Do try and stay on target. Little word of advice, when attempting a dialogue beginning with condescension is not a good look.
First, the school curriculum to which you reference was a side part of the 1619 Project, and not what the Pulitzer was based on. As such, it's not even an issue here. This can’t be a serious refutation. Her thesis was massively flawed because of her obvious ideologic leanings but she gets a pass because she initially did not intend her writings to be taught as curriculum? Odd.
Second, I only highlighted one mistake in the writings of the 1619 Project. In multiple parts of my post, I spoke in the plural sense of mistakes that appeared in the various writings of the project. So your claim that I have "ONE problem" is inaccurate. I simply pointed out that specific issue, indicated how the writer has since acknowledged it as a mistake, and also how the statement wasn't completely wrong or completely right, but more of a nuanced situation. A mistake is an oversight. An erroneous citation or something of that ilk. Making a historical argument that African-Americans are the only group in world history to perfect pure democracy or that the slave trade was a direct result of capitalism is insane. The Wealth of Nations was written 157 years before the first slave set foot in America.
Third, I would suggest that you read Quarters: The Accommodation of the British Army and the Coming of the American Revolution, by John Gilbert McCurdy. There is a common conception that the quartering of British troops was a leading issue in what caused the American Revolution. While quartering of British troops was one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, British law prohibited it from taking place, and and it was a very minor issue in what caused the American Revolution. Refer back to your comments about “one mistake.” You focused on one example, the quartering of troops, without responding to the other causes sighted. The larger, unrefuted point, is that the protection of slavery had nothing to do with the American Revolution.
Fourth, as for slavery in Britain, I never raised that issue, so it's really outside of this discussion. However, your statement about its legality in Britain in 1776 is inaccurate, though again, with some nuance. See the Somerset v Stewart case of 1772. Interesting pieces of historical legal trivia aside, the larger point is that slavery had nothing to do with the American Revolution which was an extension of Hannah-Jones’ thesis.
Fifth, I read history almost every day. I've mentioned before that I serve on a committee that awards an annual award for the best book on the American Revolution. In that capacity, I've yet to find a book that was without any error. Two years ago, we gave the award to a book that was exceptional, but also had a critical mistake in a sentence, that indicated that a pivotal event happened in XXXX year, when it actually happened in XXXY year. (The author was off by 1 year.) Was it a typo? Was it a mistake made by the editor? Was it a mistake by the author that was not caught by the editor? Neither myself nor any of the other committee members knew the answer to that question, as we read all the nominated books, and evaluate the writing, but don't ask for clarification for things that trouble us in any of the books. In that context, and with Nikole Hannah-Jones's more recent statements that she was inaccurate concerning her initial claim about the protection of slavery being one of the leading causes of the colonies declaring independence, I have concluded that in the broad scheme of the 1619 Project, that claim was a minor mistake. As I don't know Nikole Hannah-Jones (NH-J), yet I see mistakes in what historians and non-historians write about history almost every day, I certainly don't think that you can support your claim that NH-J was deliberately attempting to alter history. Not sure what this is meant to be. An academic dick swinging contest? I too read history daily and have continued to do so after receiving two undergraduate degrees in both history and economics. A typo is certainly an understandable mistake to be made by any academic. Presenting an easily disprovable theory and then twisting historical reality in an attempt to prove it is not that. It is this kind of scholarship which allows someone like Goodwin to steal large swathes of material from other historians without attribution and get away with it because she “means well.” As a private citizen, in your personal life, you have every right to discern for yourself what passes as legitimate scholarship. As part of an academic committee you need to set a higher bar.
Here you just go completely off the rails. As I've never, ever posted anything about my political thoughts, and work almost every day to remove from this board all political thoughts, I really doubt that you have any clue what my leanings are. Engaging in debate with others who have opposing viewpoints, and who can be civil, is one of the great pleasures in life.You show me a man without a viewpoint and I will show one without the capacity to reason. The animal does not exist. The board bears your name. Moderate it as as you see fit.
In addition, I don't think that I've defended NH-J. I don't know her, and have never met her. While she conceived of the 1619 Project, the project itself was not simply her writing. It was a massive number of articles, by several journalists. In totality, it was an extraordinary undertaking. It had some factual mistakes in it.
As I stated above, the curriculum was a side piece of the 1619 Project, and not part of the Pulitzer evaluation, so I'm not going to get into any type of debate concerning it.
