CNN panelist calls out VP Harris over 'completely made up' Florida slavery curriculum claim
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CNN political commentator Scott Jennings called out Vice President Harris on Sunday over her claim that Florida's middle school curriculum included lessons on how enslaved people "benefited from slavery."
CNN "State of the Union" host Dana Bash asked the panelists about how Democrats have been calling for Harris to "get out there more."
"What is amazing to me [is] that how little Kamala Harris apparently has to do that she can read something on Twitter one day and be on the airplane the next to make something literally out of nothing. This is a completely made-up deal. I looked at the standards, I even looked at an analysis of the standards, in every instance where the word slavery or slave was used, I even read the statement of the African-American scholars that wrote the standards - not [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis, but the scholars," he said.
"Everybody involved in this says this is completely a fabricated issue and yet look at how quickly Kamala Harris jumped on it. So, the fact that this is her best moment, a fabricated matter, is pretty ridiculous," Jennings continued.
CNN's Scott Jennings criticized VP Harris on Sunday over her Florida curriculum claim.(Screenshot / CNN)
Harris delivered remarks in Jacksonville, Florida, on Saturday.
"Just yesterday in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefited from slavery. They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us, and we will not stand for it," Harris said, referencing new curriculum approved by the Florida Department of Education on Wednesday that includes the history of slavery in the U.S.
The new curriculum states, "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."
Karen Finney, a CNN political commentator, praised Harris' remarks, calling it a "stellar moment."
Vice President Kamala Harris rails against Florida's new Black history curriculum during a speech in Jacksonville, Florida, on July 21, 2023.(Fox News)
"It was a stellar moment, and I think she did something that she has done often in the last couple of years, which is in a moment when something needed to be said, she got out there and said it, and really channeled what people were feeling. I mean, the idea that we would literally have a conversation - I have to laugh, it is so disgusting that there were personal benefits of any kind to slaves. It is like saying women, we're happy when we couldn't vote and we couldn't have our own banking accounts. It is just ridiculous," Finney said.
Ashley Allison, another panelist and CNN commentator, reacted to Harris' remarks and responded to Jennings.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at Coppin State University in Baltimore on July 14, 2023.(Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)
"I'm glad she spoke on the issue - just because Black people write it doesn't mean it's going to be accurate. We can disagree with Black people as well. I think what the bigger picture is that this is happening in Florida. This is happening in a Florida where you have a governor who has an anti-woke bill, who has a 'don't say gay' bill, who wants to ban DEI programs, who wants to ban Rosa Parks," she said.
"I think at this panel we could all agree that slaves did not benefit from slavery. Even if the citation said, 'Well, they might have gotten …" they didn't have a choice, so that is not a benefit. Slaves did not have the freedom to choose, like Ron DeSantis said, maybe they could have become a blacksmith. Not when they didn't have the choice to become a blacksmith. And so that was what Kamala Harris was saying. And I hope in this moment when we have such a contentious political environment that we could all agree that slavery was not a good thing and slaves did not benefit. And then we could move on. But the problem is, the governor who is the second in the polls for the Republican nomination won't do that," Allison continued.
Tags
Who is online
440 visitors
It may just qualify as the Bull Shit story of the week.
Wilted Word Salad Harris is full of 'em
It may at that. I've read a few articles on this. Turns out, that when pressed on the issue, Fla's Board of Education provided a list of 16 slaves who benefited from learning "highly specialized trades" while enslaved. Turns out none of them were trained as slaves and were either never slaves or learned the trades after becoming free. Learning to cut sugar cane is not a "highly specialized trade".
“While less well-known than other facets of institutional slavery, hiring out of the enslaved was a common and long-standing arrangement throughout the nearly 250-year existence of race-based slavery in Virginia. Enslavers commonly hired out enslaved individuals for a set fee and time period. This allowed enslavers the flexibility to allot enslaved labor to a wide variety of tasks, which contributed to slavery’s viability. It also fit with Virginia’s increasingly diversified economy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, being adaptable to rural and urban settings as well as commercial and industrial sectors. All ranks of white society engaged in hiring enslaved people, including many who could not afford to purchase enslaved laborers. On a yearly basis, hiring out affected thousands of enslaved men, women, and children, who were separated from their families and communities and who had to endure and adapt to new living and working conditions. For many enslaved African Americans in Virginia, being hired out was a more common experience than being sold, and one that could occur at multiple points in their lives, causing repeated disruption.”
“In 1839 almost half (42%) of the free blacks in Cincinnati, Ohio, had bought their freedom 1 and were striving to create new lives while searching for and purchasing their own relatives.”
How do you think that they got the money!
How did freed slaves make a living? If slaves were so stupid and helpless then why didn't Black people just die from starvation after emancipation?
I don't doubt that slaves were taught stuff. They were sometimes taught things if their owners needed stuff done or if their owners could make money from them. They weren't allowed to chose what they learned or did nor were they ever paid for it. The vast majority were just picking cotton and sugar cane or were house servants and sex dolls for their owners.
To say, or even imply that slavery was good for the slaves in this country is a lie.
Who here has done that?
Some here prefer simple to more complex history.
I think its abhorrent that you would think that black people would "just die from starvation" without the help of their benevolent white masters. That's about the most racist thing I've ever seen on here.
I believe it was a tongue in cheek commentary. And it began with being let go and not having a means to support themselves.
Who the fuck said slavery was good? You know, pointing out that slaves learned useful skills as slaves really is a story of strength in adversity.
But apparently that's not what Kamala Harris wants. Harris wants to use the history of slavery to convince us that Black people are stupid and helpless. Without a white slave master, Black slaves could do absolutely nothing for themselves. Harris is trying to convince us that Black people are dependent upon white people because Black people can't learn. That's a bullshit argument but that's a typical argument made by Democrats.
Your question belies the fact that slaves were not dumb-asses waiting for white "instruction" to begin with. Before slavery (250 years of it according a quote 1.2.1), black people were free and thinkers. Moreover, after slavery blacks and other minorities when back to being public figures and public servants in law and politics. It is clear then that white conservatives STIMIED and "chilled" black advancement through enslaving them as public policy and legal statues. A side-effect being that of course blacks and other minorities learned what they were forced to whether they liked the "career path/s" are not!
So what? What you are describing is this: In any given system, be it oppression or liberty, there are trade-offs in which two things can occur at the same time. The fact that some masters were not 'hardcases' (strict) and certainly recognized that owning slaves did not always mean being cruel and usual with punishments and austerity does not by any stretch of the imagination equate to a slave being treated as equal, equitable, or at liberty to act. Indeed, all slaves were IDENTIFIED first and foremost as property. . . "specialized property" even of their owner/s on paper.
Exactly, you never saw Black advancements chilled in the progressive Northeast, UpperMidwest or West Coast. That was only done by Southern Dems (conservatives) and tolerated by progressive Dems that wanted their votes.
Kamala Harris is pointing out the offense that some conservatives would approach the topic of what a slave knew and how s/he acquired specified learning could be used to spin a tale of white slaveowners as benefactors. Slave owners were in fact owners of people as chattel. The difference between human chattel and other chattel black chattel was kept less than whites but more entertaining and teachable than other beasts on the plantation.
So more evidence that learning a needed skill and being hired out had some advantages over being a field slave.
Completely agree, almost every decision is a matter of trad-offs.
What is your point? We are discussing chattel slavery and its "benefits" to blacks (if any). What does what other people do and their motivations for acting have to do with that one topic?
What does this have to do with Florida’s new learning standards? Do you really think that she read them or compared to other states before going on attack?
In which case, as I asked you before (somewhere else) though I will frame the question differently here: How come your ancestors did not choose to enter slavery so they could be taught "a needed skill" beyond field hands?
How come your ancestors did not choose to enter slavery so they could be taught "a needed skill" beyond field hands?
Bold talk and a silly, irrelevant question. No one would normally choose to enter slavery and my ancestors were fortunate that their leaders didn’t sell them into slavery.
Kamala Harris picks up on the conservatives offense intended to mitigate the effects of chattel slavery as some sort of beneficial program for chattel slaves. It was not! Slaves were property and any benefit they derived from servitude was because they were human and educatable, which means they never should have been property of their owners in the first place! Trying to get out from under the curse of slavery in the southern states by putting a positive SPIN on this is ridiculous. All we have to do is look at the hard fact that southern slave owners didn't give up their VALUABLE PROPERTY without a long and bloody civil war. Proof that slave owners were not then and not now (living supporters of the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy") black benefactors.
