Tom Cotton: no 1619 project in schools; Lost Cause statues are ok

[BmorePat87]

Senator Tom Cotton recently introduced a bill that is destined to die in committee. The bill seeks to remove any funding from schools who use the 1619 Project curriculum. The 1619 Project is a series from the New York Times that reexamines American history from the lens of the impact that slavery has had on it.

The Pulitzer Prize winning series is not without its critics, as one can expect with anything involving history and looking it at from a different perspective. Cotton has accused it of "revisionist history at its worst" and "left-wing propaganda".

Ironically, Cotton has been a defender of Confederate statues, which are artifacts of the Lost Cause myth, the most prolific revisionist history that is actually being taught in some schools.

Cotton said of learning slavery: “We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction", which is actually the same aim of the 1619 Project.

He suggested that instead of trying to say that American is “an irredeemably corrupt, rotten and racist country" (a pleasant disingenuous exaggeration of the 1619 Project's aims) that the US should instead be looked at “as an imperfect and flawed land, but the greatest and noblest country in the history of mankind", again which isn't at odds with the 1619 Project.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-27-2020, 12:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Senator Tom Cotton recently introduced a bill that is destined to die in committee. The bill seeks to remove any funding from schools who use the 1619 Project curriculum. The 1619 Project is a series from the New York Times that reexamines American history from the lens of the impact that slavery has had on it.

The Pulitzer Prize winning series is not without its critics, as one can expect with anything involving history and looking it at from a different perspective. Cotton has accused it of "revisionist history at its worst" and "left-wing propaganda".

Ironically, Cotton has been a defender of Confederate statues, which are artifacts of the Lost Cause myth, the most prolific revisionist history that is actually being taught in some schools.

Cotton said of learning slavery: “We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction", which is actually the same aim of the 1619 Project.

He suggested that instead of trying to say that American is “an irredeemably corrupt, rotten and racist country" (a pleasant disingenuous exaggeration of the 1619 Project's aims) that the US should instead be looked at “as an imperfect and flawed land, but the greatest and noblest country in the history of mankind", again which isn't at odds with the 1619 Project.

Saying the 1619 project is "not without its critics" is a bit of an understatement.  Not commenting on the validity of Cotton's bill, but he's not wrong on the 1619 project, which has been under withering fire.  At least not in my opinion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

For those unfamiliar with the 1619 project and the objections to it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/

The real bone of contention is in the main author's (Nikole Hannah-Jones) assertion that the revolution was started largely to protect slavery in the colonies as anti-slavery sentiment in the UK was on the rise. In this she is swimming completely against the tide of academic consent and, again IMO, shows a clear bias and desire to reframe history to her own liking. As stated in the article;

“To teach children that the American Revolution was fought in part to secure slavery would be giving a fundamental misunderstanding not only of what the American Revolution was all about but what America stood for and has stood for since the Founding,” Wilentz told me. Anti-slavery ideology was a “very new thing in the world in the 18th century,” he said, and “there was more anti-slavery activity in the colonies than in Britain.”

Please read the whole article, and others, but to me the argument is really between established historical fact and the desire by radicals to rewrite history to suit their current day agenda. The 1619 project is, again IMO (and others), academic trash and should be treated as such. So while Cotton's attempt is certainly ham fisted it is not without any merit whatsoever.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 02:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Saying the 1619 project is "not without its critics" is a bit of an understatement.  Not commenting on the validity of Cotton's bill, but he's not wrong on the 1619 project, which has been under withering fire.  At least not in my opinion.

It has some serious challenges by a group of historians who wrote about challenges to specific facts, including the false claim that Slavery was one of the major causes of the Revolution.

The Times also responded to it and rewrote articles to address issues, including the oft cited Revolution line. 

As one of the fact checkers consulted by the Times that criticized the initial product said in an oped to Politico, the 1619 Project's detractors are doing far more harm. The prominent historians who wrote to the Times all at least agreed that the central theme, the focus on how slavery shaped the nation from 1619 to 2019. They disagreed on some arguments and the Times responded. 

