https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...
From the very article you link
> Overall, the 1619 Project is a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories that once dominated our understanding of the past—histories that wrongly suggested racism and slavery were not a central part of U.S. history.
The 1619 Project contained historical errors that the authors should have avoided. But historians working in this area do not consider it to be a "journalistic rag" even as they criticize it. As I mentioned in my post, academic criticism is not evidence that a piece is devoid of merit.
That article was not some random historian offering an academic criticism. That person was hand-picked by the NYTimes to "fact-check" their article. They undoubtedly chose her because of her ideological background, thinking that she would be okay with revisionary history. She wasn't. So they ignored her.
The NYT made fairly basic and preventable factual errors in the 1619 project. They should not have done this. This is not new or interesting or controversial information among relevant historians. What is controversial among relevant historians is the conclusion that therefore the 1619 project is ideological bullshit that shouldn't be seen as anything other than garbage. The author of the article you link was indeed correct - factual errors became a lightning rod for reactionaries to dismiss the work as propaganda. But that's not actually how criticism of historical writing works in the academic community.
I suspect that if I spoke with the author of this piece, as I have spoken to many people who I suspect she would call colleagues, she'd be more likely to agree with my presentation than yours.
All historical writing is "revisionist history." This term is not actually a slur in the academic community because each historian is almost necessarily writing on a topic that many historians have written on before and their work is in dialogue with the work that came before. Presenting a historical narrative from another perspective or through a different methodological lens is not bad nor does it attack or destroy the work that came before.
Braudel has claims that are outright wrong but The Mediterranean is heralded as a triumph. Said has claims that don't hold up today but Orientalism is a critical step forward for the field. Heck, even fucking Foucault is seen as essential writing for historians despite him having all sorts of factual errors in his work. Historical writing should seek to be based in fact. But fucking up (even very badly) is not a reason to declare a work to be propaganda.
Most of the critique from the right seems to start with the point of view that the 1619 Project should be distrusted and works backwards from there, rather than determining its trustworthiness based on a good-faith reading of the work itself.
Historians should seek to make their writing based on as firm of factual footing as possible and make it clear when they are making an inference due to limitations of the archive. But historians constantly work with material that has factual errors and they do not tend to consider this to be a death sentence for a particular work.
I find that a huge number of people have very strong opinions about how historians work and have never actually spoken to one.
The large bulk of historians I speak to, whether tenured or tenure track or at various different institutions, do not arrive at the same conclusion that you do.
EDIT: We've hit the depth limit but I do not believe that I am more qualified here. I believe that professional historians are and that people should go speak to a bunch of them before developing very strong opinions about historical writing. I do not believe that this is a clubby toxic attitude but instead is valuing expertise and experience.
And, I reject your repeated assertions that because you have historian friends, you are somehow more qualified to speak on the topic than one who does not. That type of clubby gatekeeping is frankly toxic to society and you should abandon that sort of thinking immediately.
Like that the revolution was to preserve slavery.
That is a fundamental mistake that undermines the whole project.
I have no idea what you are personally told or what views your friends, whatever their qualifications, have. The article's author is generally favorable to revisionist interpretations and even she has serious doubts. As a historical matter one of the central claims of the 1619 project is false and is mostly asserted without evidence. Now, if you produce a work with a thesis and one of the most important (as asserted by the work itself!) test cases of that thesis is false the credibility of that work is clearly undermind.
>>Braudel has claims that are outright wrong but The Mediterranean is heralded as a triumph. Said has claims that don't hold up today but Orientalism is a critical step forward for the field. [...] Historical writing should seek to be based in fact. But fucking up (even very badly) is not a reason to declare a work to be propaganda.
The difference is that those works advanced the field even where they had shortcomings. They did so by rigorously supporting claims and providing evidence. The 1619 project does neither.