Posted on 05/05/2020 7:04:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In August 2019, the New York Times debuted the 1619 Project, the brainchild of Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Times staff writer. The premise was that 1619 marked the year in which the first African slaves came to America, permanently corrupting America’s founding.
The 1619 Project was condemned for serious historical inaccuracies.* In her inaugural article -- “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true” -- Hannah-Jones gave readers a foretaste of the errors that would follow in subsequent articles. Nevertheless, the Pulitzer committee awarded her its commentary award.
Most strikingly, Hannah-Jones originally wrote that Americans fought their revolution to preserve slavery, making the whole idea of American liberty a cynical cover for immoral greed:
One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.
There are two problems with the quoted passage. The first is that it is historically inaccurate. The second is that Hannah-Jones knew or should have known that it was incorrect.
Leslie M. Harris, a professor of history at Northwestern University, fact-checked the article before publication. In March 2020, she revealed that Hannah-Jones “repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It’s historical fiction.
Why the double post?
RE: Why the double post?
One is about the 1619 project, the other is about the HISTORY of the Pulitzer prize.
A Pulitzer Prize . . . about as noteworthy as the Nobel Prize.
Pulitzer given to a reporter that lauded the Communist Party.
That defines its uselessness.
Haha....I should have read the 2nd article. I saw a similar headline by the same writer and thought they were the same article.
More liberals self-congratulating each other.
The Pulitzer prize is for the best propaganda.
Paging Walter Duranty, paging Walter Duranty, pick up the red courtesy telephone, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.