1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project
- Downloads：1263
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-05-11 00:30:58
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Peter W. Wood
- ISBN：1641771240
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Edward Shuman
，
Interesting book Very interesting book that makes great points in challenging the 1619 Project。 The author seems to have done his homework。
Dave Hale
，
Essential reading for anyone who is interested in the true founding of this country， while de-bunking the lies of the 1619 project。
Chris
，
A sober and measured critique。 Certainly more measured than what it is critiquing。
Craig Cunningham
，
Good critique of revisionist， "poetic" history。 Good critique of revisionist， "poetic" history。 。。。more
Keith Breinholt
，
The narrative about the history of the United States is currently being challenged by the 1619 project。 However， in order to do so they have engaged in false assumptions， embellishments and outright lies。1620 points out and summarizes the many historians and groups of historians who have challenged the myths portrayed by the 1619 project and outlines the reasons those historians disagree with the narrative and embellishments 1619 uses。1620 outlines the myths， false assumptions and outright lies The narrative about the history of the United States is currently being challenged by the 1619 project。 However， in order to do so they have engaged in false assumptions， embellishments and outright lies。1620 points out and summarizes the many historians and groups of historians who have challenged the myths portrayed by the 1619 project and outlines the reasons those historians disagree with the narrative and embellishments 1619 uses。1620 outlines the myths， false assumptions and outright lies that the 1619 project has used to create a narrative that the United States was founded on slavery， that it owes its wealth to slavery and that its laws perpetuate slavery。 Even better， this book lays out the true historical events of the founding of the colonies and the laws of our country from the 1620 Mayflower Compact onward and includes the real history around the events used by the 1619 to make their claims。Finally， this book points out the stated motives of the 1619 project and the real damage it has and will do if it is used as a historical context to frame our national discussion around Critical Race Theory。 Where our youth would be taught to see everything in our nation and society as a form of oppression。Thank you Peter and Stephen for putting this together。 。。。more
Tom
，
An important book that outlines many of the plain factual errors of "The 1619 Project" including the existence of slavery in 1619 Virginia and the importance of slavery and cotton in the American economy。 Stated concisely， the slaves brought to Virginia in 1619 were likely grateful that the ship carrying them had been blown off course and did not take them to Veracruz， Mexico as intended。 Slaves there were worked to death in silver mines。 In Virginia in 1619， the law had no concept of chattel sl An important book that outlines many of the plain factual errors of "The 1619 Project" including the existence of slavery in 1619 Virginia and the importance of slavery and cotton in the American economy。 Stated concisely， the slaves brought to Virginia in 1619 were likely grateful that the ship carrying them had been blown off course and did not take them to Veracruz， Mexico as intended。 Slaves there were worked to death in silver mines。 In Virginia in 1619， the law had no concept of chattel slavery and it is likely the people on that ship were taken as indentured servants and worked off their cost and were freed。 It is quite possible that Anthony Johnson， who enters the record in 1621 as a servant on a Virginia farm， was one of those on the White Lion。 He was freed， married， bought a plantation， and eventually owned African slaves of his own and even sued and won a case in Virginia courts against a white neighbor。 You won't hear a word about Anthony Johnson from the 1619 Project。 Likewise， the book sets out the economic case against the importance of cotton and planation slavery to American capitalism。 Basically， slavery makes a few planation owners wealthy， but everyone around it loses economically。 Slavery is damaging to economic progress。 The book makes it case briefly， but usefully points to other resources and I found myself looking at magazine articles and papers referenced in it for more of the details that I had been hoping for when I bought the book。 This book is less truly a history than a guidebook to other sources。 Very important work， however， and I recommend it。 。。。more
Jane
，
Useful critique of the 1619 project。 I don't find the 1620 aspects compelling， But those were not the meat of the book， in spite of the title。 Useful critique of the 1619 project。 I don't find the 1620 aspects compelling， But those were not the meat of the book， in spite of the title。 。。。more
Jim D
，
Three and a half stars。 This is a very important book for all parents and concerned citizens to read。 It is a comprehensive refutation of the 1619 Project agenda being pushed on our children and society by the New York Times， the Pulitzer foundation， and the National Education Association 。 For those who haven't heard， the 1619 project is a reframing of American history through the lens of slavery。 According to the authors and her proponents， the arrival of 20 slaves on board a British Pirate s Three and a half stars。 This is a very important book for all parents and concerned citizens to read。 It is a comprehensive refutation of the 1619 Project agenda being pushed on our children and society by the New York Times， the Pulitzer foundation， and the National Education Association 。 For those who haven't heard， the 1619 project is a reframing of American history through the lens of slavery。 According to the authors and her proponents， the arrival of 20 slaves on board a British Pirate ship in Jamestown Virginia in 1619 should be the birthdate for America， not 1776， and the prism for viewing American history。 In my opinion it is a dangerous and factually inaccurate revision of history 。The 1619 project has been questioned by historians over numerous factual inaccuracies but brushed off by proponents and the media。 This book posits the thought that 1620 and the Mayflower compact is a better starting point for the founding of America than the arrival of a British pirate ship。 It was interesting to read again about that， and to really dig into the history of that period。 The author does a very solid job there。 I would have given it more stars， but the book seems to be repetitive in its attack on the author of the 1619 project ， who i do think is extremely disingenuous and and inflammatory。 Also， i think the book could have been tightened in its focus。 However， it clearly shows how the media and the left have joined together to attempt to rewrite American history at the expense of the founding ideals we try to live up to。 。。。more
Brian Katz
，
