As Twitchy told you, the New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones has won a Pulitzer Prize for the historically illiterate and inaccurate 1619 Project. If you’re a normal person and see a problem with that, well, you’re just not understanding the 1619 Project’s value to society.
Here, let the Nation’s Jeet Heer explain it to you:
In all seriousness, the way to judge a work of history is by the productive debates it provokes. "1619" generated some very dumb knee-jerk reactions but also a lot of serious conversation. I think it's going to be at the center of conversation for many years.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) May 4, 2020
That is … not the way to judge a work of history, Jeet. But nice try!
I dunno, I think accuracy remains a strong measure for history. But that aside, good point.
— mazzaroth (@mazzaroth10) May 4, 2020
"a work of history"
It's an ahistorical fantasy, but you go ahead and keep droning on.
— Slender Man Privilege (@slendervision) May 4, 2020
It was thoroughly picked apart by actual historians. If it becomes part of the “discussion” it’s doing nothing but degrading it
— Bridumb Flores (@Alexdw85) May 4, 2020
By this standard Trump is the smartest president ever to walk the planet because his words generate alot of conversations.
— Zaggs (@Zaggs) May 4, 2020
It's not hyperbolic to point out that this exact claim could literally be made of "Mein Kampf" and Hitler's lunatic spin on history. https://t.co/BWOASAnuhd
— Bryan S. Myrick (@BryanMyrick) May 4, 2020
— BloomStreetBlues (@grenwuld) May 4, 2020