Student Reflections

Reflections on Nikole Hannah-Jones' essay, "America Wasn't a Democracy, Until Blacks Made it One."

“Hard work pays off...Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,” these statements embody the American Dream...the dream parents sell their children to motivate them, the dream through which we view immigrants entering our glorious country, and the dream used to exalt ourselves above other nations. Dictionary.com, defines the American Dream as the “ideal by which equality of opportunity is available to any American,” which shows that America is a meritocracy.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer for the New York Times and creator of the 1619 Project, challenges our whitewashed knowledge of American history and calls into question the dream. We are taught that America was established in 1776 by the Founding Fathers; we are the land of the free, home of the brave, and through hard work in American, dreams will come true. While it has been true for many, is this everyone’s reality? No. The answer is clearly evidenced through Hannah-Jones' essay where she explains that America was built on the backs of slaves who have never been granted full access to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Such truths make the American Dream a lie and delegitimize the American dream because it is not accessible to all people.

Capitalism was founded upon the institution of slavery, which created systems that currently prohibit African-Americans from enjoying the benefits of the dream. “In order to understand American capitalism, you have to start at the plantation,” wrote Mathew Desmond, a sociologist professor at Princeton University. Desmond criticizes the roots of capitalism and gives recognition to the true founders...slaves. According to Desmond, in 1831, America was delivering almost half the world’s raw cotton crop, and due to the large scale cultivation of cotton, the factory was created, which triggered the Industrial Revolution.

During the peak of slavery, the combined value of all the slaves was worth more than all the railroads and factories. Desmond said Plantations - more accurately forced labor camps - created a new economy - one that closely resembles modern-day corporations. For example, slaves were hunched over and worked in long rows. Today our factories are also in rows, known as assembly lines. Plantations had multiple supervisors and used beatings to force slaves to harvest more crops. Today, salesforces have multiple supervisors and incentivize employees to go above their targets and lose their jobs... Nowadays, people take out mortgages for their houses. Mortgages were created for plantation owners to get more capital and would mortgage their slaves to banks because it was easier than mortgaging their own property.

Slavery created all these systems that are needed for capitalism to thrive. Capitalism was started by exploiting African-Americans by using them for intensive labor and continues to exploit people today. The richest one/tenth of 1 % owns as much as the bottom 90% and McDonald’s CEO makes an hour what the average worker makes a year, according to Douglas A. McIntyre, former editor and publisher of Financial World Magazine.

This system of income inequality makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Capitalism is the heart of the American dream and it's the barbaric and exploitative foundation that threatens the existence of a fallacy many individuals hold dear to their hearts. According to Americanprogress.org, the average median wealth for black families was about $20,000 in 2016 compared with white families’ median wealth of $171,000. Slavery might have been abolished over 150 years ago, but these systems have maintained inequality from slave times. The institution of slavery is an example of American hypocrisy because capitalism was built upon slavery and African-Americans weren’t given the opportunity to reap the benefits, contradicting the principles of the American dream.

The American Dream is an ideal that the country embodies. Humanity buys into it because it gives us a sense of hope. But it leaves us disappointed. In reality, the dream is not accessible to all people, especially African-Americans who helped create it. American freedom is the foundation of the American dream because it’s based on the idea of individuality and paving a road to accomplish your dream. The military has always been a symbol of American freedom because we are protecting what other countries envy and want to dismantle. Hannah-Jones comments that her father believed his country would treat him well if he served in the military, but was passed over for opportunities and was discharged. She says “Like all the black men and women in my family, he believed in hard work, but like all the black men and women in my family, no matter how hard he worked, he never got ahead.” This was the sad reality for all African-Americans who would enlist in the military in that time period. From the Revolutionary War to Vietnam, African-Americans would return after their service and wouldn’t be given their medals or the same benefits other veterans received. According to History.com, the GI bill excluded over 1.2 million African Americans who served in World War II. This shows how the American dream didn’t apply to all people because even though African Americans fought for America overseas, they weren’t given the same freedoms they fought for. African Americans have always been a prime example of hypocrisy in America in terms of freedom. While the Founding Fathers were writing our constitution, slaves were building their houses. While Thomas Jefferson established America as the land of the free, enslaved African-Americans were constructing the White House. African Americans were the first to stand up for their freedoms and were responsible for making America the true “land of the free.”

People criticize the 1619 Project because they believe the American Dream is still alive and well. However, there are systems that grant individuals privilege prohibiting everyone from accessing the dream. Individuals have the privilege–whether it exists as race, socioeconomic factors, education, gender, and sexuality. According to a 2017 study by Harvard Business School, African-Americans with better credentials on their resume are less likely to get a job compared to their white counterparts purely because of their “black-sounding” name. This privilege is only afforded to white students, even though African Americans work just as hard, because of racial bias. African Americans own approximately one-tenth of the wealth of white Americans, are less likely to graduate high school and more likely to be incarcerated. These are the consequences of systemic racism which shows there isn’t an equal playing field for all individuals. For instance, public school funding is determined by property tax dollars. Wealthy districts have more money for their schools. This creates a learning gap between “poor” schools and “rich” schools which harms minority students the most. There haven’t been any attempts to try to dismantle these examples of systemic racism, but the hope of even having a dream can’t exist without everyone being equal. The American dream doesn’t apply to all because minorities aren’t given equal opportunity required for the American Dream to be successful.

Society views slavery as if it was just one of America’s sins, which undermines the contributions of slaves. This doesn’t threaten the work of the Founding Fathers but gives recognition to the ones who were ignored. Today, many kids are told, “anything is possible,” and, “if you work hard, your dreams will come true.” For marginalized citizens, dreams are much harder to accomplish because not everyone starts at the same starting line. Hannah-Jones’s argument undermines the American dream because it is not accessible to all people. Society encourages individuals to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” but some don’t even have boots.

--Zoe Y.

When summer rolls around, the time comes for home restoration: cleaning gutters, pulling weeds, cutting grass. These events are always a family affair, when Dad would rush everyone in the house as to maximize daylight hours in order to get every outdoor project done. As my siblings and I would begin our chores, we'd become restless--wanting to return to the cool air-conditioned home to escape the beatings on our backs from the blaring sun. Plans to escape were dashed by lengthy lectures from my father. My dad, a man of mixed-race, would admonish us and school us about working outside in the blazing heat by recounting lessons about our ancestors...the inhumane conditions they were put in, the beatings they endured, and how they would be forced to work outside in more extreme conditions--getting nothing in return. Everytime these stories were repeated, I'd reflect upon the struggles that black people faced to gain rights in this country. How hard it must have been to be a black person in America during those times! We're used to thinking about their struggles, but don't spend enough time acknowledging how much their labor contributed to the creation of the United States.

Introduction to the 1619 Project has changed this for me. Developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones and designed to highlight the 400th anniversary of the first slave ship's arrival to America, the 1619 Project is re-educating us about slavery and the relevance of the contributions made by black people to shape our society. Although critics accuse Hannah-Jones of rewriting history through this work, her essay accomplishes the goal of any effective journalist--to shine light on overlooked and hidden history. It gives necessary credit to black people for their many contributions.

Entitled, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written, Black Americans have fought to make them true.” this essay details how black people have built this country from the ground up, while refuting previous thoughts and beliefs that minimize black people’s influence and efforts. Hannah-Jones proves that re-education is necessary and explains how the mindset of racism stems from our past and gets passed down generations through American textbooks--perpetuating the shadowing of black accomplishments and history and the glorification of popular white historical figures.

Racism is an equation; a combination of hate based on race with the authority to wield power over that race. While there are many modern day acts of racism, a lasting form of racism exists in our nation's classrooms as evidenced by the intentional suppression of black stories and anything positively associated with black people, from American history. In an attempt to not let black people have any credit for the crafting of America’s foundation, anything that could be attributed to black people is essentially blocked out of major historical records, and instead gets attributed to white Americans. An example can be found in Hannah-Jones’ essay in which she explains that America’s founding event--gaining independence--largely included black people: “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery” ( Hannah-Jones 2019). Due to the fact that black people could have been a reason for such a big moment in American history is the reason that these ideas have never been shared in history textbooks and taught in United States schools. This tactic of oppressing blacks through the telling of American history is a way to reduce the relevance of blacks in all of our minds--thereby diminishing their value and worth and resulting in internalized (and exteranlized) oppression and racism. This way, Americans don't attribute black people to accomplishing much beyond slavery.