This book is very important and needed to be written in order to counter the propaganda of the left。 The NYT has out done itself in terms of self serving garbage for its subscribers。 Not since the NYT ignored the Holocaust has it been so careless in its journalistic duty。 Sure， the NYT has some of the facts correct in the 1619 Project， but the narrative told in the 1619 Project is pure fiction， a narrative designed to divide people that will cause more racial tension rather than heal old wounds。 This book is very important and needed to be written in order to counter the propaganda of the left。 The NYT has out done itself in terms of self serving garbage for its subscribers。 Not since the NYT ignored the Holocaust has it been so careless in its journalistic duty。 Sure， the NYT has some of the facts correct in the 1619 Project， but the narrative told in the 1619 Project is pure fiction， a narrative designed to divide people that will cause more racial tension rather than heal old wounds。The author easily destroys the five major assertions by the 1619 Project in his analysis。 They are， 1。 The American revolution was fought to protect American slave owners from the threat of abolition by the British。2。 Abraham Lincoln was a racist whose intent was to keep blacks and whites separate。3。 For the most part， black Americans fought back alone。4。 Plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism。 5。 The nations history is best understood as a struggle by American blacks against white supremacy。The most dangerous aspect of the 1619 Project is that the authors prepared and distributed education material for the nations schools so teachers could indoctrinate our children on this new narrative about our founding。 And the reality is， this propaganda is taking hold in our schools and various institutions as was intended by the authors。 A frightening development。The easiest way to summarize my feelings on this subject is to say that my definition of anti racism is that of Martin Luther King， Jr。 and that the definition of anti racism as espoused by Ibram Kendi is the wrong approach to this challenge。 。。。more
Mike
，
I gave this book 5 stars primarily because it is so necessary。 "The 1619 Project" is more of a symptom of the current state of our culture than a cause， but it certainly is contributing to its decline。 It's not the subject matter of "The 1619 Project" that is the problem， it's the deception and the distortion of the historical record that makes it so dangerous。 When history becomes a tool for social engineering instead of a way for us to learn the truth about our past， tyranny can't be far off。 I gave this book 5 stars primarily because it is so necessary。 "The 1619 Project" is more of a symptom of the current state of our culture than a cause， but it certainly is contributing to its decline。 It's not the subject matter of "The 1619 Project" that is the problem， it's the deception and the distortion of the historical record that makes it so dangerous。 When history becomes a tool for social engineering instead of a way for us to learn the truth about our past， tyranny can't be far off。 I commend Peter Wood for setting the record straight。 He makes cogent arguments and provides adequate evidence to defend his claims。 This is an important， readable， and interesting volume。 My only quibble with the book is that I wish he would have provided more footnotes in the Preface， so I would have more references to good resources on pre-Columbian America， an area of study I would like to learn more about。 I pray that "The 1619 Project" is destined for the ash heap of history， while initiatives like "1776 United" will rise from that ash。 "1620" just lit the match。 。。。more
Clay Davis
，
The most important book I will read this year。
Peter Bradley
，
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www。amazon。com/gp/customer-re。。。After the election and re-election of the first African-American president， Americans might have thought that they were in a period of reconciliation。 The acquisition of the top spot in American politics could be thought of as proof positive that America in the 21st century has essentially moved beyond its racist past and made good on the promise of equality。Alas， that was not to be。 America's political elites Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www。amazon。com/gp/customer-re。。。After the election and re-election of the first African-American president， Americans might have thought that they were in a period of reconciliation。 The acquisition of the top spot in American politics could be thought of as proof positive that America in the 21st century has essentially moved beyond its racist past and made good on the promise of equality。Alas， that was not to be。 America's political elites have far too much invested in identity politics and racist grievances。 President Obama's acquisition of the presidency was in no small part due to fostering America's guilt about its treatment of blacks and the monolithic black vote。 Democrats。 The cultural bloc that control the Democrat coalition was obviously not going to give up the power of race-baiting。 However， with the absence of actual racism， the cultural elite have had to play up racist hysteria to disguise the absence of real racism。And， thus， we come to a Ministry of Truth effort to rewrite history。Peter Wood's "1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project" is an effort by the president of the National Association of Scholars （"NAS"） to respond to the pseudo-academic malpractice that is being foisted on Americans by the New York Times and the Woke activists who represent the elite bloc of the Democrat Party。 The particular vehicle used by these institutions is the self-proclaimed "1619 Project" which seeks to teach school children that America's true founding date was not 1776， but 1619 when the first slaves were brought to America， thus tainting all of American history with the the agenda of preserving slavery as the raison d'etre for all Americans at all times （or as many Americans for as much time as they can safely tar with the broadest brush they can find。） Peter Woods does an able job of demonstrating the academic malpractice involved and， more importantly， the political agenda that informs the gross academic malpractice。 The 1619 project is scholarship only to the extent that cherry-picking talking points from minority opinions and then spinning the points to the desired goal is scholarship。 Woods documents how shoddy the "scholarship" was behind this re-invention of history。 Woods writes:"The lead author， Nikole Hannah-Jones， who makes some of the most audacious claims， cites no sources at all: the project as presented in the magazine contains no footnotes， bibliography， or other scholarly footholds。"In essence， what you have is the "scholarship" found on Facebook or Twitter where assertions are stated and accepted based on how they fit the Woke cultural zeitgeist。More importantly， Woods reveals the attacks on American historical figures， such as Abraham Lincoln， who in the Woke scheme of things was a bitter racist who supported slavery。 Thus， the 1619 Project ignores Lincoln's clear statements of his belief in the equality of the races and the foundation of the Civil War in the issue of slavery。 Woods states:"IN HER LEAD ESSAY for the 1619 Project， Nikole Hannah-Jones calls out Abraham Lincoln as a racist。 