We are stronger when learning historical truth
Category: Op/Ed
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 181 commentsBy: sunjournal (Lewiston Sun Journal)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Stan Tetenman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently many parents have chosen not to trust school boards, administrators and teachers to educate their students. This has not been limited to a particular district or school.
Some parents have also demanded to have particular books banned. The books are primarily by authors of color, or the LGBTQ community. These parents fear their children will feel bad about themselves by reading these books.
Many people have complained about what they say is the teaching of critical race theory. Wikipedia defines CRT as "a cross-disciplinary intellectual and social movement of civil rights scholars and activists who seek to examine the intersection of race and law in the United States to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice."
The word "critical" is used as an academic term referring to the process of critical thinking. It's not about blaming or criticizing others. CRT is generally taught at the college level and not in K-12 grades. Those who speak against CRT do not define the term, so it is difficult to know exactly what issues they are talking about.
For many years American educators taught a whitewashed version of our history. We did not learn how cruelly Christopher Columbus treated indigenous people.
We were taught about the founding fathers who wrote our wonderful Constitution but did not learn that some of these men also enslaved people, or that the document they drafted had racial overtones.
As part of a compromise, enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person, giving southern states one-third more representatives and Electoral College votes, even though those who were enslaved were not allowed to vote.
How many know the first enslaved people were brought to our shores in 1619? In school we didn't learn that their names were taken from them and they were given names by slave traders and owners. Enslaved people were treated as property to be bought, sold and traded.
In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that a Black person couldn't be counted as a citizen.
Did any of us know native American children were taken from their families and forced to live at schools to learn to become more like white people? Their native dress, language, names and customs were taken from them. The government determined the indigenous people could not care for themselves as they had for thousands of years. The government decided it should look after them on reservations on land that once belonged to the indigenous people.
In 1873, the University of South Carolina was the only state college in the south to be fully integrated. When former Confederates regained power, it was changed to whites only. That stood until court-ordered desegregation in 1963.
In 1880, troops were pulled from the South, ending reconstruction. This gave root to segregation.
In recent years the Supreme Court struck down part of the voting rights act and within a few days many states introduced legislation to make it difficult to vote. These laws primarily affect people of color.
Until recently, few people knew of the massacre in Tulsa in 1921 that destroyed a large Black middle class area of the city. This massacre prevented generational accumulation of wealth for these individuals and their ability to share it with their families.
The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only major federal legislation to explicitly suspend immigration for a specific nationality.
During World War II people of Japanese descent — including American citizens — lost their homes, businesses and jobs and were forced to live in internment camps here in this country. These actions were clearly based on racism and fear.
In 1939, Madison Square Garden was packed with Nazi sympathizers to celebrate George Washington's birth. As with many events, it showed the fragility of our democracy.
Black veterans from World War II were not given the same access to veterans' benefits as their fellow white veterans.
Students should have knowledge of these issues and events and have critical discussions about them.
As late as 1970 Virginia used a history book that included comments about the wonderful life enslaved people lived and how well their masters treated them.
Racism continues today. Industries that pollute are located in poor areas. Voting districts in many states are drawn along lines of race.
Teaching our true history is not about making children feel bad about being white. It teaches them what white people have done well and what we have done poorly. Students should know that much of our early prosperity was based on the forced labor of enslaved people.
To say they shouldn't learn things that make them feel bad is disingenuous. It's a false history. If all students are taught the truth and learn to discuss that truth using critical thinking, they can and we can work together as one society to improve on what we have.
Tags
Who is online
421 visitors
A lot of folks right here on NT are doing their best to whitewash history.
Sadly, I think you are right.
Whitewash, good one Tessylo.
Interesting, I mistakenly thought that the term originated in that Lead Belly song, “ Scottsboro Boys ,
Of course we are. Which is why its downright criminal progressives want to use "history" to indoctrinate kids with lies and dishonest narratives.
See the 1619 project as a perfect example.
White people have nothing to fear from accurate history, they've just been trained to think they do.
I assume you want American kids to be taught that some American Muslims celebrated 9/11, since what some German Americans did in 1939 is somehow something that need to be included in history classes.
Al Gore was white, he created the internet so we could watch you virtue signal.
