After reading the sections of Peter Wood’s book on the 1619 project, it made me think about our conversations of truths in class and also on the other readings that we have done. Woods shares the same upholding the truth idealogy that Saad’s book does and questions things that just are simply not correct (or supported by no evidence). Something that I found interesting (maybe that relates to what we talked in the beginning of the semester on Culture of Critical Discourse) was that the Times published the project even though a lot of the theories that were posed were questionable since they did not line up with historical facts. What is more prominent is that even when confronted on the issue, the New York Times simply said it was up to someone’s own interpretation and that history it is all a matter of interpretation.
Another thing that bugged me was that even when the Times brought in a second opinion to check Hannah-Jones’s assertion, they still ran with it. If the first fact checker wants to bring in outside help and that outside help (Leslie M. harris) completely discredits it, saying its false, then why not change it? The whole situation actually makes me angry because this news platform is supposed to provide reliable information and not false statements. This then makes me question what is actually true and what is not.
Wood says that when the Times says its all a matter of interpretation is a postmodern claim. I like that he goes into detail about postmodernism and what its role is in the 1619 project. Postmodernism, how I understood it from the reading is that it favors people who are oppressed.
An overall question I have is: does this mean that Postmodernism, those ideas and skepticism that its producing is shaping the whole 1619 project/movement?
One reply on “Blog Post #10 week of 10/28”
When reading that the Times brought in Hannah Jones to fact check the 1619 Project, but then did not correct their statement also bothered me. It is like this did this to say that yes we had a historian fact check this to make it accurate as part of a checklist. It seems that they cared more about promoting their viewpoint rather than making it historically accurate. I think that this can be dangerous. In general, society is easily manipulated by what they see and read on mainstream news outlets. The typical individual is not going to read multiple articles on a topic to ensure that they fully understand it. Therefore, not publishing the truth leads to this polarization that we are experiencing today because it depends on the source that you are getting your information. I think overall, this course has taught me that you cannot be afraid to question things. Even things that come from a position of authority. Questioning is what leads to knowledge and discovering the Truth.