Hulu Series Based on 1619 Project Pushes ‘False History’
“Hannah-Jones was not ready to abandon the claim at the center of her lead essay, and the first episode of the Hulu series makes that abundantly clear”
They are rewriting American history to pander for social justice. It’s outrageous.
Reason reports:
Hulu’s 1619 Project Docuseries Peddles False History
The New York Times‘ 1619 Project selected Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, as a filming location for its new Hulu docuseries. In doing so, creator Nikole Hannah-Jones sought to bolster her project’s most troublesome claim—the assertion that British overtures toward emancipation impelled the American colonists into revolution, ultimately securing an independent United States.
In the past three years, the Times has grappled with the fallout from Hannah-Jones’ assertion, including the revelation that it ignored its own fact-checker’s warnings against printing the charge. The Times tempered its language to apply to “some of” the colonists, only to see it reasserted by Hannah-Jones in her public commentaries. Later, a related line about the Project’s goal of replacing 1776 with a “true founding” of 1619 disappeared without notice from the Times‘ website. The newspaper found itself in a balancing act between its writer’s uncompromising positions and the need to preserve credibility as it made a Pulitzer Prize bid with the series. But Hannah-Jones was not ready to abandon the claim at the center of her lead essay, and the first episode of the Hulu series makes that abundantly clear.
The scene opens in Williamsburg on the grounds of its reconstructed colonial Governor’s Palace, where Hannah-Jones joins University of South Carolina professor Woody Holton—one of a handful of heterodox historians who defended the 1619 Project’s original narrative. As the cameras pan across streets filled with historical re-enactors and tourists in front of restored colonial buildings, the pair take another stab at resurrecting the 1619 Project’s narrative about the American Revolution. The evidence that a British threat to slavery impelled Virginians—or perhaps “the colonists” at large, in Hannah-Jones’ imprecise phrasing—to revolt may be found in the November 1775 decree of John Murray, fourth earl of Dunmore, Virginia’s last Royalist governor. Facing the collapse of British rule, Dunmore announced that any enslaved male from a household in rebellion would be granted freedom in exchange for military service on the British side.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The evidence that a British threat to slavery impelled Virginians … to revolt
any enslaved male from a household in rebellion
So, his declaration impelled revolt, after the revolt was in motion? What is “Progressives can’t understand causation”, Alex?
The series also seems to imply Dunmore did all these things from the governor’s mansion, when the revolt had already pushed him offshore onto a British ship.
Tales of Lord Dunmore can be fascinating.
When Lord Dunmore confiscated the settlers’ powder at Williamsburg, Patrick Henry marched on his treasurer with a group of armed men, and didn’t leave until he had cash in hand from him to replace it fully. This was what our government today would call a “terrorist” action.
Subsequently, the Orange County committee published in the Virginia Gazette a resolution of support for Patrick Henry entitled “AN ENDORSEMENT OF VIOLENCE AND REPRISAL.” It was signed by chairman James Madison, among others.
An “endorsement of violence” by a key founding patriot. Fancy that. We’ve lost some fortitude since.
Not only that slavery was legal in Great Britian until around 1804 and in the British colonies until around 1830 something. All Dunmore was doing was trying to get people familiar with the area to fight on the British side and cause problems for the Colonial Army, his purpose was not to help the slaves.
Hulu is a Disney minion — and not the cute kind.
Dump it and don’t look back.
Whenever this woman speaks, it is necessary to insert “What I really wish had happened was …”
Much like the fortune cookie game when you add “in bed” at the end of your fortune when you read it aloud with your dinner-mates.
Alternative phrases would include:
(a). “I would not feel so bad about myself if what had happened was…”
(b). “OK this isn’t the truth but it’s my grift — after all , a girl’s gotta pay her bills… so just play along….”
(c). “None of what follows is true but honestly I don’t care. After all , according to Malcolm X’s autobiography , the most effective lies are the ones that include a kernel of truth.
Imho this woman hates herself, she hates her family, and she’s filled with envy.
Mr. LaChance reports that “[t]he evidence that a British threat to slavery impelled Virginians—or perhaps “the colonists” at large, in Hannah-Jones’ imprecise phrasing—to revolt may be found in the November 1775 decree of John Murray, fourth earl of Dunmore, Virginia’s last Royalist governor.” Yikes! Is the Hannah-Jones history really based on that? May 29, 1765, if so, she missed more than a little history: TEN YEARS EARLIER, Patrick Henry gave his famous “If this be treason” speech against the Stamp Act; the Boston Tea Party was 1773; 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts; 1774 the Continental Congress had its first session with George Washington as a delegate; 1774 the British removed military supplies from the Massachusetts colony; February 1775 Parliament found Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion; April 19, 1775 open war with England begins with battles of Lexington and Concord, April 20, 1775 Virginia governor Lord Dunmore removes colonials’ gun powder from Williamsburg; May 10 Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys capture Fort Ticonderoga; June 17 is the Battle of Bunker Hill; June 19, 1775 Congress appoints George Washington commander in chief; August 23, 1775 George III gave his “Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition.” And Hannah-Jones says what actually started the rebellion was a November 5, 1775 declaration by Virginia’s governor Lord Dunmore in promising freedom to slaves who left their masters who were already in revolt against the Crown and that was real spark for American independence? OK!