If you say you aren't racist on the internet then you get ordained by the black community to call others racist. My twitter profile has a Ukrainian flag, with a bio that says, black lives matter, LGBTQ lives matter, Double dildos are amazing, and I have been vaccinated 14 times and talking to five year old's about blumkins and bukkake is not grooming.
So I can lecture people with cred!
That is completely correct.
Or... guilty white liberals have been trained to believe that any curriculum that omits anything they want to feel guilty about is somehow "inaccurate".
America has always been a racist nation. I suppose we could argue about the degree of that , but not the reality. Are you aware of any teaching curriculum that tells students that unpleasant truth?
Welcome to the reality of human nature. Everyone is racist to some degree. Some of the most racist people out there are the loudest ones calling others folks racist.
That said, not sure what schools you went to. Like most other kids my age I went to public schools. We were taught the history of slavery in North America. We WERE NOT taught to hate ourselves because of it or to feel guilt for what happened a century or two ago.
The big difference between then and what progressive loons want to “teach” today.
Learning about slavery is not the same as the realization that America is historically a racist country. We even routinely hear people say "we're tired of hearing about racism. That all ended when white soldiers went to war and the slaves were freed. "
Exactly, even today, many don't know about the historical and current structural racism, especially in our urban areas of the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast.
I suppose we could argue about the degree of that , but not the reality.
Exactly, do the NYC public schools teach that they are an extremely segregated school district and that many Black students attend schools there that are less diverse now than when desegregation was supposed to have started almost 60 years ago. There are wide disparities in academic achievement with White and Asian American students scoring in the top 20% on state tests, while Black and Latino students largely score in the bottom 20%.
New York state remains is the most segregated state in the country, Black kids there attend a school with only 15% white students and 64% of Black students are in schools with 90-100% non-white students. New York segregation is closely followed by the very Blue states of Illinois, California, and Maryland also with extreme levels of segregation 70 years after Brown vs. Board of Education.
School segregation in Illinois is related to the fact that children attend local schools predominantly and there is still a great deal of residential segregation. Although a lot of the political leadership of Chicago is "liberal", there are hundreds of thousands of residents that are not.
as noted, everyone is racist to some degree. Therefore every country is racist to some degree. And the reasons many white men went to war in our civil war were so much more complicated than just abolition of slavery. And yet, you always frame it in only that one way.
Very disingenuous John. Very disingenuous.
Structural racism?
How about destructuring of the hard fought for union?
That is the first step toward the push for reparations. If you make whites feel guilty about being white they will open their checkbooks to try and make themselves feel better about themselves.
Exactly, eight of 10 Illinois metro areas ranked among the highest third of all metropolitan areas nationally for black and white student school segregation .
Those Illinois blue metro home owners vote with their feet and prefer living in segregated areas more than other folks across the nation. The situation is no better in the very wealthy, Blue state of Maryland.
How about it.
They got caught on that one so good luck now making that happen. Assist to COVID-19
Strong message to follow this November ....
Exactly
I dont frame it that way, those who play down racism do, and they are the ones who talk about how the civil war ended racism.
I know of no person that thinks that. You must run in interesting crowds
60 years ago, we had forced busing to desegregate public schools. Do you think that was right? Most NYer including black and Latino families didn't like it and that was why it was ended. Like most places, elementary and middle schools are attended by children who live in those locations. Students in grades 8-12 can attend other schools anywhere in NYC, with the exception of our top schools which they must test into.
I am sure if you went to a red state like Louisiana (since you seem to think this is the reason), you would find that they have the same issues with locality and children attending.
NYS does not have statewide schools. We go to the schools that are local schools, so basically, whatever town you move to, is the school your kids will attend. It is also how you will be taxed. The more money paid into the schools, via taxes, usually the better the schools. My kids went to one of the best schools on LI, and even top-rated in the US, and we had about 30% black and Latino children attending, so I would like to see where you are getting your numbers from.
I live in the North Bronx in a neighborhood which is about 36% White American. The rest are broken into classifications that are not always clear like Jewish, Black, Hispanic and a whole slew of immigrant nationalities like Puerto Rican, Italian, Albanian, Russian, all sorts of eastern Europeans, Mexican Jamaican, Yemeni, Chinese etc. etc. etc. Whatever you are bitching about doesn't mean squat in The Bronx. Our reality is that the only way The Bronx County Schools could reflect the racial makeup of suburban America would be to bus in about a millions white kids. From where? Manhattan?
