MoBettle wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Augustus wrote:I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

I'm all for all of that, but I don't think I'm focusing just on the date. I probably need to look more closely at it, but it sounded like they were rewriting the history curriculum primarily through the lens of slavery and I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. I think it's a big part of the economics and it certainly has affected us up to this day, but I don't think it should be the primary lens. I think doing it that way is almost as bad as doing the whitewashed version. History is always subjective, but we should be as accurate as possible.

I don’t want to come across as an unconditional defender of the 1619 Project, because it has its flaws (as does any work of history). But it’s about a lot more than slavery, it’s about white supremacy broadly. I also don’t know why you are questioning its accuracy and have such strong opinions about it when you haven’t read any of it.

And yes, Native narratives should absolutely be included in American history instruction.

Agreed and I think it's also worth remembering that it's also only in the news recently because Tom Cotton decided to make a big deal about withholding federal dollars from any school that includes any of its articles in its curriculum at all, which seems like a pretty obvious dog whistle.

Monkeyboy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Augustus wrote:I think you're focusing too much on the date. The project isn't just about slavery. It's the idea that 1619 (when the first African slaves were brought to British America) inaugurated a system of white supremacy that still underlies America today, long before the Declaration of Independence articulated other founding principles in 1776. A lot of the articles are about contemporary America and tying its problems to the history of racism and white supremacy. This is one narrative about American history. The way that we were all taught is also a narrative. Both are subjective, as all interpretations are. I think the point is to get kids to think critically about multiple perspectives on history and not only present the traditional whitewashed version.

I'm all for all of that, but I don't think I'm focusing just on the date. I probably need to look more closely at it, but it sounded like they were rewriting the history curriculum primarily through the lens of slavery and I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. I think it's a big part of the economics and it certainly has affected us up to this day, but I don't think it should be the primary lens. I think doing it that way is almost as bad as doing the whitewashed version. History is always subjective, but we should be as accurate as possible.

I don’t want to come across as an unconditional defender of the 1619 Project, because it has its flaws (as does any work of history). But it’s about a lot more than slavery, it’s about white supremacy broadly. I also don’t know why you are questioning its accuracy and have such strong opinions about it when you haven’t read any of it.

And yes, Native narratives should absolutely be included in American history instruction.

Agreed and I think it's also worth remembering that it's also only in the news recently because Tom Cotton decided to make a big deal about withholding federal dollars from any school that includes any of its articles in its curriculum at all, which seems like a pretty obvious dog whistle.

well, yeh, he's a racist and would prefer his kids learn nothing about slavery.

PSUsarge wrote:

Philadelphia NAACP president Rodney Muhammad shared a meme that depicted an anti-Semitic cartoon next to photos of Black celebrities who recently came under fire for their own allegedly anti-Semitic comments.

After being contacted by a reporter, Muhammad removed the post, initially saying he didn’t remember sharing it. He later acknowledged the meme — but said he didn’t realize the image included was offensive to Jewish people.

“To be real honest with you, I didn’t even pay attention to the picture,” he said.[/quote
https://billypenn.com/2020/07/24/naacp- ... azi-quote/

@GovernorTomWolf
The anti-Semitic meme shared by Philadelphia NAACP president Minister Rodney Muhammad is vile.

Sharing this type of racist content is unacceptable—especially from a civic leader.

I’m joining the call for Minister Muhammad to resign. Hate has no place in Pennsylvania.

The Dude wrote:I'm not sure how he was a literal Antifa agent. Even if he was, what point are you trying to make? You got called out and now you're doubling down?

Uncle Milty wrote:Do we believe the troops are leaving Portland?

St. Louis County’s top prosecutor announced Thursday evening that the officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, will not be facing any charges. This comes nearly six years after a grand jury decided to not indict the officer. A week after graduating from high school, Brown was shot and killed on a Sunday afternoon when an officer yelled at him and his friend to not walk in the street. Brown’s body was in the street for four hours. His death caused months of unrest in Ferguson, sparking nationwide protests and helping solidify the Black Lives Matter movement. Brown should have turned 24 this May.