Blog #137 – Learning about American history from the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission Report
So we spent some time reading both the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission Report, and both had a lot to say about American history, much of which was contradictory. One expressed a pessimistic view that anti-Black racism was in America’s DNA while the other one asserted that despite the awful things that have happened in the past, the great American ideal of equality has helped guide us through the tough spots.
There has been a lot of criticism aimed at both projects as well. Out of context quotes. Lack of nuance. Broad generalizations. No historians working on an historical document.
And on Thursday, May 20, a few Republican members of the Michigan Senate introduced Senate Bill no. 460 that would ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) which we are tackling after the free speech case as well as specifically the 1619 Project or any other “anti-American and racist theories.”
Now that you’ve had time to digest both, please answer the following questions:
- What are the major strengths and weaknesses of both documents? Give specific examples for each strength and weakness.
- Which criticism was the harshest for both projects? (See this Google doc w/ excerpts). Be specific.
- How do we balance these documents? In essence, what is something positive that can be taken from each document to support an American history curriculum? Be specific. Or is finding a balance impossible – meaning there’s nothing redeemable about one or the other or both? If so, explain why with specifics.
Due Wednesday by class. Total words for all three answers should be at least 400 words.
1.One major strength of the 1619 project is the way that it acknowledges black people’s role in history, and their importance to our country. Often, history curriculum focuses on the contributions of white groups and individuals, partially because if black people are mentioned, slavery and other issues must be addressed. However, the 1619 project fully appreciates black people’s contributions to the birth and growth of our country. This can be seen in the name of the project itself, 1619. The project is named after this year because it is focused on because it is the year that the first slaves were brought to America. This shows that the project recognizes black people’s contributions because the project is saying that the year our country really began was the year that black people were brought here and forced to begin working for nothing. One weakness that the 1619 project has is its very pessimistic view of our country. This comes from the way that it declares racism to be in our DNA. This statement would suggest that we as a nation will never be able to overcome the obstacle of racism, because DNA is not something that can be changed. One of the strengths of the 1776 commision is its positive outlook on the United States. It emphasizes that even though the nation has had struggles and its views have been challenged, it was one of the first countries to ever be truly free, and it continues to set an example for democracy around the world. A weakness of the 1776 project is that it is very one sided politically. One example of this is when the pro-life movement is listed as one of the ways that Americans have pushed to uphold our nations values. While the merits o pro-life and pro-choice are a whole other argument, the fact that this is still a politically divisive issue today shows that the commission does not represent both sides of the aisle.
2.The harshest criticism of the 1619 project is that some of its pessimistic claims are not completely historically accurate. Historians such as Leslie Harris and Sean Wilentz have said that some of the things that the projects says, including the fact that America was in part founded to protect slavery, are not entirley backed by historical evidence. This is a harsh criticism because historical inaccuracies would seriously compromise the meaning of the article. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission is that it is an outdated and simplistic way to tell history, and, like the 1619 project, it also includes some falsehoods as well as things taken out of context. One of the reasons for these criticisms is the way that the commission largely glosses over slavery.
3.If these documents could be balanced, it would create a good middle ground, and a smart way to view our history. They both have good and bad things about them. The first thing to be done would be the correction of inaccuracies in bothe articles. Then, if the positivity of the 1776 commision could be combined with the 1619 project’s view on black people’s contributions, the resulting document would be a much more balanced, even way of viewing history. This could be done by acknowledging, like the 1776 commission does, that the country was founded on freedom, but also remembering, like the 1619 project does, that many of the people who helped to build it were not free.
1. What are the major strengths and weaknesses of both documents? Give specific examples for each strength and weakness.
In the 1619 Project, Hannah Jones says, “Our Democracy’s Founding Ideals Were False When They Were Written. Black Americans Have Fought to Make Them True”. This Project is beneficial because of the focus it puts on African-Americans, and their contributions to the United States of America. It is important to remember all of the advancements that African-Americans have created for the nation, in the hopes of getting equality for everybody. Hannah Jones goes on to state that “black Americans, as much as those men cast in alabaster in the nation’s capital, are this nation’s true ‘founding fathers’”. It is a pretty positive thing to give African-Americans more importance in the country’s history. However, it can sometimes go a little too far, while it gives a negative aspect of the white Founding Fathers, which were apparently only concerned with slavery; it dismisses the achievements that those white Founding Fathers still made for America. The most intense argument made is that “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country”. This is a really pessimist approach to what the United States are, as DNA is unchangeable, and the nation thus seems condemned to stay in its faults. The weakness of this Project resides in its ability to only see the negative aspect of America’s history, and to have some exaggerations of words in its content.
The 1776 Commission is positive in the sense that it provides an optimistic perspective of the United States’ history, having the tendency to actually unite its citizens together more, as they are all proud of being part of this country. The Commission declares the American “City on a Hill” as the exemplary nation that inspired many others, universally and eternally. This is pleasant to hear for American citizens. However, this process can sometimes be too patriotic, and focus too much on American exceptionalism. It has a too positive aspect of the nation, hiding the accurate darker sides of the United States’ history, like slavery.
2. Which criticism was the harshest for both projects? (See this Google doc w/ excerpts). Be specific.
Lucas Morel criticizes how Hannah-Jones, in the 1619 Project, “does no better at interpreting the U.S. Constitution”. In fact, he states how Madison left details of the proceedings, showing how he didn’t mention slavery in the Constitution because he “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men”. The Founding Fathers actually were hopeful that one day, the country will get rid of slavery. This counter-argument is brought up in a pretty harsh manner against Hannah-Jones, but is well found and constructive.
John Fea starts criticizing the 1776 Commission by saying how it’s not ‘historic’, since President Trump left office shortly after writing the Commission, and the document is therefore ‘meaningless’, as it won’t really be considered by people. Then, he goes on to declare that it’s not ‘scholarly’ either, as no actual historian took part in the writing of the Commission. Those statements are kind of harsh and offensive to start off with. Then, he continues his accusations by proclaiming that President Trump and the Commission are doing exactly what they don’t want the left to do (by looking at only one aspect of history, which is their own point of view). Finally, Fea mentions how the debates over slavery when writing the Constitution are not communicated in the Commission, while the three-fiths compromise was an essential part of the actual Constitution. This is once more a well-formulated counter-argument, coming after some harsh denunciations.
3. How do we balance these documents? In essence, what is something positive that can be taken from each document to support an American history curriculum? Be specific. Or is finding a balance impossible – meaning there’s nothing redeemable about one or the other or both? If so, explain why with specifics.
A good way to teach the documents in class would be to mix them up (kind of like we did). It’s important to consider both perspectives together. In fact, just doing the 1619 Project would give us a perspective on the nation’s history that would be too negative; on the other hand, simply studying the 1776 Commission would only offer a positive point of view on the United States’ history. This is why we would need to combine them, by considering both the ideals of freedom that the Founding Fathers incorporated in the creation of the country (the 1776 Commission), but also all of the contributions of the enslaved people (or African-Americans) throughout the history of the United States (the 1619 Project). It’s also essential to hold discussions about those topics in the classroom, because it helps students forge opinions for themselves. It shouldn’t be just the teacher that tells the kids what to think or not, in regards to the subjects at hand.
1. One of the major strengths of the 1619 project comes from its main author and curator, journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones. Jones used her journalistic talents to expertly craft the Project’s introductory essay, making it succinct and easy to read, something that was noted during class discussion of the Project. Regretfully, succinctness and ease of reading are two qualities that the 1776 Commission clearly lacks, as evidenced by the pages and pages of fragile, defensive conservative rambling we were all forced to consider in the name of diverse source material. The writing of the Commission drags, and the conservative bias it’s plagued with and forced to compensate for makes it unnecessarily wordy. For example, in the section of the document that discusses religion, it’s blatantly obvious that the authors seek to promote the values of Christianity, but feel the need to mask this desire in pseudo-inclusive language, lest the woke left mob come and cancel them. Rather than in good writing, the 1776 Commission finds its strength in sheer bland palatability. The intensely boring, monotonously positive version of American history it puts forth makes it clear that chicken isn’t the only thing white people can’t season. Of course, white people are the only ones who will reliably pick unseasoned chicken over objectively much better options, so it’s not hard to understand why critics of the 1619 Project were so drawn to this version of American history.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 Project is that it is intensely cynical, to the point of being historically inaccurate. In order to prove her point, the author overexaggerated some claims, and included details that were too vague, or not backed up by solid evidence. For example, the author portrays the Declaration of Independence, and other American legislative documents similar to or inspired by it, not as a promotion of freedom and independence, but as a hypocritical empty promise, omitting the fact that slaves often used the principles and legal ideas expressed in the Declaration to combat inequality in their own time.
The harshest criticism of the 1776 Commission is that it’s overwhelmingly factually inaccurate and overly simplistic, relying on lies of omission and generalizations to push its agenda. For instance, the article puts forth a blanket condemnation of Progressive Era legislation, likening it to socialism, while ignoring the many benefits of the era that we take for granted today, such as the prohibition of child labor, and regulations in the food and drug industries that make products safe for consumption.
3. In isolation, neither the 1619 Project nor the 1776 Commission are particularly capable of forming the basis for a complete, accurate American history curriculum. Both have obvious bias, as well as factual inaccuracies and problems with overcompensation that relegate them at best to the realm of supplementary material. However, at the heart of each text is a central idea, a premise that the authors tried to convey through their work, both of which have a place as principles for teaching a well-rounded account of American history.
In the case of the 1619 Project, the text seeks to convey the centuries of primarily anti-Black racism that America has borne witness to, and to compensate for the lack of education surrounding the issue. The fault with this project lies in that these tasks were clearly too big a job for one New York Times editorial, something the author failed to recognize. However, by reading it, we can take away from the 1619 Project the importance of telling Black stories, and acknowledging how racism continues to shape the lives of minority Americans today.
On the other hand, the 1776 Commission, written as a direct response to the 1619 Project, tragically holds up even worse when placed under scrutiny. This text is so riddled with factual inaccuracies, biased, reactionary language, and conservative dog whistles that the central idea is practically its only redeemable facet. At its core, the 1776 Commission sought to promote national pride, and a more positive view of history than put forth in the 1619 Project. Unfortunately, the authors of this document seem to think that these ideas are mutually exclusive with those of acknowledging a country’s wrongs, and grossly overcompensate trying to prove this moot point.
Fortunately for future and current students of American history, the authors of the 1776 Commission are wrong, and both concepts have an important place in teaching. Omitting America’s history of wrongdoing, not just against Black people, but also against indigenous people, immigrants, queer people, and other minority groups, would not only be biased, but factually inaccurate. The author of the 1619 Project is correct in her acknowledgement that the legacy of America’s discrimination is far more pervasive than most people realize. It’s clear that immediate, systemic change is needed to compensate, and in that, the central themes of the 1776 Commission have their place. Young people will not fight for change in a country they have no pride in, in a country where there is no hope for positive improvement. By teaching a detailed, factually accurate account of American history, with a focus on interpretation, combating bias, and student empowerment, we can honor the ideas presented in both the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission, as well as fostering generations of informed and active American citizens.
1. One of the major strengths for the 1619 project is its inclusion of African Americans. The overarching theme of the 1619 project is to shine a light on the enslaved African Americans and how the country was built off their hard work. This project calls for the teaching of this in American schools history curriculum in order to tell both sides of the story when teaching. This is this projects strong point because of the current state of America in which there is a great call for justice for African Americans and teaching their history is a step towards that justice. On the other hand the 1776 commission’s strong point lies in known information and curriculum. The 1776 commission is different from the 1619 project seeing as it tries to maintain status quo and stop the change the 1619 project seeks to bring. This is its strong point because there is already curriculum based around this teaching of history because it is being taught currently. Also the history of the 1776 commission has a lot of evidence, names, places, events, and proof to back up its teaching whereas the 1619 project lacks in some of those categories.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project is that it tends to be historically inaccurate. This ties back to what I said in the first response on how the 1619 project lacks historical validity and information to back it up. This criticism looks to persuade readers to dislike the project due to the little historical information available to back up its claims. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission on the other hand is the uselessness of the document itself. Th criticism says that because Trump is no longer POTUS this commission will not go into affect because it wouldn’t have the backing to do so. This criticism looks to persuade readers to dislike the commission because it is mere speculation and it will not go into affect thus making it useless.
3. 1. One of the major strengths for the 1619 project is its inclusion of African Americans. The overarching theme of the 1619 project is to shine a light on the enslaved African Americans and how the country was built off their hard work. This project calls for the teaching of this in American schools history curriculum in order to tell both sides of the story when teaching. This is this project’s strong point because of the current state of America in which there is a great call for justice for African Americans and teaching their history is a step towards that justice. On the other hand the 1776 commission’s strong point lies in known information and curriculum. The 1776 commission is different from the 1619 project as it tries to maintain the status quo and stop the change the 1619 project seeks to bring. This is its strong point because there is already a curriculum based around this teaching of history because it is being taught currently. Also the history of the 1776 commission has a lot of evidence, names, places, events, and proof to back up its teaching whereas the 1619 project lacks in some of those categories.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project is that it tends to be historically inaccurate. This ties back to what I said in the first response on how the 1619 project lacks historical validity and information to back it up. This criticism looks to persuade readers to dislike the project due to the little historical information available to back up its claims. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission on the other hand is the uselessness of the document itself. The criticism says that because Trump is no longer POTUS this commission will not go into effect because it wouldn’t have the backing to do so. This criticism looks to persuade readers to dislike the commission because it is mere speculation and it will not go into effect thus making it useless.