Their still are not enough white kids to do it...
The Bronx has great schools, by the way. The Hospitals near my home are world class and I can walk to Bronx Park, The Bronx Zoo and the New York Botanical Gardens. I can see a Yankees game and have lunch at Emilio's on Arthur Avenue. I can pray in a dozen amazing Cathedrals and Churches most people hardly imagine. And you, don't know squat about it.
So sit there in No Vag and pass judgment on the most awesome and amazingly diverse public schools in probably the whole world. Public schools tha just happen to be doing a hella lot better than most people even know about. Probably better than your own do...
I had to ride (approx. 30 min) across town in the late 60's to attend a mixed junior high school. The school was 60-40 white-black with about 70% of the white students from poor families, essentially all of the black kids from poor families and the rest of the white kids from a middle class suburban area. It was one of the most educational periods of my life. Previously, I had little contact with poor white people and virtually no contact with black people. I learned a lot about these people and how to get along.\
I am sure if you went to a red state like Louisiana (since you seem to think this is the reason), you would find that they have the same issues with locality and children attending.
Perhaps not, t he south today is still the most integrated region in the nation for black students.
I would like to see where you are getting your numbers from.
I didn't pass that judgement, the UCLA Civil Rights Project did.
I find your definition of “white” kids wanting.
I guess I’m not “white” American. I guess I’m 50% Slovak American, about 20% English and German American each and a smattering of mutt from Native American to Latino American.
No wonder you are so confused.
Whatever you are bitching about doesn't mean squat in The Bronx.
I'm sorry that my writing wasn't clear enough for you to understand.
The Bronx has great schools, by the way.
New York City’s gifted and talented program helps perpetuate “a racist caste system” in the city’s public schools, according to a lawsuit filed in March 21 that continues to wind its way through the state’s court system.
The gifted exam is seen as the first of several policies excluding Black and Latino children from coveted programs: They fill only 14% of gifted seats, but account for nearly 60% of kindergartners citywide. But both middle schools and high schools that base admissions decisions on test scores, including eight of the nine specialized high schools, can be exclusionary along racial lines, the student said.
Only 9% of offers for specialized high school seats, based on test scores for this year’s incoming freshmen, went to Black and Latino students.
I have heard people say the civil war ended slavery but never racism. I also heard that institutional racism was made illegal in 1964, are you hearing differently about that too?
Those are surprising numbers, if it's Roslyn High School. I read that Roslyn LI has less than 2% Black people and 4% Hispanic. I guess that's not surprising for a wealthy, NY local. Perhaps the number of Black and Latino kids have decreased since your kids attended. Today they report 7.8% Hispanic, 3.0% Black and 0.6% Two or More Races.
Yes, there is one school district in this big country that completely breaks the mold regarding the racial and ethnic breakdown of its population. As I have explained, a huge percentage of students in NYC schools are not classified as black, white or generic Hispanic. That is why NYC schools compare so differently than the racial mix of all other schools.
Perhaps they want comparisons to be hard to do. Do they have a separate set of figures using federal census categories when applying for Federal Education dollars?
I think that is a wonderful thing. But bussing had complex problems and that is why it ended. You can read here: . Btw, I lived in Amityville (yes that one), and it was an integrated town on Long Island and still is and I think it was a great experience, too.
Louisiana is not. btw... it's pretty 50/50 when it comes to red states/ blue states and their failure of integration and education levels:
Louisiana is not. btw
That probably isn’t very surprising to many, apparently the structural racism in the urban Northeast, upper Midwest and West Coast is.
That is taken out of context. Louisiana's schools are very segregated.
The link I provided showed differently:
#10. New York
#9. New Mexico
#8. North Dakota
#7. Rhode Island
#6. South Dakota
#5. Connecticut
#4. Montana
#3. South Carolina
#2. Alaska
#1. Hawaii
It seems that structural racism is diverse and diffuse.
Your link was state comparisons. My comment was "urban Northeast, upper Midwest and West Coast". After all, you reminded us that schools are local, not state.
You started this with New York. I explained why NY was the way it was. The issue started as states and continued that way. You just added the component of regions, which if you look at that list, isn't right.
You started this with New York
Actually, my first comment 2.1.10 was about urban areas. Then in 2.1.11, I started the para with " do the NYC public schools teach that they are an extremely segregated school district and that many Black students attend schools there that are less diverse now than when desegregation was supposed to have started almost 60 years ago." My Illinois comment was (2.1.16) was " eight of 10 Illinois metro areas ranked among the highest third of all metropolitan areas nationally for black and white student school segregation " I think that metro and urban are similar with metro including suburbs.
In some of those states, there aren't many Black people in rural areas. Take the NY hamlet that the Clintons live in, Chappaqua has just over 1% Black. I think that one a the few Black families there had a 200-foot noose painted on the road in front of their house and a BLM sign in the village was burned last year,
Or like the rural areas of the states you mentioned. Or the urban and rural areas of the SW, Mountain states, midwest, plains states or the states bordering Canada, Ida. Montana and ND.
More than enough structural racism to go around.
More than enough structural racism to go around.
You got that right, but from the pushback here, some may think that's it's only in the South, not in Dem strongholds in the North too.
I was not a part of the discussion at 2.1.10. My comment to you was regarding NYS, and continued to be about states.
My comment to you was regarding NYS, and continued to be about states.
Ok, no problem. We don't have to discuss urban racism.
It's also in the rural and urban areas of the red states outside the south as well as I mentioned.
I dont think anyone is disputing that there is racism in the north.
It's also in the rural and urban areas of the red states
Perhaps less so in smaller towns.
" The number of children attending U.S. public schools with students of other races has nearly doubled over the past quarter-century, a little-noticed surge that reflects the nation’s shifting demographics, a Washington Post analysis has found.
At the same time, children in most big cities and many suburbs remain locked in deeply segregated districts, with black students more likely to be enrolled in segregated districts than Hispanics or whites, The Post found.
In 2017, 10.8 million children attended highly integrated public schools, up from 5.9 million in 1995, an 83 percent increase that stems largely from rising diversity outside metropolitan areas ."
The finding reflects profound demographic change, as Latinos move into small towns and suburbs that once were overwhelmingly white. These places, The Post found, are far more likely to have schools that mirror the new diversity of their communities than their big-city counterparts, which have long been home to a diverse population but have run schools that are profoundly segregated."
Perhaps in some, but not in others like the rural towns I lived in. In many of those small towns, there is only one high school that could account for the ''more integrated'' schools.
So which part of being a racist do you fit in?
If I were a white conservative in a liberal city, I would give ten bucks to a black dude, have him sign a receipt noted "reparations"
That way, when the left loons pass an ordinance in that city saying they are going to give reparations, I can whip out that receipt and declare myself free from any other payment.
Let the white liberals pay the bill for such bs.
The major problem is that what some people consider accurate history is not what others consider accurate and then have the nerve to call the ones that disagree racist.
The Texas Schoolbook Committee and maybe a few other state's highly controlled purchasing departments control the authorized public school curriculum for pretty much all of America. What kids today are taught regarding our history with Native Americans and Black Slavery and the Civil War and Civil Rights hasn't changed much in fifty years. The current rightwing movement is to whitewash the standardized history curriculum because it makes some white kids feel really sad...
I’m surprised that California and New York can’t control the text books that they use.
Yep. Tell us everything you know about "accurate" history.
That would be a waste of both our times because anything I had to say you would just deflect and deny anyway. Good evening.
They have input, but in the end the few big publishers only print and only sell one version each which are edited to pass all, or as many as possible, state's standards. This is called standardization and is about the market for public school books being competitive but only between two or three total suppliers...
Amazingly, those Bronx schools have been able to work around these deficient text books and still provide an excellent education.
Well, not in the 1960's.
I have no problem with textbooks as they are.
My problem is trying to whitewash curriculum.
I have no problem with textbooks as they are.
Well that’s a relief.
Relative to what? Define "racist nation".
You are confusing your opinion with fact. Whether or not actions of racism have taken place in any country would be fact. Whether or not any country is "racist" is and will always be a matter of opinion.
