Don't Just Shovel Information from 1619 Project into Our History Books

    Perhaps at much as looking at Critical Race Theory, itself, to determine if it should be taught in schools, we should consider what is in a report, called The 1619 project, published a few years back by The New York Times Magazine. The first paragraph seems part worthy, part unworthy:

   "In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists."

   Yes, if this is true -- and I imagine it is -- let's include it in our history books. 

   "No aspect of the country that would be formed here," it says in the first paragraph of the report, "has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully."

   No aspect of our history has been untouched by slavery? Much of our nation's history does intertwine with slavery. But, saying no aspect is a gross overstatement. 

   Now, read the second paragraph:

    "It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619? Though the exact date has been lost to history (it has come to be observed on Aug. 20), that was when a ship arrived at Point Comfort in the British colony of Virginia, bearing a cargo of 20 to 30 enslaved Africans. Their arrival inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years. This is sometimes referred to as the country’s original sin, but it is more than that: It is the country’s very origin."

   Requiring us to take the date of slaves arriving as the date the nation was founded is more than a stretch, and is wrong. Let's not reset the date of the founding of America to Aug. 20, 1619. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the date on July 4, and citing 1776 as the year this country was founded. That date is much more accurate than Aug. 20, 1619 -- regardless how wrong it was to introduce slaves to America.

   I do not know the history of those times well (regarding blacks being introduced). Most of us don't. But, I wonder if one thing that gets left out of the telling is whether they were agreeable to coming. What little study I did do indicates their slavery was, indeed, forced upon them. The source I read says millions of West Africans were "kidnapped." If they were, indeed, kidnapped, then it was wrong. But, I do wonder if some were agreeable to coming. Don't castigate me for asking the question. If I the suggestion is wrong, it is wrong. I just don't think we should assume they were all forced. I think we should ask the question and find the answer.

   Those slaves introduced to America in 1619 came as indentured servants. This means they were laborers under contract (was the contract of their own will, or forced upon them?) to work for a set number of years. When the contract expired, the laborer was set free. This should be part of the story. 

   Get into The New York Times Magazine's report a little deeper. It will raise your eyebrows:

   ". . . black Americans, simply by existing served as a reminder of this nation's failings. White America dealt with this inconvenience by constructing a savagely enforced system of racial apartheid that excluded black people from mainstream American life -- a system so grotesque that Nazi Germany would later take inspiration from it for its own racist policies." 

    Did Nazi Germany pattern its racist policies against Jews on what it found in early America? This is a huge accusation. Where is the evidence? Where is the documentation? Did Hitler say as much in his writings? How do we know this is true?

   And, White Americans -- certainly not all of them -- probably did not consider it an "inconvenience" to be reminded of slavery. Those who did believe in slavery probably saw no inconvenience, at all. They probably supposed all they were doing was right. I'm not saying that it was right -- it wasn't -- but don't make them confessers of their guilt when they likely didn't feel that way. 

   Nor should it go overlooked that many treated their slaves well. Having slaves, at all, might well be wrong, but part of the story that should not go untold is that some slaves might not have minded being slaves. If that is true, it should be part of the story. I think of George Washington, and how he treated the slaves he inherited. I do not know that he was perfect in their treatment. He, perhaps, treated them wrong at times. But, for the most part, I understand he treated them well. That should be part of the tale. If you are going to give history, don't leave part of it out. 

   The 1619 Project does tell how Thomas Jefferson, in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged that slavery was wrong, and ascribed it to the king of England. That belongs in our history books -- as does the consideration of whether he was right. If the first slaves arrived in 1619, did the king of England have them sent here? 

    The 1619 Project should be critically reviewed. We should not just shovel these things into our history books just because The 1619 Project says we should.