3. I think that balance is necessary here because even though the 1619 project has little historical information or evidence to back claims, it is still American history and should be taught. One way to balance this would be including both the 1776 commission and the 1619 project in American history curriculum. Teachers could do a unit about African American enslavement in the 1600’s and 1700’s and how it shaped the country. This would add more of a balance to the curriculum and most likely please both sides (not radicals). Seeing as the current American history teaches mostly the ideologies of the 1776 commission, simply adding some of the 1619 project as well would be beneficial, but it still needs to be correct information and not biased beliefs.
1. A major strength of the 1619 project is that it is very blunt about American history. This article does not try to hide or slide over any uncomfortable topics regarding racism and slavery in American history. For example, the 1619 project cites how the effects of slavery are still present in today’s society and they have not gone away. This can sometimes be blown over because many people don’t realize the effects are still present. It also explains how, after slavery ended, life was hard for black Americans. Because of the institution of slavery and its presence in society well after it is over, black Americans, for the most part, had a very difficult time making a name for themselves. Another major strength of the 1619 project is its highlight on the importance of black culture. A major section of the 1619 project is about the influence of black culture, and this is something that is not normally talked about. Many Americans don’t realize the roots of culture in America come from black Americans. A major weakness of the 1619 project is that it may be too blunt and pessimistic at parts. I feel this project may be too blunt when it says “slavery is in America’s DNA”. This is a very pessimistic point of view that may be too harsh. This implies that this institution and its effects are irreversible because you can’t reverse and fix DNA. A major strength of the 1776 commission is how it highlights the good times in American history, as they can be lost in all the bad things. This is good because it reminds us, as Americans, to appreciate the progress our country has made and all of the positive landmarks we have reached. The commission does this through its heavy emphasis on our equality landmarks and our democratic government. A major weakness of the 1776 commission is that it glosses over many important events and institutions that took place in the past because they are deemed very negative. This commission tends to focus a little too much on the good parts of history, while putting heavy emphasis on remembering the times of the events and how some things that are not acceptable now, were then. This is in regards to slavery. This article critiques slavery, but it also, as stated, puts heavy emphasis on remembering the time and how slavery was acceptable.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project is that the information is correct but taken out of context and specific parts are omitted. Lucas Morel states that Hannah-Jones is lacking sources and citing in her criticism of history. He also states that when she has specific information, it is taken out of context and sometimes has parts missing. He uses an example of when she talks about African Americans being the true founders. He says that she does not include specific leaders and principles of government, only black Americans. Lucas Morel believes that she is lacking in specific, citable sources. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission is that the creation of the commission does not include a single American historian and has no real significance. John Fea states in his critique, that not a single American historian worked on the 1776 commission and it shows. He also states that the document has no real significance because its main supporter was leaving office very soon after it was published. Due to the lack of historians working on this commission, it can appear, at times, as an uneducated document that glosses over important parts of history. John Fea references the importance of Native Americans in our history. The commission refers to Native Americans as untamed savages who need to be controlled by the American people.
3. We can balance these documents by taking all of the good (as in reliable, accurate, and well-written), credible, and important parts of both documents and combining them. The 1619 project focuses on the presence of racism and problems resulting from slavery, as well as the importance of slavery. This topic should be taught in American history because it is important to learn about these difficult topics to have a well-rounded education. Another topic from the 1619 project that should be touched on in American history is the significance of black American culture in America. This is another important topic that I feel other students would benefit from if they were taught. A topic from the 1776 commission that should be a part of American history is their positive attitude towards American history. Sometimes history can be depressing and rough because of all of the negative parts. It is important to see the positive things in American history, the positive movements towards equality, changes, and beliefs. If these parts of the documents were combined, it would create a much more balanced document. There are definitely some things that need to be taken out of the documents such as the false and out of context information, but if we did these things, the documents would be much more balanced and sound less biased (or two sided).
The overwhelming strength of the 1619 Project was the way in which author Nikole Hannah-Jones brings to light a second side to the history that many of us learned as one-sided. In school, we only really ever learned about the white man’s point of view. With the 1619 project, many are given the rest of the full truth that they’d never been taught. For example, in elementary school we only learned that colonies declared independence from Britain because they wanted to establish a new system of democracy and representation. The 1619 Project addressed the common half-truth and made the clarification that a major reason for declaring independence was to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies. The 1619 Project also effectively unpacked how deeply entrenched slavery and racism is and has been in American politics, economics, culture, and society. Overall, the 1619 Project does a great job of debunking the myth of American perfectionism, the kind of ideals preached in the 1776 Commission. The Commission, clearly deeply flawed, has only one virtue I can think of. Throughout the Commission, America is depicted as a nation of strength and hope. Although this way of thinking is pretty incorrect regarding America’s past, it sends a strong message of faith in a brighter future for the country.
I think the harshest critique of the 1619 Project was the second one in the Google Doc, the one published by Lucas Morel of the National Association of Scholars entitled “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy.” Morel questions the legitimacy of Hannah-Jones’s evidence and tries to refute a few of her claims, including the one in which she states that protecting slavery was a major reason for declaring independence. To me, it feels like this piece was written by a white conservative acting defensive of the way America is (rightly) portrayed in the Project. One of the harsher critiques of the 1776 Commission, broken into parts, was written by John Fea of The Current entitled “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report?” Like many other critiques of the Commission, including people in class, this article knocks down the report’s misguided optimism regarding America and its history. It’s one thing to believe in a bright future for country, but it’s another thing entirely to believe that America is, and always has been, flawless.
I think the 1619 Project is an excellent tool in the classroom, especially when discussing critical race theory. As I said before, it challenges many people’s previous thinking towards our country and its history, and gives readers the full truth of U.S. history instead of just the white perspective. The 1776 Commission, however, doesn’t have a single redeemable quality. Not a single historian in the field of U.S. history was involved in its writing. The report was commissioned by a delusional, ignorant, and racist ex-president who believed that systemic racism is, and I quote, “a twisted web of lies,” and that teaching about it in schools would be a form of child abuse. One way it could be useful in classrooms would be the way we used it in class- to compare and contrast against the 1619 Project.
#1. The strength of the 1619 document was that it included a lot of Black history. Hannah-Jones did a great job of enforcing the fact that Black people in America are worth much more than being in bondage. She had a section about music influences, which led to popular styles of today like hip-hop and rap. She also taught the reader that Black culture in America is different from both white American culture and Black African culture. That was a key point because some people assume that all Black people come from Africa and have a personal tie there, which is not always the case. I felt the weakest part of the 1619 project was the sentiment shared by Hannah-Jones that the founding fathers wanted to reinforce slavery every chance they got. This was discredited by many people, including the “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy” critique. The 1619 would be wonderful to us in a classroom if some of those extreme white supremacy beliefs were removed and instead replaced by a more unbiased view supported by facts from both sides of the aisle.
The only strength of the 1776 document was the patriotism it shared. The people who wrote it have a clear love for America, as seen strongest in the introduction. “But no other nation before America ever dared state those truths as the formal basis for its politics, and none has strived harder, or done more, to achieve them,” (1-2). It is important to teach people to love their country and support it, but the rest of the piece went down from here. I think the greatest weakness is not in the fallacies that the piece was full of (see the answer to #3). The hardest part for me was the writing style. These authors were all politicians and academics, unlike Hannah-Jones who is a journalist. The 1776 piece strung together long, wordy sentences that your average reader would have trouble understanding. Not only were many of their facts fake or twisted version of the truth, readers didn’t understand the words anyways. I think this piece was poor at best, and its only redeeming quality is its patriotic sentiments.
#2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project was from “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy,” National Association of Scholars, Lucas Morel. I thought this was the harshest because it attacked one of the main arguments of the project, which was that Black people were the true founding fathers and slavery was protected by things like the Constitution. They claimed that Hannah-Jones left out key information that would make people in history look less racist. A specific example that they used was Hannah-Jones focused on the government making “laws and customs” to ensure the longevity of slavery. In reality, Massachusetts had abolished slavery and other states placed limits on slavery. This was the harshest criticism because the author was able to point out places where Hannah-Jones left out information that would have made her argument weaker.
The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission was all of the work from John Fea, but more specifically part 1 of “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report?” This document saw right through the commission and what it was trying to achieve. They discredited the “historic” parts of the piece because it was released two days before Trump left office, so they knew that it would not be shared very much or publicised well. Based on the sentiments shared in the commission, Fea predicted correctly that the Biden administration would take down the commission once they reach office. Fea also pointed out the fact that the commission was not written by any historians so it should not be considered “scholarly.” Overall, Fea had the most harsh criticism because of the condescending language he used to describe the piece.
#3. Although I do not entirely agree with either document, they should not be completely written off. There are definitely redeeming sections of the 1619 project. I think that kids should learn about people like Isaac Woodard, who served for their country and were still discriminated against. However, I think the better takeaway from the 1619 project is the fact that Black people in America mean so much more than slavery. Students should study the impact that Black people had on music and other art forms. Black people created styles like blues and motown, which were later “whitewashed” so the Black parts were hidden. Black people have been oppressed throughout the history of America, but they have also had achievements that were highlighted in the 1619 project.
On the other hand, the 1776 commission as it exists today is not something that I think belongs in a classroom. As stated earlier, it was not written by people who were qualified to publish it. There were many fallacies in the text, like their ideas about identity politics. “Meanwhile, other activists constructed artificial groupings to further divide Americans by race, creating new categories like ‘Asian American’ and ‘Hispanic’ to teach Americans to think of themselves in terms of group identities and to rouse various groups into politically cohesive bodies,” (31). The authors of this piece believe that race-based labels are artificial and identity politics created this as another way to divide people, which is completely false. Terms like hispanic define one’s heritage or race, not their political beliefs. The only possible take-away from this document that should be shown is the pride that these people have for their country. The introduction is heavy in this, with statements like, “an exemplary nation, one that protects the safety and promotes the happiness of its people, as an example to be admired and emulated by nations of the world that wish to steer their government toward greater liberty and justice,” (1). Besides the patriotism and pride for America, nothing from the 1776 commission should ever be in a classroom.
What are the major strengths and weaknesses of both documents? Give specific examples for each strength and weakness.
The 1776 commission has few strengths and a large list of weaknesses. To be honest, as we spoke in class we know that Ella Limbaugh was very strong about commission, was boring, and is too pro-America and I would have to agree. The 1776 commission is what I say a snooze, although it was interesting how they viewed America. To the point that I would hypothesize they are an open Donald Trump supporter. They avoid “hard topics” and are open about how much they love America. They Are “optimistic” you could say and that is the only somewhat plus to this article. 10/10 would not recommend. I believe the biggest strength of the 1619 project is that it is overwhelmingly honest on how society treats Black Americans before and after slavery. They do not shy away from talking about these topics at all. The 1619 project shows how racism is still present today even over 100 years of slavery being abolished. The 1619 project explains how life was after slavery, how it was difficult to get jobs for African Americans, and how Jim Crow laws allowed open discrimination. The biggest weakness of the 1619 project is implying the slavery is in our DNA. As we spoke about this topic in class I highly disagree with this statement from the 1619 project. Slavery is not “in our DNA” racism is not in our DNA. Racism was taught and so was slavery it was an easy way to get free labor and abuse African Americans. You could give a two-year-old 2 dolls, one being dark-skinned and one being white. They will not put one higher than the other unless they were taught by racist parents to discriminate against Black Americans.
Which criticism was the harshest for both projects? (See this Google doc w/ excerpts). Be specific.
The hardest criticism of the 1619 project would be how it is almost dishonest when it comes to historical context. They almost over exaggerate at some times, like her use of the declaration of independence. They use this document to portray to the reader that it was used to keep slavery and to not protect the American citizens at all. The first criticism of the 1776 commission is that it was incorrect boring and overly pro-American. They push a patriotic agenda that Donald Trump agreed with (If that isn’t a red flag I don’t know what is). Also because of the 45th president leaving office, the text has lost its meaning to the people. Making it is almost close to a useless article.
How do we balance these documents? In essence, what is something positive that can be taken from each document to support an American history curriculum? Be specific. Or is finding a balance impossible – meaning there’s nothing redeemable about one or the other or both? If so, explain why with specifics.
I would suggest that we balance the documents as we did in pro-American our Apush classroom. We live in the Birmingham school district, most of us being very privileged and accepting. And this makes the 1619 project higher insignificance, it is packed with information about slavery and racism today which should be taught to people who believe “racism isn’t a real thing” or “slavery was so long ago just forget about it”. It stresses the importance of slavery and how it has changed society forever. And how we still see racism in our everyday lives. Whereas the 1776 commission shows less importance in my opinion. It is boring and at some times historically inaccurate. And instead stresses the pro-American agenda on how “America is the best of all time”. I believe both pieces are important, if I had to vote on what would be taught in school it would be the 1619 commission because of ow it stresses the importance of black culture and how slavery has changed our society forever.
Both projects have serious, and some fundamental inaccuracies which reduce America’s history down too, but some points are stronger than others. The 1776 Commission is a political analysis of our history, one that places the axiom preached in the American Declaration of Independence the foundation as the foundation of the analysis, everything addressed in the Commission is about it or relating to it, and it claims that the ills of our country come from a rejection of it, slavery, fascism, communism, progressivism, and now identity politics and current left-wing movements. A true and accurate education that is targeted at making a patriotic populous is the supposed goal. The most egregious fundamental wrong that is at the center of the Commission isn’t just about historical accuracy, it’s how it presents it and how it’s proclamation as representing American history, while it ignores American history in favor of praising our founding fathers and their ideals, however noble they may be. American history is the history of the United States, whatever the founding fathers say or not and whether the actions that happened in the United States go against their ideals has no bearing on the fact that what happened in our history is American history and should be treated as such. Slavery is apart of American history just like defeating the Nazi’s is, American history isn’t about the founding fathers, it’s about American history but the authors of the Commission seem intent on acknowledging our historical evils in passing because it was against our founding principles as if that doesn’t make it history. History class isn’t about debating how good the founding fathers’ ideas were, it’s about history. There is no strong point that stands out among all of the commission, all of the things it gets right are things that were never being debated to begin with.
