Debunked New York Times Essay on the Revolutionary War Wins Pulitzer (UPDATED)


National Association Of Scholars Calls For Revoking The 1619 Project Pulitzer Prize

This is why the Pulizer is now a joke.

Campus Reform

Northwestern University history professor called into question the accuracy of a New York Times Magazine essay that won a Pulitzer Prize.

The Pulitzer Prize Board announced Monday that Nikole Hannah-Jones had won a Pulitzer Prize for her essay published as part of the New York Times Magazine‘s 1619 Project, in which she made the claim that American colonists sought independence from Great Britain because “they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies.”

Hannah-Jones asked Northwestern University history professor Leslie Harris to fact check the essay before it was published and, according to Harris, she flagged the portion of the essay claiming that American colonists’ motivation in claiming independence was to maintain the institution of slavery. 

Harris noted that while that may have been one of the factors that led to the Revolutionary War, it was not the primary determinant. 

Despite the historian’s concern, however, the New York Times and Hannah-Jones published the essay anyway. On Monday, it won a Pulitzer.

Media Research Center’s TechWatch Vice President Dan Gainor previously told Campus Reform, “The New York Times 1619 Project wasn’t about history, it was about rewriting history.”

“Journalism doesn’t really deliver news now; it delivers narrative. To the Left elite like The Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism,” Gainor continued. “If America had been more evil from the founding, then everything it created must be destroyed – the Founders, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, religious freedom, gun rights – everything Americans hold dear.”

“The actual truth of American history isn’t the narrative that the Times cares to report,” Gainor added.


More from The Federalist

……The project’s central purpose is not simply to educate Americans about the history of labor accounting from plantation to data visualization, or an account of the history of brutal sugar cultivation, but to give a specific narrative about what America is.

The project’s summary makes the aim quite clear: “[The 1619 Project] aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

Considered this way, the 1619 Project looks very different. It isn’t mostly about helping Americans understand the role played by plantation agriculture in American history. It’s mostly about convincing Americans that “America” and “slavery” are essentially synonyms.

It’s mostly about trying to tell readers they should feel sort of, kind of, at least a little bit bad about being American, because, didn’t you hear? As several articles say explicitly, America, in its basic DNA, is not a liberal democracy, constitutional republic, or federation. It’s a slave society.

There are a lot of ways to attack this story. But the simplest place to start is the central conceit of the project: that year, 1619.

1619 is commonly cited as the date slavery first arrived in “America.” No matter that historians mostly consider the 1619 date a red herring. Enslaved people were working in English Bermuda in 1616. Spanish colonies and forts in today’s Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina had enslaved Africans throughout the mid-to-late 1500s: in fact, a slave rebellion in 1526 helped end the Spanish attempt at settling South Carolina.

……But when we talk about history and origins of our society, when we try to untangle the web of events that brought us to where we are today, we have to be more careful. Slavery in America began with Spanish enslavement of Native Americans. In the most enslaved parts of America like South Carolina, slavery largely began with the enslavement of Native Americans.

……That these peoples are not treated as subaltern today to the same extent that Native Americans or African Americans still are should not exclude them from a project concerned with history. Plus, many poor whites in Appalachia with accents still experience a version of ethnic subaltern status. We should let them speak without writing it off as white racial grievance.


Hannah-Jones wrote a racist anti-white screed in a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s The Observer.  Her diatribe included the declaration, “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”

And now she works for the NY Times. She fits right in.

Leftwing pulp like the NY Times hones in on the most negligible sordid history surrounding the backdrop of America’s past, for the sole purpose of digging up the corpse of slavery to fit with their disdain of the country and moreover, to keep blacks on the Dem plantation.

Contrary to the leftwing narrative, slavery did not originate in America and it certainly wasn’t a white invention. There’s modern slavery all over the world.  The leftwingnuts ignore that in favor of obsession over slavery that was abolished in America 154 years ago.

Aside from selling their own people into slavery and running a slave market in Africa, where it still exists, there were blacks who participated in the slave trade in early America.  I’ve read about slavery through the ages, but this is a part of American history that few people realize; the first legal slave owner in America was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson.

Slavery was known in almost every other ancient civilization, including Egypt, China, Assyria, Abyssinia, West Africa, India, Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas. As a matter of fact, the Irish were also sold into slavery in early America, the West Indies, Antigua, and Montserrat. In the mid-1600s, 70 percent of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

By the way: Native American Indians owned slaves.

Funny how facts like this never make it into the dumbed-down liberal history texts.

The NYT article is not just incomplete, it’s intentionally written that way. Accuracy isn’t their goal, rewriting history is.

People of all races were slaves. The only ones still crying are blacks. If they would put as much effort into improving their lives as they do victimhood, they’d accomplish something.


Related articles:

New York Times published a false claim on America’s founding. This history professor called its bluff.


1 thought on “Debunked New York Times Essay on the Revolutionary War Wins Pulitzer (UPDATED)”

  1. johndegbert

    Continuing the legacy of Walter Durante. His Pulitzer for fluffing Stalin and his pogrom that starved millions of Ukrainians is still on display. Then, there is their ignoring the Holocaust – while it was occurring.

    The New York Slimes (Motto: All the news that’s print to fit) has a long and ignoble history. With apologies to Mr. Clemens: Those who don’t read the NYT are uninformed; those who do read the NYT are misinformed . . .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial