Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve S

[PeteS in CA]

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/04/pulitzer-prize-to-new-york-times-essay-falsely-claiming-american-revolution-was-fought-to-preserve-slavery/

Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve Slavery
JOEL B. POLLAK  4 May 2020

The 2020 Pulitzer Prize for commentary was awarded Monday to Nikole Hannah-Jones for an essay in the New York Times that falsely claimed the American Revolution was fought primarily to protect slavery.

The essay, titled “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true,” launched the Times‘ controversial 1619 project.
...
However, the far more egregious error was Hannah-Jones’s claim about the cause for which the Revolution was fought. She wrote: “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact 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.”

As Instapundit's Ed Driscoll commented, "Walter Duranty smiles."

[Free Vulcan]

Sounds like her work was the essay version of clickbait.

[mystery-ak]

Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve Slavery
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/04/pulitzer-prize-to-new-york-times-essay-falsely-claiming-american-revolution-was-fought-to-preserve-slavery/

[skeeter]

They're probably teaching this to kids in public schools these days.

Slavery was the reason the colonies almost DIDN'T unite and the revolution NOT happen.

[Smokin Joe]

Another prize bites the dust in a cloud of political correctness and an absence of facts.

[roamer_1]

There are plenty of folks right here on this board that believe the very same thing.

[Absalom]

The Ancients permitted only those w/honor, to speak for them, to history,
yet we allow any schmuck w/a laptop to make up whatever bs they choose.
Spain brought slavery to the Americas around 1575.
Then in 1619 Britain brought the first slaves to the Colonies.
We won our independence from Britain in 1783 and structured our government in 1789.
The slaves were legally emancipated in 1865.
Conclusion: We are responsible for 76 years of slavery!!!

[Smokin Joe]

The Ancients permitted only those w/honor, to speak for them, to history,
yet we allow any schmuck w/a laptop to make up whatever bs they choose.
Spain brought slavery to the Americas around 1575.
Then in 1619 Britain brought the first slaves to the Colonies.
We won our independence from Britain in 1783 and  structured our government in 1789.
The slaves were legally emancipated in 1865.
Conclusion: We are responsible for 76 years of slavery!!!

You left out a few thousand years of preColumbian tribes owning and capturing and trading and sacrificing slaves. That's just in the Americas.

[Absalom]

You left out a few thousand years of preColumbian tribes owning and capturing and trading and sacrificing slaves. That's just in the Americas.

--------------------------------
Indeed the Aztec, Inca, Maya and more. were slavers.
Larger point is our responsibility which was about 75 years,
despite this journo bozo.

[240B]

You left out a few thousand years of preColumbian tribes owning and capturing and trading and sacrificing slaves. That's just in the Americas.

Not to mention that the 'slave trade' was primarily an Arab institution. And it still is today, right now, this very minute.
There are current slaves all over Africa and Asia right now, this very minute. Not two hundred years ago. The slave trade in Africa and Asia has never stopped. It is still happening right now.

But the Left cannot ever discuss that. Because it would diminish America's so called 'original sin'.
To the Left, people, lives, facts mean nothing to them. Everything is about "the agenda".
America and White People are responsible for all the evil that has ever occurred on Earth.
Even when we all know the exact opposite is the truth. We truly live in Orwellian times these days.

[aligncare]

Another prize bites the dust in a cloud of political correctness and an absence of facts.

It bit the dust when Paul Krugman won the prize in 2008. Now it rained and the “prize” is just wallowing in mud.

[Absalom]

Not to mention that the 'slave trade' was primarily an Arab institution. And it still is today, right now, this very minute.
There are current slaves all over Africa and Asia right now, this very minute. Not two hundred years ago. The slave trade in Africa and Asia has never stopped. It is still happening right now.

But the Left cannot ever discuss that. Because it would diminish America's so called 'original sin'.
To the Left, people, lives, facts mean nothing to them. Everything is about "the agenda".
America and White People are responsible for all the evil that has ever occurred on Earth.
Even when we all know the exact opposite is the truth. We truly live in Orwellian times these days.

------------------------------
Slavery is at least 10,000 years old and was NEVER primarily an Arab institution,
nor was it confined to Africa.
It emerged in the Fertile Crescent among the Sumerians of Ancient Mesopotamia who
applied the concept of Property Law to individuals thereby denying them their humanity.
Slavery was common in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Carthage, Greece and Rome.
As for our responsibility, it began w/the structuring of our Government and ended
w/the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865, some 75 years.

