FWIW it's incredible to me how many bad faith arguments good historians have made against the 1619 project. Like the piece never said slavery was the only contributing factor to the AR, but an important one. What honest historian can deny that?
@PhilWMagness I'm certainly not maligning Leslie Harris, and I appreciate her article immensely. But Wilentz, et. al. have consistently attacked the project with bad faith arguments, and continue to do so.
@gibsoche @PhilWMagness Funny thing, I had a conversation with Leslie Harris at AHA before she published in Politicoand she told me a story of a time that she published and hadn’t gotten a particular claim just write and how humiliating that felt but that it happens all the time, that’s why you revise.
@gibsoche @PhilWMagness And yet, she did not face an effort to discredit her and her work, and she revised and strengthened her work, just as we have done. That effort to discredit, to malign, to assert there is only one right interpretation and ignoring evidence of others, is not about accuracy.
@gibsoche @PhilWMagness Phil and his ilk love to cite Leslie Harris but none of the historians arguing in support of the project and its claims. They never point to this: academic.oup.com/ahr/article/12…
@gibsoche @PhilWMagness They never acknowledge this: newrepublic.com/article/160995…
@gibsoche @PhilWMagness They ignore how Wilentz got key facts wrong in his writings against the project and manipulated data: google.com/amp/s/earlyame…