The way schools and families teach history, establishing America as a white-man's land where only one group of people is responsible for its success, leads to hate and superiority complexes. This can be seen through the use of Hannah-Jones’ anecdote about how she was taught about her identity and her perception of American history: “I had been taught, in school, through cultural osmosis, that the flag wasn’t really ours, that our history as a people began with enslavement and that we had contributed little to this great nation.” Instilling into students that black people had very little to contribute to this country is the form that racism takes in history lessons. In reference to the racism equation, the hate of the black race gets expressed through historians and creators of written history texts. Action needs to be taken against teaching youth that the largest role of black Americans our history was "slave". Such false teachings have shadowed black people’s contributions to America and have fed unhealthy stereotypes.

While certain groups of people in history are not acknowledged at all for their contributions to America, others are given too much attention and are looked at as American heroes--mostly reserved for white people. Several of these popular white American heroes are put atop pedestals and are symbols of America and what it supposedly stands for. However the “heroes,” that we put up on pedestals are not perfect and should not be treated as such. The white-washing of history has led to false narratives about white politicians and leaders of past wars to glorify them--branding them as heroes of America while covering up bad actions such as ownership of slaves. History should be as close to the truth as possible in order to rid our nation of the racist propaganda that clogs today's textbooks. To clarify this point, Hannah-Jones expressed this hypocrisy by discussing America's beloved politician, Thomas Jefferson: “As Jefferson composed his inspiring words, however, a teenage boy who would enjoy none of those rights and liberties waited nearby to serve at his master’s beck and call,” she wrote. Jefferson's inspiring words, “all men are created equal,” were written but not applied to all Americans; nor were the words that all men deserve the right to “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Whenever we hear about Thomas Jefferson, we learn about the Declaration of Independence and all of his positive contributions to our country, but we never talk about how he never wanted to give the freedoms he wrote about to the people who were helping him build the country; those forced to labor on his plantation or "forced labor camp" as Hannah-Jones accurately calls it.

Thomas Jefferson is not the only one who has skeletons in his closet...Abraham Lincoln does also, as well as all of this country's "founding fathers". Hannah-Jones digs deep into Lincoln and addresses the fact that when trying to find a resolution for the Civil War, he wanted to move all black people out of America because he believed that white and black people just weren’t meant to cohabitate. This fact would be suprising to most, especially since Lincoln is known best for abolishing slavery through the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. Lincoln has been portrayed as a beacon of hope--even inspiring the writing of the “Negro Anthem”, but the Lincoln's true motivation for emancipating the slaves was never really taught in school. This is a prime example of people being improperly placed atop pedestals in this country, based on a white-washed history. Although they may have done some right, they also did wrongs; the historical record should give account to it all. But, because they were white men, America does not want to ruin their reputations but acknowledging the unvarnished truth. We must start to take everything into account.

In the future, I will be more receptive to my father's lecture and will appreciate the opportunity to reflect upon the work of black people that has allowed me to be where I am today. In the meantime, I will also work to re-educate others who may be confused about certain aspects of history. I will work to re-educate myself by continuously asking questions about what I am being taught and researching the true story of American history...the true story of my history.

--Reuben T.

I live in America. Here, we’re reminded every day of the names of our Framers, through the places we live, the streets we drive, and the parks we play in. We’re especially inundated with reminders of our first president - there are 88 different cities alone that are named Washington. But Nikole Hannah-Jones, staff writer for the New York Times, wants to put the spotlight on a different group for once, asserting that black people are the most deserving of “American ideals,” not people like the Framers or Abraham Lincoln. Through the 1619 Project, she describes the history and the legacy of African-Americans in a way that is unheard of in the mainstream. Her argument is controversial in the extreme, but she had the sense to address it the right way. If somebody else were writing about an issue this sensitive, they might try to make it more palatable, which would sacrifice the heart of the work. But Hannah-Jones is not that person. She tells the story her way, with the voice of a passionate yet opinionated expert––filling the text. Her rhetoric and her argument are not meant for traditionalists, people who value the popular version of American history almost to a fault. Instead, they are meant to be a shining beacon of hope for people who are ready for a history that hasn’t been whitewashed. It’s an alternative, not a magic wand that makes a hardcore Civil War buff repeal their allegiances. Anyone who believes that Hannah-Jones’ essay should have been meeker needs to look closer to find her real purpose.

To her critics who say that her message is divisive, they need to read deeper to discover why Hannah-Jones’ essay was not aimed at everyone; it’s necessary to look at her intended audience. Using two distinct tones to describe black people and white people in history, Hannah-Jones tells the stories of black people’s contributions to history in a patriotic, respectful way. “No one cherishes freedom more than those who have not had it,” she writes, “and to this day, black Americans, more than any other group, embrace the democratic ideals of a common good.” She devotes a long paragraph to Reconstruction, which serves as a vehicle to show how effective government was when black people had voice to run it, and describes blacks as the “architects” of America, building the Capitol, the plantations, and wealthy people’s houses. Conversely, she uses a sardonic tone towards white people in history--choosing to only reference racist white people for her anecdotes. She challenges the label “The Greatest Generation” by retelling many examples of oppression that make the ‘40s and ’50s look…not so great. Sarcastically, she writes, “Black Americans, simply by existing, served as a problematic reminder of this nation’s failings.” White America dealt with this “inconvenience” by supporting a cruel racial caste system.

An unfortunate idea that some people have (one that I used to have) is that journalistic writing needs to be ideologically accessible to all people, all the time. For example, in my yearbook class, we aren’t allowed to put opinions in our stories at all. Junior reporters on the beat are just supposed to report, not argue. But everyone’s beliefs are different, especially with an issue so sensitive as race. To achieve her purpose, Hannah-Jones had to abandon the idea that she was going to be accepted by all her readers, and so she chose to be loud and clear about what she believed in. This, I appreciate.

One way authors can show bravado and strength is in their portrayal of good versus evil. In Hannah-Jones’ essay, it’s clear who the protagonists and the antagonists are. She recounts a time when Abraham Lincoln called black leaders to the White House to suggest to them that all black Americans flee the country when they’re freed: “You and we are different races. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side...” She presents Abraham Lincoln as the antagonist–the racist president attempting to expel blacks from their homeland. Hannah-Jones is aware that people who idolize figures like Lincoln aren’t likely to be receptive to this narrative. The people who will understand her are the ones who want a more accurate, inclusive version of history. Hannah-Jones wants to make sure they have something strong to believe in, so she loses a little objectivity to make her points resonate more clearly. And–again–that’s okay.

This purpose is illuminated further by the structure of Hannah-Jones’ essay, which is in chronological order. By peppering her claim with evidence that transcended 400 years, she was able to show that her argument held up over time. In addition, chronological order is the structure of textbooks, and she was, in a way, creating a new kind of textbook. Her writing is a new version of history, so it makes sense that she would write it like a history book. Hannah-Jones begins with the first black man to die in the Revolutionary War, goes through the Founding Fathers, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, and the present day. Each time, she spotlights the real heroes of America, and discredits the figureheads whom we have idolized for so many years. The chronological-order choice keeps the credibility of a textbook and blends it with Hannah-Jones’ own style to create the unapologetic remix she desired. Moreover, the chronology supports the idea that this essay isn’t really meant to persuade anyone in particular, especially people who think of the Founding Fathers as heroes and the ’40s as being the good old days. The structure is a history lesson, not a speech. Her essay is educational, not preachy. Her words tell a story; a story about race.

While what and who an author writes about is certainly important, where she writes it can tell a lot about her purpose as well. The New York Times caters to a very specific niche of America. NYT readers are mostly in their late thirties and early forties, according to Hitwise, a marketing firm. The median household income of its readers is $191,000 for the paper, and $96,000 for the website–so most of them aren’t strapped for cash. They’re very progressive, with 72 percent of readers identifying as liberal. And they’re 24 percent more likely than the average American to be interested in “other cultures.” This means readers are willing to consider perspectives other than their own. They’re receptive to a narrative that’s different than the status quo. Even if they’re not black (which they probably aren’t - sadly, the statistics show that black households are almost $100K less affluent than white ones) the audience Hannah-Jones reached is a progressive, open-minded one. It’s receptive to change, and new narratives. Fox News or Breitbart would be a very different nut to crack, and even PBS and MSNBC have lower percentages of liberal viewers. The vast majority of NYT readers probably don’t idolize the Framers. Many probably drive Priuses. I’ve been reading the New York Times every Sunday for as long as I can remember, and I was shocked to learn what I did when I read Hannah-Jones’ essay. But I believed her. So she didn’t really even need to write to her critics. She gave her audience something unapologetic, because she knew they could accept it.

