The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction - NYT

10 views
Skip to first unread message

a425couple

unread,
May 5, 2020, 12:39:30 PM5/5/20
to
from
https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/the-only-pulitzer-the-1619-project-deserved-was-for-fiction/

The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction
By Post Editorial BoardMay 4, 2020 | 7:22pm

The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction

Pulitzer malpractice: Apparently, willful error can now win you the most
elite prize in journalism.
Mike Vitelli/BFA.com for The New York Times

As it was designed to do, The New York Times’ woefully mistaken 1619
Project just won a Pulitzer Prize. Worse, the award for commentary
actually went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her essay introducing the
series — that is, to the article that brought the most sustained
criticism from historians across the spectrum for its naked errors of fact.

The project’s central conceit is that “out of slavery grew nearly
everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might,
its industrial power, its electoral system.” Hannah-Jones even argued
that the main reason American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery
— a claim so contrary to the truth that the Times eventually corrected
that part of her essay, though only to add two words: Now it says “some
of” the founders fought chiefly for that reason.

It’s still not true — and the experts she consulted told her so. Leslie
M. Harris, a black history prof at Northwestern, says she warned
Hannah-Jones: “Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the
Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North
American Colonies.”

Apparently, willful error can now win you the most elite prize in
journalism.

Nor was that her only distortion. Hannah-Jones also claims that
President Abraham Lincoln “opposed black equality.” As part of The
Post’s weeklong Twisted History series on the 1619 Project, historian
Allen Guelzo pointed out that that Lincoln called for black voting
rights and was hailed by Frederick Douglass as “emphatically the colored
man’s president.”

But Hannah-Jones’ project barely mentions Douglass — a giant of 19th
century America — or other great black freedom fighters. Even the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr. and the entire civil-rights movement get short
shrift because they contradict her thesis.

Slavery and Jim Crow are tremendous stains on America’s history. But
Hannah-Jones took it far beyond that, insisting that they are the
nation’s essence. That’s why the country’s top US history scholars —
Princeton’s Sean Wilentz and James McPherson, Brown’s Gordon Wood,
CUNY’s James Oakes — united to denounce Hannah-Jones’ core claims.

Too bad the Pulitzer committee now thinks that facts are irrelevant to
journalism.

FILED UNDER EDITORIAL , HISTORY , NEW YORK TIMES , PULITZER PRIZE ,
SLAVERY , 5/4/20
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

READ NEXT Bill de Blasio chooses to be helpless in the homeless subw...

a425couple

unread,
May 5, 2020, 12:50:30 PM5/5/20
to
On 5/5/2020 9:39 AM, a425couple wrote:
> from
> https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/the-only-pulitzer-the-1619-project-deserved-was-for-fiction/
>
>
> The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction
> By Post Editorial BoardMay 4, 2020 | 7:22pm
>
> The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction
>
> Pulitzer malpractice: Apparently, willful error can now win you the most
> elite prize in journalism.

and


A history fight. Bob Woodson is spearheading the 1776 project. Black
historians are arguing the "true" history of blacks in America. It is a
response to the 1619 Project.



"1776" is an assembly of independent voices who uphold our country’s
authentic founding virtues and values and challenge those who assert
America is forever defined by its past failures, such as slavery.

To counter the debilitating and dangerous message of the 1619 Project,
we are launching “1776,” honoring the vision of our nation’s Founders
who saw beyond their years. Though slavery and discrimination are
undeniably a tragic part of our nation’s history, we have made great
strides along its long and tortuous journey to realize its promise and
abide by its founding principles. People are motivated to achieve and to
overcome the challenges that confront them when they learn about
inspiring victories that are possible, rather than being barraged by
constant reminders of injuries they have suffered.

In truth, even during the times of the worst oppression, there were
blacks who were in slavery but not of slavery, who maintained a strong
moral code and a belief in self-determination and mutual support that
allowed them to rise. A surprising number of black men and women who
were born slaves died as millionaires. Even in the era of legislated
segregation and discrimination, blacks tapped an entrepreneurial legacy
to launch thriving enterprises, including hotels, banks, hospitals,
dental schools, insurance companies, and a railroad. In fact, the black
business district of Durham, North Carolina, was widely known as “Black
Wall Street.”

Another famous black entrepreneurial enclave was the Greenwood section
of Tulsa, Oklahoma. When oil was discovered in Tulsa in the early 1900s,
the city underwent an enormous growth spurt. Though African Americans
were not allowed to create business ventures in the major district and
were not even welcomed as customers in the white business district,
rather than taking service jobs and doing domestic service labor for
others, many adventurous blacks chose to develop their own business
district. By 1921, the business enclave had developed into an impressive
array of enterprises.

Tragically, in that year, a young black delivery man was falsely accused
of attacking a white woman. Tensions rose and erupted into chaos as a
mob of angry whites looted stores, shot at blacks in the streets, and
torched businesses, homes, and churches. In this violence, 860 African
American businesses and homes were destroyed, and, afterward, the
Greenwood business section lay in ruins. Undaunted and displaying the
same entrepreneurial spirit that initially built the Greenwood section,
blacks joined together in a massive effort of rebuilding. By 1938,
business enterprises and community organizations, once again, anchored
the community.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-crucial-voice-of-1776

The surprising number of black millionaires was six.

People know of Tulsa's Black Wall Street and its destruction

Video of an hour presentation of the 1776 Project is available on C-SPAN

https://www.c-span.org/video/?469366-1/discussion-african-american-history

Ida Bae Wells obviously does not hold the 1776 Project in high regard

There was a Congressional hearing on reparations . Ta-Nehisi Coates and
Coleman Hughes argued the pro and con of reparations. Wells did not find
Hughes' argument compelling.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes#comment-130325794

I think the discussions are important. You cannot improve conditions by
pretending race doesn't exist, or by saying that race is discussed too much.

a425couple

unread,
May 6, 2020, 9:35:19 AM5/6/20
to
On 5/5/2020 9:39 AM, a425couple wrote:
> from
> https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/the-only-pulitzer-the-1619-project-deserved-was-for-fiction/
>
> The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction
> By Post Editorial BoardMay 4, 2020 | 7:22pm
>
> The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction
>
> Pulitzer malpractice: Apparently, willful error can now win you the most
> elite prize in journalism.
> Mike Vitelli/BFA.com for The New York Times
>
> As it was designed to do, The New York Times’ woefully mistaken 1619
> Project just won a Pulitzer Prize. Worse, the award for commentary
> actually went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her essay introducing the
> series — that is, to the article that brought the most sustained
> criticism from historians across the spectrum for its naked errors of fact.
>
> The project’s central conceit is that “out of slavery grew nearly
> everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might,
> its industrial power, its electoral system.” Hannah-Jones even argued
> that the main reason American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery
> — a claim so contrary to the truth that the Times eventually corrected
> that part of her essay, though only to add two words: Now it says “some
> of” the founders fought chiefly for that reason.

I see even over at the liberal Washington Post they headline
"The '1619 Project' is filled with slovenliness and
ideological ax-grinding"

a425couple

unread,
May 6, 2020, 10:25:14 AM5/6/20
to

a425couple

unread,
May 6, 2020, 10:52:36 AM5/6/20
to
On 5/6/2020 6:34 AM, a425couple wrote:
from
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/5/dana-canedy-pulitzer-prizes-chief-defends-new-york/

(Probably worthwhile to look at the picture.)

Pulitzer chief defends '1619 Project' award despite outcry over
accuracy, bias
Essay by New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones wins commentary prize

Dana Canedy, the new administrator of The Pulitzer Prizes, make
announcement of winners Monday April 15, 2019, in New York. A team of
Associated Press journalists has won a Pulitzer Prize in international
reporting for their work documenting torture, graft and starvation in
Yemen's brutal civil war.