Ask her, not me. I don't think that long about what a sitting VP does with his/her time in preparation to make speeches.
Then stop defending or responding about the positives of a negative field of experiences. We all make do with harsh realities. As for what "leaders" do if you imply that Africans should not have sold their brethren to whites you are correct. That does not mitigate the fact that whites bringing blacks to this country to do menial labors and make this nation the envy of the time (still so to a large degree owing to many non-whites presence here) was counterproductive to the standard whites set for themselves even in the period.
Which of these Florida standards says that?
If she really cared about improving the standards, she would praise what she sees as an improvement and suggest alternatives were she see’s fault. Her response was just typical attack dog politics practiced by both Parties.
Again you leave me clueless. Please cite my explicit words if you want me to understand your point.
You know what offense we are writing about here! I won't be digressing to explain it again. And, now you're expressing some process thing or another. That has nothing to do with the standard written to be taught which is offensively tone-deaf.
You have been going on about this for two articles now. If you don't know what you mean to achieve by doing what you are doing; then, why do it so wholeheartedly?
I find that a conversation is improved if the participants understand what each other is saying.
I wrote nothing about mitigation of the fact that whites bringing blacks to this country to do menial labor. Again, I have a hard time understanding your point since you don’t reference what you specifically disagree with in my comments.
I don’t know and you remain reluctant to provide specifics, ever.
You can’t do what your unable to do.
Would you like a clarification?
Tone deaf? That wasn’t Kamala’s critique.
Why CNN keeps the far-right fool Scott Jennings around is a mystery.
Exactly, what a fool. It's hard to believe but in addition to CNN he provides content to LA Times, USA Today and NPR. Unexplainably, Harvard has him as an Adjunct Lecturer at their School of Government. Go figure.
It is rather amazing when even CNN won't carry the water for a partisan point of view.
Scott Jennings is a 100% Republican mouthpiece on CNN. He will support the GOP nominee, no matter who it is. (Hint).
How about the substance of what he said?
It's evident the commenter dismissed it all out of hand strictly on the narrow mindedness of who said it not what was said.
I find it interesting that, while the headline says CNN, the article is from Fox.
It's a FOX news story ABOUT a CNN panelist
As usual, Harris taking advantage of her low information voters to keep them enraged and feeling oppressed, knowing left wing media will swallow whatever swill she puts out there and her supporters won’t ever think for themselves
The inclusion of questionable material into a teaching curriculum calls the whole thing into question. Thats just the way it is.
The inclusion of questionable material into a teaching curriculum calls the whole thing into question
after all your defenses of the 1619 project and their demonstrably made up facts and claims, that’s your new position?
your position is basically arguing that truth is bad, lies are fine
She also repeated the lie that the Parent Protection act is the "don't say gay" bill.
This dumbass with bend over for anyone who will listen to her bullshit.
Harris didnt make anything up. If someone says she made something up they are lying.
I suppose one could argue why complain about a few questionable portions of a curriculum that otherwise looks somewhat ordinary.
One could also argue why the suggestion that slavery benefited slaves was put into the standards at all.
There was also the bit about including violence done by blacks during a race riot over voting rights.
And I noticed that there will be a teaching that the civil war was started due to "states rights" , and sectionalism, as well as slavery. That is garbage too. We should not be teaching kids that the civil war began as a dispute over "states rights". That is a totally disingenuous and misleading viewpoint.
So slavery wasn't viewed as a state's right? THAT is delusional. If I remember correctly, the south's majority of economy was based on agricultural activity where the north was more into the manufacturing sector. To abolish slavery, at the time, would have killed the south.
The "states right" was the right to continue owning slaves. Period, end of story. Yes there were aspects to the claiming of these "rights" that effected more than simple slaveholding, but the desire and need to maintain slavery was behind all of it.
Anything else is just excuse making.
Yes, you are both right.
Because it would negatively affect the economy of the southern states. PERIOD
No, John is correct, not jim,
You read it. We are BOTH correct. Where did you learn history? Or it would seem you didn't actually.
Thanks for following me and providing the final, definitive arbitration on this issue.
No, actually you are never correct.
You may have the last word, for now.