Her evidence for this charge is an August 14， 1862， White House meeting between Lincoln and five black leaders in which Lincoln “informed his guests that he had gotten Congress to appropriate funds to ship black people， once freed， to another country。” Lincoln said， as Hannah-Jones quotes him: “Why should they leave this country？ This is， perhaps， the first question for proper consideration。 You and we are different races。 … Your race suffer very greatly， many of them， by living among us， while ours suffer from your presence。 In a word， we suffer on each side。”1 He seems to call for treating whites and blacks in dramatically different ways， to the disadvantage of blacks。 Lincoln did not propose deporting any European Americans back to the continent of their ancestral origins。 The phrase “ours suffer from your presence” certainly sounds both insulting and racist。 But there is more to the story。 The questions that hang over a lot of studies of Lincoln is whether he always meant what he said， or whether he sometimes said things out of political calculation。 In this chapter I explain why Hannah-Jones’s account of that White House meeting is wrong， and more broadly， why Lincoln was not a racist。 But we will have to give fair-minded hearings to both sides – something that Hannah-Jones herself declined to do。 I will not say that her view is eyewash from beginning to end。 There are historians who basically basically agree with her。 But the weight of evidence is against them – and her。"Woods sets forth his arguments about why Lincoln's conversation - with a reporter present - was for public consumption by those who may have resisted emancipation。 As such， Lincoln's ploy ranks up with that of President Obama who was against gay-marriage until it was made a constitutional right by the Supreme Court。Woods' argument turns on paying attention to details and asking questions - what about that reporter？ - something that 1619 Project will not do with its Manechian projection of the good and the bad sides of the issue。 This Manechian projection is something that I find with a lot of Woke history; Woke ideology is two-dimensional and simplistic， denying the interesting complexity of real people and real events。 Another example is found in the 1619 Project's efforts to make Lincoln into a white supremacist:"The complications here are that Lincoln was a public orator known for his ardent opposition to the expansion of slavery and his belief that blacks had the same fundamental rights as whites。 He was frequently in a position of threading the needle: How could he advance his principles while trying to win the support of audiences who did not necessarily support， even if they did not vehemently oppose， his agenda？ The lines that Hannah-Jones quotes are masterpieces of subversive rhetoric。 They sound on first hearing as though Lincoln is expressing his opposition to black equality。 But look again。 He asks a rhetorical question and provides an equivocal answer。 His “feelings” will not “admit” political and social equality， but as Lincoln’s defenders often point out， Lincoln didn’t take political and social equality off the table。 He just took those topics out of the debate he was in at the moment。"Likewise， the 1619 Project relies on discredited Woke race-mongers for its support:"Although Hannah-Jones did not cite sources in her article， in this case her source was easily identified。 Sidney Blumenthal， former aide to Hillary Clinton， has been publishing a multivolume “survey of Lincoln’s political life” and writing occasional pieces on Lincoln in the Washington Monthly。 Blumenthal took notice of Hannah-Jones’s debt to Lerone Bennett Jr。， an editor at Ebony magazine who once wrote an article called “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist？” and who followed up with a book， Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream （2000）。 Hannah-Jones “recapitulates Lerone Bennett’s projection of Lincoln as an inveterate racist and committed white supremacist， and the Emancipation Proclamation as a sham。”9 In a review written for none other than the New York Times， the great Civil War historian and Lincoln biographer James M。 McPherson immediately buried Bennett’s wild accusations in the graveyard of incompetent and malicious books， describing it as “a tendentious work of scholarship， marred by selective evidence taken out of context， suppressive of contrary evidence， heedless of the cultural and political climate that constrained Lincoln’s options and oblivious to Lincoln’s capacity for growth。”10 Yet Bennett’s incompetently researched tome was apparently a goldmine for Hannah-Jones。"Woods also points out that the basic assumption of the 1619 Project is tendentious。 The Africans imported may not have been slaves; in fact it appears that at least one subsequently obtained his freedom， maried， and purchased slaves://How much less onerous is evident in the subsequent careers of some of those who endured servitude along the shores of the Chesapeake。 An especially well-attested case was an individual known as Antonio， who may have been among those individuals sold by Captain Jope in 1619， though he doesn’t enter the historical record until two years later when he was set to work on the Bennett family plantation。7 He was eventually freed， renamed himself Anthony Johnson， got married， raised children， became a plantation owner himself， and acquired African slaves of his own。 He successfully sued one of his white neighbors in a Virginia court。8 Plainly， Virginian “slavery” was not a total institution then， nor would it ever become so in the antebellum South。"History is surprisingly complicated。 This is not the only story of Africans social mobility in the New World。Woods prefers 1620 as the founding date of American history since that was the year that the Pilgrims arrived。 What Woods finds significant about the Pilgrims is that it exemplified the self-organization and enterprise that has more to say about America than slavery。Woods does not deny either that slavery played a significant role in American history or that there have been times when American schools have downplayed the role of slavery in American history。 However， that criticism can not be laid at the feet of history education after approximately 1970。Woods also does a nice job of debunking the King Cotton narrative which was a Southern Slaver's trope picked up by Woke activists。 On this point， I really invite everyone to read "A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States" by Frederick Law Olmstead。 Olmstead wrote this book in the 1840s and it categorizes his observations about the detrimental effects that slavery had on Southern society。 Woods ends his book with a section on "what is to be done？" His advice is to learn and share history。 I often do that but I have found that any good thing I say about American history will receive Woke responses reminding that "America was not perfect" and "what about" this or that event。 It is fascinating that Americans have been trained to instintively respond to positive statements about America with automatic "Debbie Downerism。" Woods points out that this tendency has migrated to conservatives。 He points to the example of an article published in National Review that kind of/sort of took the 1619 Project to task but refuses to defend any counter-narrative。 Woods points out:"It is hard to imagine that someone who thinks like that will play any constructive role in resisting the corruption of our schools in the direction of the 1619 project’s slavery-is-the-foundation-of-everything-in-this-vile-white-supremacist-society curriculum。 As for 1620， he scoffs， “Like English colonists elsewhere， the Pilgrims and their descendants then stripped Native populations of their land through dubious property transactions and episodic wars。”I don't think this is an accident。 If these people don't hate America， then their emotional state is one which takes pleasure in a masochistic contempt for America。 Since this seems counter-intuitive， I took some reassurance in Woods' observation:"The 1619 Project is， arguably， part of a larger effort to destroy America by people who find our nation unbearably bad。 The project treats the founding principles of our nation as an illusion – a contemptible illusion。 In their place is a single idea: that America was founded on racist exploitation。 The form of this racist exploitation has shifted from time to time， from chattel slavery to free-market mechanisms， but its character has not changed at all。 There is no American history as such， but only an eternal present consisting of white supremacy and black suffering。 The 1619 Project thus consists of an effort to destroy America by teaching children that America never really existed， except as a lie told by white people in an effort to control black people。 It eradicates American history and American values in one sweep。"And what effect does this have on African-Americans？"Insisting on mere accuracy is unlikely to sway people whose sensibility has been formed along these lines。 How then is the 1619 Project to be defeated？ One possible answer is the work of Robert Woodson and the Woodson Center， based in Washington， DC。 Woodson is a humanitarian， a community-development advocate， and a civil-rights activist known for his efforts to stem youth violence。 He is the editor of two books， Youth Crime and Urban Policy: A View from the Inner City （1981） and On the Road to Economic Freedom: An Agenda for Black Progress （1987）， and the author of The Triumphs of Joseph: How Today’s Community Healers Are Reviving Our Streets and Neighborhoods （1998）。 He was also among the first national figures to criticize the Times’ initiative。 Ten days after the magazine presented the 1619 Project， Woodson published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the project would hurt blacks by encouraging a sense of victimhood。 He immediately discerned the core theme of the project: “Whites have always been and continue to be the beneficiaries of both slavery and its attendant institutional racism – and blacks the perpetual victims。” He anticipated the positive media coverage and the eagerness of “left-leaning politicians” to associate themselves with it。 And he recognized the importance of the educational angle: “Most dangerous of all， the Pulitzer Center has packaged the Times’ project as a curriculum for students of all ages that will be disseminated throughout the country。” He also called on leaders within the black community to voice criticisms of the 1619 Project， lest the idea sink in further that “blacks are born inherently damaged by an all-prevailing racism and that their future prospects are determined by the whims of whites。”4A final takeaway from Woods:"There is an answer to the question， “Was America founded as a slavocracy？” – an answer in actual， documented history that does not depend on surmises or interpretative leaps。 And the answer is， No， it was not founded as a slavocracy。 It wasn’t founded as a slavocracy in Virginia in 1619， or at Plymouth in 1620， or in Philadelphia in 1776。 We can perhaps conjure other dates from history that have some lesser claim to be “founding” events， but there is no plausible case for an American founding that makes “slavocracy” the beginning of the story or the main charter for what followed。"This is an incisive， well-written book that should be read。 。。。more
Craig
，
This is one of the most important books an American citizen of 2021 can read。
Robert
，
It is unfortunate that Mr。 Wood's book will do little to combat the expansion of The 1619 Project。 As he states so well， how many hundreds of thousands or millions of children will be indoctrinated by The 161o Project curriculum compared to the thousand who will take the time to read his book。Where America's history began is obviously subject to debate， i。e。， was it St。 Augustine in 1565， the day the Mayflower Compact was signed， or when。 Are we talking about America the North American continent It is unfortunate that Mr。 Wood's book will do little to combat the expansion of The 1619 Project。 As he states so well， how many hundreds of thousands or millions of children will be indoctrinated by The 161o Project curriculum compared to the thousand who will take the time to read his book。Where America's history began is obviously subject to debate， i。e。， was it St。 Augustine in 1565， the day the Mayflower Compact was signed， or when。 Are we talking about America the North American continent or America the nation。 For me it began in 1776。 All before that were preliminaries akin to the warmup sessions of a football game 。 。 。 but we each have our own opinions。 However， I do not believe America's true history began when a pirate ship landed with slaves in 1619。 Mr。 Wood gives much scholarship to this argument。 My heart cries for our children， grandchildren， and all our future generations that a defense of American history is even necessary but in today's cancel culture we had all best be educated on the reasons Mr。 Wood wrote this book which centers around one of the uglier portions of American history。 。。。more
Rich
，
As a lover of U。S。 history I was already disturbed by the 1619 Project prior to reading this book。 This book fairly examines its main points， its flaws， and its champions and what they hope to achieve—an historical narrative that has everyone believing that the United States was founded in 1619 as a slavocracy， that the Revolution was fought to preserve it， that the Civil War wasn’t fought to abolish it， and that Lincoln was a racist。 The end game to all this is reparations。 I share the author’s As a lover of U。S。 history I was already disturbed by the 1619 Project prior to reading this book。 This book fairly examines its main points， its flaws， and its champions and what they hope to achieve—an historical narrative that has everyone believing that the United States was founded in 1619 as a slavocracy， that the Revolution was fought to preserve it， that the Civil War wasn’t fought to abolish it， and that Lincoln was a racist。 The end game to all this is reparations。 I share the author’s view that the 1619 Project is a bad thing to end up in schools’ curricula。 I think it’s nonsense and dangerous。 This false narrative will only cause more division。 Slavery was a terrible thing that shouldn’t have happened， but it shouldn’t define the country。 A terrible war was fought with it being the primary cause。 I would think that there should be some credit given to the country for ending that awful institution。Why would we want to teach children to hate their country？ The truth is the truth， but the 1619 Project isn’t the truth。 。。。more