But what about the people who don’t believe her? Those people are still important to the impact of Hannah-Jones’ essay. Some people might say that by arguing that she’s conscious of her audience, I’m disavowing the broader impact of her essay on all of America. But by using such inflammatory language, she got people to notice her, for better or for worse. People who would never agree with her still read her words, took the bait and spread the article around. Newt Gingrich, a former House Speaker known for his conservative viewpoints, appeared on Fox and Friends and denounced the 1619 Project as “historically, factually false nonsense.” He called the New York Times “a propaganda paper worthy of Pravda.” Gingrich proved that he wasn’t persuaded by the arguments in Hannah-Jones’ essay, which echoes my point that not everyone was intended to be influenced by her argument. But his interview showed how effective it was for Hannah-Jones not to hold back. By mentioning the 1619 Project on a conservative network, the number of people who will be exposed to the project, and her essay, will increase significantly. If her strong language lands on Fox or Breitbart, Hannah-Jones is the one who wins.

Black Americans Fought to Make Them True... is a powerful essay. It upends a narrative widely held by millions of people, and elevates a historically underrated and oppressed racial group in the process. People needed to read something like this. But what they didn’t need to read was an overly neutral grab for clicks and views. By staying true to her voice and her target audience, using the sharp tone that made her famous as a journalist and speaker, Nikole Hannah-Jones has risen above the demands of public journalism. She is not a catch-all, copy-churning machine. She is an advocate of her race, her country, and her story. What this essay does is distill that passion and technique into a history lesson, one that this country has needed for quite some time.

--John R.

Throughout the American education system, teachers have taught us the subject of slavery and how it relates to the founding of this country through a one-sided and narrow lens--leaving room for students to question the accuracy of what is being taught in the classroom. Such assumptions are examined through the 1619 Project where Nikole Hannah-Jones denounces the textbook version of the portrayal of slavery within America and provides an alternative explanation on the nation’s founding. In the introductory part of the essay, Hannah-Jones uses anecdotal evidence about her father as the foundation of her argument to emotionally persuade her audience. She incorporates an overwhelming amount of evidence to solidify her argument. This essay effectively argues that I should continue to question the ways in which history is taught. Hannah-Jones proves to me that black people have the right to claim this nation as their own.

As Hannah-Jones introduces her argument, she questions her father’s decision of proudly hanging the American flag; this creates a personal connection for her readers. When she writes, “When I was young, that flag outside our house never made sense to me...I didn’t understand his patriotism,” Hannah-Jones continues the use of familial accounts as the entryway into her depiction of America’s founding. Although there are other instances when she uses personal references such as telling the story of her grandmama cleaning white people’s houses, her father's story proves to be most effective. Not only does it serve as a point of cohesion but it allows me to have a better understanding of her father’s experiences. If it were not for these anecdotes, her work would lack the pathos that she incorporated within her essay.

Because Hannah-Jones cannot understand her father’s love for a nation that looks down upon the black race, she seeks out answers through second-hand evidence. By creating a historical timeline of the black experience, she broadens her argument beyond her personal world to appeal to readers on a fact-based level. For example, she adds details about the slave trade, recounts the Dred Scott decision and describes the violence against blacks after Reconstruction. Highlighting this evidence and layering it throughout her work gives factual backing to her argument and shows her father’s patriotism stems from the perseverance of black people overcoming these events. This further persuades her readers about the inequalities ingrained within present society and reveals how much harder the black race has worked in a nation that never wanted them to succeed.

Some may argue that there is potential for certain audiences to find fault in Hannah-Jones’s line of reasoning as they believe she overuses anecdotal evidence and personal opinion. Those opposing her argument may add that she relies too heavily on her feelings and makes false assumptions without backing them up. When Hannah-Jones writes that,“without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different,” she creates a plausible statement which lacks proof. These generalizations may prevent some from buying into her claims. She could be faulted for overemphasizing the anecdote about her father when she makes statements such as “no person has a greater claim to that flag than us.” Due to other people’s understanding of American history, some may feel offended that she focuses only on her race as it relates to America’s development. Without facts, these examples reveal a flaw within Hannah-Jones' work, which invites the question of her work’s credibility.