That's right. Because getting rid of slavery would have killed the economy of the south. They wanted to keep the status quo.
I don't follow you. I'm not interested. I had my say. Now go away.
No.
You seem to frequently reply to the same small group of folks, hence, following,
No what?
Just because whatshisname said you were both correct doesn't mean you were both correct.
John was correct, not you.
Please articulate what Jim was incorrect about, if you can.
Yep.
Not this
Sectionalism grew out of our colonies and then states placing their interests of a region over those of a country as a whole. Throughout American history, there has been this tenson. Slavery being the most significant. The North no longer needed slavery, either in their region or profits from slave shipping, loans for slave purchases, ect. The South with large areas of cotton, rice and still tobacco so no other way to exist.
You have problems with complicated narratives, most history is complicated.
Read the damn declarations of secession.
They are almost entirely based on complaints that the north was impinging on slavery.
Read the speeches of the secession commissioners which were prominent people sent from the original seceding states to try and convince border states to join the confederacy. It all relates to slavery.
Kids should not be taught of any other cause of the civil war that was not directly related to the desire of the south to maintain slavery. End of story.
You and certain others have problems with the truth and like to re-write/whitewash history.
[deleted]
I’ve read those damn documents.
Yes and I agreed with you on that ad nauseam,
Perhaps you don’t understand the definition of sectionalism.
Stating that the war was over anything other than slavery is disingenuous, and should not be included in what is taught to children.
That's correct. Don't know why you keep beating that dead horse. The states wanted to preserve the perceived right to own slaves. It was about slavery but not just for the sake of slavery. It was partially for economic survival.
You are one beating a dead horse. The cause of the civil war was the south's desire to continue owning slaves.
John - read what Jim responded and, please, learn how to respond to what is said, not what you perceive.
"The states wanted to preserve the perceived right to own slaves. It was about slavery but not just for the sake of slavery. It was partially for economic survival."
The Civil War was not the result of the South's DESIRE to continue owning slaves - it was about who got to make that decision of having that right.
That's what I said and have been saying. Can you not discern that from my words?
No shit!
Ok, here you go.
The only reason I continue on with this is because so many people continue with delusion about this. Why? That is up to them to explain.
You are correct, as usual!
We can all read online the framework for instructing K-12 on AA history and some are very unhappy with several words in two Standards out of several hundred. What other states have their equivalent on line? Have you reviewed Illinois, CA, NY?
Deflection
Exactly, well said. No one good reason for us to evaluate their work or for them to share with racist states.
This is about Florida.
Hence, deflecting
Have you ever used comparative analysis to judge the adequacy of one system (Florida) by crosswalking with others?
No deflection.
If and when they become news I will look at them.
Your whole schtick is bringing up irrelevancies.
Exactly, one way to avoiding this hyperbolic condemnation is to not become news, not be transparent, Perhaps that’s Illinois’ strategy.
There is nothing irrelevant about complaining the accuracy and comprehensiveness with how other states have done.
I’m sorry that I can’t help you or others understand that.
California curriculum does not teach their kids that the Cherokee nation owned black slaves.
Nothing but P, D and D with a lot of delusion added
Thank you Drinker for always stating the truth on here. It is a breath of fresh air compared the the left's warped interpretation of the facts.
Yes deflection.
Looking in the mirror [Deleted?]
[Refer to other members by their screen names, or not at all.]
Neither you nor your little buddy have ever stated the truth or supplied a fact like John does on a daily basis.
It's not possible for you to educate me on anything. You or your little buddy.
No doubt as learning requires active participation and an open mind on both sides.
If you like referring to bugsy as my little buddy, I’ll refer to you as my big buddy. Now I know the feeling isn’t mutual, but you will always be big in my eyes.
What is comparative analysis?
Comparative analysis is a way to look at two or more similar things to see how they are different and what they have in common.
It is used in many ways and fields to help people understand the similarities and differences between products better. It can help businesses make good decisions about key issues.
As usual it was mostly about money
Very sad, to make this a Party fundraising opportunity instead of an open, honest comparative discussion on the best ways to correct historical deficiencies in AA education across the country.