Joshua
，
Peter Wood's take on the 1619 Project is a critique in three parts: a historical refutation of some of the theses of the original 1619 Project essays， a description of how the Mayflower Compact and establishment of Plymouth Colony would be better to remember the origins of American history than the arrival of the first African slave ship to reach the English holdings on the mainland of North America， and a conservative rant full of racist dogwhistles and failure to understand the changing of the Peter Wood's take on the 1619 Project is a critique in three parts: a historical refutation of some of the theses of the original 1619 Project essays， a description of how the Mayflower Compact and establishment of Plymouth Colony would be better to remember the origins of American history than the arrival of the first African slave ship to reach the English holdings on the mainland of North America， and a conservative rant full of racist dogwhistles and failure to understand the changing of the world around him。I take no fault with his critique of the thin history of the 1619 project。 Some of the theses of the essays do not hold water to historical fact， as Wood and others have pointed out。 I may not agree with every interpretation he makes in those pages， but at least they hold the line in terms of traditional interpretation of American History。 And as a teacher of history， I find his arguments here persuasive （it is this point that saves this review from being only 1 star， but not enough to overcome its other problems）The passages about the Mayflower Compact and the beginnings of Plymouth Colony are the most boring part of the book。 Wood tries to make the argument that these events are a "better starting point for America's history" than the arrival of a slave ship， but this is because Wood either fails to （or refuses to） recognize that the date and historical focus of the 1619 Project was symbolic。What this book is mostly about is pearl-clutching by the author。 How DARE people seek to entertain a new narrative to explain the current plight of African-Americans in this country？ Here， unlike Wood himself， I am disaggregating his critiques of the 1619 Project （which are founded） and its founder （whom Wood seems to go to great lengths to discredit） to focus instead on his use of conservative calling cards against what he calls "the Radical Left。" There are sections of this book that read as if he blames every K-12 teacher in America for being unthinking Marxist drones trying to indoctrinate children into "hating America。" And as a K-12 social studies and history teacher， I just can't even with this。 I've already written way more about this than it deserves。If you are looking to find information to critique the 1619 Project， it exists elsewhere， without the histrionics。 。。。more
Malachi Ege
，
A comprehensive counter argument to the well known Times project: The 1619 Project。 Where the 1619 Project failed to provide scholarly researched and accurate historical data， Wood goes into great length to ensure his argument is backed by historical scholars and well sourced information。 Before making a judgment on this book you must understand one very important detail。 Wood is NOT arguing that the history of slavery is not important or accurate。 He is also NOT arguing that there isn’t a need A comprehensive counter argument to the well known Times project: The 1619 Project。 Where the 1619 Project failed to provide scholarly researched and accurate historical data， Wood goes into great length to ensure his argument is backed by historical scholars and well sourced information。 Before making a judgment on this book you must understand one very important detail。 Wood is NOT arguing that the history of slavery is not important or accurate。 He is also NOT arguing that there isn’t a need for a realignment of the role Blacks played in American history。 What he IS arguing， is that many of the claims made in the Times 1619 Project are present as historical fact when the reality is they are opinions presented by journalists not historians。 He cites MANY historians， including many who specialize in the history of early American slavery and early American Black history， who have found fault with some of the claims made by the 1619 project。 I found it to be a levelheaded， concise， accurate， and well written book that is a must read if you’ve read the Times original 1619 Project。 。。。more
John
，
A significant reexamination of American history has been launched by the New York Times 1619 project and Wood provides a useful discussion bringing in a wide variety of historians to comment on the project。 Normally historians debating history would be confined to the academic world。 By offering this new interpretation of America’s founding principles on the pages of the New York Times， the paper has created a wider public debate。 Woods book helps us understand how historians think and the intel A significant reexamination of American history has been launched by the New York Times 1619 project and Wood provides a useful discussion bringing in a wide variety of historians to comment on the project。 Normally historians debating history would be confined to the academic world。 By offering this new interpretation of America’s founding principles on the pages of the New York Times， the paper has created a wider public debate。 Woods book helps us understand how historians think and the intellectual rigor that goes into understanding history。 Very timely。 Highly recommend。 。。。more
Battle Armanda
，
I found this book to contain really interesting， critical information concerning the 1619 Project as well as various aspects of early America。 That being said， the book was incredibly repetitive and constantly bashed on 1619。 If the book was more focused on the information， I would have given it a much higher score。 I know this was meant to be a response to the 1619 Project， but I found myself skipping over large diatribes about Nikole Hannah-Jones， the other contributors or ideas explored becau I found this book to contain really interesting， critical information concerning the 1619 Project as well as various aspects of early America。 That being said， the book was incredibly repetitive and constantly bashed on 1619。 If the book was more focused on the information， I would have given it a much higher score。 I know this was meant to be a response to the 1619 Project， but I found myself skipping over large diatribes about Nikole Hannah-Jones， the other contributors or ideas explored because they were boring （and， again， repetitive）。 I will say that I did love how large the footnotes section was and that everything referenced was included， as a scientist， I love a good set of citations。 。。。more
Isaac
，
