So does regular traditional history. Pretty much all of history as taught in school is highly selective and reductive. You’re criticizing 1619 for being exactly like what’s wrong with traditional history, that led to the creation of the project in the first place.

???

~

Part of this educational strategy is deliberate in that we don’t like to look at our historical mistakes and we have a problematic over emphasis of good vs bad dynamics. It means we can’t always see people as complicated human beings. We have a hard time seeing how someone like George Washington who refused to be king, successfully turned separate colonies into a single nation, and established traditions like term limits and peaceful transfer of power that have been so important to our nation could ever be the same person who ripped the teeth from his slaves to make himself dentures,illegally transporting slaves into Pennsylvania as President in violation of Pennsylvania law, brutally whipped soldiers under his command for getting a smallpox vaccine, or stiffing Congress with a bill for nearly $1/2M for lavish expenses like plays and booze while his soldiers starved. He did all those things.

We also have a problem talking about violence and brutality in honest terms with children. We don’t want to jade them or make them afraid.

Part of it is a natural consequence of academic scheduling. You have a limited time to cover a very broad and deep subject. You simply can’t cover ever nuance and perspective. Even if you eliminated all other educational subjects you still would run out of time. You have to choose.

Part of it is wonkiness in the deliberations of that choice we have to make. If we have to choose, we could also choose to be more mindful and inclusive in our choices. If we have to choose, we could choose to not be so repetitive year after year with the same material and viewpoint allowing more time and depth to be spent on each historical period from more perspectives. Even if, like Project 1619 they have their own factual discrepancies that need review or broke some journalistic ethics rule in a publication one time. We could choose a path of improvement and not accept less from ourselves or for our children.