Last month, National Review devoted most of an issue to the “1619 Project”, the New York Times’s venture into rewriting American history so as to transmute a nation that most of mankind has seen as a beacon of liberty into a society imbued with slavery. NR disputed that characterization, as have many of the foremost American historians, including some who aren’t likely to agree with the magazine about anything else.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the foundress of the 1619 Project, tweeted a rebuttal, to which one of the contributors, Dan McLaughlin, replied. One tweet in the Hannah-Jones attack nicely illustrates her notion of scholarship. After posting a photo of the NR cover with the caption, “Picked up a tabloid [sic] to give myself a good laugh”, she declared, “Couldn’t find any women, apparently, and only one Black person, apparently, to write about a slavery project created by a Black woman. I am sure this is going to be very good.”
So the essential prerequisite for questioning the cogency of a position taken by a “Black woman” (judging by her appearance, Mrs. Hannah-Jones is more white than black, but let that go) is being of the same race and sex. Even one isn’t enough, for, as Dan McLaughlin observes, “she saves most of her ire for Wilfred Reilly’s essay”. Mr. Reilly is black but has the disqualification of having been assigned to the male gender at birth.
Although logic is, I have been informed, a white supremacist construct, I’ll be so bold as to employ it here. If Wilfred Reilly can’t legitimately criticize a “Black woman”, how can the latter criticize the work of white male Gordon Wood (as she does in a further tweet sneering at an advertisement for several of his books)? The inescapable implication is that, for the 1619 Project proponent, separate historical realities exist for people of different racial/sexual categories and evaluating them against one another is a worthless enterprise.
There’s much chatter these days about the threat of another civil war. I don’t give it much credence. So far as I can see, the twitterati comprise about 90 percent of the potential warriors. Still, if such a ghastly fate lies ahead, it will owe a lot to the compartmentalized, anti-rational mentalité of pseudo-thinkers like Nikole Hannah-Jones.
Comments