This book is indeed a critical response to 1619。 It takes a brief aside to advocate for a version of the American story that begins in 1620 with the signing of the Mayflower Compact， but the vast majority of this book is spent attacking the 1619 project from all different angles。Before I get into the attacks it's worth mentioning that the positive portions of this book， where he describes the Mayflower Compact and the meaning he derives from grounding the American story there and contrasts that This book is indeed a critical response to 1619。 It takes a brief aside to advocate for a version of the American story that begins in 1620 with the signing of the Mayflower Compact， but the vast majority of this book is spent attacking the 1619 project from all different angles。Before I get into the attacks it's worth mentioning that the positive portions of this book， where he describes the Mayflower Compact and the meaning he derives from grounding the American story there and contrasts that with the meaning he sees 1619 deriving from the landing of the White Lion， were the best of what this book had to offer in my opion。In terms of criticism some of it seemed a bit ad hominem and petty。 He spends a lot of time attacking Nikole Hannah-Jones directly via tweets and quotes。 Things like calling herself the Beyonce of journalism are stupid but not really relevant， things like doing dozens of speaking engagements about 1619 with only like-minded individuals （Wood seriously categorizes everyone she's spoken with since the projects launch） is a bit more damning IMO for someone who describes the project as "Starting a conversation"。In this category I'd also place Wood's criticism of the New York Times。 He's up their ass for putting too many resources into hyping and advertising a project， going as far as to hire a celebrity to stand in the ocean and play the video during the Oscars。 He analyzes the font they apparently developed for the project and gets up their ass about that。 He's up their ass for daring to allow journalists to encroach on the sacred turf of historians。 Again a few hits landed here like specific accounts of historians being consulted， raising concerns and being brushed aside。Wood also attacks the substance of the project as well， picking a few specific essays or claims and devoting a section to each。 The ones i can remember were the claim that the revolutionary war was fought for slavery， the claim that Lincoln was a racist and a the article about American capitalism being founded on slavery。 Some of these arguments seemed to boil down to "most serious Historians think。。。"， but a lot of the arguments are very sharp and/or brought some interesting information to muddy the narratives in stimulating ways。The book concludes with a sort of metahistory of slavery in history text books which was interesting and I think meant to be a jab at the educational material 1619 provides， that didn't quite land for me。I'm glad I read this book， it was worth it just to relearn about the Mayflower Compact， but I suspect it will be dated fast。 I wish it had stayed above some of the pettier criticism and spent a little more time in the meat of the arguments made by 1619。 。。。more
Ben
，
In attempting to offer a book-length critique of the New York Times' 1619 Project， Peter Wood must have felt like he was pursuing a will o' the wisp。 The Times， and Nikole Hannah-Jones， the project's originator， initially sold the project as the "real" story of American history， backtracked to it being true in spirit if not in all its particulars when challenged with its historical inaccuracies， and finally pronounced that it wasn't actually intended to be history at all， but an expression of ac In attempting to offer a book-length critique of the New York Times' 1619 Project， Peter Wood must have felt like he was pursuing a will o' the wisp。 The Times， and Nikole Hannah-Jones， the project's originator， initially sold the project as the "real" story of American history， backtracked to it being true in spirit if not in all its particulars when challenged with its historical inaccuracies， and finally pronounced that it wasn't actually intended to be history at all， but an expression of activist journalism。 It's ironic that an attempt to "reframe" American history immediately attempted to reframe its own history， but being a moving target has been a strategic success for the 1619 Project and has made applying the kind of critical analysis Wood attempts here a more difficult undertaking。A couple points of clarification bear mentioning。 First， the title of the book as it is currently listed on Goodreads is 1620: The True Beginning of the American Republic。 As printed， the title is 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project。 Obviously， the working title for the book changed at some point shortly before printing， leading to the confusion。 Additionally， of the three community reviews the book has received as of this writing， two are one-star reviews written by people whose claims to have read the book are obviously dubious。 It should go without saying that there is nothing in the book， written by a man who describes his politics as "mildly conservative and traditionalist" and who states his belief that the common good "is best achieved by treating one another as individuals， not as representatives of identity groups" that could rationally lead to the accusation that he is operating from a "white supremacist" or "Nazi" foundation。 It's a shame， and a little humorous， that star ratings on a book cateloging site have been ideologically weaponized， but such is life in our technologically-advanced society。Moving onto the book itself， it can best be described as a historiography of the debates over the 1619 Project which， published in August 2019， posits that the arrival of African slaves at the Jamestown settlement in Virginia marks the true beginning of America because "No aspect of the country。。。has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed。" This bold statement， and the Times handling of the arguments and facts needed to support it， has generated much criticism， and Wood deftly summarizes the back-and-forth between critics and defenders of the project and its key claims （about which more momentarily）。 To this， Wood adds some cultural commentary as well as a somewhat intriguing proposal that 1620， the Mayflower Compact， and the establishment of the Plymouth Colony mark the "true beginning of the American Republic，" though in this reviewer's eyes 1776 remains the obvious starting point for the nation。 His interspersing of these various elements throughout the book， bouncing between the present and different past eras， gives it an uneven quality that disrupts its overall cohesiveness。 So， too， does his juxtaposition of more academic debates over historical fact and understanding with his more polemical （though not unjustified） criticisms of the 1619 Project and its promoters。Wood's issue with the 1619 Project begins with the very foundation of its claims: that the arrival of African slaves at Jamestown marked the beginning of slavery on the continent， which would continue uninterrupted for two and a half centuries thereafter。 But 1619， he notes， was decidedly not the first year that slavery existed in North America or the New World more generally。 