Unfortunately critics like Cotton and the Federalist would like to view slavery's impact as ending in 1865. The Federalist responded with the 1620 Project and a book called "1620: The True Beginning of the American Republic" as means to "refute" the 1619 Project. Ironically, the guy who announced it attacked the Times standards but has a history of plagiarism and taking payments to write favorable pieces about people. But, the idea is that focusing on Pilgrims seeking religious liberty somehow dispels the legacy of slavery. 

The other conservative response is the 1776 Project, which seeks to refute the idea that America is defined by its past mistakes and that examples of black success overshadow systemic racism. 

Looking at the critiques gets us to the issue at hand: focusing on the history of systemic racism and how the institution of slavery shaped it. Both websites are equally concerned with attacking the 1619 Project as they are with promoting their own views. Both website fall into the trap that they attack the Times for. 

So we have to ask the purpose of people who defend the Lost Cause taking issue with attempts to address and study systemic racism. They commit the errors they accuse the Times of committing. The reality is that the 1619 Project doesn't commit any more evils than many historical sourcebooks do, and it's clear that the lessons they offer themselves are not actually what is being scrutinized, especially since the biggest issue they point to isn't even a part of the lessons. 

[Dill]

(07-27-2020, 12:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Senator Tom Cotton recently introduced a bill that is destined to die in committee. The bill seeks to remove any funding from schools who use the 1619 Project curriculum. The 1619 Project is a series from the New York Times that reexamines American history from the lens of the impact that slavery has had on it.

He suggested that instead of trying to say that American is “an irredeemably corrupt, rotten and racist country" (a pleasant disingenuous exaggeration of the 1619 Project's aims) that the US should instead be looked at “as an imperfect and flawed land, but the greatest and noblest country in the history of mankind", again which isn't at odds with the 1619 Project.

The 1619 Project has launched a potentially useful debate over US history, which has stimulated some public discussion and review of US history. A number of actual historians are debating the project's merit, and that should encourage non-historians to reread US history from newer perspectives.

Unfortunately it's also generating a lot of smoke as evidenced by Cotton's bill. In the Trump era, I think that means a lot of people who have never done any kind of historical research and generally don't read books written by scholars in that area will be mobilizing soundbites from newspaper/magazine articles against their usual opponents. I think some pruning needs to be done before the Project gets into schools, and it probably will be. But Cotton's comment is pretty much the comment of every right winger who wants "ideology free" history taught in the schools. LOL

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 03:32 AM)Dill Wrote: The 1619 Project has launched a potentially useful debate over US history, which has stimulated some public discussion and review of US history. A number of actual historians are debating the project's merit, and that should encourage non-historians to reread US history from newer perspectives.

Unfortunately it's also generating a lot of smoke as evidenced by Cotton's bill. In the Trump era, I think that means a lot of people who have never done any kind of historical research and generally don't read books written by scholars in that area will be mobilizing soundbites from newspaper/magazine articles against their usual opponents. I think some pruning needs to be done before the Project gets into schools, and it probably will be. But Cotton's comment is pretty much the comment of every right winger who wants "ideology free" history taught in the schools. LOL

The Time's respond to criticism was also the correct response. Its detractors could learn from that, especially as they continue to defend a 150 year old revisionist view of the Civil War. 

[Dill]

(07-27-2020, 03:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The other conservative response is the 1776 Project, which seeks to refute the idea that America is defined by its past mistakes and that examples of black success overshadow systemic racism. 

Looking at the critiques gets us to the issue at hand: focusing on the history of systemic racism and how the institution of slavery shaped it. Both websites are equally concerned with attacking the 1619 Project as they are with promoting their own views. Both website fall into the trap that they attack the Times for. 

So we have to ask the purpose of people who defend the Lost Cause taking issue with attempts to address and study systemic racism. They commit the errors they accuse the Times of committing. The reality is that the 1619 Project doesn't commit any more evils than many historical sourcebooks do, and it's clear that the lessons they offer themselves are not actually what is being scrutinized, especially since the biggest issue they point to isn't even a part of the lessons. 

Yeah, debates over history, especially black history in the US, need to be situated in current US politics.  Hanna-Jones claim that the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery has pretty much distorted a number of other good and interesting issues raised by the 1619 Project, which explore the relation of slavery to current health care and prison systems.

I was disappointed by the exchange between Silverstein, one of the Times editors, and Allen Guelzo on the nature of southern "capitalism." I consider Guelzo a Lincoln expert but I'm left wondering how much he can really know about the Civil War if the thinks the South's economy wasn't really capitalist because some slave owners openly espoused aristocratic values. Matthew Desmond's essay in the Project, "Capitalism," also seems to play fast and loose with claims like cotton was analogous to oil in the world economy of the 19th century, and New World capitalism finds its primary origin in slavery. (We may indeed have undervalued the role of slavery in the colonies and in the world economy, but English settlers were already "capitalist" from North to South, regardless of slavery.) Some good historians are looking bad now, without making the 1619 Project necessarily better. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-27-2020, 03:32 AM)Dill Wrote: The 1619 Project has launched a potentially useful debate over US history, which has stimulated some public discussion and review of US history. A number of actual historians are debating the project's merit, and that should encourage non-historians to reread US history from newer perspectives.

It's interesting that you say that, because it almost completely echoes the point made by this History professor at Princeton;

“I felt that if I signed on to that, I would be signing on to the white guy's attack of something that has given a lot of black journalists and writers a chance to speak up in a really big way. So I support the 1619 Project as kind of a cultural event,” Painter said. “For Sean and his colleagues, true history is how they would write it. And I feel like he was asking me to choose sides, and my side is 1619's side, not his side, in a world in which there are only those two sides."


And it's precisely here that this argument falls apart.  Her objection is rooted in the gender and ethnicity of the person making the argument, not their scholarship.  By her own admission she views the 1619 project as a "cultural event".  It's not that, it's an academic study, or at least it's supposed to be.  You don't get a separate version of facts on which to make judgments based on you political viewpoints, ethnicity or gender.  This viewpoint is, IMO, the core of what is wrong with higher education at present.  Either a historical record is accurate or it is not.  Making completely false assertions about historical events to score points in the present is the exact opposite of what historians should do.  The fact that it's not only tolerated but celebrated should horrify anyone who actually cares about the study of history.  Keep your old textbooks, kids.  This isn't going to be the last historical rewrite we see in the next few decades.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 03:58 AM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, debates over history, especially black history in the US, need to be situated in current US politics.  Hanna-Jones claim that the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery has pretty much distorted a number of other good and interesting issues raised by the 1619 Project, which explore the relation of slavery to current health care and prison systems.

I was disappointed by the exchange between Silverstein, one of the Times editors, and Allen Guelzo on the nature of southern "capitalism." I consider Guelzo a Lincoln expert but I'm left wondering how much he can really know about the Civil War if the thinks the South's economy wasn't really capitalist because some slave owners openly espoused aristocratic values. Matthew Desmond's essay in the Project, "Capitalism," also seems to play fast and loose with claims like cotton was analogous to oil in the world economy of the 19th century, and New World capitalism finds its primary origin in slavery. (We may indeed have undervalued the role of slavery in the colonies and in the world economy, but English settlers were already "capitalist" from North to South, regardless of slavery.)  Some good historians are looking bad now, without making the 1619 Project necessarily better. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140

I appreciate that the Times defended themselves when appropriate and pointed to the fact that general criticism of a message or author is not grounds for a correction.

When you look at a lot of the criticism, many instances contested are not glaring, revisionism but rather scholarly arguments with merit where the author contests a point or interpretation. 

These are battles that could occur in nearly any work, so you have to ask, why so publicly contest it here?

Could be the prominence of the project. Could be the role of non-traditional journalist-historians. Could be the aim of the project itself. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-27-2020, 10:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I appreciate that the Times defended themselves when appropriate and pointed to the fact that general criticism of a message or author is not grounds for a correction.

When you look at a lot of the criticism, many instances contested are not glaring, revisionism but rather scholarly arguments with merit where the author contests a point or interpretation. 

These are battles that could occur in nearly any work, so you have to ask, why so publicly contest it here?

I think it's rather because the assertion that the revolution was started to protect slavery is blatantly false on its face.

Quote:Could be the prominence of the project. Could be the role of non-traditional journalist-historians. Could be the aim of the project itself. 

You spelled "activist" wrong. 

[Millhouse]

I disagree with Cotton on Confederate statues (the ones in public places that are not on a battlefield, cemetery, or place of historical significance).

But I agree with him on the 1619 thing. History in schools shouldn't be taught using opinion historical essays from the NY Times.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting that you say that, because it almost completely echoes the point made by this History professor at Princeton;

“I felt that if I signed on to that, I would be signing on to the white guy's attack of something that has given a lot of black journalists and writers a chance to speak up in a really big way. So I support the 1619 Project as kind of a cultural event,” Painter said. “For Sean and his colleagues, true history is how they would write it. And I feel like he was asking me to choose sides, and my side is 1619's side, not his side, in a world in which there are only those two sides."


And it's precisely here that this argument falls apart.  Her objection is rooted in the gender and ethnicity of the person making the argument, not their scholarship.  By her own admission she views the 1619 project as a "cultural event".  It's not that, it's an academic study, or at least it's supposed to be.  You don't get a separate version of facts on which to make judgments based on you political viewpoints, ethnicity or gender.  This viewpoint is, IMO, the core of what is wrong with higher education at present.  Either a historical record is accurate or it is not.  Making completely false assertions about historical events to score points in the present is the exact opposite of what historians should do.  The fact that it's not only tolerated but celebrated should horrify anyone who actually cares about the study of history.  Keep your old textbooks, kids.  This isn't going to be the last historical rewrite we see in the next few decades.

This is a really poor argument on your behalf. A historical series such as the 1619 Project absolutely can be a "cultural event" without sacrificing historical value or its identity as an academic study. 

The article you got that quote from goes on to say

“The tone to me rather suggested a deep-seated concern about the project. And by that I mean the version of history the project offered. The deep-seated concern is that placing the enslavement of black people and white supremacy at the forefront of a project somehow diminishes American history,” Thavolia Glymph, a history professor at Duke who was asked to sign the letter, told me. “Maybe some of their factual criticisms are correct. But they've set a tone that makes it hard to deal with that.”

“I don't think they think they're trying to discredit the project,” Painter said. “They think they're trying to fix the project, the way that only they know how.”

You almost exclusively cling to criticizing the project's claims that are challenged, specifically one claim, without acknowledging that the project responds to those challenges with either justifications or corrections, as one should expect them to. You're also ignoring actual historians who argue that differing interpretations of history are part of the discipline.

Take the woman you quote. She challenges the notion of using 1619 as a starting point of slavery since it involved indentured servants, but those 20 people were kidnapped and sold. While the terms may have been set up like indentured servitude as that was a practice already in place with some eventually being freed, it was slavery. 

This is where critical analyzing history and not just accepting "the old textbooks" is important, especially as noted in the article, those old textbooks often promoted the Lost Cause as fact and did so for over a century. 

As someone who actually has a degree in history and uses it in their profession, I think I qualify as someone who "cares about history", which is why I reject this argument. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 10:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it's rather because the assertion that the revolution was started to protect slavery is blatantly false on its face.


You spelled "activist" wrong. 

and you can keep repeating that as your primary reason for the project having no historical value, but the Times accepted that critique months ago and edited their article to show it was a belief held by SOME people, not a primary cause overall. 

You have cited that Atlantic article multiple times without actually addressing the central theme of it, which is the root cause of these challenges seems to lie in the fear that looking critically at the flaws of the US will mean we cannot look at the history of its successes. It's not nearly as scathing as you're portraying it to be. I would say it's not scathing at all. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2020, 11:19 AM)Millhouse Wrote: I disagree with Cotton on Confederate statues (the ones in public places that are not on a battlefield, cemetery, or place of historical significance).

But I agree with him on the 1619 thing. History in schools shouldn't be taught using opinion historical essays from the NY Times.

To be fair, most history books are about as accurate as a NYT opinion piece. Whether that says good things about the NYT or bad things about history books is up to you.

My main point there is that history is taught with a huge helping of subjective point-of-view. Whether it be leaving out stuff because the teacher wants to avoid it, textbook inaccuracies because of the Lost Cause movement being still a thing, or what have you, the way history is taught isn't just objective facts about the past.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-27-2020, 11:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is a really poor argument on your behalf. A historical series such as the 1619 Project absolutely can be a "cultural event" without sacrificing historical value or its identity as an academic study.