I know all public school children are taught the factual historical record regarding things like tribal displacement, slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, Brown vs Board of Education, and numerous other historical events and practices.
What you and many other white liberals are demanding is contrition. As you still see many signs of white Americans who do not signal contrition on a regular basis, you have seized upon public education as a pulpit from which you can preach your message of sin to a more impressionable and easily manipulated audience. Were you to get your way, it is easy to imagine every American student taking 4 years worth of a course where every day was dedicated to talking about how terrible America is.
In what year, in your opinion , did racists become a minority group in America? We know it wasnt in any period prior to the civil rights movement, and some say not even then.
We had hundreds of years of racial prejudice, hostility, and oppression of blacks and other racial minorities. You dont think that qualifies America as being historically a racist nation? What did we need to qualify, more lynchings?
Then somehow fit Trump into his rant.
What countries weren't "historically racist?"
None!
I dont know about you, but my concern is with America.
Opinions on that do vary ...
Well, yes, I'm sure you want to teach kids how horribly racist America was without any context. Perspective won't help your mission.
Exactly, compare us to Japan or Korea, compare us to Egypt or Switzerland or Norway. Very little history of structural racism in those homogenous countries.
Do you think that young black children should be taught that any racism in America has been incidental and anyway all people are racist to some degree? Should they be taught that no one racial group is responsible for racism in America , and that there is no proof that white supremacy ever existed?
(1) racism in Japan - Search (bing.com)
Well sure, Asians can be very racist in their thinking. I lived in Korea for several years. But you don't see race riots there, police shootings, lynching's like you've seen here.
I'm not in favor of separate but equal history for black children. Teach history, not propaganda.
The idea that American kids are being taught some white washed version of history is preposterous. I've mentioned this before but even as long as 20 years ago, graduating seniors listed Harriet Tubman and Mertin Luther King as their top heroes from history. Do you think kids aren't learning about racial issues and still listing those two as their heroes? 20 years ago no less! Do you think education has gotten more or less white centric over the last two decades?
Why would any opinion on the subject be of any significance? Is this one of those exercises where we sit in a circle and talk about our feelings?
Do we know that? How? What data is available?
Interesting you use past tense there.
But it's a fascinating form of definition, isn't it? We can use the phrase to describe hundreds of scenarios.
So literally anything that has been around throughout most of American history can be used to declare us "a historically *insert your cause here* nation."
It's also convenient because it allows you to utterly ignore progress and developments from the last 100 years or so. It's actually true to say America has historically been an equestrian nation. We rode horses for longer than we've driven automobiles. But that ignores over a century of progress. That's fine if we're just desperate to validate some bizarre kind of pro-horse emotion but idiotic in any other sense.
I'm astonished that you think that mish-mash is an adequate reply.
As an answer to your questions (?) - beats tha hell outta what was posted to initiate racism discussion - ya think?
Such as we see frequently on NT.
The current rightwing movement is to whitewash the standardized history curriculum because it makes some white kids feel really sad...
Sorry JBB, but the FP of NT totally belies that comment.
racists become a minority group in America
Sorry John, but "racists" still haven't been blessed with being a race.
What's really interesting John is that you can provide absolutely NO FACTS to your statements/ideas to the advant of racism being founded and grown in the U.S.
You do know that the "visitors" to this continent in the 1400/15/16/17/18/19/20's brought THEIR concept of how society should "thrive" and they were from EUROPE. So, what you're attempting to say, but are afraid too, is that EUROPE is the largest producer of racists who brought THEIR society to this continent.
Go ahead and say it - don't be bashful.
With all you've been saying, it sounds more like your concern is more for just a certain segment of America than as a whole.
How so?
I’m astonished that you copied and pasted so much of what you called mush-mash.
No you're not.
You just say shit like that whenever anyone points out the glaring holes in your emotional assertions and you can't think of anything else to say.
Why? Would John actually having to type it all out manually word for word have been more pleasing to you personally? That's kinda sick.
Bingo, three pointer from half court!
Sorry, but Jack makes a heck of a lot more sense than what you have been posting here. The mish-mash is mostly coming from your end.
No, we got his point after the 2nd bullet.
