and defend the institution of slavery. I do happen to think that a small bit about the role of abolitionism has a place in the article, perhaps the following two history books would become useful for that purpose and potentially even out the preferential message contained in The 1619 Project? Particularly abolitionist sentiments/persons known to have existed prior to Independence.

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808) - Librivox audiobook
An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers - Librivox audiobook

Progressingamerica (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Were there abolitionists? Of course there were. But they were relatively small in number and had little actual success until the Civil War. And you know what? They have been studied and covered ad nauseam over the last century and a half. Thank you for providing two works with which you are associated on Librivox, but we would really need something like more contemporary criticism making the points you wish to include. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the audiobooks. I agree with Dumuzid on their size and success, but there are more modern works that discuss pre-independence abolitionism. I think a bigger point of criticism is how the premise The 1619 Project made for its claim about the American Revolution, that Britain was "deeply conflicted" about slavery in the American colonies and the slave trade, was incorrect. The 1619 Project overstates the influence and effect of British abolitionism. I read about that and historians' responses in Peter Wood's book 1620 and more of this criticism could be included in the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a little bit of WP:MANDY to Wood's criticisms, not that they are therefore unfair, but it does tend to make them less notable. I, personally, would want to see more coverage of the 1620 book before I would think it due for inclusion in the article. But as ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. To avoid confusion, are we confusing historian Gordon S. Wood, who has had back-and-forth criticism of The 1619 Project, with Peter W. Wood, who wrote the 1620 book? I can't find allegations against Peter Wood or Peter Wood denying something per WP:MANDY about himself or his content in this topic area, but would like to include them if there are any. The book has received reasonable attention and has been a popular seller, and reflects mainstream research on early US history. It also appears to be the most substantial criticism of The 1619 Project. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps you guys are somewhat underselling the success of the abolitionists and their significance, and therefore the degree to which 1619 plays them down. First, they managed to get slavery abolished in 5 states by 1789 and 8 states by 1800. That might sound like not much, given the location of the majority of the slaves, but this is actually very early in the timeline of actual abolition (Britain would not ban it until 1838). The world's first abolitionist society, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, was also American. And if you trace back British abolitionism, which was the abolitionism that would drive all others, you find its roots with American Quakers like Benjamin Lay. The abolition movement that would actually lead to the end of legal slavery world wide (as opposed to scattered abolitionist individuals from earlier times) first takes root in the soil of the Thirteen colonies. LastDodo (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2025 and 5 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DGGONZALEZ1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by UnicornTea (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Today I came across a claim that pupils in schools are learning from the 1619 Project that slavery originated in America rather than being something that existed for many centuries in Europe and Africa and Asia and the Americas for many centuries before Columbus. I would not expect the 1619 Project to say that, but in certain contexts naive readers could get that impression from what the Project omits to say. (E.g. is there any mention of the enslavement of Europeans and Americans by Africans being the reason why President Jfferson sent the marines to Africa?) Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 13 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Niasondacosta (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lilac Tokki (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)