Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to narrowly define “disenfranchisement” as the intentional taking of voting rights from specific groups, then this may or may not achieve that particular standard.
You do not seem to be disagreeing that voter ID laws have disparate impact on BIPOC people in terms of a measurable difference when ti comes to depriving people of the opportunity to vote.
Right, but here's the thing: They can actually do something about it. Disenfranchised people, like Blacks in the South at the time, cannot.
And this may not seem important, but it is: Even if you went as far as to give them IDs for free, and deliver it to their homes (also for free), it is possible they may not vote regardless.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the exact text in the definition. Thank you.
This is what Wiki has about the definition in the Lawrence report:
Wiki wrote:Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
Others would point even more so towards intent, e.g. from the same source:
Wiki wrote:The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".
i.e. it's intentional, but hidden.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Processes, attitudes and behaviour do not require intent, nor do prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
Are you sure? The definition quite explicitly links "discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people" with that behavior. And yes, it is an important caveat: We don't say there is e.g. systemic misandry simply because males are more likely to be jailed or face longer sentences than females. Normally, you would require that there is some discrimination through some of the aforementioned means to claim so.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you agree that there are multiple reasons why this policy will effectively muzzle teachers and any discussion on systemic racism.
I'm simply questioning your scenario. I agree though there is some muzzling going on, at least since it's a clear ban on teaching them as facts. I'm not sure they are banned in e.g. a civics class. That probably needs to be tested.
Of course, if you believe many teachers won't do so, I agree. It's why I also don't think this is a wise way to deal with CRT, or at least the wording is fairly vague.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not according to your sources.
According to the text you cited, the 1619 Project claimed that preserving slavery was an important reason for the Revolutionary War, but it did not argue that it was the sole reason.
It should also be noted that simply saying that preserving slavery was not an important reason is just as inaccurate if we accept the idea that it was an important reason for some revolutionaries at some times.
"In other words, we may never have revolted against Britain if 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" is a fairly strong claim here, don't you think? Much stronger than what you mention in your last paragraph.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It seems the colony paid the privateers for the Angolans. Whether or not the Angolans were then treated as indentured servants of the colony or were slaves seems to be unclear.
Maybe, but it at least means it's not all that clear either. It's why the John Punch case is often regarded as the first documented case of a chattel slave, in 1640.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I can see you would, but the historian you cited thinks the Republicans and their censorship are the real problem.
Which historian? Leslie M. Harris? Yes. Sean Wilentz? He's more hostile to the Project than Harris is.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then the only option for teachers who do not want to get fired or sued is to not teach about Jim Crow.
No, they must do so. Again, how can you teach about the Civil Rights Movement without teaching about Jim Crow? Or about the contributions by African Americans to US history without such a relevant part of African American history?
Note that unlike the Board's directive, the above is actually mandated by law:https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/20 ... n-1003-42/