At the risk of overstating the obvious, most of your examples do not represent a majority of Americans. The only one that did was the one about horses. There was a time when most Americans used horses to get around so we could say we once were a "horse riding" nation.
Saying America is historically racist is premised on the acknowledgement that a majority of Americans at any given historical point have been racist.
That is not the case for criminals, Judaism, "diseased" people or millionaires.
I do see though that your nonsense got a couple of the usual suspects excited.
His specific argument in that comment is ridiculous.
So if the majority thinks racism is ok, we should accept that fact because it represents "the whole" ? I dont get your argument.
Anti-black racism in the United States, or America if you prefer , stems in whole from race based slavery. Race based chattel slavery was devised in Virginia in the mid 1600's. Eventually, with the Enlightment beliefs (including individual freedom) taking hold around the western world, it became necessary to justify slavery from a moral standpoint. The way this was done was to declare that blacks were inferior (same thing was done to Native Americans , although for slightly different reasons (wanted to steal their land). If blacks were inferior to the point of being subhuman one could argue slavery was appropriate and maybe even "good" for them.
Long story short, you're wrong. Racism as we know it in the US is home grown.
What I dont get is why you are always so ready to minimize it.
Race based chattel slavery was devised in Virginia in the mid 1600's.
Lol. Is that what the 1619 project is teaching you? Probably should tell that to the millions of Africans enslaved in Brazil starting in the 1500s.
But that's more of that perspective you don't want taught. Ten times the number of African slaves were brought to Brazil over what became the US. Less than 5% of slaves taken from Africa were brought to would be become America. But since that fact can't be used to show America as the most racist, worst country in the history of humanity, it's not relevant, right?
Anti-black racism in the United States, or America if you prefer , stems in whole from race based slavery.
I’m confident that anti-black racism occurred in the US like it has occurred in Asia, the Mideast and South America.
Race based chattel slavery was devised in Virginia in the mid 1600's
Chattel slavery of Africans started In the Americas 159 years earlier in 1502.
Again, we are talking about America. Your comments are usually a good argument for teaching schoolchildren a more comprehensive history of race in this country.
Excerpt of Peter H. Wood's Strange New Land on why America adopted race-based slavery. (slate.com)
But you are making up facts to depict America, which was actually Great Britain, in a worse light. Claiming race based slavery was invented in Virginia for instance is demonstrably not true. Arguing that the English common law evolved to favor the rights of owners of African slaves is a much different claim. That should probably give you about supporting a "living constitution" as well, but that's another debate.
Was George Washington a different man on July 5 1776, than he was on July 5 1775 , or 1774 or 1764? The idea that no one was "American" prior to the D of I is silly. The plantation families that owned slaves in the 1600's also owned them in the 1700's and 1800's.
If colonists were not "American" , why are they taught as part of American history? Why not just start American history on July 4 1776 ?
The idea that no one was "American" prior to the D of I is silly
Exactly, only the name, government and laws were different.
Take your "argument" to the authors and publishers of American history books.
Why not just start American history on July 4 1776 ?
Perhaps some thing that the background is important.
No argument with them, they’ve recorded the difference in name, government and laws.
e Washington a different man on July 5 1776, than he was on July 5 1775 , or 1774 or 1764?
My Grandfather was the same man when he left Ireland as when he became a citizen. Once he became a citizen, he was an American. It would be silly to call the 21 year old him living in Ireland an American, though he was the same man.
. The plantation families that owned slaves in the 1600's also owned them in the 1700's and 1800's.
In some cases that's true. Some not. Families rose and families fell, just like always. Remember Gone with the Wind? Scarlett's father was an irish immigrant who won his fortune gambling. Slave owning was not a fixed caste.
I agree. We often hear of the reasons the "Americans" broke away from England. Part of it was that the colonists realized they were a separate people with their own separate interests. Same thing for slavery. England never had slavery on the scale that developed in America.
The rationale that it was Englishmen and not Americans who were responsible for slavery is word games trying to take the blame off our home grown racists. .
Your grandfather crossed an ocean. George Washington crossed town.
Your grandfather crossed an ocean. George Washington crossed town.
The slacker!
Same thing for slavery. England never had slavery on the scale that developed in America.
Exactly, only in their colonies.