Conversely, it can be argued that the structure of Hannah-Jones’ essay does not fail to support her claim. Her intentions were not to create a historical document supported only by statistics, but to help communicate the legacies of black history as it relates to her father’s patriotism. Except at the beginning and the ending of her essay, Hannah-Jones focuses entirely on the historical events as she creates conclusions made about the rights black people deserve. The middle of her essay is built on a chronology of facts from the past to present which she supports with multiple types of second-hand evidence including historical documents and figures. For example, she uses the Declaration of Independence to support her claim: “the framers carefully constructed a document that perserved and protected slavery without ever using the word.” Here, she uses irrefutable evidence to reinforce her point that the freedoms for black people were never explicitly addressed. Hannah-Jones cites historical documents as well as the points of view of historical figures, such as William Goodwell, Samuel Johnson, and Samuel Bryan. Using these resources, she forces the reader to consider such historical accounts and how they support her argument that there is a lack of acknowledgement of the accomplishments of black people. Instead of concluding that Hannah-Jones makes broad generalizations, her opponents should put their prejudices to the side and realize the harsh realities of history and the burden they place onto blacks in America.

Through her essay, Hannah-Jones presents a more accurate representation of the black experience beyond the textbook versions. Americans have been taught a narrow perspective of history from the dominant culture’s point of view. Therefore, Hannah-Jones uncovers the missing truths of the ripple effects of slavery and how it is impactful on today’s society. Readers such as myself benefit from a different perspective regarding the lack of recognition for the black community in America.

--Merrick H.

American journalist, Nikole Hannah-Jones' crowning achievement is the New York Times’ 1619 Project—a deep dive into the contributions of blacks to America and—more importantly—the role of slavery on modern American society. Within the various articles, essays and poems contained by her project, Jones delivers groundbreaking assertions in an attempt to reclassify African American history as American history.

In the first essay project, Hannah-Jones attacks the foundational principles of American democracy and argues that America’s true founders were the black Americans who have persisted throughout their subjugation since the early 17th century. Her argument centers around the fact that blacks, even after horrid degradation, stuck their feet firmly in the soil of American culture and did as much as any whites to build the modern superpower. However, though Hannah-Jones’ argument has merit, her evidence—largely anecdotal—leaves too much room for the reader to be influenced by their own biases—falling short of affecting a broader audience and succeeding only in deepening the partisan divisions between ignorant and progressive Americans.

The main issue within Hannah-Jones’ evidence lies in its jaw-dropping impact, specifically when she dismantles the reputations of well-loved presidents. This is not to say that anything she says is inherently incorrect, but her most provocative evidence in the body is presented as almost entirely anecdotal with little source material. For example, in her shocking revelation about Abraham Lincoln and his plan to move blacks to another country following the emancipation of southern slaves, Hannah-Jones uses a third person view to tell the story of the meeting between Lincoln and five free black men—in a fashion that is most similar to storytelling. While emotionally tactile, Hannah-Jones does not pursue any further appeals with empirical evidence to strengthen her credibility in the telling of the narrative; this is her downfall. Almost immediately, the opposition to Hannah-Jones’ argument—namely those who maintain their patriotism and faith in American ideals—are turned off to her essay. Any intrigue felt from her opening anecdote about her father is squashed, and their biases take over. How dare Hannah-Jones desecrate the sanctity of a president held in as high regard as Lincoln? How dare she maim the man responsible for freeing her ancestors? Even in ignorance, that response is warranted. Though Hannah-Jones uses a quote from Lincoln, it is immediately dismissed as outlandish because of her failure to include the source material.

Many proponents of Hannah-Jones’ argument may assert that the provided anecdotes and facts do not require the inclusion of source material because her target audience is already inclined to buy her version of history, as-is. Therefore, the people reading can take her words at face value. Still others may say that—if her purpose is to intrigue this audience—the perceived strength of the story will be enough to have them research on their own. Although valid points, they are inherently flawed: in the interest of journalistic integrity, authors are supposed to cite source material when the evidence presented comes from an outside document, or exists beyond common knowledge. Anytime an author fails to do this, it leaves what should be concrete evidence up for interpretation, thereby weakening the evidence and the effectiveness of the argument. And besides, Hannah-Jones would be foolish to pander to a receptive audience. To write for those who already believe in her argument is not to argue at all. To write for one side is to lack a fundamental understanding of the opposition and to weaken one’s credibility—a practice commonly known as preaching to the choir.

It is utterly absurd to argue that Hannah-Jones crafted her essay without the intent to reach a broader audience than the roughly 13 percent of the American population who are black—assuming that all even agree with her—and the minority of more liberal whites. If this is her audience, then what case is Hannah-Jones trying to make—and to whom? What purpose is there in trying to convince a demographic that already acknowledges the extent of the degradation?—that needs no convincing. Providing them with even more evidence is a pointless endeavor. It’s beating a dead horse; a waste of time.

In a 2020 interview with Atlanta Magazine, Hannah-Jones admitted, “I want everyone to read [the 1619 Project],” clearing up any misconceptions about a thin, targeted audience; furthermore, the language within her opening essay also points to a broader gallery. She frequently adheres to a straightforward and impassioned tone that never dips into scolding or shaming—so as not to blatantly offend—while still managing to plainly point the finger at the villains, many of whom are the ancestors of her detractors. Nevertheless, the lack of sourcing demonstrates that she may not completely understand this group of people, as in her attempt to appeal to the readers’ emotions, she loses the sympathy of the opposition as it transforms into disbelief and a deficit of faith in the argument. Something as simple as the lack of a source is enough for those ignorant audience members to refute the rest of the essay and, consequently, the project as a whole—not bothering to research for themselves. Critics are convinced that Hannah-Jones’ viewpoint is founded not on evidence but speculation and ideology. It’s a shame considering that in succeeding essays, quantitative data is given to support the emotional connection Hannah-Jones has to her topic. Regardless, the exhausting length and overwhelming passion of the introductory composition turns too many people away and leaves Hannah-Jones open to attack as it devolves into a mess of pathos and not-completely-sound partisan logic.

The 1619 Project is incredibly worthwhile. The depth and mastery at connecting the workings of the modern day with the systems of slavery is powerful and revolutionary, but there isn’t enough concrete evidence in its introduction to keep her opposition from lashing out. Understandably, Conservative America has an issue with the project, with former U.S. Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich summing up the animosity toward Hannah-Jones’ attempt to rectify history. In a tweet from August 2019, Gingrich states, “The NY Times 1619 Project should make its slogan ‘All the Propaganda we want to brainwash you with.’ [I]t is a repudiation of the original NY Times motto.” Though clearly partisan, the reaction is foreseeable and—quite possibly—reasonable. Gingrich represents the demographic that will be most offended by the 1619 project’s assertions—white men. He likely read the opening of the project and found the evidence Hannah-Jones presents to be “propaganda” in the sense that it’s threatening to his identity. Especially in the case of the Lincoln anecdote, Hannah-Jones’ work can easily be interpreted as an attempt to change the perception of men traditionally perceived as progressive humanitarians—or to “brainwash” the population and slander the white man’s name… And this is why Hannah-Jones’ failure to cite her source comes back to bite. Even a short introduction like “A journal entry from… shows…” would have been sufficient to delegitimize criticism like Gingrich presents, without marring the flow of the essay. It would have taken the interpretation out of the matter, metamorphosing the effect of the evidence from surprising and halfway convincing to damning; irrefutable without ignorance. Alas, the opposition can fein obliviousness in the essay’s current state.

Hannah-Jones succeeds fully in drawing emotional responses from the audience throughout the entire paper, but she lacks a strong personal credibility at times, especially in dealing with controversial figures and facts, and this leads to the discrediting of her argument by some sections of her audience. Ultimately, the paper serves less to intrigue and more to deepen the personal biases of the audience. Hannah-Jones’ proponents find her argument insightful and take her evidence as fact because they are more apt to agree with her; the opponents find her argument invalid because of the evidence she presents: mostly circumstantial and largely anecdotal; threatening to their identities. Though chock full of revolutionary attitudes and ideas toward slavery’s impact on society, Hannah-Jones’ essay turns away the people who need the most convincing and ensures that the rest of her project—which houses her more indisputable assertions—goes unseen. Her lack of credibility through sourcing and personal accounts detailing expertise only makes the audience question her authority. Even if there is warrant for her claim, it trickles to a halt in front of the larger goal, since it only heightens the divides among Americans.

--Ian F.