(This post may contain disputed claims. We make no assertions as to the validity of the information presented by our Opinion Columnist. We are an opinion blog, not a traditional news outlet, and this post should be treated as such. Enjoy.)A New York Times writer made a bold claim during a Tuesday interview about the rioting and looting happening across our country. NYT writer Nikole Hannah-Jones’ brazen remark about the “destruction of property, which can be replaced” is one you don’t want to miss — along with her getting destroyed afterward.
New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones is no stranger to controversy. According to the Daily Wire, she is the author behind the highly-criticized New York Times 1619 Project, which sought to rewrite American history by falsely suggesting that the preservation of slavery was “one of the primary reasons” colonists revolted against the British. The claim was fact-checked and widely debunked by historians. Hannah-Jones had to issue a correction, admitting she was wrong, but she didn’t seem to learn her lesson about wild accusations and bold claims.
During a Tuesday interview with CBS News about the violent riots that have rocked the United States following the death of George Floyd, Hannah-Jones claimed that the “destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence” and subsequently lashed out at a conservative publication after they quoted her.
“I think one, we need to be really careful with our language, um, yes it is disturbing to see property being destroyed,” Hannah-Jones said. “It is disturbing to see people taking property from stores, but these are things and violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body,” she added.
“Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,” Hannah-Jones continued. “To use the exact same language to describe those two things, it’s not moral to do that. I think any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times,” she furthered, seemingly doubling down on her assertion.
“These are people who have protested against police violence again and again and again, year after year after year, and still we can have videos of law enforcement, with witnesses, nonchalantly taking the life of a man for the alleged crime of passing a fake $20 bill,” Hannah-Jones continued, referring to the incident involving George Floyd.
“So when we have people who say that people should respect the law, they’re not respecting the law because the law is not respecting them,” the NYT writer added. “You can’t say that regular citizens should play by all of the rules when agents of the state clearly are not,” she declared.
You can watch the interview, posted by CBS News, below:
"Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral" –@nhannahjones on CBSN pic.twitter.com/GGteXRFwAr
— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 2, 2020
When The Daily Caller covered the interview in an article titled, “New York Times Writer Claims Property Destruction Is ‘Not Violence,” quoting Hannah-Jones, she lashed out on Twitter, suggesting she was the victim of racial oppression.
“Despite numerous comments by people asking to post my address or burn or destroy my house, the Daily Caller is encouraging this by repeatedly reposting this story that falsely claims I am defending looting and actual violence,” she wrote in a tweet, later adding, “This tactic is an attempt to silence black journalists and I will not cower.”
This tactic is an attempt to silence black journalists and I will not cower.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) June 3, 2020
In response, many political commentators were quick to counter Hannah-Jones’ assertion, pointing out her own words — words she could not deny since they were captured on video.
You literally said, word for word, that destruction of property is not violence. It’s on video. A smarter, cannier communist would’ve found a more subtle way to declare that only his/her political allies have rights, but you clearly are not that person. https://t.co/sVfAgXm5s6
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 3, 2020
You literally said destroying property isn’t violence, though. You literally said that. https://t.co/7LYgoETZjb
— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) June 3, 2020
“You literally said, word for word, that destruction of property is not violence. It’s on video,” Federalist co-founder Sean Davis wrote. “A smarter, cannier communist would’ve found a more subtle way to declare that only his/her political allies have rights, but you clearly are not that person.”
Allie Beth Stuckey, the host of the “Relatable” podcast, echoed the same sentiments, tweeting, “You literally said destroying property isn’t violence, though. You literally said that.”
Indeed, it’s hard to deny your own words when they are clearly captured in a video interview. Nikole Hannah-Jones is right about one thing, though. Language can be very important. So, perhaps she should pay better attention to her own before instructing others on how they should speak.