I never said anything about the majority thinking racism is okay, so please quit trying to put your words in my mouth. Based on that I, it's not surprising you don't get my argument.
It did not agree with your way of thinking so of course you would think it was ridiculous.
Of course not, they had the Irish!😁
Yep.
That would be the point, John. More to the point, what makes you think your assertion does represent the majority of Americans?
You have yet to supply any data suggesting this "most Americans are racists" to be anything more than a wild-eyed white liberal guilty fantasy.
If by "acknowledgment" you mean, "your own biased opinion", then yeah, OK.
Why would we think that?
Anti-Irish racism didn't start that way. Neither did anti-Chinese, anti-Italian, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic racism.
What nobody else gets is why you're always so ready to wallow in it.
That's an embarrassingly idiotic question.
Maybe for the same reason the Romans are taught as part of British history? Or Mexicans are taught as part of Texas history? Or the Spanish are taught as part of Mexican history?
Strange to relate, American history does actually start on July 4, 1776.
Nonsense. Did the Romans stay in Britain en masse and become the founders of "modern" Britain? No they did not. They left. Same with Mexico in Texas. Mexico left , and did not found the Republic of Texas even though at one point they owned that land. In America, the same people (the British) who were the original arrivals founded the independent government. There was a continuity of families, and of points of view, that proceeded from Jamestown , or colonial Boston, all the way through to , well, today. For those reasons, American unique history begins way before July 4 1776.
I have no idea what your point is , other than flailing. What on earth does this even mean ?
We actually know how and why anti black racism got started in America. It is written in our historical accounts.
Give us a decade or two in U.S. history when you think racism was a minority viewpoint and we will look up historical information from that decade and take a look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I randomly picked out Cleveland to look up
Sign in Detroit Michigan , 1942.
The Jim Crow North (scholastic.com)
Appreciate the history lesson from Cleveland. Apparently racism wasn't just a Southern thing but was present in our urban center in the North as well.
I understand that there is has been a Reverse Migration underway for the last decade or longer. Chicago and Detroit has lost 10% of it's Black population, NYC and Philadelphia 5%. It's much more pronounced on the West Coast with Black population plunging 45% in Compton, 43% in San Francisco and 40% in Oakland. There Blaxit loss has been Black population gains in Atlanta, Charlotte, Montgomery, and Birmingham, Jackson, and New Orleans.
Japan is a horrible comparison from a diversity standpoint. What are they, like 99% Asian?
Little possibility of racially motivated unease there.
I didn't mean to suggest that Japan is diverse. I've visited there twice and know that's it's not. My point was many countries that have few racial problems in comparison to us, are some of the least diverse countries in the world.
Sparty - lived in Japan for five years and, believe me, there is a lot of discrimination. The Japanese, when I was there, were against Chinese, Koreans, North and South, Taiwanese, Americans, Europeans - pretty much any ethnic group other than Japanese, and their racism can/did get ugly.
Of course you do. You pretend that you don't because you're hoping to pass your opinions off as fact.
Not what it sounded like but agreed, that’s just common sense for most. And many of those countries take racial/ethnic hatred to a new level. It is not uncommon for Japanese to consider all Americans mongrels because of our diversity. Same goes for Korea.
Japan considered itself ethnically superior prior to WW-2 which was at least part of the reason they went to war with us. That mentality still exists there from my experience.
Completely agree. China believed it sat at the center of the world, today it believes in Sinocentrism.
I'm amused by those that believe only white people can have feelings of superiority or be racists. I've been on every content except for Australia (it on my list) and have witnessed racism worldwide.
You are out of gas. If you really want to investigate the reality of widespread historical racism in America I will be happy to accommodate you.
Interesting trend.
A migration from the “free” north to the “slave” south.
Things that make you go ...... hmmm. ...
Accommodate is the wrong word there.
Indoctrinate fits more better.
Yep, like I said way back in here. Everyone is racist to some degree. Some of the worst racists are the ones shouting racism the loudest.
Absolutely, how else can the extreme segregation in housing and education in our urban, blue cities be explained?
migration from the “free” north to the “slave” sout
Strange isn’t it. I’ve been told many times on this site that the voters in the south who’ve turned it relatively Republican over the last 30 years are the exact same people who opposed the civil rights act in 1964 and that the south today is just as racist as it was in 1964.
yet blacks are flocking to live in a region that is supposedly just as racist as it was before the civil rights bill was passed. I wonder how white progressives reconcile that.
