Mitchell’s familiar struggle
Joni Mitchell concedes that the muse has not spoken to her in some time, said Cameron Crowe in TheGuardian.com. “I haven’t been playing my guitar or the piano or anything,” says the legendary singer-songwriter, now 76. “No, I’m just concentrating on getting my health back.” Mitchell suffered an aneurysm in 2015 that robbed her of her ability to both walk and talk. But while she got her speech back quickly, “the walking I’m still struggling with. Just inching my way along.” It’s the second time she’s had to relearn to walk during her life, having contracted polio at age 9. During that first recovery, she passed the time in the hospital singing and performing for her parents and other patients, and her life path became clear. After the aneurysm, “once again I couldn’t walk,” she says. “I had to learn how again. I couldn’t talk. Polio didn’t grab me like that, but the aneurysm took away a lot more, really.” But she’s still managed to keep a positive attitude. “I mean, I’m a fighter,” she says. “I’ve got Irish blood! I came back from polio, so here I am again, and struggling back. I knew, ‘Here I go again, another battle.’”
noting that the abolitionist movement did not gain strength in England until a decade later—and that it was actually inspired by anti-slavery arguments in the U.S. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz demanded several factual corrections, contending that the Framers left the word “slavery” out of the Constitution not to erase the humanity of slaves, as Hannah-Jones argued, but because they didn’t want to “validate slavery in national law.”
Who else attacked the
Many historians and scholars were critical of some of its claims, with conservatives rejecting its premise that slavery and racial oppression should be central themes in U.S. history. One highly visible attack came from inside the Times, with conservative columnist Bret Stephens writing last month that the project was “simplistic” and “has failed” to defend its most controversial assertions. Slavery was hardly unique to America, he said, noting that slave traders from Europe and other continents sold human beings, and that the odious practice was found throughout the Western Hemisphere. Though the Founders were flawed, Stephens said, what made this country exceptional was not slavery, but America’s revolutionary founding principle that “all men are created equal” and its 250 years of struggling to realize its ideals. The 1619 Project has become a rallying cry on the Right, with President Trump invoking it at the National Archives Museum in September, calling it an example of how “the Left has warped, distorted, and defiled the American story with deceptions, falsehoods, and lies.” This summer, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) proposed a bill to bar federal funds from districts that incorporate the project into their history curriculum, saying it’s meant to “indoctrinate our kids to hate America.” (See box.)
Times
Does the defend its story?
Yes, although the Times tweaked the text online. The paper issued a “clarification” stating that only “some of” the colonists revolted from Britain in order to protect slavery. Hannah-Jones apologized for saying it was a primary motivation for the revolution, saying, “I’m absolutely tortured by it.” The paper also removed a phrase describing 1619 as the date of “our true founding.”
But the Times by no means disowns its work. Publisher A.G. Sulzberger said the project’s deep exploration of the lasting impact of slavery and racism is “a journalistic triumph that changed the way millions of Americans understand our country.” Jake Silverstein, editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine, says ongoing updates—and the debate the project has inspired—are a virtue, not a failure. “Revision and clarification,” he said, “are important parts of historical inquiry.”