Nikole Hannah-Jones joined MSNBC’s Ali Velshi on his Saturday show to discuss the criticism and banning of The 1619 Project. Naturally, Hannah-Jones simply dismissed “much of the criticism” as “not legitimate” as she continued to claim all she wants to do is teach the full story of American history.
On that criticism, Velshi asked, “I was asking you when you came out with The 1619 Project at the New York Times Magazine, I don’t think you could’ve foreseen how much criticism you were going to get. Good or bad that it happened?”
Hannah-Jones saw both positives and negatives in the attention, “I mean, you know it’s mixed. I think so much of the criticism is not legitimate critique, it’s not coming from people who have engaged with the ideas of the project or the work. But at the same time, the more they talk about it just actually helps spread the message, right?”
Velshi agreed “we find this with every book, there’s the not thoughtful stuff that is clearly put forward by somebody who hasn’t read the book, doesn’t understand what it’s about,” but wondered, “Have you engaged with people who don’t like what you’re trying to do, or trying to say? But they can be debated?”
Hannah-Jones claimed that she has, “So for instance, Professor Leslie Harris, published a piece in Politico, kind of critiquing some of our claims and saying I wouldn’t have said it that strongly. I’ve invited her to my class at Howard, and she’s talked about her critiques.
Not seeing the difference between a university and a high school, Hannah-Jones added “To say that I disagree, I wouldn’t say it that way, is different from saying kids should be exposed to this. These ideas don’t even belong in the classroom, we should try and ban these books.”
What Hannah-Jones didn’t say is that Harris’s big problem was the claim that slavery was a leading cause of the Revolutionary War. This is the claim critics from professional historians to Republican politicians are most likely to cite when arguing the project should not be taught in schools. It is less about disagreeing with Hannah-Jones’s opinion and more that she is objectively wrong and yet, the Hulu documentary continues to make the claim.
Velshi then tried bring Critical Race Theory into the discussion, “And in fact, and that has become couched in this other thing that is a misrepresentation about Critical Race Theory. There’s been a lot of talk about this catchall phrase, and the fact that children are learning overly sophisticated things in school that will make them feel like they were to blame for slavery. You’ve had to deal with this since the first day. You weren’t doing any such thing; you were saying let’s look at American history in a broader context.”
She wasn’t. She claimed that this country fought for independence in order to maintain slavery. That is a narrow claim that allows her declare:
Absolutely, we should just call the anti-Critical Race Theory campaign what it is, it’s a propaganda campaign, right? It was stoking division for political gain… It says that we were built on a system of anti-blackness and racism, and that those structures are structured into our society
Except, the claim of the Revolution being fought over slavery is false, which means “we were built on a system of anti-blackness and racism” is also false and that Hannah-Jones’s thesis crumbles like a house of cards.
This segment was sponsored by Chevron
Here is a transcript for the February 4 show:
MSNBC Velshi
2/4/2023
9:51 PM ET
ALI VELSHI: I was asking you when you came out with The 1619 Project at the New York Times Magazine, I don’t think you could’ve foreseen how much criticism you were going to get. Good or bad that it happened?
NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: I mean, you know it’s mixed. I think so much of the criticism is not legitimate critique, it’s not coming from people who have engaged with the ideas of the project or the work. But at the same time, the more they talk about it just actually helps spread the message, right?
I wanted us to know the date 1619, to take that date out of obscurity and certainly it is not an obscure date anymore.
VELSHI: What does thoughtful critique of what you’ve done look like? Because there’s – and we find this with every book– there’s the not thoughtful stuff that is clearly put forward by somebody who hasn’t read the book, doesn’t understand what it’s about. Have you engaged with people who don’t like what you’re trying to do, or trying to say? But they can be debated?
HANNAH-JONES: Certainly, I mean The 1619 Project is making an argument, it’s making the argument about American history, about American origins, about the role of slavery, and its legacy. And you can agree with the argument or disagree with the argument, I mean, I think that is the purpose of journalism and writing in this way.
It’s not to simply say these are my beliefs, and everyone has to believe them, but to say these ideas are worth considering and debating. So for instance, Professor Leslie Harris, published a piece in Politico, kind of critiquing some of our claims and saying I wouldn’t have said it that strongly. I’ve invited her to my class at Howard, and she’s talked about her critiques.
So there’s certainly valid critique of any ambitious project, but that’s not what we’re talking about, right? To say that I disagree, I wouldn’t say it that way, is different from saying kids should be exposed to this. These ideas don’t even belong in the classroom, we should try and ban these books.
VELSHI: And in fact, and that has become couched in this other thing that is a misrepresentation about Critical Race Theory. There’s been a lot of talk about this catchall phrase, and the fact that children are learning overly sophisticated things in school that will make them feel like they were to blame for slavery.
You’ve had to deal with this since the first day. You weren’t doing any such thing, you were saying let’s look at American history in a broader context.
HANNAH-JONES: Absolutely, we should just call the anti-Critical Race Theory campaign what it is, it’s a propaganda campaign, right? It was stoking division for political gain. Because obviously, both Critical Race Theory, the Actual Critical Race theory, and the 1619 Project are not talking about individuals, they’re talking about systems. It’s the opposite of that.
So it’s not saying any child, or any person is responsible for things he or she didn’t do. It says that we were built on a system of anti-blackness and racism, and that those structures are structured into our society. I also– I have a 12-year-old child, she’s back there, and I want my child to learn sophisticated and complicated and nuanced understanding of all things. That’s actually why I send her to school.