If having slaves had been profitable for the north the ones making the money would have squashed opposition to having slaves,
It was profitable for the North for many years. The North built the ships that brought the slaves across the Atlantic, they maned the ships, and insured the ships. They loaned money to the South to buy the slaves and made rum from slave labor on sugar cane. By the early 1800’s those profits were dwindling so it was easier for the North to accept the abolitionist argument and with few Blacks in their population, they were less concerned about emancipation.
Incredible isn't it? To consider that were it still good for this capitalist economy. . .we might never have gotten rid of slavery! That it was not "repentant" and "regretful" whites along with abolitionists whose judgement improved to the point where the right thing to do was to eliminate slavery.
Imagine. . . if slavery was still legal in this country, then we would not have this standard of "benefits" for former slaves that will be taught in Florida and VP Harris speaking out about an outrage. Because slaves did not have the benefit of freedom and that would have been the priority! /s
Not really, it was an example of human social evolution.
No, social evolution would have likely ended it here but unfortunately not yet in many parts of the world (North Korea, China, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Tajikistan, UAE, Russia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc.).
You mean imagine if there weren’t over 350,000 dead Union soldiers and over 280,000 thousand wounded Union soldiers to right the wrong?
A big what?
4.2.35 was irrelevant when you wrote it. Because "social evolution" was already in motion in this world to end slavery, eh? Ending slavery of the caliber it was in the colonies was a "win-win" for the world!
How so? Of course it was in motion when I wrote that comment some minutes ago.
Caliber, ending for the world? Whatever do you mean?
Because you had to be a big shot, didn't you
You had to open up your mouth
You had to be a big shot, didn't you
All your friends were so knocked out
You had to have the last word, last night
You know what everything's about
You had to have a white hot spotlight
You had to be a big shot last night
Slavery was worse in the "America" version than in some other places in the world.
Death rates among slaves in the Caribbean were one-third higher than in the US South, and suicide appears to have been much more common.
In the Caribbean, and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birthrate so low that slavery constantly required more slaves from Africa.
In the Caribbean, slaves were 80 - 90% of the island's population and each plantation was much larger than in the South. The Europeans lived in fee of a rebellion, so treatment was much harsher to keep the slaves very controlled.
In the South, plantation owners lived on their plantations and slaves dealt with them regularly. Most placed plantation management, supply purchasing, and supervision in the hands of senior slaves. In the Caribbean, absentee ownership common and the owners relied on paid managers..
The Caribbean Slave Code was the first in the New World. It identified Africans as non-human not fit to be governed by the same laws as Christians.
American slaves were lucky.
I’m generally not one to argue, but I have to disagree with you there, JR,
I did say "some other places," but that does not by any stretch excuse the atrocities of the United States, Drinker! BTW, who are you quoting? I see no citation of any kind.
Of course not, who would think that it does?
I don’t remember. I did a little research back in my News Vine days and drew from that.
Well, a sampling of your comment put into a search engine yielded the result above.
Was there a date? Maybe borrowed from the same data source I used. Do you question the info?
I have no clear understanding of this level of questioning. Let's get back on topic, please.
Go for it.
On second thought, it may be helpful to reproduce what you wrote at 4.2.43 here with a larger context. Some sentences I have put in red lettering .
Historical Context: American Slavery in Comparative Perspective
by Steven Mintz
For a long time it was widely assumed that southern slavery was harsher and crueler than slavery in Latin America, where the Catholic church insisted that slaves had a right to marry, to seek relief from a cruel master, and to purchase their freedom. Spanish and Portuguese colonists were thought to be less tainted by racial prejudice than North Americans and Latin American slavery was believed to be less subject to the pressures of a competitive capitalist economy.
In practice, neither the Church nor the courts offered much protection to Latin American slaves. Access to freedom was greater in Latin America, but in many cases masters freed sick, elderly, crippled, or simply unneeded slaves in order to relieve themselves of financial responsibilities.
Death rates among slaves in the Caribbean were one-third higher than in the South, and suicide appears to have been much more common. Unlike slaves in the South, West Indian slaves were expected to produce their own food in their "free time," and care for the elderly and the infirm.
The largest difference between slavery in the South and in Latin America was demographic. The slave population in Brazil and the West Indies had a lower proportion of female slaves, a much lower birthrate, and a higher proportion of recent arrivals from Africa. In striking contrast, southern slaves had an equal sex ratio, a high birthrate, and a predominantly American-born population.
