The festival's presentation omits significant criticism of
the 1619 Project’s reinterpretation from prominent historians specialising in
the American Revolution and Civil War. Key figures like Gordon Wood, James
McPherson, James Oakes, Victoria Bynum, and Sean Wilentz challenged its central
assertion that the colonists initiated the Revolution primarily to shield
slavery from British abolition efforts. In 2020, the Times subtly revised this
claim to refer to "some of” the colonists, yet they did not withdraw the
overarching interpretive framework. Despite this controversy, the Board still
awarded Hannah-Jones the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
The core issue is not whether slavery was a central part of
American history; it was. Rather, it is about how history is interpreted. The
1619 Project shifts the focus from class conflict to an unchangeable racial
divide, portraying “white America” and “Black America’ as forever opposing
entities. This perspective diminishes the significance of the two major
revolutionary moments, the War of Independence and the Civil War, stripping
them of their progressive significance. The Declaration of Independence, once a
rallying point for abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and Lincoln, is now
seen as hypocritical. The Civil War, which cost the lives of hundreds of
thousands of white workers and farmers fighting to end slavery and saw around
180,000 Black soldiers participate, is marginalised. Furthermore, the struggles
of the industrial working class, including CIO organising campaigns and
large-scale strikes of the 20th century, are scarcely acknowledged.
The political function of racialist historiography
This narrative does not develop in isolation. It reflects
the political interests of a privileged upper-middle class, closely tied to the
Democratic Party, for whom racial identity serves as a tool for career
advancement in academia, media, corporations, and government. Over the last
decade, this social segment has heightened racial discourse into a form of
cultural capital. This credential grants access to grants, tenure, editorial
roles, foundation funding, and corporate diversity positions. The 1619 Project
exemplifies this ideological trend. By depicting racism as a permanent trait
ingrained in the “national DNA” rather than as a result of specific social and
economic conditions, it shifts focus away from capitalism, the root cause of
exploitation across all races. It promotes a narrative that normalises division
while hiding the material foundations of oppression.
This narrative's political usefulness becomes evident amid
the worsening crisis of American capitalism. Inequality has risen to levels
unseen since the Gilded Age, social infrastructure is deteriorating, and the
ruling elite is leaning toward authoritarian rule. In this climate, a united
working-class movement would threaten the interests of the upper-middle class,
which aligns its fortunes with the Democratic Party. Racial essentialism acts
as a political tool to prevent such unity by dividing workers into hostile
racial groups, fostering suspicion and resentment, and replacing the idea of
common exploitation with ongoing cultural conflicts.
The racial essentialism of the 1619 Project is more than
just a theoretical mistake; it has tangible political repercussions. By
dismissing the revolutionary and democratic essence of the American Revolution
and Civil War, it strips the working class of vital historical narratives that
highlight their ability to unite and oppose oppression. The American
Revolution, with its universalist claims of human equality, and the Civil War,
which effectively ended slavery and can be seen as America's second revolution,
stand as some of the most significant examples of mass resistance in history.
They demonstrate that ordinary people- farmers, artisans, workers, Black and
white- are capable of overthrowing deeply rooted systems of exploitation when
they come together around shared material interests.
Removing the progressive elements of these events erodes the
working class's historical memory. As Tom Mackaman and David North noted in
their review, attacking these revolutions disarms the populace against fascism,
depriving workers of the historical confidence essential to resist
authoritarian regimes. When a society is taught that “white America” is
inherently racist and that interracial unity is a myth, it becomes less able to
see its own collective power.
The project’s author's political trajectory underscores this
function. Hannah‑Jones has repeatedly used the project to intervene in
contemporary politics, promoting racial divisions and aligning herself with the
Democratic Party’s electoral strategies. Her public interventions consistently
frame political developments through the lens of racial antagonism, encouraging
the view that racial identity is the primary determinant of social experience and
political interest. In doing so, she reinforces the ideological framework
through which the upper‑middle class maintains its privileges: a framework that
elevates racial discourse while obscuring the class relations that structure
American society.
The narrative promoted by the 1619 Project has become a key
ideological weapon for a social class aiming to preserve its privileges by
dividing the working class along racial lines. Its purpose is not to clarify
history but to divert social anger from capitalism and toward a view where
race, rather than class, is the main factor. This leads to an outlook that
divides and weakens the working class when unity is most needed.
The social context in Dallas
The timing and setting of the Hay Festival Forum reveal
important insights. Held amid a period when the working class faces growing
inequality, threats to immigrant rights, and a move toward authoritarianism,
Dallas symbolises more than just a location; it is a microcosm of America's
social crisis. Workers across Texas, regardless of race- Black, white, or
Latino- share common struggles: the same employers, landlords, declining public
services, and a political system responsible for decades of social decline.
These issues stem not from genetic or racial factors, but from a capitalist
system that prioritises private profit over social well-being.
Texas exemplifies this trend, with political leaders
implementing policies that benefit corporations at the expense of public
education, healthcare, and social services. Immigrant communities face punitive
laws and increased militarised policing. Meanwhile, housing prices climb as
wages remain stagnant. The rise of authoritarianism through attacks on
democratic rights and expanded repression is deeply linked to the growing class
conflict. In this context, the ruling class and its ideological supporters
actively promote narratives that divide workers and hide the true causes of
their oppression.
A portrayal of American history that pits workers against
each other based on race offers no benefits. Moreover, it provides the far
right with a simple caricature to use in campaigns against public education and
historical study. The racialist story from the 1619 Project has already been
weaponised by reactionaries trying to ban conversations about racism, thereby
bolstering their authoritarian goals. In Texas, where authorities are
aggressively censoring school curricula, the 1619 Project has been used as a
justification to ban teaching about race, inequality, and oppression's history.
The right-wing attack on education is not about factual history but about
distorting the narrative to make it easier for reactionaries to see any talk of
racism as ideological. This analysis uncovers the political purpose behind
racial essentialism. By framing American history as a moral story of ongoing
racial conflict, the 1619 Project neglects the significant influence of class
struggle and revolutionary traditions that have shaped the nation. It omits
that major American milestones such as ending slavery, expanding democratic
rights, and labour victories were achieved through collective effort across all
races. This oversight strips the working class of vital historical memory
needed to resist authoritarian threats today.
The Hay Festival Forum’s choice to highlight Hannah-Jones
now is deliberate. The festival’s social circle, wealthy, professional, and
aligned with the Democratic Party, is exactly the group that has adopted racial
essentialism as its core ideology. For this group, racial identity serves to
distinguish moral values and gain institutional influence. It offers a
framework to voice social grievances without questioning the capitalist system
that sustains their advantages.
For workers in Dallas, the prevailing story acts as a
distraction, shifting focus away from their shared exploitation toward viewing
society through the lens of racial identity as the key factor in experiences.
It fosters division when unity is most needed. The true “reframing" is not
the one promoted by the Times but a return to a materialist view of history,
one that acknowledges the revolutionary legacy of the American working class
and the importance of uniting workers across racial and national lines in the
fight against capitalism.
The historical record and the materialist method
A true rethinking requires returning to a materialist view
of history. Slavery was not driven by an inherent racial essence but was a
system of class exploitation rooted in capitalism and the global market. It
developed alongside major shifts in production, finance, and trade,
transforming humans into commodities to satisfy the needs of expanding
capitalist wealth. The plantation economy was closely linked to the rise of
merchant capital, Atlantic trade, and the emergence of industrial capitalism in
Britain and the northern U.S. Understanding slavery means understanding
capitalism; dismantling it involves revolutionary change.
Abolishing slavery required a revolutionary struggle,
beginning with the War of Independence, which paved the way for abolitionist
activism, and then in the Civil War, often called the second American
revolution, which dismantled the slave system through mass mobilisation and
armed conflict. Although the Revolution of 1776 did not end slavery, it laid
the ideological and political groundwork for abolitionism. The Declaration of
Independence, with its claim that “all men are created equal,” became a tool
for leaders like Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and other
anti-slavery advocates. The Civil War, largely fueled by enslaved people's
actions and the mobilisation of workers and farmers, ended the slave system and established the republic on the principles of free labour. These conflicts were
fundamentally class struggles with deep democratic significance, rather than
racial conflicts.
