“the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence”
Nikole Hannah-Jones has admitted that her ‘1619 Project’ was more about controlling the narrative than presenting an accurate portrayal of history. She and the New York Times have also already scrubbed central aspects of the project, angering progressives.
Now, a group of scholars is calling on the Pulitzer board to revoke a prize awarded to Jones last spring.
Peter Wood reports at the National Association of Scholars website:
Pulitzer Board Must Revoke Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Prize
We call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in “The 1619 Project.” That essay was entitled, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.” But it turns out the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence.
When the Board announced the prize on May 4, 2020, it praised Hannah-Jones for “a sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America’s story, prompting public conversation about the nation’s founding and evolution.” Note well the last five words. Clearly the award was meant not merely to honor this one isolated essay, but the Project as a whole, with its framing contention that the year 1619, the date when some twenty Africans arrived at Jamestown, ought to be regarded as the nation’s “true founding,” supplanting the long-honored date of July 4, 1776, which marked the emergence of the United States as an independent nation.
Beginning almost immediately after its publication, though, the essay and the Project ran into controversy. It has been subjected to searching criticism by many of the foremost historians of our time and by the Times’ own fact checker. The scrutiny has left the essay discredited, so much so that the Times has felt the need to go back and change a crucial passage in it, softening but not eliminating its unsupported assertion about slavery and the Revolution.
Stanley Kurtz, who is one of the signatories on the letter calling for the revocation of the Pulitzer Prize, writes at National Review:
The letter revisits the sorry tale of the 1619 Project’s errors and distortions and invokes these in calling for the revocation of the prize. The recent revelations that The New York Times stealthily edited out the signature claim of the project—that the advent of slavery in the year 1619 constitutes our country’s “true founding”—were, however, the immediate occasion for this letter. As Phillip Magness (another signatory) has shown, Nikole Hannah-Jones has several times denied ever claiming that 1619 was our true founding, although in fact she has made this latter claim repeatedly…
Imagine that a Pulitzer Prize for Literature had been awarded to a novel for which it later emerged that the most famous passage had been plagiarized. At that point the prize would rightly be revoked. Now imagine that a Pulitzer Prize for Literature had been awarded to a novel whose author, after receiving the prize, surreptitiously edited out the most famous passage from the e-book and denied repeatedly that the passage had ever been in the novel to begin with.
Hat tip to Glenn Loury:
A group of scholars, myself included, are calling on the Pulitzer Board to revoke the prize awarded earlier this year to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her "1619 Project" essay:https://t.co/PHKJx614Q6
— Glenn Loury (@GlennLoury) October 6, 2020
On a related note, Hannah-Jones has altered her Twitter profile in a somewhat predictable fashion:
The author of the 1619 Project has put "Slanderous & nasty-minded mulattress" in her bio, a slur used in the 1894 @NYTimes to describe Hannah-Jones's alter ego Ida Bae Wells, which is odd since Hannah-Jones is not actually Wells and Hannah-Jones works for the Times. pic.twitter.com/fGS5S5fMVT
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) October 6, 2020
The New York Times sounds like a pretty racist institution. https://t.co/pUS2CO6LzP
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 6, 2020
You work for the New York Times and you are not Ida B. Wells. https://t.co/9gqhs2NBze
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) October 6, 2020
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.