Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
There are several new wrinkles in the saga of the New York Times's egregious and ideological "1619 Project," which can only mean one thing: time for another episode with "Lucretia," Power Line's International Woman of Mystery, and scourge of all things politically correct.
New developments in the story include a stinging letter to the editor of the New York Times magazine from five eminent American historians who are chiefly of a liberal bent themselves, such as Sean Wilentz, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood. For the record, I'm not a huge fan of Gordon Wood (explaining why in this long essay from a while ago) or Wilentz, but it is significant that these historians have decided to take such a public stand. I can only imagine that many historians and political scientists of a liberal bent likely agree with them, but like dissenters from the climate "consensus," they are afraid to say so publicly for fear of being branded as a privileged white racist. The response of the Times editor is pretty weak, but provides occasion for us to correct the slanders directed at Lincoln from this woeful enterprise.
In fact some "historians of color" also dissent from the willful narrow-mindedness of the 1619 Project, such as Adolf Reed, who offers his quirky critique at the website of . . . (checks notes) . . . World Socialists?? What have the socialists got against the 1619 Project? It seems that these old-school revolutionaries think the embrace of identity politics actually serve the reactionary end of preventing a socialist revolution in our time. Pass the popcorn, as we marvel at the left's intramural civil war over the civil war.
More broadly, the left is having an identity crisis paradoxically because of its tight embrace of identity politics. That's the case of another great article just out we talk about toward the end of this episode, and you'll want to listen all the way to the end for some discussion of different methods of cooking the traditional Christmas rib roast (mine will be on a rotisserie grill!), and ending finally with the proper exit music for the season—"Christmas Wrapping" from The Waitresses. Merry Christmas everybody!
Steve Hayward
"Lucretia"
Discussion (4)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Could the leftist disagreement over the 1619 project be an artifact of their worldviews?
What I mean is, the journalists who wrote the 1619 project are in service to the narrative - they have a negative episode in US history, and they feel its necessary to 'punch it up' like adding a few jokes to a sitcom. The academic left still has some anchorage to truth, and they dont feel the same need to punch up the narrative for minor political gain.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Enjoyable discussion as usual. (Love you Lucretia!) At this point, I would not want to argue a case with Abraham Lincoln even though he's dead. What a great legal and political mind. Since I'm in the throes of "The Great American Debate," these discussions about Lincoln, the slavery issue are spot on. Merry Christmas to all.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I am glad to see these liberal or leftist historians fighting back against the 1619 Project, but so far their response is pretty thin. As is the response of conservatives.
A little learning is a dangerous thing. As they freely admit, the people behind the 1619 Project are journalists, not historians. Like Anti-Stratfordians in Shakespeare studies or Afrocentrists in ancient history, they simply don’t know enough to understand their sources, or to distinguish well-supported mainstream scholarship from flimsy crank sources.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
What? You mean the ancient Egyptians didn't really have wings and flew around the pyramids and stuff, until the Europeans came and killed them?
You must be a racist science-denier!