After the New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for the highly flawed 1619 Project, Nation journalist Jeet Heer explained that it was actually OK because the 1619 Project provoked a lot of debate:
In all seriousness, the way to judge a work of history is by the productive debates it provokes. "1619" generated some very dumb knee-jerk reactions but also a lot of serious conversation. I think it's going to be at the center of conversation for many years.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) May 4, 2020
Not to be out-hacked, Business Insider senior politics reporter John Haltiwanger offered up this take:
The pushback to the 1619 project is emblematic of why it's so necessary. History is not just about facts/dates, it's the study of the interpretation of events. White men have dominated historical discourse in the US, offering a narrow, skewed view of this nation's complex history
— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) May 4, 2020
"Historical interpretations are often contested, and those debates often reflect the perspective of the participants." https://t.co/3zL8xUXiiQ
— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) May 4, 2020
Wait, wait, wait … so the pushback against the 1619 Project’s historical failings prove that the 1619 Project is necessary? Facts/dates should take a back seat to interpretation of events?
Congratulations, John Haltiwanger, on finding a way to be arguably even more wrong than Jeet Heer.
White man has thoughts. https://t.co/tAhUVjt08x
— jon gabriel (@exjon) May 4, 2020
The white savior has spoken.
— Fresh (@FreshAiracle) May 4, 2020
That wasn't a white man who disputed the fact-checking done by the New York Times originally. https://t.co/gdnMgQI9p9
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 4, 2020
But the guy probably had white friends, so he was just as bad. Right, John? And only white people have a problem with historical inaccuracy. That is what you’re saying, isn’t it?
“History is not just about facts/dates…” – That made me laugh.
— Mark Nova (@iMarkNova) May 4, 2020
History is not about facts…
Lol pic.twitter.com/wAD6Htj73M
— Hooray Beerz (@HoorayBeerz1) May 4, 2020
You really have to laugh. Haltiwanger’s defense of the 1619 Project is just so absurd.
The pushback led to retractions. https://t.co/aXe2mPmyRv
— neontaster (@neontaster) May 4, 2020
"Perspective of the Participants" Who exactly is alive that participated in the founding of this country? https://t.co/YoVcXWN8Z1
— GOPPouncer (@Mellecon) May 4, 2020
Interpretations should be based on source documents though right? I mean we have access to not only the published documents of those days but also private letters between founders and other individuals. Interpretation should follow those and not make it up
— Ben (@thethriftygene) May 4, 2020
Jesus Christ dude they made stuff up. Don't overthink this.
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) May 4, 2020