Before slaves arrived in the British colonies， the Spanish and Portuguese， despite the efforts of royalty and clergy， had already established the plantation slave system in their New World colonies， and before that native tribes had enslaved each other。 It is unlikely that we will ever know the date that slavery was introduced to the continent， but given the prevalence of that malign institution throughout world history， it likely predated 1619 by millennia。 Further， Wood adds， the exact status of the 20-30 Africans brought to Jamestown is still unclear， historically speaking。 He writes that "It is likely that they were considered slaves on board the pirate ship， but because slavery was not recognized by English common law， once the captives landed their status became fuzzy。" He notes that in other British colonies， "slaves brought by outsiders were considered to be indentures with a life tenure of service，" but that Virginia "had no system of slavery as such" and "the records show that many of the captives were， after a term of indenture， set free。" Indeed， there is evidence that after earning their freedom， some captives were able to purchase land and slaves （or indentured servants） themselves， and were able to assimilate into colonial society to at least some degree up until the 1640s。 Not all historians are agreed on these points， and any conclusions must be held lightly due to the paucity of detailed information， but at the very least the claim that 1619 marked the beginning of slavery as it came to be known later in the colonial period has significant problems。Easier to rebut is Hannah-Jones' claim that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery in the face of what is alleged to have been a growing abolitionist movement in Britain。 She backs this claim by observing that slavery is not explicitly condemned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution， and by overstating the state of abolitionism in Britain while simultaneously ignoring the growing abolitionist sentiment in the United States in the 18th century， a sentiment materially enhanced by the Declaration。 That the first antislavery meetings in world history took place in America， and that the first government in world history to constitutionally prohibit slavery was an American state are facts that would seem to bear on Hannah-Jones' thesis， though she displays little awareness of them。Wood notes the rebuttals on this topic of two respected liberal historians， Sean Wilentz and Gordon Wood。 Wilentz argues that abolitionism in Britain was not nearly as influential as Hannah-Jones suggests， and at the time of the Declaration there was no popular movement to outlaw slavery in Britain's colonies。 Readers of Edmund Burke may recall that he drafted a proposal for gradual emancipation in 1780， four years after the Declaration， which was not taken up by Parliament until 1792， and Britain did not ban slavery in its colonies until 1833。 There would seem to have been little reason， then， for the Americans to have started a war in order to protect slavery， particularly when there was already staunch and growing opposition to the institution in America。Gordon Wood even more trenchantly opposes Hannah-Jones' thesis， and his criticism was strong enough to cause the Times to backtrack a bit， arguing that instead of the preservation of slavery being a primary motivation for the American Revolution， it was one motivation among others for some of the colonists。 But even the support for this claim falls flat。 For instance， the Times' argument that the Dunmore Proclamation， which promised slaves freedom if they deserted the plantations and joined the British， came after popular sentiment had been stirred up against British policy to the point of actual shooting at Lexington and Concord， and therefore cannot serve as an convincing explanation for why the Revolution began。 Similarly， the Somerset case， in which a slave bought in America was emancipated in England， did not cause the sensation the 1619 Project claims it did in fomenting anti-British sentiment。 All of this information is useful to push back against Hannah-Jones' claims， and Times editor Jake Silverstein's attempt to rescue them by backtracking into vaguer territories。 It is curious， however， that no mention is made of the fact that Jefferson did condemn slavery in the first draft of the Declaration。 Or at least he condemned the British for introducing slavery to the colonies， listing among his complaints against the British king that "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself， violating the most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him， captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere， or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither。。。"Additionally， as Wood states， the principles of the Declaration were "aspirational" and "transcendent，" and "summoned Americans to try harder and for later generations to go further in seeking their fulfillment。" They enunciated "a simplified and pure vision of how things will be， not a description of how things [were]。" The 1619 Project， and other detractors of the founding era， see only hypocrisy in the wide discrepancy between those principles and the practice of slavery， which is unsurprising since many in the founding generation noted that same discrepancy。 But Wood condemns the idea， expressed by Hannah-Jones， that "the United States is exceptional only in its hypocrisy， because the nation had both slavery and ideals that militated against slavery，" particularly when those founding ideals contributed to the ending of slavery not only in America， but around the world。Another claim that Wood challenges is that Abraham Lincoln was an unrepentant racist and that the Civil War was not a war to end slavery。 The evidence given for these statements includes Lincoln's proposal to send freed slaves out of the country and his various public statements denying a commitment to the cause of racial equality。 Much of the project's narrative along these lines is filled with hyperbole。 For instance， Hannah-Jones depicts an 1862 meeting between Lincoln and five black leaders， at which Lincoln proposed sending the freed slaves to an island near Haiti， as one in which the attendees were "breathless" at Lincoln's suggestion。 In fact， they had been briefed on what the president would discuss with them months before， and the debate over emigration itself was by this point decades old and found supporters and dectractors among blacks and whites alike。 Further， there is some evidence that Lincoln staged the meeting as a publicity stunt to make white Americans more comfortable with the idea of emancipation， though this is conjecture。Regarding a speech Lincoln gave during an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas， in which he denied being in favor of equality between blacks and whites， Wood argues that this did not represent Lincoln's true feelings on racial equality， but rather represented his need to "thread the needle" between appealing to his northern constituents' antislavery and antiegalitarian sentiments。 In this telling， Lincoln is said to be a master rhetorician， whose verbal sleight of hand hides his true egalitarianism。 