Read on Twitter
THREAD: The 1619 Project& #39;s creator is now claiming that the text they deleted from their website was not part of the "official" project, and was only "promotional material." Let& #39;s take a closer look...
The deleted text was a passage on the header of the 1619 Project website from August of last year that claimed the year 1619, rather than 1776, was "our true founding."
This passage had clear and explicit support from project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones. How do we know? Because she tweeted the same thing the week that the 1619 Project came out in August 2019.
Hannah-Jones also gave an interview to PBS news on 8/19/2019 to coincide with the launch. The interviewer specifically quoted the line - "understanding our 1619 as our true founding" in her opening question to NHJ. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-1619-project-details-the-legacy-of-slavery-in-america">https://www.pbs.org/newshour/...
The now-deleted passage was one of the most widely discussed lines of the 1619 Project in the first several weeks of coverage. Here is the Daily Kos, a left-wing website, promoting it while emphasizing the claim of that line on 8/18/2019 https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/18/1878872/-1619-The-400th-anniversary-of-the-real-founding-of-America">https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2...
Here& #39;s @ByronYork in the Washington Examiner criticizing the same now-deleted line on 8/17/2019 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-goal-for-new-york-times-reframe-american-history-and-target-trump-too">https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/c...
Here& #39;s USA Today on 8/22/2019 quoting the now-deleted line in a story about how @newtgingrich had criticized it on a Fox News interview. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/19/newt-gingrich-calls-new-york-times-1619-project-a-lie/2049622001/">https://www.usatoday.com/story/new...
And here is an editorial by Gingrich on 8/23/19 specifically critiquing that line.
https://www.gingrich360.com/2019/08/1619-or-1776-which-defined-america/">https://www.gingrich360.com/2019/08/1...
https://www.gingrich360.com/2019/08/1619-or-1776-which-defined-america/">https://www.gingrich360.com/2019/08/1...
It also came under fire on the left, including the World Socialist Website, which did a lot of the early heavy lifting to point out factual errors in the 1619 Project. Here& #39;s Niles Niemuth of the @wsws on 9/3/2019 pointing out the problems with the line.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/03/proj-a03.html">https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/03/proj-a03.html">https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
In case it isn& #39;t already clear then, the deleted line about the NYT& #39;s intent to "reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" was at the center of the initial wave of criticism back in August and September of 2019.
Initially, the NYT was unfazed by the controversy about this specific line. In fact, they embraced it. That& #39;s what Nikole Hannah-Jones said herself at the University of Michigan on 1/28/2020.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/education/2020/01/28/1619-history-slavery-ann-arbor-university-michigan-new-york-times/4588817002/">https://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/education/2020/01/28/1619-history-slavery-ann-arbor-university-michigan-new-york-times/4588817002/">https://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...
Hannah-Jones also used a variation of the contested line in an interview at Harvard on 1/17/2020.
https://nieman.harvard.edu/stories/four-hundred-years-of-harsh-history-carried-through-8000-elegant-words/">https://nieman.harvard.edu/stories/f...
https://nieman.harvard.edu/stories/four-hundred-years-of-harsh-history-carried-through-8000-elegant-words/">https://nieman.harvard.edu/stories/f...
At the time of these speeches and interviews, the controversy about the now-deleted line was still at the center of the 1619 Project debate. @conor64 wrote an entire piece for the Atlantic about the issue in early January, focusing on 1619 vs. 1776 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/inclusive-case-1776-not-1619/604435/">https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
Sometime between January and the present however, Hannah-Jones began changing her tune. She deleted her twitter feed yesterday so it& #39;s impossible to pinpoint when exactly, but by July she was already walking back the claim when conservative pundit @benshapiro criticized it.
Meanwhile the NYT quietly edited out the offending lines from its website, as I showed in my piece this morning. The editing appears to have started some time in late December, but only came to light after Hannah-Jones backed away from the claim this week https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/">https://quillette.com/2020/09/1...
As of now the NYT has yet to formally acknowledge the edits or offer an explanation. But the record is clear:
Hannah-Jones was aware of the now-deleted line, and embraced it herself several times.
It was also at the center of controversy around the #1619Project from day 1.
Hannah-Jones was aware of the now-deleted line, and embraced it herself several times.
It was also at the center of controversy around the #1619Project from day 1.
And yes - they& #39;re really digging in on the false explanation that it was not an "official" part of the project. She just tweeted out this as well:
