Racist New York Times reporter Nikole Hanna-Jones wrote the 1619 Project and was given a Pulitzer prize for her unbalanced distortion of American History.
On June 25, 2020, the Federalist website reported that when Nikole Hanna-Jones was a student at the University of Notre Dame in 1995 she wrote an article titled “Modern Savagery” in which she accused the “white race” of being the “biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world” that was published in the November 21, 1995 issue of The Observer. Hanna-Jones wrote that “Christopher Columbus and those like him were no different than Hitler.”
Hannah-Jones explained the following: “Africans had been to the Americas long before Columbus or any Europeans. The difference is that Africans had the decency and respect for human life to learn from the Native Americans and trade technology with them. The pyramids of the Aztecs and the great stone heads of the Olmecs are lasting monuments to the friendship of these two peoples.”Hannah-Jones wrote that the “white race even today, the descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos, and continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities. Yet, it was Columbus that set the platforms for these racist American institutions.” She concluded, “But after everything that those barbaric devils did, I do not hate them or their descendants.”
Can we really trust this racist reporter to write an objective history of America? She is someone who hates whites.The New York Times 1619 project incorrectly makes slavery rather than freedom the central and defining idea of the American experience.The 1619 Project is an ongoing project developed by the New York Times magazine in 2019.
It was written by Marxist Nikole Hanna-Jones, a racist anti-white reporter for The New York Times, with contributions by the paper’s writers. Free enterprise and capitalism are placed in the same category as racism. Hannah-Jones insists “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.” This is a Marxist distorted history of America along the same ideas of Howard Zinn’s communist book, A People’s History of America.
Wikipedia explained that the 1619 Project has been strongly criticized by several American historians, including historians of the American Revolution Gordon Wood and Sean Wilentz and Civil War historians James McPherson and Richard Carwardine. McPherson explained the following: “I am disturbed by the project’s unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history. Slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement.” Historian James Oakes criticized Hannah-Jones’s assertion that “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”
Wikipedia said that historian Leslie M. Harris, who was consulted by the New York Times during development of the 1619 Project, wrote in Politico that she warned of the historical inaccuracy of the idea that the 13 colonies went to war to protect slavery, but “despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway”.
The 1619 project has also received criticism from many conservatives. Former House of Representatives Speaker and historian Newt Gingrich criticized the project as “brainwashing propaganda”, in a tweet, and called it “a lie” in a subsequent interview by the media. Senator Ted Cruz has also called the project propaganda.
Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner, that “the 1619 project is an attempt to reframe American history in accordance with the values of New York Times editors, as part of an alleged ongoing campaign by the paper to shift the narrative of the Trump presidency from the Trump-Russia affair toward race, in the re-election year.” On August 18, 2019, the Washington Examiner stated, “The 1619 project has been panned by critics as an attempt to reduce the entirety of American history to a lesson on slavery and race.”
On December 23, 2019, Adam Sewer wrote in The Atlantic that on December 4, 2019, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, sent a letter that was also signed by James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes, all leading scholars in their field, to the three top New York Times editors and the publisher, A. G. Sulzberger. The letter sent to the Times was extremely critical of the 1619 Project. The letter said that “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing’” and says the project reflected “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.”
“To teach children that the American Revolution was fought in part to secure slavery would be giving a fundamental misunderstanding not only of what the American Revolution was all about but what America stood for and has stood for since the Founding,” Wilentz told Sewer. Anti-slavery ideology was a “very new thing in the world in the 18th century,” Wilentz said, and “there was more anti-slavery activity in the colonies than in Britain.”
Sewer explained that Former Speaker of the House of Representatives and a historian Newt Gingrich stated that the 1619 Project is a “lie.” Gingrich pointed out that “there were several hundred thousand white Americans who died in the Civil War in order to free the slaves.” Historian Allen Guelzo stated the 1619 project as a “conspiracy theory” developed from the “chair of ultimate cultural privilege in America, because in no human society has an enslaved people suddenly found itself vaulted into positions of such privilege, and with the consent—even the approbation—of those who were once the enslavers.”
On December 16, 2019, Elliot Kaufman wrote an article titled “The 1619 Project gets Schooled” that was published by the Wall Street Journal. Kaufman explained the following: “So wrong in so many ways is how Gordon Wood, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the American Revolution, characterized the New York Times the 1619 Project. James McPherson, dean of Civil War historians and another Pulitzer winner, said the Times presented an unbalanced, one-sided account that left most of the history out… The 1619 Project was launched in August 2019 with a 100-page spread in the Times’s Sunday magazine. It intends to reframe the country’s history by crossing out 1776 as America’s founding date and substituting 1619, the year 20 or so African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Va. The project has been celebrated up and down the liberal establishment, praised by Senator Kamala Harris and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg.”
Kaufman said that historian Gordon Wood told him that “It still strikes me as amazing why the New York Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support.” Historian James McPherson described the project’s “implicit position that there have never been any good white people, thereby ignoring white radicals and even liberals who have supported racial equality.”
Kaufman wrote the following: “Other 1619 Project essays are similarly tendentious. Sociologist Matthew Desmond marshals substantially discredited research to tar the whole of American capitalism as a legacy of slavery. Legal activist Bryan Stevenson presents the war on drugs and broken-windows policing as successors to lynching, the Black Codes and other white strategies of racial control. Times columnist Jamelle Bouie claims Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling in 2011 was of a piece with Southern defenses of slavery and Jim Crow.”