Dear lord, of course it could.  It could absolutely be a cultural event and a sound study of history.  Seeing as how the very history professor I quoted stated she supported it as "kind of a cultural event", it appears she views it more as the former than the latter.

Quote:The article you got that quote from goes on to say

“The tone to me rather suggested a deep-seated concern about the project. And by that I mean the version of history the project offered. The deep-seated concern is that placing the enslavement of black people and white supremacy at the forefront of a project somehow diminishes American history,” Thavolia Glymph, a history professor at Duke who was asked to sign the letter, told me. “Maybe some of their factual criticisms are correct. But they've set a tone that makes it hard to deal with that.”

“I don't think they think they're trying to discredit the project,” Painter said. “They think they're trying to fix the project, the way that only they know how.”

Yes, I read the entire article.

Quote:You almost exclusively cling to criticizing the project's claims that are challenged, specifically one claim, without acknowledging that the project responds to those challenges with either justifications or corrections, as one should expect them to. You're also ignoring actual historians who argue that differing interpretations of history are part of the discipline.

I would generally agree, but when your starting assertion, the very foundation of your entire "project" is blatantly false how can it not taint every interpretation and assertion you make subsequently?

Quote:Take the woman you quote. She challenges the notion of using 1619 as a starting point of slavery since it involved indentured servants, but those 20 people were kidnapped and sold. While the terms may have been set up like indentured servitude as that was a practice already in place with some eventually being freed, it was slavery. 

This is where critical analyzing history and not just accepting "the old textbooks" is important, especially as noted in the article, those old textbooks often promoted the Lost Cause as fact and did so for over a century. 

As someone who actually has a degree in history and uses it in their profession, I think I qualify as someone who "cares about history", which is why I reject this argument. 

Which honestly concerns me.  How could you take anything seriously that makes a demonstrably false claim such as the revolution was started to protect the institution of slavery?  This when it is historical fact that the abolitionist movement had much more momentum in the colonies than it did in the UK. 

(07-27-2020, 11:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and you can keep repeating that as your primary reason for the project having no historical value, but the Times accepted that critique months ago and edited their article to show it was a belief held by SOME people, not a primary cause overall. 

You have cited that Atlantic article multiple times without actually addressing the central theme of it, which is the root cause of these challenges seems to lie in the fear that looking critically at the flaws of the US will mean we cannot look at the history of its successes. It's not nearly as scathing as you're portraying it to be. I would say it's not scathing at all. 

On this we disagree then.  I don't find any historical value in a "project" that makes demonstrably false claims and then bases conclusions on these claims.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 11:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would generally agree, but when your starting assertion, the very foundation of your entire "project" is blatantly false how can it not taint every interpretation and assertion you make subsequently?

So if there's one error, even if it is fixed, all subsequent work is scrutinized as being invalid? That's an awful position.

Quote:Which honestly concerns me.  How could you take anything seriously that makes a demonstrably false claim such as the revolution was started to protect the institution of slavery?  This when it is historical fact that the abolitionist movement had much more momentum in the colonies than it did in the UK. 

Because there are many demonstrably false claims being made about history, and some are stored in "old textbooks". You are able to find value and worth in parts of work while disagreeing with others. And I want to point out that you are continuing to focus your criticism on one specific claim that was corrected months ago as justification to discredit a much larger project, which isn't a great argument. 

Quote:On this we disagree then.  I don't find any historical value in a "project" that makes demonstrably false claims and then bases conclusions on these claims.

and yet you called for us going back to old history book that do the same. I wish we had an ounce of this passion from the 1619 Project's detractors for the Lost Cause as we do for a single claim about slavery impacting the revolution. 

[Millhouse]

(07-27-2020, 11:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, most history books are about as accurate as a NYT opinion piece. Whether that says good things about the NYT or bad things about history books is up to you.

My main point there is that history is taught with a huge helping of subjective point-of-view. Whether it be leaving out stuff because the teacher wants to avoid it, textbook inaccuracies because of the Lost Cause movement being still a thing, or what have you, the way history is taught isn't just objective facts about the past.

History books written by historians with phds, or a high school history book with generic paragraphs? If it is the former, I disagree that most are as accurate as a NY Time op piece, thats just silly, especially books written in more modern times.