There you all go - blaming it all on the blue cities.
What a shocker!
Please provide your explanation for the structural racism and segregation in our urban cities.
So you're not blaming these things on 'blue' cities?
The vast majority of our urban cities are blue. Pick on one, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia or any other and explain why structural racism and segregation in housing and education persists among all of these open minded progressives.
So you are. Again, what a shocker!
The answer is SYSTEMIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So more dog whistles?
Yep, all that were/are not ethnic Japanese were consideted barbarian Gaijin by much of the local population.
Details ..... details .....
Why can't the good Dems involved fix their urban system?
So more dog whistles?
Is that your go to when an explanation is beyond you. Do you really not understand this urban reality or are you just unwilling to publicly admit it?
[deleted]
Probably be a very short lesson...
You'd be surprised how much that really is with this dude.
Well, when the shoe fits...
Don't talk down to me.
I hear your dog whistles loud and clear.
I'm not a dude, nor am I the topic of this article.
"Well, when the shoe fits..."
That's not the case though. Murder rates are higher in red cities. Yet when I post those things - DOTW asks me what is the point?
Don't talk down to me.
When did you feel that I did that?
I hear your dog whistles loud and clear.
Apparently, you only hear what you what to hear. You would hear a dog whistle in a vacuum.
When did I do that?
"The top ten cities with the highest murder rates are;
1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Baltimore, Maryland
3. Birmingham, Alabama
4. Detroit, Michigan
5. Dayton, Ohio
6. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
7. New Orleans, Louisiana
8. Kansas City, Missouri
9. Memphis, Tennessee
10. Cleveland, Ohio
What’s the takeaway, is there a pattern? State government, city government, city demographics? What is the point of this article. Are Trump voters the majority of these killers, of those killed?"
How quickly you forget.
Please provide a comment number or a quote.
Figures you'd dispute what you yourself wrote:
Most, If not all being Democrat run cities ........ next ......
How quickly you forget.
Oh, I remember the questions that I asked you, do you now have some answers that you would like to discuss?
I'm sorry if you thought that I was talking down to you, I wanted to understand what you were getting at.
So you were pretending not to remember?
So you were pretending not to remember?
How did you get that from, "Oh, I remember the questions that I asked you, do you now have some answers that you would like to discuss?"
No dispute at all. I remember the questions that I asked you, do you now have some answers that you would like to discuss?
When did I give any indication that I gave a rats ass?
Didn't name you specifically.
Luckily your assertions contain enough to resupply a fleet of dirigibles.
I'm quite sure you will be happy to share all of the anecdotal examples you've accumulated in your endless hours of scouring the internet looking for justification for your personal guilt. Indeed you are undoubtedly desperate to be invited to barrage the world with that collection.
But "stories you collected that confirm your bias" do not constitute "data". Neither do "other guilty white liberals you've found on the internet".
At what grade level would you recommend the books "BLACK LIKE ME" or "ROOTS" be read?
Those are high school level books, but I can’t imagine black like me will do well with the woke crowd.
Then would you place an "age appropriate" label on the TV mini-series "ROOTS"?
Why do you say that?
That show is about 40 years old, so it was for general consumption.
A white man explaining the black experience isn’t going to go over well with a number of progressives
“A white man explaining the black experience isn’t going to go over well…”
As any man dismissing the black experience is in the most dismissive of ways demeaning their very existence.
It will when it is a white liberal doing the 'splainin
While I agree with much of the tenor of this article, I don’t agree that history has been as whitewashed as suggested. Most of the events and trends listed in the article have been taught in most schools for a very long time. Perhaps some of the more gruesome details have been omitted, but we are dealing with kids, after all, so you don’t get to a lot of it until high school or college. You can’t just throw everything at 4th graders.
Just another progressive, smiling while he’s pissing on your shoes.
Look down ......
Riiiiight.
And people used to buy Playboy magazine for the articles.
You mean it didn't have articles?????
Why do you think otherwise?
I know you'll ignore me though - you have been for a long time.