So， too， Lincoln's equivocations about slavery in a letter to newspaperman Horace Greeley and in the Emancipation Proclamation are said to be verbal posturing by a president trying to balance winning the Civil War， preserving the Union， ending slavery， and securing racial equality。 Supporting this view is Lincoln's mutually respectful relationship with Frederick Douglass， and other statements affirming his belief that the Declaration's statement that "all men are created equal" applied equally to black and white， slave and free。 All of Lincoln's statements， writes Wood， need to be understood as "prudent political calculation。" But ultimately， all of this is an undecided matter of academic debate， and Lincoln's motivations continue to be a source of study and disagreement。 But Wood is correct to say that the danger in the 1619 Project's treatment of Lincoln is that by ignoring all that we don't know about him， and by decontextualizing or misrepresenting his statements， readers will draw conclusions about his legacy the firmness of which the scholarship doesn't support。Wood deals with other aspects of the 1619 Project as well， notably its fallacy-laden claim that the totality of American capitalism has a direct tie to slavery， and its stated desire to alter the way history is taught in American classrooms。 He closes by arguing that the 1619 Project is dangerous precisely because it seeks， by reducing all of American history to a single long arc of white supremacy， to destroy America by telling Americans that their country never really existed， certainly not as they and previous generations have learned。 He does this while admitting that， historically， schools have inadequately taught students about the horrors of slavery， and proclaiming that Americans need to grapple with this baneful aspect of their history。But， he adds， "Surely there are ways to incorporate a forthright treatment of slavery， racism， and the black experience into the story of America's rise as a free， self-governing， creative， and prosperous nation。 The key to doing that is to put the pursuit of the ideals of liberty and justice at the center of the story， with ample acknowledgments of how hard the struggle has been and how imperfect the results。" This contrasts with the 1619 Project which "tells us， in effect， that we live in the land of the unfree" and "replaces the effort to tell a truthful history of America， with its failures as well as its achievements， with a story of nothing but failure。" Wood believes that a middle course of sorts should instead be taken， one that does not ignore the evils of the past but also does not reduce the complexities of history to merely a tale of those evils。 Failing to accomplish this task will， he cautions， leave Americans devoid of an understanding of themselves and the principles around which they can unify， and will make them easy prey for the insidious myths spun by ideologues bent on revolution。Overall， Wood's is a mostly successful effort to counter the historical inaccuracies of the 1619 Project and incite a discussion about the importance of honest history to civic order。 In addition to the lack of cohesiveness mentioned above， the book suffers somewhat from relying mostly on the exchanges between other scholars and the purveyors of the 1619 Project， most of which are readily available on the internet。 One could argue that the time spent reading this book would just as well be spent reading the actual exchanges。That said， Wood does add enough interesting perspectives himself to make reading the book a worthwhile endeavor。 I am almost inclined to give it three stars - but I may as well join with the crowd and weaponize my rating， so four stars it is。 。。。more
Lois
，
Look I finished this but there's really nothing here。The author has no real facts。Most of this amounts to 'Wah， my ancestors look bad if you center marginalized peoples in the narrative。 Wah， identity politics， how dare POC want history to include their experiences， that's integration not history！'I honestly was expecting the author to have more than racism with which to make a point but I hoped in vain。I planned to take this argument down point by point and fact by fact。 Unfortunately it's most Look I finished this but there's really nothing here。The author has no real facts。Most of this amounts to 'Wah， my ancestors look bad if you center marginalized peoples in the narrative。 Wah， identity politics， how dare POC want history to include their experiences， that's integration not history！'I honestly was expecting the author to have more than racism with which to make a point but I hoped in vain。I planned to take this argument down point by point and fact by fact。 Unfortunately it's mostly organized as a whinefest to The 1619 Project。 History as it currently exists for the most part is the formal study of white supremacy passed off as a scholarly subject。That's because the study of history as a discipline has it's roots in white supremacy as does anthropology & archeology。 This is a well known fact and to have an accurate record of ACTUAL history the experience of EVERYONE involved will have to be included from THEIR point of view。This is jarring when all you've all ever known is a white supremacist view of history。Christopher Columbus was a liar， a thief， an enslaver and a colonizer。 He stole from his own crew and had zero redeeming features。 Their is no fixing him and really no need to try。It's not okay to steal from people because their skin is brown🤷🏾♀️ The Europeans god did not give them land already occupied by other folks， they stole that land and murdered those people。 To dismiss Native American view points when they made up 99。9% of the population at the time this occurred really shows you this is just white supremacy passing itself off as history。 Since the only opinions and experiences that are worth shaping the historical narrative belong to white people。Even the authors basics don't pass the sniff test。 The Pilgrims aren't a 'diverse' group of Europeans， they were white Christians who had dogmatic differences。 The idea they that decided to treat each other fairly while they stole from Native Americans isn't the groundbreaking moment of diverse unity the author thinks it is。History that doesn't include the point of view of all parties involved isn't history， it's propaganda and that's exactly what this book is。 Racist propaganda for white supremacists。 A Nazi History of the Pilgrims & 1620。 。。。more
Todd
，
This book clearly exposes the intellectual dishonesty of the 1619 Project。 This is a good source for any students who have teachers using 1619 Project resources to “teach” history。Here’s a good podcast interview with Peter Wood， President of the National Association of American Scholars and author of “1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project” https://overcast。fm/+EVU8bDBCA This book clearly exposes the intellectual dishonesty of the 1619 Project。 This is a good source for any students who have teachers using 1619 Project resources to “teach” history。Here’s a good podcast interview with Peter Wood， President of the National Association of American Scholars and author of “1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project” https://overcast。fm/+EVU8bDBCA 。。。more
Kit
，