[The_Reader_David]

.
Then in 1619 Britain brought the first slaves to the Colonies.

Not true.  Until the decision of a court in Virginia (a British court, of course, as Virginian was a British colony at the time) in 1654 awarded ownership of one John Casor, of Angolan ancestry to another man of Angolan ancestry, Anthony Johnson, all African laborers in the British colonies were indentured servants, who upon completing the term of their indenture were free.  Until the claim against Casor's freedom was accepted, this applied to Africans who had been transported with the intent of being enslaved in the Spanish or French colonies, but somehow ended up in the British instead -- the default term of indenture of seven years being applied, even without indenture documents because there was no basis under British law pre-Anthony v. Casor for chattel slavery.

[catfish1957]

Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve Slavery

[Absalom]

Not true.  Until the decision of a court in Virginia (a British court, of course, as Virginian was a British colony at the time) in 1654 awarded ownership of one John Casor, of Angolan ancestry to another man of Angolan ancestry, Anthony Johnson, all African laborers in the British colonies were indentured servants, who upon completing the term of their indenture were free.  Until the claim against Casor's freedom was accepted, this applied to Africans who had been transported with the intent of being enslaved in the Spanish or French colonies, but somehow ended up in the British instead -- the default term of indenture of seven years being applied, even without indenture documents because there was no basis under British law pre-Anthony v. Casor for chattel slavery.

---------------------------
So the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong and you're right.
Laughable, as you don't know what you're talking about!!!

[LegalAmerican]

Not to mention that the 'slave trade' was primarily an Arab institution. And it still is today, right now, this very minute.
There are current slaves all over Africa and Asia right now, this very minute. Not two hundred years ago. The slave trade in Africa and Asia has never stopped. It is still happening right now.

But the Left cannot ever discuss that. Because it would diminish America's so called 'original sin'.
To the Left, people, lives, facts mean nothing to them. Everything is about "the agenda".
America and White People are responsible for all the evil that has ever occurred on Earth.
Even when we all know the exact opposite is the truth. We truly live in Orwellian times these days.

Thank you.  Barbary coast.  Millions of white Christians were slaves to black muslims. I want reparations.  Ha! And in our country, black business men used white & black slaves.  In fact a black man created slavery in America in 1632'sh . He went to court to keep his indentured servant, when his debt was worked off, to keep him as slave for LIFE. Anthony Johnson.  Irish were slaves too.  White people just don't complain about it DAILY.  snark.

[The_Reader_David]

---------------------------
So the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong and you're right.
Laughable, as you don't know what you're talking about!!!

Odd, the Encyclopedia Britannica supports my position:

The uninterrupted history of blacks in the United States began in 1619, when 20 Africans were landed in the English colony of Virginia. These individuals were not slaves but indentured servants—persons bound to an employer for a limited number of years—as were many of the settlers of European descent (whites). By the 1660s large numbers of Africans were being brought to the English colonies. In 1790 blacks numbered almost 760,000 and made up nearly one-fifth of the population of the United States.

From https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American#ref285185 (emphasis added)

Who exactly doesn't know what they are talking about?  It's even from the source you regard as authoritative.

[The_Reader_David]

@Absalom

Incidentally, Britannica dates the establishment of chattel slavery in Virginia to 1661, when a law recognizing it came into force, rather than on the basis of the single instance of case law seven years earlier.

[Smokin Joe]

------------------------------
Slavery is at least 10,000 years old and was NEVER primarily an Arab institution,
nor was it confined to Africa.
It emerged in the Fertile Crescent among the Sumerians of Ancient Mesopotamia who
applied the concept Property Law to individuals thereby denying them their humanity.
Slavery was common in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Carthage, Greece and Rome.
As for our responsibility, it began w/the structuring of our Government and ended
w/the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865, some 75 years.

I guess my point blew past your worldview.

Slavery was alive and well in the Americas long before any European ever set foot here. That was my point. At a minimum, 14, 000 and possibly as long as 32,000 years. It's harder to date because the Spaniards burned the codices before they could be translated, so whatever written history was here was lost.