I've never been a fan of how history is taught in K-12 because it glosses over history making in forgettable and boring for many students. 

But these essays in the NY Times aren't written by historians, hence shouldn't be taught in school. However there are numerous books and articles written by black and white historians (those with Phds in history) about slavery whom parts of should be taught in school.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 12:08 PM)Millhouse Wrote: History books written by historians with phds, or a high school history book with generic paragraphs? If it is the former, I disagree that most are as accurate as a NY Time op piece, thats just silly, especially books written in more modern times.

I've never been a fan of how history is taught in K-12 because it glosses over history making in forgettable and boring for many students. 

But these essays in the NY Times aren't written by historians, hence shouldn't be taught in school. However there are numerous books and articles written by black and white historians (those with Phds in history) about slavery whom parts of should be taught in school.

Every single author of my school's American History textbook has a PhD. I'd be surprised if there's a major textbook out there that doesn't fall into that category where most, if not all, do. 

History can be written by more than just those who seek a PhD in it. I think dismissing the ability for esteemed journalists, who it can be argued can be held to higher standards for truth, to write history is a mistake. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2020, 12:08 PM)Millhouse Wrote: History books written by historians with phds, or a high school history book with generic paragraphs? If it is the former, I disagree that most are as accurate as a NY Time op piece, thats just silly, especially books written in more modern times.

I've never been a fan of how history is taught in K-12 because it glosses over history making in forgettable and boring for many students. 

But these essays in the NY Times aren't written by historians, hence shouldn't be taught in school. However there are numerous books and articles written by black and white historians (those with Phds in history) about slavery whom parts of should be taught in school.

(07-27-2020, 12:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Every single author of my school's American History textbook has a PhD. I'd be surprised if there's a major textbook out there that doesn't fall into that category where most, if not all, do. 

History can be written by more than just those who seek a PhD in it. I think dismissing the ability for esteemed journalists, who it can be argued can be held to higher standards for truth, to write history is a mistake. 

People have points of view that color their teaching and writing. Whether that person have a PhD in a topic, they are an investigative journalist, or a high school history teacher. This is just the nature of things. History taught with just facts is pointless and boring. Understanding context and how past events play into modern society requires more subjectivity than people are ready to admit. I'm not disparaging people writing these books, teaching the topic, or writing articles about it. We need these points of view out there. However, I have never seen a book about history written in such a way that didn't take some interpretive liberties with the subject matter. I have books about local history written 100 years ago by a local PhD in history that are the most deadpan and fact-filled books on history I have ever read, yet they still contain the writer's point of view in several places because of what they chose to focus on, their opinions on the Civil War, and certain segments of the local population (specifically their views on the anabaptist members of the community). It's just how these things work.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2020, 12:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: People have points of view that color their teaching and writing. Whether that person have a PhD in a topic, they are an investigative journalist, or a high school history teacher. This is just the nature of things. History taught with just facts is pointless and boring. Understanding context and how past events play into modern society requires more subjectivity than people are ready to admit. I'm not disparaging people writing these books, teaching the topic, or writing articles about it. We need these points of view out there. However, I have never seen a book about history written in such a way that didn't take some interpretive liberties with the subject matter. I have books about local history written 100 years ago by a local PhD in history that are the most deadpan and fact-filled books on history I have ever read, yet they still contain the writer's point of view in several places because of what they chose to focus on, their opinions on the Civil War, and certain segments of the local population (specifically their views on the anabaptist members of the community). It's just how these things work.

"If cats could write history, their history would be mostly about cats" Eugen Weber

It's a fundamental truth that the famed historian expresses in an easy to digest, and cute, way.

We tend to write history about ourselves or our people. Centuries of history by white men is centuries of history mostly about white men. It's centuries of "truths" that we have accepted from that perspective. Even the most "fact filled" is influenced by personal interpretation, opinion, and perspective, history often is. Even solely using primary sources results in our own personal interpretation, opinion, and perspective. 

I think historians may feel challenged by journalists getting involved in the field, hence the public letter that many others saw as an "unnecessary escalation". I think the fact that this project follows a journalistic approach also invites a different level of scrutiny of "facts only, no opinion", despite that not being a universal scrutiny applied to the discipline of history.