Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Scholars Call on Pulitzer Board to Revoke Prize Given to 1619 Project Author Nikole Hannah-Jones

    Scholars Call on Pulitzer Board to Revoke Prize Given to 1619 Project Author Nikole Hannah-Jones

    “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”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xzNyrFhzew
    Listen to this article

    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:

    On a related note, Hannah-Jones has altered her Twitter profile in a somewhat predictable fashion:

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    Aggie9595 | October 8, 2020 at 12:58 pm

    Well did Gibson ever say the klits were the correct ones for that time period …. Ever… Repeatedly …. Nationally and make money doing so


     
     0 
     
     2
    RedSoloCup | October 8, 2020 at 8:31 pm

    I hope this succeeds. Hannah-Jones is a lying hack.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Buffalobob | October 8, 2020 at 11:17 pm

    Carrot top got a Pulitzer?

    She says: “In 1894, the NYT called Ida B. Wells a “slanderous and nasty-minded mulattress” for daring to tell the truth about lynching. 100 years later she earned the Pulitzer Prize. These efforts to discredit my work simply put me in a long tradition of BW who failed to know their places.”

    Yet another example of the Galileo gambit logical fallacy.

    Also, what’s with the red hair?


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend