Hulu's 1619 Project Docuseries Peddles False History.

[Muddling Through]

Shocker, I know!

"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."

https://reason.com/2023/01/31/hulus-161 ... e-history/

[blue]

Pinned for interesting topic.

(Please stay on topic of OP)

[Vercingetorix]

Shocker, I know!

"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."

https://reason.com/2023/01/31/hulus-161 ... e-history/

Hannah-Jones premise is stupid on its face. The British empire did not even outlaw importation of slaves til 1807 and it wasnt til 1833 that they outlawed the institution in British territories.

[Steelydamned]

Historians have been knocking down her claims since she first started this 'project.'

She's gone back and revised some of her outlandish assertions but, refused to budge on others despite evidence showing she's wrong.

This isn't actual history; it's massaging history with CRT elements to fit the political narrative.

[Gunslinger201]

Pretty much everything the Left pushes is Lies....1619 and Trans

[Vercingetorix]

Shocker, I know!

"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."

https://reason.com/2023/01/31/hulus-161 ... e-history/

So....I visited my girlfriend today (she has Hulu). I watched 2 episodes.

I couldnt watch more. Really a terrible show. Episode 3 probably has some merit it is on black music.

Anyway, the premise is to describe slave era problems then applying those events to modern problems.

One issue I found a little strange was the reconsideration of rape during the slave era. It was said that no one talks about it nor knows how common it was. Basically indicting the entire modern white community.

She complains about how mixed race babies were designated pre-modern era. Basically the program didnt present a lot of objective fact but rather lots of complaint about ancient history.

One curious thing she seemed upset about was the end of Reconstruction. Her argument was that Reconstruction should have been left in place indefinitely.

[oflguy]

Shocker, I know!

"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."

https://reason.com/2023/01/31/hulus-161 ... e-history/

Divide and conquer - straight out of the democrat playbook