The 1619 project is more historically inaccurate than the commission, does not make it better as noted above the commission’s main crimes were not in being historically accurate or not, the commission makes more mistakes about describing political terms than historical. The 1619 project’s strongest point is easily bringing more focus to the struggle that minorities have faced throughout our country’s history, its largest mistake is how it diagnoses racism and injustice as in our DNA, as long as America exists so to does racism, it often ignores evidence to the otherwise and often leaves large unsubstantiated claims which it later builds off of to support this sentiment.
John Fea’s critique of the 1776 commission in “The Current” is the most harsh, he exemplifies well how the document ignores much of our history and evils as something that should be ignored because it was against our Founding Fathers visions and cites numerous historical inaccuracies it presents like its implication that the Native Americans were insignificant. Lucas Morel’s critique in “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy”, is the best one, it attacks how it doesn’t provide a good backing for its most fundamental claims and often blatantly false ones such as how it fails to adequately back up that the Founding Fathers seceded to prevent the emancipation of slaves or how they say that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and it reinforced slavery.
The 1619 Project and the1776 Commission both heavily entrench their historical analysis in revisionism and often in unhistorical or incomplete statements, they each take their own route in reducing their analysis of American history to a single relationship or truth. What is there that these bring to the table that is currently missing in the current curriculum if anything. The 1776 Commission’s goal is making a more patriotic populace, I don’t find this inherently wrong, but if your goal is historical accuracy it’s not worth much to the school system. The 1619 project reduces issues and events to race too much, but there is something to be said about focusing on minority history more as it’s something that has often been overlooked in many curriculums and classrooms. But it’s fundamental claims that it focuses are for the most part inaccurate and should not be bought to the classroom
1) The 1619 project is a thought provoking attempt by the paper to rethink and redefine what American History really means and how its legacy should be both discussed and taught. Never has a rethinking of our history been so relevant as to how we as Americans exist in our current lives. What this current project asked its readers to do was to reevaluate US history based on the arrival of the first slaves to America in 1619. What if 1619 was actually the founding date? Perhaps one of the biggest strengths of the 1619 project is that it does not marginailze slavery and subsequent rascim in america. It illustrates the numerous ways that black Americans shaped what we call America today; economically, socially and culturally. The project gives a viewpoint from those who were denied the opportunity for liberty and equality. On the other hand, the 1619 project received backlash from some of the foremost scholars on the american revolution and civil war. One historian claimed that the NYT project presented an unbalanced, one sided account, that left most of history out. It was also criticized for lacking scholarly support. Whether one 100% agrees with the entire report or not, it cannot be disregarded or dismissed, especially in the light of this past year: Police brutality, social inequity, economic inequality and insidious racism, all of which made us as a country take a long hard look at ourselves.while the 1619 project’s objective was to rethink history and the role of black america, the roll of 1776 commission was an executive order signed by then president trump to promote patriotic education for students as well as a celebration of what our founding fathers signed, the US constitution. It can be argued that the 1776 commission believes that the strength of our democracy resides in the constitution and the fact that it is the bedrock of american democracy. It is what our founding fathers intended and it has survived for over two plus centuries. While the push was to teach this “patriot curriculum” in schools it is a little weird that the federal government was telling the states what to do. Doesn’t this violate separation of powers? To me this would be a weakness of the 1776 objective in assuming that history should only be taught from the stance of our forefathers. With that said both of these projects highlight relevant and challenging ways in which to compare and contrast history.
2)While thought provoking, the 1619 project was met with harsh criticism. Four scholars wrote to the NYT and said, “ we applaud all efforts to address the foundational centrality of slavery and racism to our history,” However, the letter refers to, “ matters of verifiable facts that cannot be described as interpretation or ‘ framing’ “” and the project reflected “ a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” (the Atlantic) what the criticism is saying is that the 1619 project needed a big fact check. Subsequently, the NYT had to make changes and edit some of the material. Perhaps the largest criticism for Trump’s 1776 commission was that it included no professional historians but rather was composed of conservative activists and politicians. It has also been said that the commission was an attack on liberal thought and activism and it was Trump’s larger response to civil unrest as well as his appeal to conservatives for his re-election.
3)As with any topic or subject it is important to present both sides of the argument. The 1619 project allows us to look at history through different lenses. It makes us ask ourselves was Ameirca founded on slavery and is rcaism today the outgrowth of something so imeded in our history? Or are we a country founded on the principles in liberty as the 1767 commission espouses? These are not easy questions to answer. History is infused with both pro slavery and anti slavery sentiments. The South’s economy and social and cultural idenity was predicated on slavery. But to take the 1776 commisions literal interpretation seems to marginalize the role of slavery. This is the very thing that the 1619 commission wanted to bring to the forefront. What is evident from both the 1619 project and the 1776 commission is that one cannot be discussed without reference to the other.
1. A major strength in the 1619 project is the acknowledgment of the important roles black people have played and continue to play in American history. It acknowledges how our country was basically built off of the hard work of enslaved people in 1619, they were the ones who got America going in a way. I think this is focused on a lot in the 1619 project solely based on the fact that they named the project after the date that the first enslaved people were brought to America. One weakness of the 1619 project is that it views America in a very negative light, focusing a lot on the awful things that happened in our history. To some, viewing America like this could be seen as unpatriotic because we are only focusing on the “bad” parts of history and not the “good” ones. A major strength in the 1776 commission is the idea of having profound love for the country despite things that have happened in the past. They acknowledge but kind of shrug off slavery almost like we ar ejust supposed to forget it even happened. By viewing our history in only a positive way, we are teaching future generations to love our country for what it is and the way it is despite awful things that our leaders and citizens have deployed in the past. That leads into the weakness of the 1776 commission. By only viewing the positive parts of history, we forget to acknowledge all of the terrible things that happened that led us into becoming the country that we are. It is important to know the successes and flaws of our history so that we don’t let history repeat itself.
2. The critique that is most prevalent for the 1619 project is that it lacks specificity, and important evidence to back up historical claims. For example when the author mentioned the constitution being intentionally written to protect the institution of slavery by the framers and the founding fathers, and accusing them of doing such a thing on purpose. Where could they have gotten such “accurate” information? There is no way to tell what the framers of the constitution intended when they were writing up the constitution. There isn’t solid evidence to back this up, it just shines a negative light on the founding fathers. The biggest criticism of the 1776 commission is that it is trying to control the way history is taught so that kids can only learn about the better things that have happened in our Nation’s history. By teaching history in an only positive view we skip many important contributions enslaved people had in the making of our country. Slavery would eventually lead to the civil war, which would led to the on going fight for equal rights, something minorities in America are still fighting for today.
3. I think the balance between these two documents would be finding a way to teach history how it is, all details included, but also teaching patriotic views at the same time. Allowing kids to form opinions for themselves is important, and the way history is taught to them is very influential in the way they view the country. Being able to learn about both perspectives of both articles would allow children to learn about the importance of not forgetting our past, but also loving our nation at the same time.
1.One of the major strengths of The 1619 Project is that it shows the way African Americans contributed to the United States. By naming the article The 1619 project Nikole Hannah-Jones shows just how important African Americans were from the beginning of the colonies. Generation after generation of African Americans have been overlooked in this country since its founding but nevertheless they have served an important role. The author states “ it is we who have been the perfecters of this democracy… we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals”. One of the major weaknesses of The 1619 Project is its negative view on the United States. The author states “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country”. This statement would make it seem that the United States is destined to stay this way because DNA is not something you can alter. One major strength of The 1776 Commission Report is its positive perspective of the founding of the United States. It strives to show the United States of America as a nation that other countries in the world admire and aspire to be like. A country that protects and promotes the happiness of the citizens. As stated in the report, “as Abraham Lincoln said, “not for one people or one time, but for all people for all time.” One of the major weaknesses of The 1776 Commission Report is its focus on all the positive aspects. It skips over slavery’s impact on the United States and equates it to something that was acceptable and something that was not just isolated to the United States. The report explains that even though the founding fathers were slaveholders, they “founded their nation on the proposition that “all men are created equal.”
2.The harshest criticism of The 1619 Project is that it is not completely factual. Many historians disagree with some aspects of the Hannah-Jones article, namely her statement that The United States was founded to protect slavery. The harshest criticism of The 1776 Commission Report is that it is not historic or scholarly. John Fea says the document is meaningless because it will not be implemented in any way because Trump’s Administration left office. He also argues that there was not one American historian in the team that wrote The 1776 commission report.
3.I think if you take the positive aspects of both documents it would create a good balanced school curriculum. The information in The 1619 Project regarding African Americans contributions to the founding of the United States and The 1776 Commission’s positive focus on American history would create a balanced curriculum. Both these documents on their own have some inaccuracies or they leave out important aspects.
1. One strength of the 1619 Project is that it focuses on all of the achievements of African Americans. For example, the Project talks about how the Civil Rights Movement inspired many other movements such as the women’s rights movement, gay rights movement, and the immigrant and disability rights movements. The Project credits African Americans for all the hard work they did. It basically said that without the Civil Rights Movement and other similar movements led by African Americans that we wouldn’t be where we are today. One weakness of the 1619 Project is that it claims that because America was founded on slavery that racism is in our DNA basically saying that we can’t change that because you can’t alter DNA. The Project is saying that there is no room for change and that racism will be in our country forever no matter what we do to try and fix it. One strength of the 1776 Commission is how it focuses on all the good in our past that sometimes gets lost in history. It reminds Americans to not be ashamed of our past, but to be proud to be an American. A major weakness of the 1776 Commission is that it skips over a lot of the “bad” things about America’s history that ultimately shaped it into what it is today. An example would be slavery. The Commission mentions slavery, but only as a “positive good” and how it was acceptable at the time. It does not talk about how terrible slavery was.
2. I think that the harshest criticism of the 1619 Project is that some information and quotes were taken out of context and if you put the information/quote in context, it didn’t make much sense or make a strong argument for the 1619 Project. Lucas Morel thinks that Hannah-Jones is lacking specific and citable information in the Project. He claims that in some parts of her writing, details of historical events were left out and quotes and other information were taken out of context. I think that the harshest criticism of the 1776 Commission is that it is not scholarly or historic. In his critique, John Fea says that because not a single American Historian was involved in the writing of the Commission, it is not scholarly. He also states that the Commission is not historic because soon after the Commission was published, Trump left office and the Commission would not be implemented in any way.
3. We can balance these documents out by combining them together and taking the good things out of each. The 1619 project focuses on all the great achievements made by African Americans and how without them, America wouldn’t be what it is today. The 1619 Project also mentions the importance of black culture and slavery in shaping America. The 1776 Commission focuses on the good in American history and teaches kids to be proud and not ashamed of the history of the United States. When these two projects are combined, it will give students a very good understanding of what American history truly is.
1- Both the 1619 and the 1776 projects had many notable defects. Neither of the reports were written by historians, which is noticible, because of the heavy bias, cherry-picking and the lack of counterarguments that could give more context to the overall story.
I enjoyed reading the 1619 project because it focused a lot of the impact of Black history on America, something that needs to be taught more often and more in depth. Most of the American history taught, is the white history of America, but there is so much more diverse racial culture that is the base of our society and that needs to be taught. I also thought the topics the 1619 project chose to write about were very entertaining and relatable, which made me realize how much Black history affects my own personal life. However, the report claims “Black history is the backbone of our country”, while I do not disagree, I don’t completely agree either. I think that they arent giving credit where credit is due, a lot of great history was made from, not only black and white Americans; but also Hispanic, Native Americans, Asains and many other races. I think that the project was mostly putting black history on a pedastal and bringing down white history. I loved the celebration of black culture, but it would’ve been great to see more positivity towards white people and some mentions of other races.
I had more trouble enjoying the 1776 project. This project felt like reading a thirty year old history book, the report was mostly about how great America is, and while I do think America is a great country; this report heavily downplayed so many horrific historic events that it invalidated all the good parts. There was barely any mention of slavery or any other genocides, which made it seem very inaccurate. This report was a lot more biased than the 1619 project because it took the side of the opressor, contrary to the other report which took the side of the opressed. However, I the fact that this article celebrated America as a whole in a more positive light was nice.
2- I think the harshest critique for the 1619 project was the “1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not,”. This critique talks a lot about the inaccuracies of the report and the lack of historians in the writing of the paper and not enough about what the report was really trying to emphasise; the impact of Black history on our society. I don’t think that they did the report justice because it is such a great report, with some inaccuracies, yes, but I don’t think that taking the weakest point and just debating that makes it an accurate critique. The harshest critique for the 1776 project was “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report? Part 1”, because, although I agree with it, it did the same thing the previous critique did, it took the weakest point and just debated that. I think it would’ve been good to see a counter argument in both critiques to give more broad and contextualized opinion.
3- I think that neither of these documents are apt to teach in the APUSH curriculum. Neither of them are written by real historians and they do not add to the value of our APUSH teaching and class. I do think reading these reports after the test for context can be somewhat beneficial, or maybe for extra credit or even for fun; and if we do read them, we must read them both to give more context because of the lack thereof, in the reports individually. But these reports should not affect our learning because they are just not accurate.
1. A weakness of both the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission is that they both included quotes that lacked historical context. For example, the 1619 project includes quotes from President Abraham Lincoln to support her overall argument that anti-black racism runs in the DNA of the country. However, some of the quotes are out of context. The 1619 is also very pessimistic about the U.S. While Hannah-Jones does make some valid points about America in her article, the views that she has are very negative and shine a bad light on America and its founders. In the 1776 Commission, there are also out of context quotes. For example, it included an out of context MLK quote that wasn’t very effective in supporting the claim. A strength of the 1619 is that it provides a different perspective of the American experience. Many people are unaware of the challenges that Black Americans face on a regular basis, and the 1619 Project shows the struggles that many people in America still face today. A strength of the 1776 Commission is that it has a very optimistic view of America. While it only really scratches the surface of the deeply rooted racism in America, it does give examples of ways that America can make itself better.