We have no clue when slavery began here, but it was a practice alive and well entrenched when the Europeans arrived.

[Absalom]

I guess my point blew past your worldview.
Slavery was alive and well in the Americas long before any European ever set foot here. That was my point. At a minimum, 14, 000 and possibly as long as 32,000 years. It's harder to date because the Spaniards burned the codices before they could be translated, so whatever written history was here was lost.
We have no clue when slavery began here, but it was a practice alive and well entrenched when the Europeans arrived.

----------------------------
In an earlier post, I named the Aztec, Inca and Maya
as being aggressive slavers, long before the Spanish.

[Smokin Joe]

----------------------------
In an earlier post, I named the Aztec, Inca and Maya
as being aggressive slavers, long before the Spanish.

Just making sure. I missed that post, apparently.

The more northern tribes raided each other constantly. Considering they lived in relatively small bands, not only did the raids add to their numbers, where it worked out, but added genetic diversity to the group. I would think it was much the same all over.

[The_Reader_David]

------------------------------
Slavery is at least 10,000 years old and was NEVER primarily an Arab institution,
nor was it confined to Africa.

240B did not claim that slavery was primarily an Arab institution, but that the slave trade (referring to the forcible enslavement and deportation of sub-Saharan Africans) was primarily an Arab institution.  He is, I think slightly off -- an Islamic institution would be more accurate -- though if "Arab" is used loosely to mean "Arabic speaking", thus including not just Arabs properly so called, but almost all the inhabitants of North Africa, most of the Levant (post-Islamic conquest) and the Arabian Peninsula, he might make his case.  Of course if one wants to blame governments rather than peoples, one might claim it was primarily an Ottoman institution, as the vast majority of forcibly enslaved sub-Saharan Africans during the 16th through 19th centuries ended up in lands which either directly or nominally were ruled by the Sultan (who was also the Caliph), rather than enduring the Atlantic crossing to end up as slaves in the New World.  The main reason that there are not large populations with obvious sub-Saharan ancestry in North Africa, Turkey and the Levant is that the Muslims to a far greater degree than planters in the New World tended to work their slaves to death -- that and the demand for eunuchs (something slaveholders in the New World showed no enthusiasm for) making those who survived castration (which killed many) to become eunuch slaves unable to father children.

[Absalom]

240B did not claim that slavery was primarily an Arab institution, but that the slave trade (referring to the forcible enslavement and deportation of sub-Saharan Africans) was primarily an Arab institution.  He is, I think slightly off -- an Islamic institution would be more accurate -- though if "Arab" is used loosely to mean "Arabic speaking", thus including not just Arabs properly so called, but almost all the inhabitants of North Africa, most of the Levant (post-Islamic conquest) and the Arabian Peninsula, he might make his case.  Of course if one wants to blame governments rather than peoples, one might claim it was primarily an Ottoman institution, as the vast majority of forcibly enslaved sub-Saharan Africans during the 16th through 19th centuries ended up in lands which either directly or nominally were ruled by the Sultan (who was also the Caliph), rather than enduring the Atlantic crossing to end up as slaves in the New World.  The main reason that there are not large populations with obvious sub-Saharan ancestry in North Africa, Turkey and the Levant is that the Muslims to a far greater degree than planters in the New World tended to work their slaves to death -- that and the demand for eunuchs (something slaveholders in the New World showed no enthusiasm for) making those who survived castration (which killed many) to become eunuch slaves unable to father children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm........so you're a cheerleader for re-defining terms to suit your assertions, creating
distinctions of zero difference, a.k.a. malarkey. Spare me your pretensions and disappear.

[The_Reader_David]

You were the one who changed the terms of discussion from 240B's "slave trade" to "slavery", and wanted to equate blacks in America with slaves in America to defend the NYT's 1619 date, despite the record of history as found in your supposedly authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica making clear that the black Africans arriving in 1619 did so as indentured servants.

So evidently it's fair game for you to broaden "slave" to include indentured servant, "slave trade" to include all of slavery, but somehow I'm the one shifting terms when I want "slave trade", which some use as if it had that adjective transatlantic appended to it, to include the entire slave trade from sub-Saharan Africa?

It's hardly surprising you have been reduced to abuse and demanding your interlocutor disappear.

[MOD3]