History doesn’t stay in the classroom. The 1619 Project took a historiographical argument and put it in a newspaper, then a curriculum, then a political fight — and the controversy that followed wasn’t really about footnotes. This post asks you to do two things: judge the argument on its own terms, and place it in the long story of historiography this course has been tracing all semester.
Write a discussion board post of about 800 words that addresses both questions below — roughly half your space for each.
Address both sides honestly, regardless of your own view of the project. What does it get right — as an argument, as a historiographical act, as a public intervention? What are its limitations or vulnerabilities? Draw on Hannah-Jones, Serwer, and Lowenthal.
This is the harder question — and the more interesting one. Where does the 1619 Project sit in the arc of the course? Which historiographical frameworks or thinkers we’ve read does it resemble, challenge, or extend? Ground your argument in specific readings from across the semester, not just this week.
There’s no right answer to either question. But vague generalizations unsupported by the readings won’t earn full credit. The more specifically you draw on the texts — Hannah-Jones alongside Trouillot, or Lowenthal alongside Ranke — the stronger your post will be.
Post your response to the discussion board before our Week 12 discussion. Come ready to talk about where you landed — and to hear where your classmates landed somewhere else.