The working class needs to reclaim these traditions, not as
remnants of the past but as active evidence of ordinary people's ability to
challenge established systems of exploitation. The interracial struggles of the
19th and 20th centuries, ranging from the abolitionist movement to
Reconstruction governments, and from the Knights of Labour to the CIO's
organising efforts, show that solidarity across racial boundaries is both
possible and necessary. These struggles are not isolated incidents; they
reflect the fundamental truth that workers of all races share common interests
against the capitalist class.
The movement to end slavery was inherently interracial, with
Black and white workers, artisans, intellectuals, and farmers collaboratively opposing
the slaveholding system. During Reconstruction, Black and white workers in the
South helped establish governments that expanded public education, increased
political participation, and challenged former slaveholders' influence. In the
early 20th century's industrial battles, workers from various backgrounds
united in large-scale strikes that challenged the foundations of American
capitalism. The CIO’s victories in the steel, auto, and mining industries came
from deliberately rejecting racial divisions and advocating industrial
unionism: “Black and white, unite and fight.”
These traditions expose the falsity of the racialist
narrative advanced by the 1619 Project. They show that the decisive force in
American history has never been immutable racial antagonism but the capacity of
workers to unite around shared material interests. They reveal that progress
has come not from the assertion of racial identity but from the collective
struggle against exploitation.
To reclaim these traditions is to reclaim the possibility of
revolutionary change today. The working class confronts a capitalist system in
profound crisis marked by inequality, authoritarianism, war and social decay.
Its strength lies not in racial division but in unity. A materialist understanding
of history provides the foundation for such unity. It reveals that the fight
against racism is inseparable from the fight against capitalism, and that the
emancipation of all oppressed people requires the independent mobilisation of
the working class across all racial and national lines.
A warning and a perspective
The Hay Festival Forum’s support for the 1619 Project
exemplifies a wider ideological campaign designed to shift social anger away
from capitalism and toward racial essentialism. It caters to a privileged elite
that fears a unified working-class movement. With inequality surging to
historic levels, social infrastructure crumbling, and authoritarian trends
becoming more apparent, the ruling class and its allies have a clear motive to
promote narratives that divide workers and hide the material roots of
oppression. The 1619 Project, which emphasises race as the key and lasting
factor in American society, fulfils this role.
Today, the objective is to focus on a materialist view of
history that highlights the critical influence of class conflict, rather than
simply reframing American history through racial perspectives. This involves
understanding slavery as an exploitation system rooted in capitalism's rise and
the expansion of the global market. It also means recognising that abolition
was driven by revolutionary struggles first during the War of Independence,
which created the foundation for abolitionist ideas, and later during the Civil
War, America's second revolution, which dismantled slavery through mass
mobilisation and armed conflict. These historic changes were driven by class
forces prevailing in specific contexts, not by race or destiny.
A materialist understanding of history also requires
reclaiming the revolutionary traditions that followed. The interracial
struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries, from the abolitionist movement to
Reconstruction, from the Knights of Labour to the CIO organising drives, demonstrate
that solidarity across racial lines is not only possible but essential. These
struggles were not anomalies or exceptions to an otherwise racially determined
national story. They expressed the fundamental reality that workers, regardless
of race, share common interests in opposition to the capitalist class. They show
that the greatest advances in American history came when workers acted
collectively, not when they were divided.
The racial essentialism advanced by the 1619 Project denies
these traditions. It reduces the American Revolution to hypocrisy, the Civil
War to a conflict devoid of progressive content, and the labour struggles of
the 20th century to footnotes in a narrative of permanent racial division. In
doing so, it deprives the working class of the historical memory necessary to
confront the dangers of authoritarianism, inequality and war. A population
taught that “white America” is irredeemably racist, and that interracial
solidarity is a myth, is a population less capable of recognising its own
collective strength. It is more vulnerable to demoralisation, fragmentation, and political manipulation.
The ideological offensive represented by the 1619 Project is
therefore not simply a matter of historical interpretation. It is a political
intervention aimed at shaping consciousness in a period of intensifying crisis.
The upper‑middle‑class layers that promote racial essentialism do so because
their own social position depends on the maintenance of capitalist stability.
They fear the emergence of a unified working‑class movement that could
challenge the institutions through which they exercise influence: academia,
media, corporate management and the state. By elevating racial identity to the
status of a master category, they seek to redirect social anger away from
capitalism and toward a conception of society in which race, not class, is the
decisive force.
