Embedding The 1619 Project View Of America

Woke may be receding among the public, but it’s stronger than ever among those who write our history

Steven Hahn’s Illiberal America received rave reviews from the press this year. The work attempts to document how “illiberalism” has been with America since the beginning. Illiberalism is not well-defined in the book, as it includes everything from racial segregation to Amazon closely monitoring its workers. It ends up meaning everything those on the Left don’t like. The book isn’t without its merits. It highlights overlooked facts about American history to show it’s not always been a liberal proposition nation.

What’s most notable about the book is who it views as the heroes of American history. “[A] history of illiberal America also shows that the most consistent advocates of universal rights, expansive democracy, and the empowerment of people regardless of their economic, social, or cultural status are–from the colonial settlement of the continent to the founding of the republic to the current day–those who have been denied them,” Hahn writes.

In other words, the true heroes of American history are non-whites while the white men (unless they’re advocating for non-white interests) are its villains. This is the 1619 Project view of American history, and its acceptance by mainstream academics shows how deeply embedded it is.

Hahn takes issue with the prominent academics who attacked the 1619 Project. He thought its mistakes were miniscule compared to its importance in advancing his preferred idea of America. He’s particularly incensed that critics such as Gordon Wood and James McPherson would aid the “far right” in its mission to remove 1619 Project materials from schools. The message is that American schools need to teach this form of history, regardless of its errors. To not teach it helps the far right’s dangerous agenda.

The 1619 Project may not be as popular as it once was, but its influence will continue to be massive in the future. Why? Because the vast majority of American historians will be indoctrinated into it and weave its themes into public school textbooks and museums. Hahn is in his seventies, but the coming generation of American historians will hold his views and be even more radical.

The only people getting hired in the field of American history are woke non-whites. The data on this is astounding. More than 50 percent of history job postings now focus on non-white groups. Another 16 percent focus on “themes,” which likely emphasize women and gays. Over 35 percent of new postings are just for black history. The scholars who are hired for these jobs will not be white men–one can only imagine the outrage if a white guy was chosen to teach African-American history.

What scholars choose to focus on reflects this embedded wokeness. Friends studying in history grad programs report that all of the Americanists now focus on a woke angle in their dissertation. These can range from exploring how trans people contributed to American foreign policy or obsessing over the importance of blacks in the Spanish-American War. The purpose is to cement the idea that non-whites, not whites, made America what it is. Even if a grad student is a straight white male, their research topics will likely be woke. This is what the field of American history is like now.

This framework doesn’t just want to racially subvert American history–it also wants to teach that the true spirit of America is some variant of socialism. Hahn concludes his work by urging for a third way that counters both “illiberalism” and liberalism. He wants an America that implements a radical redistribution of wealth and a government that manages the economy. This, according to Hahn, is the true realization of American values–and this will be the intended lesson of future textbooks.

These leftists will shape how we view our past and heroes. They will want Americans to veer away from celebrating the Founding Fathers and direct our attention to Indians, obscure slaves, and other “subalterns.” Schoolchildren will hear more about Harriet Tubman and Malcolm X than they will hear about George Washington and Andrew Jackson. That’s the goal of the 1619 Project. It’s an ethno-narcissistic endeavor to deny the true founders their rightful place and replace them with a more diverse crowd. It’s affirmative action applied to our history.

The public isn’t a fan of this at all. Polls show that a strong majority of Americans oppose “critical race theory” and DEI in schools. Most Americans support preserving our history, including that of the Confederacy. A majority of Americans still have a positive view of Christopher Columbus and other important figures the Left wants to topple.

But the 1619 Project view is what could be set in stone, regardless of public opinion. The public’s opinion isn’t shared by those who write the textbooks. It’s the DEI view, and it’s backed by institutional power. The next generation’s minds will be shaped by what this crowd believes in schools and in mass media.

The public’s understanding of America is shaped by the history they’re taught in school and learn from movies. If it tells them that all the good things were done by non-whites and whites are the villains, then that’s how the people will perceive themselves. It will influence how they vote and what they think is American. It’s a terrible prospect to imagine.

That’s why it’s necessary to build a counter-history and support conservatives to get in the field of American history to challenge the left-wing stranglehold. This will require red state legislatures to pay attention to what’s taught in classrooms and who gets hired at university history departments. It will also demand for red states to sponsor initiatives to get more right-leaning people to join academia and compose textbooks to teach a patriotic view of American history.

Otherwise, the 1619 Project view will triumph and America will suffer the consequences.