2. John Fea’s What Should We Make of Trumps’ 1776 Commission Report? was the harshest criticism of the 1776 Commission. It criticizes the content as well as the authors of the report. For example, Fea writes, “The report is not ‘historic’ or ‘scholarly.’ It is not historic because the document is meaningless.” Lucas Morel’s America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy was the harshest criticism of the 1619 Project. Morel claims that Hannah-Jones did a poor job of interpreting the Constitution and that her claim that black Americans were the true American founders was false.
3. We can balance these two documents by not taking either one as the complete truth over the other. Too many people are choosing to completely believe everything that one or the other document says, which I believe is one of the root causes of the extreme polarization in America in regards to racial issues. Both documents contain positive aspects that I believe can be used to support an American history curriculum. In the 1619 Project, the perspective of Black Americans is something that should be used in an American history curriculum because it gives another side to historical events that are important to read about. In the 1776 Commission, it actually gives an outline of what American history curriculums should include. I think that the optimistic views of this document should also be included, but to an extent. We should make sure to move forward in our country’s progress without forgetting the past so that history isn’t repeated. Finding a balance is not impossible.
There are definitely some great strengths and weaknesses in these two papers. In the 1619 project, one important advantage that I noticed was how the work included many real-world, first person stories. For example, the 1619 project included a section about African American music; the author, Wesley Morris, references his life as an African American man. He wrote about his relationship with Black music during his lifetime as well as music from the past in order to strengthen his argument. Another African American writer in the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, also writes about her past and her dealings with racism, to support her argument that racist ideals are sewn deeply into American history. A disadvantage to this work is that it seemed to bring America down. The articles within the project all bashed America and highlighted how the sickening institution of slavery was one of the most important parts in our history, something which many Americans may be ashamed of. As for the 1776 commission, one advantage that I have is in conjunction with the 1619 project’s disadvantage: America’s image. The commission glorified America and praised it’s founders. Shining light onto only the best parts of our history. In my view, this would please American readers, as their country was being put on a pedestal and all of America’s great achievements were on display. One disadvantage was the lack of dynamic writing. The content of the 1776 commission wasn’t compelling. It simply told the story of America’s history in a monotone mood, as opposed to the 1619 project, filled with enthralling articles by powerhouse writers. The 1776 Commission didn’t have any sort of lasting impact on me.
The harshest criticism for the 1619 project was “America wasn’t founded on white supremacy” by Lucas Morel. This piece of literature attacked the flaws in Hannah-Jones’ argument on all facets. He uses her own language against her, and he explicitly highlights parts of the US’s history where steps away from slavery were taken, like how Massachusets abolished slavery in the 1780s. He uses other details like these to poke holes into Hannah-Jones’ piece. The greatest criticism of the 1776 Commission is “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission, part 1”, by John Fea. This short piece used simple straightforward language to bash the 1776 Commission, like “It is not “historic” because the document is meaningless”. This message is very clear to any reader that the 1776 Commission isn’t a great work of writing. It presents all of the commission’s issues clearly and succinctly, and is very effective at proving that the 1776 Commission’s content isn’t the best.
I believe that there are bits and pieces of both documents that could be used in a US history curriculum. In the 1619 Project, details about America’s history with slavery could be insightful. No matter how many people deny it, slavery was a big part of America’s past, and no US history curriculum would be complete without it. The 1619 Project could supply students with tons of factual evidence on slavery and racism in America from 1619 onward. As for the 1776 Commission, there are some details that would be useful as well. Although no historians worked on the commission, it provided a basic understanding of America’s founding, major events, and other historical tidbits, which could be used to supplement learning of US History. These two documents could be used together as supplementary material to other sources, as they could help to reinforce understanding of US history.
#1. Both documents, the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission, have their strengths and weaknesses. Starting with the 1619 Project, I think the biggest strength in the publication is the argument that the United States could not exist without the direct contributions by Black Americans. For example, Motown music became a major aspect of American society, along with jazz, funk and hip hop, and the sugar industry grew off the exploitation of Black enslaved people. However, one weakness that really stuck out to me, is the claim that the founding fathers did not believe in the idea that “all men are created equal.” I don’t know how to provide specifics for this point, but it just doesn’t make sense to me how our founding fathers, who shared the goal of creating a more perfect union, would promote something they didn’t truly believe in. On top of that, the claim itself seemed very out of the blue, failed to consider the historical context, and was poorly supported. When reviewing the 1776 Commission, one strength I noticed is its defense of America- something familiar to the American people. In the 1619 Project, the idea of America actually being founded by slaves in 1619 is new, and not previously accepted. Therefore, the message supporting what Americans have already come to understand, that America was born in 1776, isn’t startling or new to the readers, which prevents them from being skeptical, which further strengthens the piece itself. Lastly, the weakness that I found to be the most prominent was the lack of contribution from a genuine historian, into a historical document. Once again, I don’t know how I can point out specifics, but the fact that it was written by politicians, and other individuals of Donald Trump’s administration, makes the document less reliable, further weakening the piece. It feels more like a forced defense of America, and it could have felt more genuine with a variety of historians working on it.
#2. For the 1619 Project, the criticism by Lucas Morel, from the National Association of Scholars, was the most harsh. Throughout his critique, Morel points out that Hannah-Jones’ claims were weakly supported, inconsistent, and are not necessarily taken into consideration under the appropriate historical context.. For the 1776 Commission, I am confident in saying that the most harsh critique was made by John Fea, from The Current. Throughout each of the 4 parts of his response, Fea hammers into the 1776 Commission declaring it meaningless, and even points out the fact that not one American historian worked on it.
#3. I have thought a lot about this question, and I truly think that we can find a middle ground between the two documents, to then paint a more complex picture of American history. From the 1619 Project, it is important for Americans to remember that slavery played a major role in the growth and development of the United States. On top of that, the effects of slavery are still seen today through racial inequalities stemming from slavery, and the popularity of jazz, hip hop, and motwon, amongst many other lasting effects. In short, the 1619 Project reminds us of the severity and reality of slavery in the development of the United States. Personally, I don’t think 1619 was the year our country was founded. I wholeheartedly believe and undertsnad that we were built off of slavery, but America became America in 1776- that is just my opinion. That being said, from the 1776 Commission, we can take and understand that our country became a true country with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. From both of these documents and publications, we are given the middle ground understanding that our nation was formed in 1776, and continued to develop through slavery- the effects of which are still seen today.
1. Both of these pieces show obvious flaws in the eyes of an unbiased reader. Firstly, the 1619 project is written with an extremely negative view in regards to American History. This project views the country as a primarily bad place during its history, and focuses on the awful things such as slavery. However, it’s obvious flaw is that it fails to address the positive side of American History. While there are many issues with our country’s past that should be covered in a curriculum, the positive aspects of American History should be covered as well. Secondly, the 1776 Commission’s flaw is that it fails to correctly address the negative aspects of American History. The Commission has a point of view that is too positive in regards to all aspects of American History. It needs to correctly address the negative aspects of our history instead of lightly brushing over issues like slavery. Ultimately, both projects have a biased viewpoint that doesn’t accurately describe our history.
2. For the 1619 Project, I think the harshest criticism came from Lucas Morel. He criticizes Hannah-Jones by saying that she didn’t tell the whole story of America. For example, Morel points out that she failed to recognize that Massachusetts abolished slavery when slaves sued for their freedom on the basis of the state Constitution. He also points out that Hannah-Jones doesn’t mention the fact that the word slavery isn’t written in the Constitution. This was intended by Jefferson and other Founding Fathers because they believed that slavery would eventually be abolished. For the 1776 Commision, the harshest criticism came from the AHA. In their writing, the AHA points out that the 1776 Commision is an inaccurate representation of history. The AHA backs this up by including the fact that the 1776 Commision erased entire groups of the human race, including enslaved people, women, etc. Another criticism from the AHA is that the 1776 Commision doesn’t mention the Confederate States of America when it talks about the threats to the ideals of America. Overall, the harshest criticisms both include that the other side kept important details out of their reports.
3. I think that both of these documents have very valuable aspects, but a balance must be found for the projects to be useful. The 1619 project does a good job on pointing out the bad parts of history, including slavery, which is brushed over in the 1776 Commision. However, the 1619 Project is not a good thing to create an American History curriculum from by itself. In my opinion, it is too negative when telling the tale of American History. However, I don’t think the 1776 Commision would be a good foundation for a curriculum on its own as well. It sheds a light on American History that is too positive because it fails to properly describe the negative aspects of our history. Both of these projects are not accurate by themselves, but a balance of the two could create a great educational curriculum for future students.
1. One major strength that the 1619 Project has on the 1776 Commission is the fact that they included many stories or informational excerpts throughout the project as a sort of background for what they are talking about, one great example of this is the article Chained Migration: How Slavery Made Its Way West. I especially liked this one because I feel that it is the most similar to something you would read in a sidebar in a textbook where they might give an overview of a specific topic, in this case how slavery made its way west from the cotton trade. This was just a piece of unbiased facts which the 1776 Commission didn’t really have since much of it was based on the academics perspective of the topic. I can see how one major weakness of the 1619 Project is when they said that, “Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written.” I do think that this could have been worded differently because this line seems almost too pessimistic and many may think, and do think, that this is attempting to make the reader have a sense of hate for the US. On the other hand we have the 1776 Commission, which I think one major strength of this is the point that education is what is needed to promote patriotism for the US into American children, which they say, “This great project of national renewal depends upon true education… From families and schools to popular culture and public policy, we must teach our founding principles and the character necessary to live out those principles.” While I may not believe that what they want to teach to children is correct, I do believe that the idea of education being the most important way to learn about American ideals and our history as a country. I think that the commission’s biggest weakness is that it seems to be influenced by the author’s views much more so than the 1619 Project. One example of this is when he attacked the post-Civil War Progressives saying that, “They rejected the self-evident truth of the Declaration that all men are created equal and are endowed equally, either by nature or by God, with unchanging rights.”
2. I believe that the harshest criticism of the 1619 Project can be found in the article titled America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy, this article, despite its actual credibility, was the most harsh because it called the project out for its message being inaccurate, they say, “she omits the fact that between 1781 and 1783, Massachusetts abolished slavery when slaves sued for their freedom on the basis of the state’s own constitution.” As if this 2 year time period is a key part in African American history that can take down the project’s whole claim. The main reason this was the harshest is because it was clearly written by far right-wing scholars who clearly wrote this article solely because they disagreed with the project’s overall stance. The harshest criticism of the 1776 Project I believe is seen in the article titled, What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report? I see this as the harshest criticism because of what it attacks about the 1776 Commission, rather than attacking the lack of context, bias, among other flaws, it targets the commission’s purpose, and credibility thereof. It states, “But I imagine that there will be many on the right who will appeal to this document to advance a conservative political agenda…” attacking the fact that this document was not made to inform, it was made to appeal to an already established group of Americans, and points out that not a single historian was included in the team that wrote it.
3. I do believe that there is balance between the two pieces. From the 1619 Project we can take the bad things of America such as critical race theory and mix it with the patriotic stance on the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and the press. The bad of our history we must include in order to not repeat any past mistakes, and the good we must learn in order to understand our country and the ideals that we must forever stand for.
1.I feel as if one of the strongest traits of the 1619 article is the expression of African American importance in America. Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote the 1619 articles, maybe it was due to the color of her skin, but the articles emphasized how influential African Americans were and even continuously are in America. When we first began reading the journal, one of the first things we analyzed was the title “1619 Project”. In 1619, the first African slaves were brought to English colonies on an English ship. 1619 represents a turning point, and enormous bookmark in American history. The articles focus on the early years of enslavement in America. Since almost anyone who has learned anything about slavery, the year 1619 is one to never be forgotten or looked over. The 1619 project talks about religion and Christianity specifically. The article advocates for Chirstianity and the support of Christ. I just feel as if the article makes a lot of Christian references to God and Christ, promoting Christianity; “The former master of cotton is no orator, but the Colonel is where power and freedom are forging God’s naked sword” (Pinckney 59). The article feels a little biased in the category of religion and faith. Another weakness that we discussed in class was the topic of ignorance and assumption in a sense. The idea that racism is “in our DNA as Americans”. I feel as if racism is not in everyone’s DNA, rather it is something you are taught to think, feel, and or believe is right. To say that Racism is in our DNA as Americans is extremely presumptive in my opinion. One strength in the 1776 Commission is the straight middle point of view. I think they did a really great job on keeping an optimistic and open mind set on the history of the United States and the government. The commission tends to focus more on the good doing and positive impact left on America. Though this is a strength in the commission, it can also be portrayed as a weakness as well. In class we talked about how “oblivious” readers might assume America was the perfect united place, when really they are overlooking the bad. The article slightly romanticizes America into a form of perfection which isn’t good for audiences who may be oblivious to American history and the horrors AND accomplishments of the US.
2. I personally feel like the most harsh criticism (1619 project) was from Lucas Morel. Morel claims that “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy” and actually doubts Jones’ facts. He claims her information was unreliable and misinterpreted. Morel makes a couple claims calling out Jones and invalidating her proof and evidence on American history. One of the most bold being; “the Declaration of Independence marks not the beginning of a new era in human civilization, but only the continuation of white supremacy’s oppressive march on American soil” (Morel). Morel expresses how the declaration did nothing for America, but the enslaved Africans who came in 1619 did. If i had to take a guess, i would say Morel is a white supremacist man who thinks that America was portrayed poorly in the articles. I think that the harshest criticism of the 1776 commission was by John Fea. Fea continuously calls the commission useless and non educational. “It is not “scholarly” because the team who created it does not include a single American historian” (Fea). Once again, a white male is invalidating the qualifications of an historical American article. I feel as if in any criticism, when one person is questioning another’s qualification or authority, it may be the hardest, most brutal criticism.
3. I think both documents provide a lot of new perspective and point of views that you may not have seen or appreciated before. It opens your eyes to new ideals and scenarios in American history. The way we read the documents (in a scattered sense) was very beneficial. While the articles were mixed up, it helped to eliminate some of the assumption aspects and more exploration in a way. It’s very important that in learning American history you fully understand the full raw story. All the good and bad, every perspective even if you don’t agree, and every opinion. The whole point of learning American history is to avoid repetition and learn from past mistakes, and how can we do that with one closed small perspective. Both documents TOGETHER do a wonderful job of balancing out the positive with the negative, i do not think the articles would be as beneficial separately. Both publications focus on different aspects of American society, which I think is why the two articles work so fondly together.
1.) First of all, it is worth noting that both the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission articles could easily be considered radical, opposing, and controversial views filled with multiple flaws. Although they both make some strong points, there were also many weaknesses to their arguments. The 1619 Project, for starters, had strength in pointing out the negatives of American history and how they influence today’s society, especially for African Americans. According to the article, the belief during early America “that black people were not merely enslaved but were a slave race, became the root of the endemic racism that we still cannot purge from this nation to this day.” However, the main weakness that could be considered in the 1619 project might be the political argument. According to Marxist theoretician David North, “the establishment of a racialist narrative is extremely dangerous” and a potential threat to education. The article was also very negative towards American accomplishments in the past. These weaknesses, in my opinion, are not as crucial as that of the 1776 Commission article. The Commission, on the other hand, which opposed the 1619 Project, believed that schools should “aim to teach students about the true principles and history of their country— a history that is ‘accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling.’” The article’s strengths focused on ideas towards American exceptionalism rather than criticism. However, there were also many weaknesses. One of the weaker arguments, in my opinion, was the criticism of the Progressive Movement. The commission claimed that the Progressive Movement kickstarted the decline in modern education, despite the fact that the movement was very beneficial in implementing a traditional set of values for classrooms. Also, the argument that schools shouldn’t focus on the bad things when teaching children is another poor argument. In fact, it is equally important to teach the bad side of history as the good, because both impact knowledge of the past as well as our strength in overcoming issues in the future.
2.) I think that one of the harshest criticisms for the 1619 Project was the effect of slavery on capitalism. Although there are definite pieces of evidence for this, many historians thought it was too extreme to blame today’s issues in our capitalist society directly on slavery. One historian said, “The 1619 Project is not history: it is polemic, born in the imaginations of those whose primary target is capitalism itself and who hope to tarnish capitalism by associating it with slavery.” This criticism is also extreme in my opinion.
The harshest criticism of the 1776 Commission, to me, was the lack of professionals working on it. The main criticism was the fact that there were no historians that worked on the document, unlike the 1619 Project. One historian said, “it is not ‘historic’ because the document is meaningless” and “it is not ‘scholarly’ because the team who created it does not include a single American historian.” In my view, both of these criticisms are much more valid.
3.) I think it is important to find balance between the two arguments. School should be a place where students learn the full story and the fundamentals of history. This means that they don’t necessarily have to teach just one side of this controversy. For example, it might be best for students to understand that slavery does play a role in today’s world and has for hundreds of years, but that doesn’t mean that they have to hate America and everything about it in the modern world. Schools must teach the country that we were founded not just on freedom, but on the influence of enslaved people as well.
1. I believe that one strength of the 1619 project was the fact that it gave credit to African Americans for playing such an important and major role in American history. Most of the information we learn about African Americans in history class is given from a white person’s perspective so some of the accomplishments made by Black people are often overlooked. This project does a great job of showing an alternate perspective. For example, in the 1619 project, Nikole Hannah-Jones says “Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written. Black Americans fought to make them true”. One weakness of the project, though, was the occasional lack of historical accuracy. In some spots, you can see that the writers may have exaggerated some events and ideas which caused a decrease in the information’s accuracy. On the other hand, a strength of the 1776 commission was that it sheds light on both the positive and negative things in American history, unlike the overly critical 1619 project. This is important because focusing on only the negative aspects could be misleading. Though this was a good thing, it can be said that the 1776 commission took the positive focus a little too far and managed to leave out some crucial events in history just because they were too negative. The commission would have been much better if there was a good balance between positive and negative information.
2. An excerpt from an article by Adam Serwer states that one of the harshest criticisms of the 1619 project was its pessimism. An example of this is when Hannah-Jones said that racism against black people is in the American country’s DNA. Serwer found this harsh because she had made it sound like anti-black racism was irreversible and unfixable. Alternatively, a harsh criticism of the 1776 project was that it “erases whole swaths of the American population”. As previously mentioned, critics of this commission pointed out that super major events like the Confederate States of America weren’t even mentioned.
3. I feel like as long as both documents are included side-by-side in the American history curriculum, it’s definitely possible to provide a good balance between the two. Teaching and analyzing them back-to-back makes it easy to compare and contrast the two documents and also point out the strengths and weaknesses of both. I also believe that acknowledging the exaggerations of the 1619 project and 1776 commission is crucial to having a good balance. For example, teaching about Hannah-Jones’s DNA overstatement in the 1619 project and the absence of the mention of the Confederacy in the 1776 commission are very important to know because it helps to prevent students from forming a biased opinion.
1) The largest strength of the 1619 Project was how author Nikole Hannah-Jones rewrites what many people have learned in a new perspective. The 1619 Project aptly addressed how deeply slavery and racism is and has been in American politics, economics, culture, and society. The idea of American perfectionism was broken down in this document in a precise way.
In the United States education system, many simply learn from the white man’s eyes. We are taught just his perspective, how he viewed slavery, only looked at documents white people had written. Written in the 1619 project, people are exposed to a new truth, from a different point of view they had not learned previously. One example is how elementary kids are taught about the Colonies declaring freedom from the British. These kids are taught that the Colonies wanted freedom because taxes are high and unfair as the main reason. The 1619 Project article lookedinto that common half-truth that has been told, and broke down that the main reason for declaring independence from Britain was to protect the system and profits of slavery in the Americas.
Overall, the 1619 Project addresses how the idea of American perfectionism came to be, the very same ideals written about in the 1776 Commission. The Commission, clearly deeply saturated with wrong notions, has only one good point to think of. Throughout the Commission, the United States is shown as a nation of liberty, strength, and hope. While it borders on extreme patriotism, the Commission tells a story of a strong nation. Although the thinking and reasoning is flawed on the 1776 commission, especially regarding the Nation’s history, it tells a story of strength and patriotism in the nation
2) One of the more negative reviews of the 1776 Commission, torn down into sections, was written by John Fea of The Current entitled “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report?” Like many other flaws of the Commission, including people in class, this article breaks down the report’s positive extreme patriotist in regards to America and its history. It may be one thing to think America Is a good country and be thankful for living in it, but it is another thing to dismiss the country’s bloody history and believe America is the poster child of a good and fair country. In regards to the 1619 Project, the second document held the harshest criticism. The document was called “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy.”, published by Lucas Morel of the National Association of Scholars. The author refutes the claims made in the article, by questioning the legitimacy of Hannah-Jones’s citations. In a way, it seems this criticism was most concerned with why America split away, not because of slavery, as the 1619 Project said.
3) I think finding a balance is hard with the two documents. Both should be taught, explained, and researched. Reading the critiques of the documents especially correlates with political parties, so every student will be swayed according to which they align with. At the end of the day, both should be presented by a teacher, as a one sided story is never the whole truth, but both pieces should be examined by students and teachers to see if the content is true and honest with its material, and why both articles were presented how they were. Neither should be taught as the hard truth, but instead as pieces of history. (Because let’s be real, in the 1776 Commission Report, Trump was dead wrong when he said systemic racism was “a twisted web of lies,”, but students should learn why he was wrong and why Trump may have said that.)
1. A major strength of the 1619 project is its criticism of how American history is taught and how the 1619 project brings to light aspects of history that are overlooked. A great example of this is portrayed in Nicole Hannah-Jones’ opinion on the “founding fathers”, and Declaration of independence. Nicole Hannah-Jones gives the claim that “The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie”. The ideal being that “All men are created equal”, and the rights of humans to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The lie then being the fact that the Founding Fathers, who came up with these words, failed to give black Americans those rights. This then contradicts the thought that the “Founding Fathers” brought freedom to America. Nicole Hannah-Jones then voices her thought that black Americans deserve credit for making the ideals of the Declaration of Independence a reality, because they overcame the resistance and never gave up on the American creed. A weakness of the 1619 project is the criticism that anti-black racism runs in the DNA of America. This is a weakness because it makes it seem that America will always be racist, and if this is taught it is going to backfire on efforts fighting for equality. A strength of the 1776 commission is that it reminds us of human nature and how to apply it to a democracy. By teaching people about equality, liberty, self knowledge, and philosophy we will be preparing them to improve and continue democracy, or more specifically American democracy. A weakness or flaw that I noticed in the 1776 commission is that they attacked the american education system for “engineering” students to fit the industrial economy. The 1776 commission thought this was taking away from free thought and learning about life. Although it is not a bad thing to be prepared for our future.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 projects was that it was pessimistic/ focusing too much on the bad aspects of history. An example of criticism sparked by the pessimism in the article, that “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country”, comes from James Oak when he states, “The function of those tropes is to deny change over time … The worst thing about it is that it leads to political paralysis. It’s always been here. There’s nothing we can do to get out of it. If it’s the DNA, there’s nothing you can do. What do you do? Alter your DNA?” Here James is criticizing Nicole Hannah-Jones for the figurative use of “DNA”. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission is that it is historic or scholarly. It is not thought of as historic because it will not see the light of day as the person who could make it a part of history curriculum, Donald Trump, is out of office. Also it is not considered scholarly because no one who contributed to the making of the 1776 commission is an American historian.
3. Although the 1619 project and the 1776 commission take two drastically different approaches to american history, I think that a combination of the two is possible and would be positive toward teaching American history. From the 1619 project I would include the strong criticism like “The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie”, the more perspectives that are taught the deeper the understanding the people will have. Also to give more credit to black Americans for all that they contributed to this country, for example I read about the influence black americans had on music in america, it was very interesting and something I had never learned before. From the 1776 commission I would take the approach of individuality, discussing your thoughts with others, and studying more primary sources. By including this in the curriculum you would better prepare students to stand up for what they believe and become an active participant in a democracy.
1. Some of the major strengths of the 1619 project is how it is able to provide a comprehensive outlook of the failures of our nation throughout its history. It references the affect that slavery has had on many aspects of American societies, and the far reaching consequences of racist beliefs in our government. The article does a great job in providing a new viewpoint and opinion on American history that has not been widely promoted in public education. On the flip side of this however, the project is based on many opinions, instead of facts. For example, the article claims that the revolutionary war was actually fought over slavery, when that is not factually supported. One of the strengths of the 1776 commision is how it teaches the bright side of America. It showcases the ideals this country was founded on, and the lessons our founders taught us. What the commission fails to do however, is touch on any shortcomings in America’s past. This can be dangerous when a nation does not know its past, as they will not know not to repeat its mistakes.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission was American Historical Association Condemns the 1776 Report, AHA, January 2021. This criticism argues that the commission is indoctrination of students, and that it was written hastily and without caution. The criticism dives into some specifics of the 1776 commission, and condemns the content taught in it, such as the comparison of progressive reformers and facist leaders. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project was “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy,” National Association of Scholars, Lucas Morel. This brings up outside historical evidence that refutes the claims made in the project such as the claim that early Americans created a network of laws to perpetuate and uphold slavery. The criticism even calls the projects view of history “warped”
3. The best ways to balance these documents are to try and omit the bad parts of each document, and instead use the helpful and informational parts. This would mean omitting the controversial opinions and claims stated in the 1619 project, and only using it to view America through a different lens and to learn about the failures of America. From the 1776 project, the curriculum would include the many successes of our country, along with the lessons that our founding fathers taught us. It is always important to examine a topic from many perspectives, and the new curriculum would most definitely achieve that.
A major strength in the 1619 project was that it showed appreciation for black people and their roles in history, as well as their importance. Most history tends to just accolate the whites and their men, but in this project it actually acknowledged black people and their contributions to this growing country. Although they seem to finally show some love for black people it’s still not the greatness. In 1619 black people were brought here to be slaves and get nothing out of it. One weakness in the 1619 project was that it didn’t make America seem like such a great country after all. Even though earlier I talked about how they finally gave some recognition to the black people, this project saw this gap in races as systemic. They believed that we couldn’t get rid of racism because it’s been engraved into our heads. A major strength in the 1776 Commission Report is how positive it is. America during this time has had a lot of bad history, so it’s good that in this report it pushes all of the negativity circling around this country to the side and focuses on the positive advancements we’ve made. A major weakness in the 1776 Commission Report is how one sided it is. Although it’s good that they’re mentioning the positive things within the country, it’s sort of misleading. For example, when it comes to slavery it crtques it a lot but still talks about how slavery is acceptable, which is bad. Slavery should never be acceptable ever wherever or whenever.
The biggest harshest in the 1619 project was the condeceiving facts throughout the project. The facts that were in this project were true, but a lot of them were taken out of context where the whole meaning changes drastically. Also, a lot of key information was left out. An example of this is when it says, “The strangest thing about this essay is the claim that transplanted African and their descendants were the key to American greatness.” This is condiciving because later on they can’t name any African Americans who contributed to greatness. They only mention the Founding Fathers. The biggest harshest in the 1776 Commission Report was that it simplified our history in a very basic way. It also mentions many false facts. It saw America as a country of strength and hope, which was obviously wrong as we were battling through slavery.
If we were to balance these documents I believe that it’ll be a very good document with a good mix of positives and negatives. Like it mentions in the 1619 project about the black people excellences matched with the positivity from the 1776 Commission Report would be great. These 2 combinations would be perfect because it shows that this country started from people who weren’t even free. All these things later on mentioned in the 1776 Report wouldn’t have been feasible if it weren’t from the black slaves in 1619.
Groves Blog #137
1. There are both strengths and weaknesses within both the 1619 project and the 1776 commission. For example, a strength of the 1619 project is that it is sincere and isn’t afraid to be blunt. They don’t gloss over hard topics such as racism and/or slavery. A specific example of this can be seen through the citations of how the effects of slavery are still present in today’s time. Most of the time, this topic is overlooked because people get uncomfortable when talking about this. Guilt from white people is shown a lot when talking about this, or ignorance is seen. Because of the institution of slavery and its presence in society well after its ending, black Americans, for the most part, had a challenging time making a name for themselves. Another strength of the 1619 project is that it highlights the influence of black culture. This is something that isn’t done a lot of the time for various reasons. A place of weakness in the 1619 project is when it says, “slavery is in America’s DNA.” This can be seen as a weakness because the mentioning of DNA implies that this statement can never be rid of. This view can be viewed as too harsh, which can qualify as a weakness of this project. An example of strength in the 1776 commission is that it does a good job of highlighting the good within American history. This is a strength because it reminds the good people that came with all of the bad. Without crediting the good that came from our history, America would always be in a state of gloom. The 1776 commission does a good job of emphasizing our equality landmarks and democratic government. A weakness of the 1776 commission can be seen concerning slavery. For example, the document glosses over the topic of slavery because it was negative. While critiquing slavery, they mainly argue the fact that it was acceptable at that time. This is a weakness because it sounds like an excuse rather than a valid argument. I don’t think topics such as slavery should be looked over because they are negative; I think they should be embraced.
2. There were many harsh critics towards the 1619 project and the 1776 commission. For example, the harshest critic of the 1619 project is Lucas Morel. He argues that the 1619 project takes things out of context and omits specific parts. Although he says the information in the project is correct, it can be relayed wrong. Morel states that Hannah-Jones, the author of the project, lacks citations in her critiques of American history. Specifically, this critique is seen when Jones argues that black people were the true founding fathers of America. Morel says that Jones does not include specific leaders and principles of government, only black Americans. He believes that she lacks specific, citable sources. The harshest critic of the 1776 commission was John Fea. He stated that American historians didn’t work on the article, and it shows. He also argues that the commission has no real significance because its main supporter left office soon after publishing. Due to the lack of historians, the commission can be looked at as an uneducated, unreliable source that glosses over American history. Fea also talks about the misrepresentation of Native Americans. While he sees Native Americans as important beings in the history of our growing nation, the commission refers to them as unhinged savages. Both document critics aren’t wrong in their opinions, and it’s important to remember that.
3. To find a balance in these documents, you have to take the good from each document and then sprinkle in some of the bad. This way, critics will still be able to help improve the overall goodness of the pieces, and you will still get the sometimes harsh opinions. To specifically do this, you would have to take both views on slavery. From the 1619 project, you would take the idea that slavery is in America’s DNA, yet combine that with the 1776 commissions excuse of the time period. This way, both students and critics of the documents will find something to talk about. The balancing of these documents will lead to conversation, which is the overall goal of these pieces. Both pros and cons will have to be taken from these documents to support the American History curriculum. It is a way of finding a middle ground, as well as people who have opposing opinions.
1) The 1619 project’s strengths were its detail to history. The project detailed the beginnings and development of America, and related and proved how slavery was a common denominator. The project helped the reader realize how the nation had been shaped by African-Americans throughout history. Another strength was the amount of data and evidence to show the disadvantage African-Americans have on every level. I thought a weakness of this project was sometimes the rhetoric was too harsh and too bold. New and exposing topics, like ones addressed in the 1619 project, usually face harsh backlash by many people. The 1619 project has and will likely deter many people and create sharp opposition. While “ripping the band aid off” was needed to highlight the experiences that had been covered for so long, I do believe that it also hindered the ability for the project to reach a greater audience. More defiance and rejection will come, which will hurt the overall goal of the project, which is to share the message.
The 1776 project’s strengths are its messages of national pride and unity. Throughout history we have learned that the nation comes together over national pride. The project does a good job of sparking those beliefs among the reader. Many people don’t want/like to dislike their country and develop bad emotions towards it, even if those beliefs are justified. So, the 1776 project does a good job of rebutting the 1619 project’s claims, and reassuring people that the country is great and prosperous for all. A weakness of the 1776 project is that it relies too heavily on the 1619 project. Instead of its own beliefs and rhetoric, the project serves as an “anti 1619 project”. The 1619 project had its own message backed with evidence. The 1776 project stands as a message that “the 1619 project is wrong”. The whole project is based on the rejection of the 1619 project’s evidence, “this is wrong because” “this can’t be true because”, and so on.
2) The harshest criticism of the 1619 project is that Hannah-Jones, in her writing of the project, hand-picked certain arguments, and did not tell the full truthful story. Lucas Morel details how Hannah-Jones has bold claims, and used strong rhetoric like “‘Jefferson’s fellow white colonists’ for establishing ‘a network of laws and customs’ in order to perpetuate slavery”, but she never told the full story. Hannah-Jones left out facts about American colonies trying to prohibit importation of slaves into their respective colonies, only to be blocked by Great Britain. Morel brings the harshest criticism with the claims that Hannah-Jones emitted evidence to bolster her own personal argument.
The harshest criticism of the 1776 project is that the document serves no real backed purpose. It was publicized by Donald Trump right before leaving office. No real countrywide implementation can be expected for the document. Also, the document was not even created with a single American historian. John Fea claims the article was used to push forward a political agenda, and to bolster popularity among the right base. Fea’s argument is the harshest of them all, it questions the documents legitimacy and overall purpose.
3) We can take both the documents and merge them into an honest historical piece on American history, while still bolstering national pride and unity. Hidden facts and realizations are included in the 1619 project which need to be heard on a larger scale. But the document has a tendency to take things to the extreme, where there is a threat of national disunity. Whereas the 1776 project bolsters unity under the central idea of American greatness, but also tends to skip over the areas of needed harsh perspectives. With a unison of those strengths we can create a curriculum with both documents. Not a curriculum that is supported by one political party or another, but one where students learn the good and the bad of their country. With the knowledge gained from the combination, we can create a better united country from past wrongdoings.
1: What are the major strengths and weaknesses of both documents? Give specific examples for each strength and weakness.
One major strength of the 1619 Project is that it helps shed light on all that African Americans have done throughout history. The main way that history is taught is through the eyes and development of white people. With the 1619 project, we get to see historical views through the lens of African Americans. This is beneficial because the way the history curriculum is often taught leads to highlighting more inventions, creation, etc. by white people. However, within the 1619 Project, the author (Nikole Hannah-Jones) strays away from this concept and talks about more African American contributions, inventions, and creations, One major weakness of the 1619 Project is the way it portrays certain information, such as the founding fathers, who are depicted as racists. Another weakness of the 1619 Project is the way it looks at racism. For instance, the 1619 Project describes racism as the route of everything wrong with America, and even goes as far as to say “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”
One major strength of the 1776 Commission’s Report is the positive perspective on America. The main argument that the 1776 Commission’s Report argues is that even though America has done some of these bad things in the past, they still are one of the first big examples of what a free country should look like. One major weakness of the 1776 Commission’s Report is that it focuses mainly on the positive things within American history, and skips over and doesn’t address some of the more “negative” historical truths, such as slavery.
2: Which criticism was the harshest for both projects? (See this Google doc w/ excerpts). Be specific.
The harshest criticism for the 1619 Project was that some claims within the Project were not historically accurate. Leslie M. Harris claims that she tried to fact check the Project, and “The Times Ignored Me.” This, along with some inaccurate information, is a very common harsh criticism for the 1619 Project. This is important because these inaccurate accounts of historical events can compromise the integrity of this Project, leading it to seem like the author of the project preferred her opinions over direct facts. The harshest criticism for the 1776 Commission Report is that the report is not “historic” or “scholarly,” as not a single historian helped to write the Report and also because the report will not be implemented in any way.
3: How do we balance these documents? In essence, what is something positive that can be taken from each document to support an American history curriculum? Be specific. Or is finding a balance impossible – meaning there’s nothing redeemable about one or the other or both? If so, explain why with specifics.
We can balance these documents by taking a little bit of good from both and combining them. Positives that can be taken from the 1619 Project are the way it includes and describes the ways that African Americans helped build America. We can pair this with the 1776 Commission Report because the main issue of that Report is that it skips over the “dark” times in American history, like slavery. Finding a good balance of both Reports would be hard though, because they seemingly counteract each other, and the points made also go against the opposing articles, but I feel as though a perfect balance could be achieved.
1. One of the strengths with the 1619 project is that the authors tried and did a very good job not to censor anything. The authors did not try to hide anything, they just went out and said it. You could say that the authors were pessimistic. You really do not see this very much because a lot of the articles are written by white males. The problem with this is white males today don’t like to be called a racist and some don’t like to take responsibility for what happened a long time ago. One example of not censoring is in one of the stories a man got shot because, some of the white men were jealous of how good a life he was living. An article writer could easily cut this out because it would look bad for the white race, but they left it in. I think this is a strength because it gives us the harsh truth about a lot of different points, and because of this non censoring, we the readers can experience or at least compare the true horrors of what it would be like to have different color skin. But these things can also be a weakness, it’s almost too pessimistic. I think an article should be filled with both the good and bad, this is because as a reader and as a man who did not live in this time period, I can almost witness or experience these events. But you should add in a little bit of good stuff too. This would not hurt the credibility of the article.
One strength for the 1776 commission is that it talks a lot about the positives during that time period. One example would be, when the article talks about slavery, it talks about the key to freedom in the declaration of independence. But this can also be a weakness because it does not go into detail that even if the key to freedom was in the declaration of independence, that black American’s were denied this for almost a century after that.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project is that it is overly pessimistic to the point where it distorts the view of the time period, and also distorts the accuracy of the evidence. This is coming from a white male but, in some parts I felt the authors were overexaggerating a bit to prove their point.
One of the harshest criticisms of the 1776 commission is that it is too simple. The article has to go into depth on some of its claims that they make. This is because the author skips or does not want to tell you the bad things that happened, and this distorts the historical accuracy of the article.
3. I would think the only way to balance the documents is to take the overly pessimistic parts from the 1619 project and the overly simplistic parts from the 1776 commission, and combine the opposites of the article. I think this would filter out most of the bias between the two articles and ultimately fix it. Both of these articles bring stuff to the table to support the American history curriculum. One article is overly pessimistic and one is overly simplistic. This fits the American history curriculum well because you first of all get to study the bias in articles. But this also goes over a crucial time in American history that should be learned.
1. The major strength of the 1619 Project is also its major weakness. Hannah-Jones’ powerful focus on race as the force for democracy’s evolution in America leaves the reader with a strong impression and a call for change. However, her view draws conclusions on evidence that may be incomplete. For example, the argument that the Declaration of Independence was primarily created to protect the colonists’ ability to enslave is challenged by many historians.
The major strength of the 1776 Commission Report is its reminder that America’s founding principles were extraordinary and unique for the era, but not perfect. Again, not unlike the 1619 Project, the 1776 Report is lacking in being fully aware of all the facts. In the case of the 1776 Commission Report, its failure to address the relationship between the wealth of the South and slavery lessens its value as a resource.
2. I found the criticism of the 1619 Project included in Adam Serwer’s “The Fight Over the 1619 Project is Not About the Facts,” to be the harshest critique. The author argues that a hopeless negativity in the essay leaves the reader to linger with the unsolvable nature of racist DNA. Also, by focusing on race, the essay ignores the influence of wealth, power and politics on the formation of our democracy. The evolution of democracy is influenced by many factors of varying degrees over the years, not just race.
The criticism for the 1776 Commission Report is well documented in “What Should We Make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report.” The commission report’s selective exclusion of race from American history, skipping over the Reconstruction, makes its arguments lack value and remind us of the inequities argued in the 1619 Project. According to the critic, the Report forgave the founding fathers’ use of slaves too quickly while at the same time rewarding them for saying all men are created equal. Also, I think, because the 1776 Commission Report is tied to the Trump Administration, the document was simply doomed.
3. The 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission Report are not incompatible. Both essays present viewpoints that support an understanding of America’s past, present and ideal future. A positive in both documents is the belief that our core principle, all men are created equal, is a living idea that requires constant interpretation. Also, it could be argued that both documents believe America is a truly unique society that allows this debate to flourish and allows itself to grow because of the lessons it learns. In this important sense, these documents represent opportunities for students of U.S. history to sharpen their understanding of our country and contribute to its continued growth.
In the 1776 commission and the 1619 project there were many strengths and weaknesses. In the 1619 project, the strength is that it shows America’s darker sides in it’s past in order to make people see that this country was built with racism and America needs to find a way to rebuild without the racism. This project makes people see how America was started and how terribly black people and people of color were treated at this time. For example, one of the articles in the 1619 project was about medical treatments and how there were false claims about black peoples health. They said that black people had a higher pain tolerance, weaker lungs, and other things. Some of the people in the medical field today still believe this. In the 1776 commission, the strength is that it addresses problems in America by talking about how we handled them and made America better. For example, when talking about slavery and racism, the writers talk about how America has the problem and they need to fight for the improvements. With slavery, they talk about how they did face the problem and fought against it. The weakness in this report was when the writers got caught up in their own ideals and it was brought into the paper. For example, when talking about communism and how we dealt with it as America, they brought in right at the end of the section that America had won the cold war because the Soviet Union was based on a lie. They state this as a fact and not an opinion which makes it not very credible in certain parts. The 1619 project also had a weakness which was attacking other historical figures or ideas that did not need to be attacked or brought up in the project. They brought up Abraham Lincoln and took a quote of context from him that made people believe he said that black Americans need to go back to the country their ancestors were brought from even though they did not have any connections with it anymore which is taken from a conversation that Lincoln was having with someone else. They do not give the correct context for this quote and leave out very important parts.
The harshest criticism for the 1619 project, I believe, is the view that it is pessimistic. To believe that document talking about the way America was built and how racism played a main role in building it is pessimistic is looking over the fact that this project is not supposed to be an optimistic look at America. Looking at America through the lens of the 1619 project should give someone a realistic view of America and show others the parts where racism was built along with the country that needs to be rebuilt without racism in its bones. The harshest criticism for the 1776 commission is that no historians were used when writing this historical document. The people that were part of the 1776 commission wrote about America and some key points in America’s history without historians to find relative evidence to support their claims. They also had no historians to tell them that a fact they stated was inaccurate. This caused the report to be filled with inaccurate facts and it tore down at this report very fast.
I believe that we can balance the documents. If we take the idea that the 1776 document had about learning about how America had handled certain problems in the past and build in how we solved these problems while still holding on to racism so it is also built it to America, then we can discover a better curriculum where we do not leave out the fact that America’s foundations are not the best and as a country we need to fix the deeply rooted problems to fix all the smaller ones. The 1619 project is important because it points out all the places where America has been affected by the racism the country was built on. To teach about how America has solved problems in the past and if it either went well or went bad means that we can decide how we want to solve problems in the present and future. It is important to not dismiss every improvement America has made, but it is also important to include the mistakes America has let slide and the poor decisions made in the past so we do not let those things happen again. We can then find a way to fix these while using the 1776 document and the 1619 document.
1.The major strength of the 1619 documents is the fact that it talks about how racism is a part of America’s DNA. The systemic racism that we still see today in every aspect of society was ingrained into the justice system when America first became a country. Also, it highlights the contributions that African American put toward building this country. This is why there were debates over whether African Americans should be called the founding fathers of America since the first slaves were brought here in 1619. A weakness of the 1619 project is that it views the equal state of this country as permanent. It makes it seem like it is very unlikely that things will ever change or improve. A strength of the 1776 report is that it called for unity of America and it focused on highlighting the virtues that this country was founded on. A weakness of this report is that it ignores America’s dark racial past by always going back to the fact that America overcame all obstacles by reverting back to its virtues. It makes everything that happened in history seem like it was not a big deal because it wants citizens to only hear good things about their country in order to increase patriotism.
2. The harshest criticism of the 1619 project was “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy,” by National Association of Scholars, Lucas Morel. This except focused on trying to prove that America was not founded on White Supremacy. He stated that the founding fathers wanted to ban the slave trade in 1770, but King George the 3rd veto the bill. He also said that James Madison, “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” Also that the word slavery was kept out of the Constitution because they envisioned a day when slavery would no longer exist on American soil.” This places the founding fathers in a positive light in regards to slavery and tries to make it seem like they were against it even though many of them had their own plantations. The harshest criticism of the 1776 report was the American Historical Association Condemns the 1776 Report. This excerpt says that the 1776 report viewed the founding fathers as god-like men who” crafted documents that asserted “universal and eternal principles of justice and political legitimacy.” It also talks about how Black people, Indigenious people, and women were ignored in these documents and how that carried over in society. It basically explains how the 1776 report sugarcoats history and only focuses on the good, which is why for so many years, the history of these groups of people has been ignored or stolen.
3.We can balance these documents by acknowledging America’ dark past and still talking about the virtues that America was founded on. The fact that the 1619 project acknowledges the contributions that Black people made toward the country and acknowledges America’s racist past is very important so that the injustices repeat and so that we can continue to actively fight for equality. The 1776 project focuses on the founding principles of America so that its audience will be proud of America. This is viewing America’s history through a filtered lens and it waters down all the injustices that happened in this country. With the 1619 project, it is important to acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made in America. We can be patriotic, but we have to have the knowledge that America was not perfect, and it is still not perfect.
Strengths & Weaknesses:
Obviously, both documents are flawed, in fact neither of the reports were written by historians – which is noticeable – there’s heavy bias and neither documents present a counter argument which would help bring in further pieces of evidence. One of the main strengths in which the 1619 project holds is the writing technique and how author Nikole Hannah-Jones draws in readers with this writing. Jones is not only “[aiming] to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative”, but is also telling a story that gives us a second side to a very one sided American viewpoint on how this country was built. Some may argue that Hannah-Jones’ writing is a heavy liberal or far left view, but the issue which is being spoken about shouldn’t be able to swing one way. Slavery and the contributions of Black Americans to the United States isnt an easy conversation, and it shouldnt be, but the 1619 project is strong in it’s portrayal of how slavery and Black Americans built America. Though my opinion lies mainly sided with the 1619 Project over the 1776 Commision, the 1619 Project is strong with it’s entire argument.
Of course the 1776 Commision is full of weaknesses over strengths, such as the main fact – and reason why I have no idea how this has even become such a big report because of the fact that – the team who created this document held NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN. Yeah. Such a shocker that Trump loved this “historic and scholarly document so much” – that was sarcasm in case you didn’t catch it. Anyways, although neither of these reports were written by historians, the 1776 Commision doesn’t really get at the same ideas as the 1619 Project. What I mean by this is that the 1619 Project actually talked about slavery and underapreciation of Black Americans and how they litteraly were the back bones of America. But the 1776 Commision is literally talking about how you need to be patriotic. I think that alone is a major weakness of the report because it really only gets at how “we as Americans need to restore these principles of patriotism”, these principles which are controversial and outdated – yes lets restore them while we’re at it. Of course I also find this report very weak because Trump is so heavily supportive of it, and yes I did actually read it so I can say that because of him it makes me dislike/find more flaws. But with weaknesses there is strength, as for the 1776 Commision that really isn’t the case. The only reason why one would side so in favor of such a boring, outdated, and “patriotic” way of thinking is because they don’t want to seem “anti-American”, and of course white Americans will put the 1776 Commision in favor over the 1619 Project – *because like I state in the criticism section below* – they won’t want to seem like white supremacists, possibly, otherwise they would choose such a document to place no criticism on so much because it’s bland and the safe choice.
Criticism:
I think the biggest criticism to the 1619 Project and even targeted towards Hannah-Jones alone would be Lucas Morel’s “America Wasn’t Founded on White Supremacy” writing. Already off the bat, the title is hitting at the 1619 project and arguing that it says America was founded on white supremacy, rather than what it’s writing actually said such as it was built on the backs of slaves. I think the word choice for that already draws a reader’s attention – especially white readers – and makes them think “oh well I’m not a white-supremacist so I shouldn’t support the 1619 Project” in a sense. The label that Morel portrays on the 1619 Project and it’s writing can change readers’ minds before they even read his narrative. Morel uses Hannah-Jones’ writing against her to attack her and the 1619 Project, such as noting moments in American histroy where steps taken to move away from slavery happened and uses these moments to bash at her writing even more. Morel’s writing is like an internet troll trying to get likes on his post. I honestly found it annoying the entire time I read it because he reminded me so much of the spam accounts you find in TikTok and Instagram comment sections. I think the way that he is criticising the Project as a whole as well as “calling out” Hannah-Jones is a bit aggressive and unprofessional for such an important discussion. The problem with that however, is it’s not only the harshest criticism but also problematic because of the fact that his writing is coming from the N.A.S which some might see as a trusted website to read off of.
As for the 1776 Commision, John Fea’s piece “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report?” is the harshest criticism. Fea directly states Trump’s words and counters them straight forward stating that, “[t]he report is not “historic” or “scholarly.” It is not “historic” because the document is meaningless. It will not be implemented in any way. Trump leaves office on Wednesday. It is not “scholarly” because the team who created it does not include a single American historian.” As for me, I agree completely with his words, and of course this comes full circle with the first question you asked, strengths vs. weaknesses, and John Fea directly gets at the weaknesses of the 1776 commission. I think the way he writes his piece is short and simple yet pulls you in like you’re having a one on one conversation, this keeps readers engaged. Fea bashes the former president as well as the 1776 Commision in a simple yet effective way and because of that it can be seen as one of the more harmful/harshest criticisms towards the 1776 commission.
Balance:
– 1619 Project: Teaches young Americans the possible “hidden truth” behind how America was built.
– 1776 Commision: Patriotism is needed.
Both documents are so close yet so far. Neither can conclude a complete American history curriculum. Both have bias, neither are written by historians, both include incorrect facts and out of context pieces of evidence, and although I bashed on the 1776 Commision – hard – I think neither can really pull together full and informative material for teaching an American history course. With that being said, I think both should continue to be taught. Let the kids create their own opinion on the pieces. I wouldn’t be so opinionated towards either side of the argument today if it weren’t for my knowledge of each report…and I probably would have no clue either reports even existed if I hadn’t been told about them in school. The 1619 Project gives us a side of the story which so many have tried to cover up, it gives us the hundreds of years worth of anti-Black racism which was truly built into the American people’s minds from day one. It gives so much including Black stories which white people would never have even heard or thought to be true without this report, as well as, the acknowledgement of how a racist society is still – sadly – thriving today. Although it has it’s defects and could use some fine tuning, as well as the fact that there should be more than one report about this topic and a continued string of reports bringing new things to light, the 1619 Project is overall a very important piece which students around the country should be learning about.
As for the 1776 Commision it is so aggravating to me that it was even written in the first place. There are so many inaccuracies as well as heavy bias and even heavy “patriotism” language used that it is hard to stand here and say it should be continued to be taught. It’s a very closed minded and old way of thinking and it gets no gold stars from me, but the only reason which I would consider this a necessary part of the curriculum is because of its central idea and how it shows students a “counter-argument” – and yes i put that in quotes because to me it’s not a very strong one – but a counter to the 1619 Project, which it is in direct response to. I think the idea in which the 1776 Commission sought out to report was a good one – national pride plus a less degrading and more positive view on American history over the 1619 Project’s view, that was all great but – the team who wrote this report seems to see these ideas as a way to erase America’s wrongs, and that’s where I find it hard to agree with it. They go into such detail and state so many memorable moments where America was amazing, yeah this country had some great moments, but the 1776 Commision fails to state the issues underlying these moments. Both documents swing a certain way, but with each central idea and knowledge presented from both sides, it’s safe to say that each document should continue to be taught in our American history curriculum. Students of this age need to start learning about both reports and not even that but the topics in which they present. By doing such they – we – are creating a more educated future, and in this future, these social issues are starting to be tackled and brought to light. So yes, I spent this past hour basically bashing the 1776 Commision, but I can say that it’s much more dicey than placing a good or bad label on both documents. Both of them bring forth much needed knowledge that is important for future generations to continue to be taught.
1. One strength of the 1619 project is that it highlights the history of African Americans in America and how they have made a significant part of our history. The 1619 project focuses more on the achievements and accolades of African Americans rather than White Americans which our history textbooks usually focus on, shown by the year 1619, which was the first year that slavery started in America. Nicole Hannah Jones mentions that Black Americans are the reason why America has lived up to its ideals with their ever-lasting fight for equality and social justice, stating in the article, “Without the idealistic , strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Amer icans , our democracy today would most likely look very different – it might not be a democracy at all.” This leads to what I believe are the negatives of the 1619 project which is that some of the points and views are very anti-American and radicalistc. She mentions that anti-black DNA runs through Americans blood along with regarding many of the achievements that America has made. While looking at the 1776 commission, a strength is that it goes through the achievements that the country has had as a whole. It mentions every country has had its struggles but America has grown to overcome these obstacles to become the country it has come to be. I think the negative about the 1776 commision is that it goes way too much into the positive parts of our history ignoring a lot of the struggles with slavery and harsh times in general.
2. The criticism most common of the 1619 project was that Jones was historically inaccurate, having exaggerated some of the events a little too much in order to get her point across. Lucas Morel went into some of her claims such as arguing against her claim that black people were the “true” founding fathers a long with arguing about her claim that Jefferson’s fellow white colonists were organized a network of laws entirely to perpetuate slavery. The biggest criticism towards the 1776 commision is that it rejected any recent attempts to getting a better understanding of slavery, as mentioned by the American Historical Association.
3. I think the first and most important thing to balance these two conflicting arguments is fact-check both. The success and achievements of America should be honored and recognized when looking at the history of our country. However, acknowledging and gaining a better understanding of slavery, a huge part of our history that I consider is taught as more of just a small part of history. The 1619 project hopefully did a good job giving others a better understanding of that and the 1776 commission was good for highlighting the highs of our history. Both can be a good thing if both can acknowledge the opposing arguments.
The 1619 project’s greatest argument is that a lot of America’s growth and success was built largely on the backs of black people. She says that rather than the white men we know as the founding fathers, black people are the true founding fathers of the country. The point that ever since the first African people were brought to the Americas in 1619, the US has relied on their enslavement to keep the economy growing. Their biggest profits like tobacco and cotton were results from chattel slavery and plantation owers relied on slavery to keep money in their pockets. These goods were sold and traded throughout history which helped the United States be able to stand on its own through hundreds of years. Black people have built some of the most important buildings in the country, like the white house, and the 1619 project also argues that black people forced the country to hold up its original ideals written in the constitution. The project argues that black people played a crucial role in shaping what and where the country is today and has a lot of strong evidence to back this statement. A weakness in the 1619 project is when the statement was made that the only reason the colonists fought for independence and the American Revolution was to protect slavery. Though slavery was a very large part of life at the time, many journalists and historians can harshley attack this claim because we know that there were other things happenining from Britain that angered colonists and made them push for independence as well. I guess one of the only strengths I can say the 1776 project had was expressing the very patriotic ideals the writers had towards the country. They talk a lot about teaching the future generations more about the good things in the country rather than the bad, because they claim people are being taught to hate the country. A weakness in the 1776 project is that arguin to only teach the positive parts of American history is excluding the many events that shaped the country. That is blindsiding future generations into only seeing the country through one lens rather than showing them the reality and allowing them to decide for themselves how they feel.
