Today marks five years since the launch of the 1619 Project by The New York Times Magazine. The project aimed to reframe the narrative of America’s founding, emphasizing the arrival of enslaved Africans in Virginia in 1619 as a pivotal event.
According to InfluenceWatch, “The 1619 Project is an artistic and journalistic project of the New York Times Magazine that asserts the central event in the founding of the United States was the first importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 and not the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The project further asserts that U.S. history and modern America are best understood as completely dependent upon the institution of slavery. Project director and creator Nikole Hannah-Jones has told interviewers that her ‘ultimate goal’ for the 1619 Project is passage of slavery reparations legislation that would provide monetary payments to African Americans. New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet has said the project was approved as part of the newspaper’s effort to ‘hold the [Trump] administration to account’ and ‘try to understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump.’”
The project received criticism from several prominent historians, including Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, and Sean Wilentz, who questioned its factual accuracy and its use as educational material in schools across major cities. Critics have challenged specific claims made by the project, such as its assertion regarding slavery’s role in motivating the American Revolution and its portrayal of Abraham Lincoln.
Five historians sent a letter to The New York Times expressing concern about factual errors within the project and requested corrections; however, their request was declined by the newspaper.
Despite these criticisms, The 1619 Project was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2020.
The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), associated with Trotskyist views, provided early coverage featuring interviews with historians who later voiced objections publicly. WSWS authors Niles Niemuth, Tom Mackaman, and David North published initial critiques soon after publication, arguing that The New York Times’ approach risked dividing Americans along racial lines rather than uniting them on class issues.
Nikole Hannah-Jones responded critically to WSWS’s position. As reported by The Wall Street Journal: “To the Trotskyists, Ms. Hannah-Jones writes: ‘You all have truly revealed yourselves for the anti-black folks you really are.’ She calls them ‘white men claiming to be socialists.’”
InfluenceWatch maintains detailed profiles on both Nikole Hannah-Jones and The 1619 Project.
Capital Research Center has published additional reports examining aspects related to nonprofit involvement with journalism projects like this one.
