1619 v. 1776: Hiring of Nikole Hannah-Jones Brings Debate Over Founding To UNC

The Leftist notion that our country’s founding dates to 1619, not 1776, has proven popular in media, culture, and education. The recent hiring of New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones by UNC-Chapel Hill’s journalism school has thrust North Carolina into the national spotlight over the discussion of who we are as Americans, what our country represents, and the principles on which she was founded. In this conversation, we’ll discuss the hiring of Hannah-Jones and the dispute over the rigor and accuracy of her 1619 project. We’ll be joined by an esteemed panel of writers and historians, including the expert who served as Executive Director of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission, which produced the 1776 Report.

[TB]

Nikole Hannah Jones was offered from the very beginning a 5 year contract with a tenure review upon the completion of the 5 year contract and she knew that when she accepted the job then signed on the dotted line or verbally communicated she was ok with that then she pulls this stunt of threats to bring UNC to court with the help of the NAACP legal defense fund. Since that’s the case she has nothing to bring the UNC board of trustees to court for, since tenure was never part of the package offered to her from the very beginning. It seems to me NHJs has no case because it doesn’t matter what past applicants of K/Nights Chair received, she knew in January that a review for tenure would be taken after a 5 year period. Case closed even though she thinks it isn’t .

[TB]

Nikole Hannah Jones says in her 1619 project (SIC) Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade. This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South. The wealth and prominence that allowed Jefferson, at just 33, and the other founding fathers to believe they could successfully break off from one of the mightiest empires in the world came from the dizzying profits generated by chattel slavery. In other words, we may never have revolted against Britain if some of the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so; nor if they had not believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue. It is not incidental that 10 of this nation’s first 12 presidents were enslavers, and some might argue that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.

Well if that’s the case, that there were growing calls to end slavery in London during 1776 then how come KING GEORGE III didn’t stop the transportation of slaves from Africa to England by signed law (by the King himself) until 1807. The 1807 law did not include a provision to end slavery for those still in bondage within England and their subject nations, that would come later on during 1833 and even then slavery would still continue on for some ppl within the English Empire until August 1840. 1776 to 1840 is a difference of 64 years. So imo when NHJs says there were growing calls within 1776 London England to end slavery theres simply no historical evidence to support her notions. This is a cut and dry fact. There is no discussion and quite frankly her and her co writers of the 1619 project along with The NY Times should be castigated by the entire history academia in the United States for publishing a public piece they were definitely trying to sell as historical fact. Nikole HJ’s even uses the word fact in the above paragraph that I pasted.

[TB]

I’d like to add that King George III had been deceased for over 20 years when England finally put an end to slavery in August 1840. He was was on the throne as a young man before the revolution and he was the King when England’s forces surrendered to George Washington. So my main point is KG3 had no inclination whatsoever to end slavery because it endured 20 years after he left the earth! Seriously somebody or a group needs to sue the 1619 project and have it back track it’s statements because they just aren’t historical reality. It’s time to nip this in the bud and then move on and I suggest our country write a new full historical record of the facts regarding slavery, a version that doesn’t poo poo anyone and is required reading for mature readers only that included warnings for the faint hearted. Slavery within North America predates the United States by 165 years. That’s a very long time and a very long time story can’t be relegated to a story like the 1619 project because it’s only a 20 minute read, 30 tops. We need books and chapters after chapters for a real story about slavery and not just slavery here but slavery before any of us were ever in North America excluding the native Indian tribes. Books and many many chapters not just some FLIM FLAM SHABBY POS STORY LABELED 1619 that can be read in 30 minutes! There’s at least Four intricate voices to slavery and they are for good or bad 1. The slavers 2. The Slaves 3. The white abolitionist from the SOUTH AND the NORTH and 4. All the people who died from 1861-1865 on both sides of the conflict during the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR and these main 4 points have never been fully clarified in any classroom historical offering ever! It’s time! So let’s do it, ASAP! 😊🥱💯