The harshest criticism for the 1619 project was that it made a lot of claims but cited little evidence. They said that Hannah-Jones cites no African principles of self-government or ideals of humanity when she quotes the famous pronouncements of the Declaration of Independence. She merely asserts that “black Americans, as much as those men cast in alabaster in the nation’s capital, are this nation’s true ‘founding fathers’”. The harshest criticism of the 1776 was that it was not historic nor was it scholarly. They argue that it wasn’t historic because the document was meaningless, and it wasn’t scholarly because there wasn’t a single historian in the team who created the documents. They also argue that there is false information in many of the claims made in the project.
I think these documents can be met in the middle. Though black people have experienced the worst in this country while still bringing significant value, it is also important to acknowledge other points in history that were also very important. Only focusing on black history could very easily make US history look very bad, which a lot of it was, but there were also other events and other people that also helped to shape the country and lead it in the right direction, so I think that mixing the two together would create a better curriculum. Though I still believe that many of the aspects of the 1776 project that downplay black history should be omitted.
One of the major strengths of the 1619 project is the inclusion of black folks and how they impacted the US. This project’s main goal was to reframe the country by placing the consequences of slavery and black American’s contribution at the top of our country’s narrative. For example, in the Article on Capitalism, Desmond states that slavery in America contributed to the development of the global financial industry. The cotton industry helped to create a worldwide market that brought together the old and new world. Desmond acknowledges that black folks contributed to America greatly even though sometimes it was through horrible things such as slavery. One weakness of this project, I believe, is the criticism of America. I do not believe America is the “best country” or above average. There are many flaws, but I think focusing on the negative aspects without having balance from the positive is unhealthy. You do not want citizens to hate their own country. Of course we have to learn history to not make the same mistakes as in the past, but we also need to learn about the good things in our country. I think a major strength of the 1776 commission was the focus on America’s accomplishments. The author believes that history should not make the student hate their country. As stated before, I agree with this to a degree. History should be to learn from mistakes, not be biased, and should not be propaganda. I think that there is a fine line between propaganda and history. You should have love for your country while still acknowledging its faults. To add to this, I believe that a weakness from this report is the author’s view and how they portray the country. I think it’s great that the author loves their country, but it gets to a point where it can be harmful. This is when they start to be biased or leave important information out. I can sense a bit of bias in Faith and America’s Principles. In the beginning of the excerpt, it talks about the separation of religion and government. Later they really only talk about Christianity and no other religions. Could this be because of an unknown bias? That is a possibility.
I believe that the harshest criticism for the 1619 project was definitely Lucas Morel’s article. He critiques the claim that transplanted Africans and their descendants were the key to American greatness and calls the project a “warped retelling”. He also says that this document black American’s principal means saving white Americans from their worst selves.Not only was the evidence he stated in this article very harsh with criticism, but just the way that he wrote. Some of the words he chose were a bit snarky and felt very rude. I think the harshest critic for the 1778 commission was John Fea’s article. He says that “The report is not ‘historic’ or ‘scholarly’”. He states that it is not historic because the document is meaningless, and says it is not scholarly because the team who created it does not include a single American historian. Fea is obviously not a fan of right wing politicians because he says that conservatives will like this document to advance their political agenda.
The 1619 project acknowledging black accomplishments in American history should 100% be taught in curriculum. It’s rare that we hear of many accomplishments made by African Americans, I know personally throughout my schooling up until this year I had mainly been taught white male accomplishments. I also think that identity politics should be taught because it describes how Americans are committed to the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence.
I think one of the strengths of the 1619 project is that it truly highlights all that African Americans have done for the country. The author talks about how slavery helped build up the United States such as the economy. Most people don’t know that slavery helped build up Wallstreet and the economy because of picking cotton. I think it is good that the article forces you to rethink everything you’ve learned about the start of this country. One criticism that I have is that while it can be very productive, it can also be a little harsh. She claimed that racism was in the DNA of this nation and the people. I can understand her frustrations is because sometimes it seems like racism is everywhere. It isn’t completely fair to say that. I feel like this country was built on racism, but I think things can get better with a lot of hard work and time. The 1776 project is very interesting. The project seems so one-sided. I feel like the author is one of those people who believes that the United States is one of the greatest countries in the world. They are very patriotic, and you can tell that they are proud of our country and its leaders. There isn’t much that I could say that is good about the 1776 project.
The harshest criticism for the 1619 project is that it is not specific enough, and does not have evidence to back it up. Lucas Morel claims that she only focuses on the bad aspects of slavery and the founding of our country. “But she omits the fact that between 1781 and 1783, Massachusetts abolished slavery when slaves sued for their freedom on the basis of the state’s own constitution. I think if you are writing a project on how you want to change such a big thing, you kind of have to take out some good things to prove your point. As for the 1776 project, you can read John Fea’s criticism. Fea tells us that the document is not really “scholarly”, because there isn’t a historian that was involved in the process of writing the project. He says the report isn’t historic or scholarly and I agree. We just ignored a lot of bad things that have happened.
I don’t really know how we can balance both documents fully. I think if we can teach what we usually teach, but add more history to it. I think we should start at 1619 and makes sure that we highlight what African Americans and enslaved people have done. For example, if we teach about the troops that fought in The Revolutionnary war, we should make sure that we highlight all of the people of color that served in the army. Overall, we need to change from mainly teaching “white washed” history, and focus on everyone from every race.
I think the biggest strength of the 1619 Project by Nicole Hannah Jones was the use of different perspectives. This means that the 1619 project used the perspective of African Americans as opposed to the common use of a white person’s perspective. There are countless examples of this. The first of those being how the 1619 project showed the effects of slavery after it happend, and even in current times. It also showed the importance of African American Culture throughout America, and the amount of impact it has had. The 1619 project was not perfect however, as there were definitely flaws that came with it. A weakness that it did have was the overly negative view about the United States. The United States of America is far from perfect, yes, but the 1619 project I feel was a bit too harsh. One key thing they said envoling that is that Slavery was the root of all of America. Although it had a role, there is much more to the backstory/Building of America that I feel should be recognized. The 1776 commission, in my opinion, suffered a lot more from its weaknesses compared to the 1619 project. The 1776 commission’s biggest weakness in my opinion was the fact that they stretched the truth in multiple ways, and even used propaganda to a degree. To start, they took lots of things out of context to make their points seem better, which is a huge red flag to me. Secondly, there was not enough facts in it for evidence, as there was no documents or anything inrfruitible. However the 1776 project was not all bad. A strength that it had was its use of the positivity of America’s past. I feel this is a strength as despite the horrible things in our past, it is valuable to know it was not all bad.
I think the “America wasn’t founded on white supremacy” from Lucas Morel was the harshest criticism, although there other criticisms that were harsh, none were as harsh as this. Morel claimed in this that the 1619 project was very flawed in a variety of ways. These ways include many things like the lack of using the constitution in the argument, weak points, and many more things. For the 1776 commission, it did not lack it’s fair share of criticisms either. I think the harshest criticism of those is John Feas “What should we make of Trump’s 1776 Commission, part 1.” Feas was very blunt about his points, as he claimed the article lacked historic evidence and it dumbed down American History
I think balancing the documents would take balancing the good and the bad of them, which would make the points of them a lot more effective and believable. I think if you used the positives of the documents to counter the negatives (1619 Project being overly critical while the 1776 commission being too simple.), they would work very well together in making a very good argument. It would make the clear bias of both arguments not noticeable.
1.
A major strength that the 1619 project has, is it’s focus on black history and its ability to shine a light on the role of African Americans in shaping American history. Throughout our education we have mainly focused on the history of America surrounded by white people and their accomplishments. When bringing minority groups into the question, it brings complicated conversations and topics that many are unwilling or unable to have into the classroom. This weakness of the education system is taken head on by the 1619 project in order to teach more black history. It tells of the beginning, expansion, and spreading of ideals and ideology of the country, through the contributions of African Americans. This can be seen in the title of the project, using the year that enslaved people were brought to America as the headline of the project. This evokes a power to the title as if it is the beginning of the story, which is the point the article tries to make. The glaring negative of the article is the view it takes on the country. Not to say it isn’t justified, but it is very cynical and negative. It tends to tell us about racism in our DNA or racism being in the life blood of our nation, which can be hurtful to some. Especially those who view the many Americans who died to end slavery as heroes who died because racism wasn’t in their DNA. The negative view that can take away from the 1619 project is the complete opposite of the idealistic and positive view of the 1776 commission. This is the commission’s greatest strength. It is able to bring pride to the reader and spin a positive light on American hardships. It talks about our American individuality and freedom being the first of any nation and that being the reason that 1776 is the founding of the nation. This all seems good on the surface, but what hurts this most is the glaring bias of the 1776 commission’s report of American being the ideal country. We still have restricted freedoms and we still don’t have true equality. This glaring bias takes away from the believability of the report. It holds America as such an ideal place, allowing the reader to see through it and find fallacies with the report.
2.
Some of the harshest criticisms of the 1619 project is the accuracy and historical fallacies throughout the article. When the article claims that the country was founded on the protection of slavery, that is a stretch. Clear historical evidence is not given by Jones, Willentz, or Harris to support this, but they still put it in their official report. Historical fallacies and inaccuracies can really hurt one’s argument, making this a harsh criticism. On other hand, the 1776 commissions harshest criticism is it’s idealistic and outdated view on America. With the country continuously evolving, it is too simplistic to fully form an argument for the deep and rich history America has. It also suffers by skipping over things that shine a darker light on America. These things like slavery, are mainly ignored by the report. This can be used as a criticism because it takes away from the modern and evolving way people view history.
3.
To balance these documents in order to find a happy medium in historical study, we should take the focus on black history that is provided by the 1619 project and the ideals taught in the 1776 commission. This creates a good medium where we can focus on the realistic historical timeline and other views people had or may have contributed to. This also allows us to be proud of what we have accomplished and not specifically focusing on any one people. In order to do this correctly, you must take the positives from each document whilst still acknowledging they both have flaws. These are not first hand accounts of history and therefore need to be taken into account as guiding sources, but not direct sources telling us the course of history. To me it would work better to study these as opinion pieces rather than a foundation of curriculum.
1. One problem with both the 1619 project and the 1776 commission is that they were both extremely biased and lack context for what they teach. For example, they 1619 project was very inclusive of the extreme impact African Americans have had on American history. While this is good, it also taught that Americans were almost inherently racist. It would take quotes from past presidents and twist what they were trying to convey. This is where the 1776 commission was also very flawed. The 1776 commission would repeatedly take quotes out of context. One main victim of this was Martin Luther King Jr. When reading the 1776 commission you see quotes from mlk that almost don’t make sense. This is because they were taking from their context to be used in another. On the other hand, the 1776 commission is very optimistic about America and its past. While this is not always good, it shows possibility for a bright future and could result in a better country as a people.
2. The main criticism of the 1619 project is that it looked at American history with an extremely pessimistic eye. The project was too critical of Americas history in ways that weren’t always historically accurate. The, that wasn’t written by historians, makes some claims that aren’t necessarily true. For example it claims that the USA was founded to protect slavery. This isn’t necessarily backed by fact and is very negative towards America. The 1776 commission, on the other hand, looks at American history with a too optimistic eye. It takes claims and quotes out of contexts and fails to mention many of Americas greatest flaws. The commission nearly skips over slavery and lacks teachings of Americas long past of racism and other downfalls.
3. In order to balance these documents, we need to find what is true and in context from each side and put in one place. We need to eliminate bias to the very best of our ability and try to just put out fact. There is always a way to balance; a place between the good and the bad. In this case it is both. America has had had very good and very bright moment in its history, but it has also had some incredibly bad moments. We have both blunders and minor problem and we have had lasting and indefinite problems. It is important that we don’t forget about either what is good nor what is bad.
1. One good thing and a large strength about the 1619 project is that it is very straight up about any topics or issues in American history, despite how difficult they are to talk about or uncomfortable they are to talk about. An example of this could be the article claiming that slavery still has an effect on today’s society. One negative aspect of the article and a weakness is the idea that you’re uncontrollably and inevitably racist because you were born into this country. This is completely untrue and somewhat fits into the crazy and very false idea that all white people are racist in this country. One strength of the 1776 commission is that it promotes people to embrace our country for the many great things that have happened, rather than dwelling on the failures of our country. One weakness is that very little is said about the negatives of our country’s past, which to some degree, does need to be taught, but not to the degree that we’re calling everybody racist just because they’re living in The United States of America.
2. The largest criticism of the 1619 project is the claim of it’s many historical inaccuracies. The criticism mentioned was made because of the lack of evidence and lack of validity in the claims of many of the historical events. The harshest criticism of the 1776 commission was the claim that it only intended to teach kids and students the good things that happened in our country’s history(still a good amount of content, although a compromise between the 1776 commission and the 1619 project would be best for our nations youth), and completely neglects the negatives of our country’s past.
3. Finding a balance between the two is totally possible, and the first step towards combining these two methods of teaching and learning is to stop telling children, especially white children(the most likely to be accused of being racist), that they’re inherently racist and still benefit from slavery and there’s nothing that they can do about it. By telling them this completely false notion, they’re highly likely to believe this for a large portion of their childhoods, resulting in them feeling guilty for things like slavery, even though it was abolished over 150 years ago before them, their parents, or even their grandparents were born. That is just the first step, although I think keeping many aspects of both documents are crucial to raising a well educated and independently opinionated youth.