The 1619 Project

Not sure why people are stating this is historically inaccurate. It's very accurate. It is what it is people. We have a shameful past. If you want to disagree with some of the causation that is one thing, but we cannot disagree with historical fact on how this nation was founded. Obviously this is going to point out things that our nation is and should be shameful for. This does not mean we are our ancestors, but we do need to reconcile our history and how this nation was built on the back of slavery and how our laws were impacted by it. I encourage everyone to embrace this for what it is. It's not an admission of guilt personally, it's an admission of our countries history.

Most of the low reviews for this series come from people who seem to not even have watched it. You can tell this, because instead of offering actual insight regarding its content, they fall back on played-out "arguments," pointing out that the first US slaves were sold by other Africans--as if those people had a hand in US policy for the next 400 years.

Or, the letter ostensibly signed by 4 historians, arguing inaccuracy with a claim the creator made regarding the Revolutionary War. Again, even if she was incorrect in that assertion--which she admittedly overstated and subsequently revised--it does not change the fact that slavery was, in fact, a major component to the US economy, and it doesnt necessarily discredit the claims of the rest of the series. This is a point that was made in a Politico article by Leslie M. Harris, who strenuously argued against the Revolutionary War statement and who noted that the letter was "just as misleading" in some of its own claims.

The actual series itself is informative, engaging, and entertaining; however, given its content, the knee-jerk opposition it faces from the racist, the oblivious, and the downright stupid is wholly unsurprising.

I noticed this had a 1.8/10 in under two hours after its release: meaning that these ratings could not even possibly finish the episodes before reviewing.

Obviously, this series was polarizing before its release. The source material is banned in many schools, since it is one of the most prominent publications of modern critical race theory.

I have not read the book yet, but I like to listen to colored voices explain their issues with credible history.

So does the beginning deliver? Yes, in many ways.

This isn't some victim-complex montage of people screaming at you that all white people are bad; this is a calm yet focused presentation of American history trickling down into modern policies.

On the other hand, this isn't as organized as other documentaries advocating for black liberation such as 13th (2016) or LA 92 (2017). So far, this series seems to be a bit too personally led by Nikole Hannah-Jones and the people she chooses to survey.

So is this biased? Of course it is, it's a pro-black documentary in America. If you have strong reservations against black social progression, then get ready to be challenged. But bias aside, legitimate history is here, and I learned a lot of new material from all eras of black America such as modern voting laws, 1960s marching logistics, and brutal punishments of early activists.

Overall, it's a strong series that I would recommend anyone to watch. It's not a cesspool of liberal lies as the other reviews suggest, but it's also not the most impactful series on race ever made. Hopefully the direction of the series can flow better in the remaining four episodes, so I can't wait to finish it.

Watch 13th or LA 92 before watching this.

7/10.

The filming itself is high quality. The storytelling is clear and has good audio. There are several interviews with people who lived through the Civil Rights Movement. There are some clips in black and white from the 1950s and 1960s. There is also contemporary footage of voting suppression. I found it interesting to learn more about events during my own lifetime.

The lens that is shaping the story is that Black people forged the US democracy by continually fighting for full citizenship and voting rights. I had never heard this perspective and am interested to see it fleshed out in the other episodes.

It's okay, and even welcomed to ruffle some feathers when it comes to a political documentary. But in doing so you must master the art of having your message reach all (or at least most) people. A quick glance at the reviews here tell you just that, there is a wild distortion in praise and hate, and the feedback on the reviews themselves are controversial. Wherever you stand on the issues presented in the documentary, it's obvious they only meant to capitalize on centuries of pain and suffering rather than make a clear documentary that tells the unifying message of freedom, for this documentary is message of hate. If they really cared about bridging the racial divide that has grown in recent years, they wouldn't have been so hate-fueled and one-sided. A good investigator is decisive, but a greedy propagandist is divisive.