Alex Lichtenstein (Indiana), the current editor of the American Historical Review, has penned a response, of sorts, to the various critiques of the 1619 Project.   Professor Lichtenstein's "work centers on the intersection of labor history and the struggle for racial justice in societies shaped by white supremacy," which may explain his embarrassing sneering throughout at the Marxist interpretation of history in which class trumps race.  But putting that to one side, even Professor Lichtenstein admits:  " Frankly, I wish the AHR had published these interviews, and I hope they get wide circulation. Not for the critique of the 1619 Project itself, but because collectively they insist on the significance of historical context, the careful weighing of evidence, the necessity of understanding change over time, and the potential dangers of reductionism. I would urge anyone to read them."   His defense of the journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones is a bit feeble, as anyone who compares his selective recounting (dare one say "spin"?) of the interviews with the actual interviews will see.   (Here, e.g., are the interviews with Oakes, McPherson, and Wood).   The one useful takeaway is that, at least according to Professor Lichtenstein, the teaching materials prepared by the NYT are not as one-sided and inaccurate as Hannah-Jones's lead essay.