Slavery in the United States was especially distinctive in the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction. In the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana, and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birthrate so low that slaves could not sustain their population without imports from Africa. The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2—twice as many as in the West Indies.
In the West Indies, slaves constituted 80 to 90 percent of the population, while in the South only about a third of the population was enslaved. Plantation size also differed widely. In the Caribbean, slaves were held on much larger units, with many plantations holding 150 slaves or more. In the American South, in contrast, only one slaveholder held as many as a thousand slaves, and just 125 had over 250 slaves. Half of all slaves in the United States worked on units of twenty or fewer slaves; three-quarters had fewer than fifty.
These demographic differences had important social implications. In the American South, slaveholders lived on their plantations and slaves dealt with their owners regularly. Most planters placed plantation management, supply purchasing, and supervision in the hands of black drivers and foremen, and at least two-thirds of all slaves worked under the supervision of black drivers. Absentee ownership was far more common in the West Indies, where planters relied heavily on paid managers and on a distinct class of free blacks and mulattos to serve as intermediaries with the slave population.
Another important difference between Latin America and the United States involved conceptions of race. In Spanish and Portuguese America, an intricate system of racial classification emerged. Compared with the British and French, the Spanish and Portuguese were much more tolerant of racial mixing—an attitude encouraged by a shortage of European women—and recognized a wide range of racial gradations, including black, mestizo, quadroon, and octoroon. The American South, in contrast, adopted a two-category system of race in which any person with a black mother was automatically considered to be black.
Good job CB, you aren’t anything if not helpful.
Actually, the mention of states rights or how the southerners' perceived fighting back against what they called "northern aggression) over their human property (rights) does not bother me. But, this notion that the southern slave owners meant to benefit slaves for such a time when they might/would gain freedom is offensive. The southerners' waged a civil war (and parts of it continue even now) to keep the status quo. That is an outrage!
Which standard expressed that notion? Please provide the nomenclature.
Exactly, so unlike most of human history!
If you want to understand liberals attitude towards teaching kids, this is the type of America hating idiot they want in charge of propagandizing children. The founder of the 1619 project on the A. Bomb:
Not going to waste my time looking at the Federalist article.
Plenty of people have the opinion that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary. I dont agree, but it is hardly a controversial position.
The bomb was dropped because it was Truman's duty as commander in chief to shorten the war and save American lives. Yes, many people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those unfortunate souls were a very small part of the tens of millions of civilians who died during WW2.
Can't refute it so ignore it. Typical.
BS. Japan was preparing for a full scale invasion. Had 2 grand fathers (and their brothers) that fought in WWII. None of them wanted to invade Japan; and the 3 that served in the Pacific knew the order was coming. The two that served in Europe were being prepped for deployment to the Pacific. Japan wasn't going to surrender. They were going to make the war so costly to the US that we would allow them a negotiated peace- instead of unconditional surrender.
You are finally correct about something. Invading and occupying Japan would have been very costly.
You want to argue that the second bomb didn't need to be dropped- I am willing to have that discussion. We dropped that bomb to try and force Japan to unconditionally surrender before Russia entered the war. Not that Russia was in any condition to help with a full invasion of Japan; but they wanted to reclaim lost territory to Japan in Manchuria. Truman wanted to prevent Russia from getting any spoils from declaring war. He failed.
The bomb was going to be used, for a number of reasons. First and foremost President Truman believed it would shorten the war, and it did. There was also the understanding that an invasion of Japan would involve the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, the cost and time of creating the bomb, and "revenge" for the mistreatment of allied troops who were held as pow's by the Japanese, such as the Bataan Death March.
Actually your numbers are low.
I linked to the federalist because it contains a copy of nikole Hannah Jones tweet, and she often deletes tweets after she gets embarrassed.
her position is not just that it wasn’t necessary, it was that America knew Japan was surrendering and used it just to show they could. It’s absolute indefensible nonsense with no historical basis. Just another anti American conspiracy theory by a grifter who has made a career by spreading them.
She also sees “insidious racism” in the Western media coverage of the Russian War on Ukraine. Perhaps it’s because Russian ethnic man minorities are dying in greater numbers proportional to Russian Tartars. Ukrainians need to inflict casualties on an ethnic neutral basis.