'It's falling apart': 1619 Project architect Nikole Hannah-Jones' 'small' clarification is actually a pretty big deal

The New York Times’ 1619 Project has come under fire even from liberal-leaning historians for its liberties with history, facts, and the truth. For what it’s worth, project architect Nikole Hannah-Jones recently made a “clarification” to one of the its many dubious claims:

Yesterday we made an important clarification to my #1619Project essay abt the colonists' motivations during the American Revolution. In attempting to summarize and streamline, journalists can sometimes lose important context and nuance. I did that here. https://t.co/y1ycIiL4MN

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

It’s just a “small” clarification, though. No big deal:

The clarification is small — just two words –but important. We add tht slavery was one of the primary motivations for "some of" the colonists to declare independence. As written, it appears that I am saying this was a universal motivation of ALL colonists. I wasn't clear enough

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

That’s putting it mildly, Nikole.

But we’ll get back to that. Here’s the rest of Hannah-Jones’ thread on the subject:

That one sentence has been the subject of seemingly endless debate since the project published, at times obscuring the power of the body of work, which included 40K words and written by nearly two dozen writers. This is something I regret a lot.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

Internally, both @jakesilverstein and I have spent that last few months engaged in numerous discussions with historians of the period over this sentence & the historiography that backs it up and are confident in the assertion. We name some of those historians in the note.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

Writing sweeping passages of history is not easy, and sometimes there is a tension between journalistsic inclinations & historiographical ones. So many historians understood that & engaged in a deeply helpful and good-faith effort to help us revise and strengthen this project.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

History is engaging in the work of constant revision. Journalists, of course, want to get everything perfect the first time, and, we almost always fail. I have never written a single thing that after publication I did not wish I had written better.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

We will continue to work to strengthen the 1619 Project, we will continue to work with historians whose research, writing and advice this project could not exist without, and we will continue to try to produce work worthy of the subject and you all's support.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

Maybe if you’re going to write “sweeping passages of history,” you should make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about first. Unless, of course, that gets in the way of your narrative.

Anyway, back to the idea of the “small” clarification:

The clarification is small — just two words –but important. We add tht slavery was one of the primary motivations for "some of" the colonists to declare independence. As written, it appears that I am saying this was a universal motivation of ALL colonists. I wasn't clear enough

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 12, 2020

You weren’t clear enough? You know, if the whole project weren’t an exercise in historical revisionism, we might be a little more inclined to take Hannah-Jones’ contrition at face value. But she hasn’t really demonstrated that she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Amazing. https://t.co/O6OsCo4J45

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) March 12, 2020

This is not a small clarification. https://t.co/pvj9iUvg3z

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) March 12, 2020

It’s really not.

I'm confused. She insisted that everyone who criticized the project was a reprobate racist and intellectually dishonest. Is that not the case?

— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) March 12, 2020