Only a materialist perspective can counter this. Only such a
perspective can give the working class the historical clarity and political
confidence needed to confront the dangers of authoritarianism, inequality, and
war. It reveals that the fight against racism is inseparable from the fight
against capitalism, and that the emancipation of all oppressed people requires
the independent mobilisation of the working class across all racial and
national lines. It restores the revolutionary traditions that show what workers
can achieve when united. Moreover, it exposes the racialist narrative for what
it is: an ideological weapon wielded by a privileged social layer to defend a
social order that is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
I. WSWS Articles and Analyses on the 1619 Project
- David
North & Eric London, The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the
Racialist Falsification of History (WSWS, 2019–2020). A multi‑part
series dissecting the project’s historical claims, political function, and
methodological flaws.
- Tom
Mackaman & David North, The 1619 Project and the Second
American Revolution (WSWS, 2021). A retrospective evaluation of the
expanded book edition, A New Origin Story, demonstrating its
deepened racial essentialism.
- Tom
Mackaman, A New Origin Story: The 1619 Project’s Racialist
Distortion of American History (WSWS, 2021). A detailed review of the
book edition, showing how it erases class struggle and revolutionary
traditions.
- Eric
London, The New York Times and the Promotion of Racialist Politics
(WSWS, 2020). An analysis of the political interests behind the project.
- Interview
Series, WSWS interviews with Gordon Wood, James McPherson, James
Oakes, Victoria Bynum, and Sean Wilentz (2019). Essential primary material
documenting the scholarly rejection of the project’s foundational claims.
II. Scholarly Works on Slavery, Capitalism, and the
American Revolution
Foundational Historians Who Critiqued the 1619 Project
- Gordon
S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (Vintage,
1993).
- Gordon
S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History (Modern Library,
2002).
- James
M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford
University Press, 1988).
- James
Oakes, The Ruling Race: Slaveholders in the South (Knopf,
1982).
- James
Oakes, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United
States (W.W. Norton, 2012).
- Victoria
Bynum, The Free State of Jones (University of North Carolina
Press, 2001).
- Sean
Wilentz, No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the
Founding (Harvard University Press, 2018).
These works collectively dismantle the claim that the
Revolution was fought to protect slavery and demonstrate the centrality of
antislavery politics in the founding and Civil War eras.
III. Marxist and Materialist Historiography
Classic Marxist Works
- Karl
Marx, The Civil War in the United States (1861–1865).
- Karl
Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).
- Leon
Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution (1930–32). (For
method: class analysis, revolutionary agency, historical materialism.)
Modern Marxist Historians
- W.E.B.
Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America (1935). A foundational
materialist analysis of the Civil War and Reconstruction, emphasising
interracial working‑class struggle.
- Herbert
Aptheker, American Negro Slave Revolts (1943).
- Eric
Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution (1988).
- Robin
Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery (1997).
- Robin
Blackburn, The American Crucible: Slavery, Emancipation and Human
Rights (2011).
These works situate slavery within global capitalism and emphasise
class struggle as the motor of historical change.
IV. Works on Race, Identity Politics, and the Upper‑Middle
Class
- Adolph
Reed Jr., Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the
American Scene (2000).
- Walter
Benn Michaels, The Trouble with Diversity (2006).
- Barbara
Fields & Karen Fields, Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in
American Life (2012).
- Cedric
Robinson, Black Marxism (1983) is important but often misused;
worth engaging critically.
These works critique racial essentialism and identity
politics as ideological tools of the professional‑managerial class.
V. Additional Articles and Essays
- Leslie
Harris, I Helped Fact‑Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me
(Politico, 2020).
- Sean
Wilentz, A Matter of Facts (The Atlantic, 2020).
- Gordon
Wood, The New York Times’ 1619 Project Is Wrong (Various
interviews, 2019–2020).
- James
Oakes, Why the 1619 Project Is Wrong About Lincoln (WSWS
interview, 2019).
VI. Suggested Further Reading
- Du
Bois, Oakes, McPherson, Wood, Foner
- Blackburn,
Fields & Fields, Reed, Michaels
- WSWS
analyses (North, Mackaman, London)
- Primary
sources: Douglass, Lincoln, abolitionist newspapers, slave narratives