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Pulitzer Prizes Administrator Dana Canedy defended Tuesday the decision
to honor the widely disputed 1619 Project, which reframes the American
Revolution as a battle to protect slavery, even as she acknowledged that
“perhaps most historians” would disagree with its premise.

Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for
her Aug. 14 essay introducing the 1619 Project, an ambitious New York
Times series that has made its way into classrooms in all 50 states
despite being criticized by leading scholars as historically inaccurate
and ideologically driven.

In a statement, Ms. Canedy said the board was “very proud of this
selection,” saying that its “fresh political perspective,
provocativeness of the argument, and engaging writing is what we are
awarded,” even though the essay’s thesis was an academic outlier.

“The piece provoked useful public debate and conversation about an
important matter — the very identity of our nation. This is what we want
commentary to do,” Ms. Canedy said in an email.

The 1619 Project held that the nation’s true founding was not 1776 but
1619, the year the first slaves were brought by ship from Africa to
Colonial America, landing in Virginia.

“Although many historians, perhaps most historians, believe that the
preservation of slavery was not among the primary causes of the
Revolutionary War, we do not regard this as a matter of settled ‘fact,’
but something still subject to scholarly debate and contestation,” Ms.
Canedy wrote. “This piece is also about so much more than the
revolutionary war. [It’s] about slavery and its consequences for the
very character of the nation.”

The award announced Monday drew immediate outcry on the right.
Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro called the 1619 Project “divisive,
erroneous and terrible for the country. Naturally, it was just rewarded
with a Pulitzer.”

Robert Woodson, a longtime civil rights activist who founded the 1776
Project to counter The New York Times series, said the Pulitzer
conferred prestige on a politically slanted screed.

“I really think it’s an outrage that they’ve taken a political document
that masquerades as history and give it that kind of acknowledgement,”
Mr. Woodson said.

In a Monday staff editorial, the New York Post, which has run multiple
articles challenging the 1619 Project’s facts and arguments, said that
the “only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction.”

“Slavery and Jim Crow are tremendous stains on America’s history,” the
editorial said. “But Hannah-Jones took it far beyond that, insisting
that they are the nation’s essence. That’s why the country’s top US
history scholars — Princeton’s Sean Wilentz and James McPherson, Brown’s
Gordon Wood, CUNY’s James Oakes — united to denounce Hannah-Jones’ core
claims.”

The editorial concluded: “Too bad the Pulitzer committee now thinks that
facts are irrelevant to journalism.”

At the same time, the award drew cheers from PBS NewsHour White House
correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, who tweeted that the prize was
“well-deserved,” as well as Northwestern University history professor
Leslie Harris.

“Nikole Hannah-Jones is rightly celebrated by the Pulitzer Prize for her
visionary efforts in opening up a new and much-needed national
conversation on the meaning of slavery and race in our history,” Ms.
Harris said in an email.

Ms. Harris had challenged the project’s premise, saying “the
Revolutionary War was a disrupter of slavery in the North American
colonies” in a March 6 article in Politico. She also said the Times had
ignored some of her suggested corrections.

But she noted that she also had praised the project for its focus on
slavery, saying in her article that it was “easy to correct facts; it is
much harder to correct a worldview that consistently ignores and
distorts the role of African Americans and race in our history.”

“Nikole Hannah-Jones is rightly celebrated by the Pulitzer Prize for her
visionary efforts in opening up a new and much-needed national
conversation on the meaning of slavery and race in our history,” said
Ms. Harris.

Justice but not at expense of truth

Critics noted that the Pulitzer board chose to honor the most disputed
article in the series, “America Wasn’t a Democracy Until Black Americans
Made It One,” which claimed for example that President Abraham Lincoln
“opposed black equality” and ignored the contributions of white
abolitionists and civil rights activists.

The New York Times ultimately made corrections on two minor errors — a
misspelled name and incorrect date — as well as the addition of the
words “some of” to make it clear that not all of the colonists were
primarily motivated by an impulse to safeguard, as explained in an
editor’s “update.”

“Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of
the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their
independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the
institution of slavery,” Ms. Hannah-Jones said in the updated article.

Those changes failed to assuage the concerns of some journalists or
historians.

“How many Pulitzer prizes have gone to essays that have had to
subsequently publicly correct one of their core claims? Or been
challenged by every major historian in the field, right and center and
left?” tweeted former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan.

A dozen Civil War professors and scholars told the New York Times in a
Dec. 30 letter published on the History News Network that the project
presented a “historically-limited view of slavery” and “problematic
treatment of major issues and personalities.”

“We are also troubled that these materials are now to become the basis
of school curriculums, with the imprimatur of the New York Times,” said
the scholars. “The remedy for past historical oversights is not their
replacement by modern oversights.”

In a Dec. 21 letter to the New York Times, Mr. Wood, a Brown University
professor of history and winner of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for history
for a book on the American Revolution, said, “We all want justice, but
not at the expense of truth.”

“I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot
accept the view that ‘one of the primary reasons the colonists decided
to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to
protect the institution of slavery,’” Mr. Wood said. “I don’t know of
any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve
their slaves.”

The 1619 Project has also given rise to a K-12 curriculum promoted by
the Pulitzer Center, the project’s “official education partner,” based
on the work of Ms. Hannah-Jones, the series coordinator, including
reading guides and activities that have entered 4,500 classrooms.

Pulitzer Center spokesman Jeff Barrus said the institution is an
independent nonprofit news and educational organization with no
connection to the Pulitzer Prizes, which are administered by the
Columbia University School of Journalism.

That entrée into the nation’s schools has alarmed those who view the
1619 Project as more of an activist screed than a serious work of
history and journalism.

Former New York Times editor Tony Kuntz accused the newspaper of failing
to acknowledge that it was “advancing an unorthodox view held by a
minority of academic and theorists.”

“Viewing all of U.S. history through the lens of race and subjugation,
the 1619 Project is less a work of revisionist history than advocacy,”
he said in RealClearInvestigations, “one already being used to change
the teaching of American history with related course materials
distributed widely to schools.”



-----------------------
Packing plants are full of illegals. They were the best paying jobs
going way back when, then they broke the unions, imported illegals for
slave wages and it got worse from there. Sue all the packing plants for
what they've started in this country, importing slave labor while we
pick up the tabs for education, food, police force, medical etc. It's
been a never ending hole that will never end til we fix and enforce the
laws on the books NOW.

What about an investigation into the even greater politicization and
misconduct at the highest levels of the FBI during the investigation
into Hillary Clinton's emails? Forget she was your opponent in the 2016
campaign Mr. President and give the order. I would like to know that we
still have true, equal, and impartial justice in America. Or has that
become nothing more than a myth.
CHICAGO MAYOR LORI LIGHTFOOT: A BLOWHARD CRACKING A COVID-19 WHIP
OliveSnow
1d
45 people shot In Chicago over the weekend while she’s running around
the big party areas in the Austin and Englewood districts with a
battalion of reluctant cops drawn away from the usually safe
neighborhoods where the threat of crime increased as a result.
DEMOCRATS REJECT GOP PROPOSALS TO REOPEN HOUSE
OliveTree
15h
Nancy just can’t bring herself to leave all that ice cream alone in her
San Fran freezers.
EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE POPULATION HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO FEAR FROM COVID-19
CyanLocomotive
29 Apr
Finally someone who's not afraid to give a different opinion. I agree
with this article. I work in healthcare and our hospitals are empty. I'm
in a red zone in AZ but our hospitals and many others are actually
letting go of employees due to orders for the govt. shutdown. Some
hospitals are even being forced to close completely because they can't
afford to stay open. A few of my friends were let go and some had to go
out of the area to find work. My team was dealing with deciding testing
Covid-19 patients in the beginning and a lot of them we denied. They
were told to go home, isolate, rest, & to follow up with a PCP or come
in if conditions worsened. So the data is flawed! All of the positives I
saw that came back had already went home & have recovered. Before the
news blew up this virus...we were already seeing Pneumonia patients.
Corona is literally a type of cold virus that sometimes causes bad
pneumonia. This was already happening. Did you know that every year
people were already dying from pneumonia? In 2017 about 2.56 million
died worldwide from Pneumonia. About 15 million a year die from heart
disease....3 million a year from starvation....car accidents. Over 90%
of these deaths have had severe co-morbidities. They were already at
risk for most deadly microorganisms. We can't live in fear hidden away
just listening to media. They are fear mongering for control. Anyone who
wants to stay inside can...but let the rest of us make our own choices
for our lives.

MORE THAN A QUARTER OF DEMOCRATS WANT A NEW NOMINEE AFTER WATCHING
BIDEN’S DENIAL: POLL
Freedom_For_All
1d
That means that the other 3/4 of the democrat voters, who are sticking
with Biden, are metoo hypocrites.—— or thought all along that the metoo
movement was just a weird democrat political tool created in the moment.
SLEEPY JOE GETS BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT DENIED KAVANAUGH AND THOMAS
OliveGoggles
15h
On Friday, May 1, 2020, Biden requested that Reade's alleged complaint,
if it exists, be released by the Secretary of the Senate. He was told
that the “Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information
as requested in Vice President Biden’s letter of May 1.” The only person
to whom the complaint can be released, if it exists, is the complainant
herself, Reade.Thus far, Reade has not requested that the alleged
complaint be released. She has also admitted that she can not recall
just what she wrote in the alleged complaint nor can she recall when or
exactly where the alleged incident occurred.

CORONAVIRUS HYPE BIGGEST POLITICAL HOAX IN HISTORY
RedFlame
6d
I noticed the COVID-19 deaths spiked after receiving instructions from
the government to mark untested deaths as COVID-19 deaths.The problem is
that COVID-19 is like Influenza which strikes every winter season, and
there is little we can effectively do to prevent these diseases from
sweeping through our society. Flu vaccines are lucky to be 30 to 50
percent effective. We can delay infection, but not stop it. Vaccines are
of limited use since these viruses constantly mutate. The bottom-line is
that we never before closed our entire society for a bad flu season--we
lost 80,000 plus people a couple of years ago--but we never closed.Our
response to such pandemics depends entirely upon the mortality rate of
the disease. When the WHO irresponsibly claimed that COVID-19 had a 3.4%
mortality rate, this changed the nature of our response, and 'experts'
who should have known better did not speak up to say that these were
grossly inflated numbers.It turns out that the actual mortality rate is
closer to the seasonal flu, which is around .1%, while COVID-19 might be
a bit above that between .2% and .1%--but more information will surely
lower the current COVID-19 mortality estimate. But now that we KNOW the
mortality rate was exaggerated--will we change our course? Or will we
pretend all the wrong information given to us by 'experts' is still valid?


Pulitzer and Nobels mean nothing anymore. Why do Dems destroy everything
they touch?
Reply
Share
8 Likes
I am not sure what is wrong with people like you. You have neither read
the essay involved or the criticism of it, or for that matter the
comments from the original author acknowledging some of the complaints,
but you come here and simply write a rant blaming Democrats. Hey
"genius" the Nobel prize is not American but Swedish so exactly how did
the Democrats "destroy" it. You are just a fundamentally small "man".

Why are Trump supporters so damn stupid?
Reply
Share
Show 4 more replies
It was mostly the Democrats that owned the Slaves and the Plantations...
it was the Democrats that fought the Civil War to keep their Slaves...
it was Democrats that started the KKK and enacted all the Jim Crow
Laws... it was Democrat Governors that stood in the doors of Schools to
keep Blacks out... it was Robert Byrd the Democrat in the Senate that
was a Grand Wizard and even today it is Democrat Governors that are seen
in photos wearing Blackface and KKK Robes... No wonder the Democrats
want to rewrite all of American History... they have been on the wrong
side and brought death and destruction to so many of the people they
said they were here to "take care of"... they have a lot of guilt to bare.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages