Florida Bans CRT in Schools - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15177728
PataOneil wrote:Plenty of actual problems to deal with in the electoral process without distracting from them to handle problems that aren't. What you doing is similar to trying to convince a stage 3 lung cancer victim to wear sunscreen before treating the cancer... when the lung cancer victim is a shut in that never goes outside.


A more apt (and real world) analogy is Texas refusing to adopt Federal electric grid standards (or joining the Federal grid) because "well, we don't have many blizzards here"

PataOneil wrote:Any ID can be faked. Intelligence services do it all the time. We have a whole program here in the USA called the witness protection program. That issues members false ids that are just as good as the ones issued in the first place. So you are still just trading one uncertainty for another... to deal with a fantasy problem.


I think it's evident I'm not referring to gov't sanctioned faking, but even then you cannot fake a fingerprint i.e. the faker must fake his name in both his registration and his ID.

PataOneil wrote:Every system has holes. The question is do you want to restrict voting or allow it. As I've said, it's my personal opinion that it is better not to restrict voting. You could also simply require people to vote in person. Which would still permit them to vote as many times as they wanted to while taking out the possibility of automated voting.


The question is not just about that. It's also what's the cost of having a failure.

When it comes to electoral results, the cost is sky high.
#15177729
Government sanctioned or not... Like I said any Id can be faked.

The thing is that in the USA we are having failure after failure. And none of them caused by problems with voter ID. You can theorize about some possible problem all you want to, but it just isn't a problem. The Supreme Court being involved in elections... that's a real problem. Gave Nixon and Bush elections.

Let's stick with the real problems... voter ID just isn't one.
#15177755
late wrote:??

You lost me.


Lyndon Johnson was a Senator for TX at the time and the Nixon campaign team also claimed there had been fraud. Had Nixon been able to win in TX, he would have still been able to get the electoral votes needed to be POTUS, regardless of the results in IL.
#15177766
wat0n wrote:
Lyndon Johnson was a Senator for TX at the time and the Nixon campaign team also claimed there had been fraud. Had Nixon been able to win in TX, he would have still been able to get the electoral votes needed to be POTUS, regardless of the results in IL.



Here's the weird thing, Texas is corrupt as hell, always has been. Read Dallek's first book on LBJ, it's an eye opener. But, while state and local politics is corrupt, that doesn't extend to presidential elections. You can't line your pockets from it.

Additionally, while there is a lot of history I haven't seen, I've never seen a historian argue that the 1960 Texas vote was rigged.
#15177771
late wrote:Here's the weird thing, Texas is corrupt as hell, always has been. Read Dallek's first book on LBJ, it's an eye opener. But, while state and local politics is corrupt, that doesn't extend to presidential elections. You can't line your pockets from it.

Additionally, while there is a lot of history I haven't seen, I've never seen a historian argue that the 1960 Texas vote was rigged.


It seems there were some irregularities there, but the courts cleared the result.
#15177773
wat0n wrote:
It seems there were some irregularities there, but the courts cleared the result.



Irregular is what Texas is on a really good day..
#15177783
wat0n wrote:Claiming voting ID laws are disenfranchising people is like claiming that requiring proof of identity for people claiming reparations over being persecuted during Pinochet's dictatorship takes away the right to reparations from them.


Your refusal to answer the question is noted.

The science shows that these laws disenfranchise legal BIPOC voters.

https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full ... NIWIRrOehC

Scroll down to…

    5.1. Racial Effects of S. B. 14

    The purpose of this study was to estimate how many registered voters might be excluded by S. B. 14 and whether the law had disparate effects across racial groups. The final piece of the analysis was to examine racial differences in the likelihood of having an acceptable ID or not, that is, the likelihood of being on the NO MATCH list.

    To do this, we utilized racial data on individuals provided by the firm Catalist. Catalist estimates an individual’s race based on the person’s name as well as the racial composition of the Census block. Catalist’s racial data have been used regularly in peer-reviewed research (e.g., Fraga 2016), and validated with survey data for its accuracy (see Hersh 2015). Catalist maintains a continually updated national voter file. It pulls records from state voter registration systems, cleans them, and appends them with additional data. Thus, we transmitted the full Texas voter file to Catalist. Catalist identified the records from its own version of the state voter file and appended the race model. Because Catalist’s voter file is sourced from the official state voter file (and contains the state registration system’s internal unique identifier), the record linkage based on the unique identifier was straightforward (Christen 2014). Using this race model, we estimated that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely to have the forms of ID required under S.B. 14. That is, the NO MATCH rate served as the dependent variable in an analysis estimating whether there were likely racial differences or disparate racial effects of S.B. 14. Table 6 provides the rates with registered voters in the TEAM database in each racial group that were found to have NO MATCH to any of the corresponding ID databases.

    Analysis of individual level data using the Catalist classification of race reveals significant differences in the NO MATCH rates of the different racial groups. The baseline universe of registered voters, which consists of all currently registered voters in TEAM—after removing those who matched a record marked as deceased in a DPS ID file has 13,487,594 records. Of these, 8,246,016 are classified as Anglo according to Catalists estimates; 1,707,769 are Black; 3,042,497 are Hispanic; and 491,312 are Other Races. Note that the “Other” category includes smaller racial groups (e.g., Native Americans, Asians) as well as those unable to be characterized by Catalist’s model.

    The rate of non-matches between TEAM and identification databases varies by race. Of records identified as Anglo in the Baseline Universe of Registered Voters, 3.6% had no matching record in state or Federal identification databases. By comparison, no matching records were found for 7.5% of people identified as Black and 5.7% of people identified as Hispanic. The differences in rates of matching and non matching across racial groups are statistically significantly different from one another. The difference between Blacks and Anglos in the rate of non-matching is 3.9 percentage points, and the difference between Anglos and Hispanics in the rate of non matching is 2.1 percentage points. Both differences are highly significantly different from 0, using conventional hypothesis tests.

Such refusal has not been tested, since no one has proposed it.


Okay.

From the practical perspective of a legal voter with obstacles to accessing valid ID, there is no difference between a free ID that has never been proposed and a free ID that has been proposed and then rejected.

No, not really. The text can perfectly be interpreted as forbidding teachers from teaching it as fact.


Exactly. As I said, it would be legal to discuss it as something that is wrong and bad, but it would be illegal to defend it or teach from it.

I actually have pointed to sources regarding this debate, but I'll cite an actual expert on American slavery on it:


    I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.
    The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.

    On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

    Hannah-Jones and I were on Georgia Public Radio to discuss the path-breaking New York Times 1619 Project, a major feature about the impact of slavery on American history, which she had spearheaded. The Times had just published the special 1619 edition of its magazine, which took its name from the year 20 Africans arrived in the colony of Virginia—a group believed to be the first enslaved Africans to arrive in British North America.

    Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

    I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

    The editor followed up with several questions probing the nature of slavery in the Colonial era, such as whether enslaved people were allowed to read, could legally marry, could congregate in groups of more than four, and could own, will or inherit property—the answers to which vary widely depending on the era and the colony. I explained these histories as best I could—with references to specific examples—but never heard back from her about how the information would be used.

    Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

    Both sets of inaccuracies worried me, but the Revolutionary War statement made me especially anxious. Overall, the 1619 Project is a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories that once dominated our understanding of the past—histories that wrongly suggested racism and slavery were not a central part of U.S. history. I was concerned that critics would use the overstated claim to discredit the entire undertaking. So far, that’s exactly what has happened.

She's based in Northwestern University's History Department, and is an African American woman who's based her academic career on the history of slavery in the US (since you believe in standpoint epistemology, as a good CRT acolyte, I'm sure you won't contest her claims).

She's not even among the signatories of the original letters that pushed back against Project 1619. She refused to sign it because 1) she doesn't like their historiography on slavery in the US and 2) she broadly agrees with the goals of the project. I have seen no historians claiming it to be historically accurate on issues like the role of slavery in propelling the American Revolution, but there may be. Do you know of any?


Thank you for this.

So we see that preserving slavery was a reason for the Revolutionary War. This historian disagrees on the relative importance of this reason when compared to other reasons for the revolution.

If that is the only criticism about this work, then it is difficult to argue that it should be banned.

I assume you agree with the bolded parts.

How can you discuss the Civil Rights Movement or Jim Crow without talking about systemic racism?


By lying about history, I presume. Welcome to the new “factual” history in Florida.
#15177819
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your refusal to answer the question is noted.


I already answered it: Requiring IDs to vote is not disenfranchisement in the same way requiring licenses to drive does not amount to a racial ban on driving.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The science shows that these laws disenfranchise legal BIPOC voters.

https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full ... NIWIRrOehC

Scroll down to…

    5.1. Racial Effects of S. B. 14

    The purpose of this study was to estimate how many registered voters might be excluded by S. B. 14 and whether the law had disparate effects across racial groups. The final piece of the analysis was to examine racial differences in the likelihood of having an acceptable ID or not, that is, the likelihood of being on the NO MATCH list.

    To do this, we utilized racial data on individuals provided by the firm Catalist. Catalist estimates an individual’s race based on the person’s name as well as the racial composition of the Census block. Catalist’s racial data have been used regularly in peer-reviewed research (e.g., Fraga 2016), and validated with survey data for its accuracy (see Hersh 2015). Catalist maintains a continually updated national voter file. It pulls records from state voter registration systems, cleans them, and appends them with additional data. Thus, we transmitted the full Texas voter file to Catalist. Catalist identified the records from its own version of the state voter file and appended the race model. Because Catalist’s voter file is sourced from the official state voter file (and contains the state registration system’s internal unique identifier), the record linkage based on the unique identifier was straightforward (Christen 2014). Using this race model, we estimated that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely to have the forms of ID required under S.B. 14. That is, the NO MATCH rate served as the dependent variable in an analysis estimating whether there were likely racial differences or disparate racial effects of S.B. 14. Table 6 provides the rates with registered voters in the TEAM database in each racial group that were found to have NO MATCH to any of the corresponding ID databases.

    Analysis of individual level data using the Catalist classification of race reveals significant differences in the NO MATCH rates of the different racial groups. The baseline universe of registered voters, which consists of all currently registered voters in TEAM—after removing those who matched a record marked as deceased in a DPS ID file has 13,487,594 records. Of these, 8,246,016 are classified as Anglo according to Catalists estimates; 1,707,769 are Black; 3,042,497 are Hispanic; and 491,312 are Other Races. Note that the “Other” category includes smaller racial groups (e.g., Native Americans, Asians) as well as those unable to be characterized by Catalist’s model.

    The rate of non-matches between TEAM and identification databases varies by race. Of records identified as Anglo in the Baseline Universe of Registered Voters, 3.6% had no matching record in state or Federal identification databases. By comparison, no matching records were found for 7.5% of people identified as Black and 5.7% of people identified as Hispanic. The differences in rates of matching and non matching across racial groups are statistically significantly different from one another. The difference between Blacks and Anglos in the rate of non-matching is 3.9 percentage points, and the difference between Anglos and Hispanics in the rate of non matching is 2.1 percentage points. Both differences are highly significantly different from 0, using conventional hypothesis tests.


Again, that's not the same as disenfranchising Black voters. The only thing that means is that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have IDs.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.

From the practical perspective of a legal voter with obstacles to accessing valid ID, there is no difference between a free ID that has never been proposed and a free ID that has been proposed and then rejected.


But there is from the perspective of trying to infer intent behind these laws.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly. As I said, it would be legal to discuss it as something that is wrong and bad, but it would be illegal to defend it or teach from it.


No, I said it would be illegal to teach it as a fact. It's not clear, either, it would be illegal to defend it in a high school debate, for instance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Thank you for this.

So we see that preserving slavery was a reason for the Revolutionary War. This historian disagrees on the relative importance of this reason when compared to other reasons for the revolution.

If that is the only criticism about this work, then it is difficult to argue that it should be banned.

I assume you agree with the bolded parts.


I take it you haven't read the original claim by the 1619 Project lead here, right? The slavery claim by Nikole Hannah-Jones was the following:

Nikole Hannah-Jones on NYT, Aug 2019 wrote:...

Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade. This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South. The wealth and prominence that allowed Jefferson, at just 33, and the other founding fathers to believe they could successfully break off from one of the mightiest empires in the world came from the dizzying profits generated by chattel slavery. 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. It is not incidental that 10 of this nation’s first 12 presidents were enslavers, and some might argue that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.

...


Clearly, the facts show that's not the case. Slavery was hardly "one of the primary reasons behind the American Revolution" nor the Americans "may never have revolted against Britain if the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so", as Leslie M. Harris above argues. It's not even clear just how important it was as a reason at all, since there were some Founding Fathers were against slavery. Even worse, Sean Wilentz argues that slavery wasn't even in danger in the British Empire either, as the changes would have only affected the British Isles and not the colonies:

Sean Wilentz, The Atlantic wrote:...


“By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere,” Hannah-Jones wrote. But apart from the activity of the pioneering abolitionist Granville Sharp, Britain was hardly conflicted at all in 1776 over its involvement in the slave system. Sharp played a key role in securing the 1772 Somerset v. Stewart ruling, which declared that chattel slavery was not recognized in English common law. That ruling did little, however, to reverse Britain’s devotion to human bondage, which lay almost entirely in its colonial slavery and its heavy involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Nor did it generate a movement inside Britain in opposition to either slavery or the slave trade. As the historian Christopher Leslie Brown writes in his authoritative study of British abolitionism, Moral Capital, Sharp “worked tirelessly against the institution of slavery everywhere within the British Empire after 1772, but for many years in England he would stand nearly alone.” What Hannah-Jones described as a perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776 in fact did not exist.

“In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade,” Hannah-Jones continued. But the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired, as Brown demonstrates in great detail, by American antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and ’70s. There were no “growing calls” in London to abolish the trade as early as 1776.

“This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South,” Hannah-Jones wrote. But the colonists had themselves taken decisive steps to end the Atlantic slave trade from 1769 to 1774. During that time, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island either outlawed the trade or imposed prohibitive duties on it. Measures to abolish the trade also won approval in Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, and Virginia, but were denied by royal officials. The colonials’ motives were not always humanitarian: Virginia, for example, had more enslaved black people than it needed to sustain its economy and saw the further importation of Africans as a threat to social order. But the Americans who attempted to end the trade did not believe that they were committing economic suicide.
Assertions that a primary reason the Revolution was fought was to protect slavery are as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. In his reply to our letter, though, Silverstein ignored the errors we had specified and then imputed to the essay a very different claim. In place of Hannah-Jones’s statement that “the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain … because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” Silverstein substituted “that uneasiness among slaveholders in the colonies about growing antislavery sentiment in Britain and increasing imperial regulation helped motivate the Revolution.” Silverstein makes a large concession here about the errors in Hannah-Jones’s essay without acknowledging that he has done so. There is a notable gap between the claim that the defense of slavery was a chief reason behind the colonists’ drive for independence and the claim that concerns about slavery among a particular group, the slaveholders, “helped motivate the Revolution.”

But even the evidence proffered in support of this more restricted claim—which implicitly cedes the problem with the original assertion—fails to hold up to scrutiny. Silverstein pointed to the Somerset case, in which, as I’ve noted, a British high court ruled that English common law did not support chattel slavery. Even though the decision did not legally threaten slavery in the colonies, Silverstein wrote, it caused a “sensation” when reported in colonial newspapers and “slavery joined other issues in helping to gradually drive apart the patriots and their colonial governments.”

In fact, the Somerset ruling caused no such sensation. In the entire slaveholding South, a total of six newspapers—one in Maryland, two in Virginia, and three in South Carolina—published only 15 reports about Somerset, virtually all of them very brief. Coverage was spotty: The two South Carolina newspapers that devoted the most space to the case didn’t even report its outcome. American newspaper readers learned far more about the doings of the queen of Denmark, George III’s sister Caroline, whom Danish rebels had charged with having an affair with the court physician and plotting the death of her husband. A pair of Boston newspapers gave the Somerset decision prominent play; otherwise, most of the coverage appeared in the tiny-font foreign dispatches placed on the second or third page of a four- or six-page issue.

Above all, the reportage was almost entirely matter-of-fact, betraying no fear of incipient tyranny. A London correspondent for one New York newspaper did predict, months in advance of the actual ruling, that the case “will occasion a greater ferment in America (particularly in the islands) than the Stamp Act,” but that forecast fell flat. Some recent studies have conjectured that the Somerset ruling must have intensely riled southern slaveholders, and word of the decision may well have encouraged enslaved Virginians about the prospects of their gaining freedom, which could have added to slaveholders’ constant fears of insurrection. Actual evidence, however, that the Somerset decision jolted the slaveholders into fearing an abolitionist Britain—let alone to the extent that it can be considered a leading impetus to declaring independence—is less than scant.

Slaveholders and their defenders in the West Indies, to be sure, were more exercised, producing a few proslavery pamphlets that strongly denounced the decision. Even so, as Trevor Burnard’s comprehensive study of Jamaica in the age of the American Revolution observes, “Somerset had less impact in the West Indies than might have been expected.” Which is not to say that the Somerset ruling had no effect at all in the British colonies, including those that would become the United States. In the South, it may have contributed, over time, to amplifying the slaveholders’ mistrust of overweening imperial power, although the mistrust dated back to the Stamp Act crisis in 1765. In the North, meanwhile, where newspaper coverage of Somerset was far more plentiful than in the South, the ruling’s principles became a reference point for antislavery lawyers and lawmakers, an important development in the history of early antislavery politics.

...


Another issue, again just with facts, lies with two other things. First a nitpick perhaps but nonetheless important:

USA Today wrote:Forget what you know about 1619, historians say. Slavery began a half-century before Jamestown
Nicquel Terry Ellis, USA TODAY

Published 7:59 PM CST Dec. 16, 2019 Updated 1:17 PM CST Jan. 1, 2020

ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. For David Nolan, watching the nation commemorate the 400 year anniversary of the first arrival of slaves from his home here in the United States' oldest city is frustrating.

Nolan, a local historian, author and civil rights activist, insists it only advances a false, racist belief that Englishmen founded America and created the system of slavery that defined this country.

"It makes me want to scream," says Nolan. "You’re robbing black history."

The truth is Spaniards settled in St. Augustine, Florida, with enslaved blacks more than a half-century before any arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619 aboard a ship captured by English pirates.

Historical records document the presence of black slaves dating back to their arrival in what was known as Spanish Florida in 1565. They built military forts, hunted food, cut wood and later even created a settlement for freed blacks, Fort Mose.

But the influence and significance of the Spanish on the country's founding was ignored and lost as English laws, language and culture established a stronghold in the new nation.

Historians and other interested parties challenged writers in the 19th and 20th centuries and tried to spread the story of Spanish settlers and slaves in St. Augustine through exhibits, lectures and books. Still, the 1619 narrative carried on in history books and popular culture.

Kathleen Deagan, a professor of archaeology at the University of Florida, said people have spent their careers trying to correct the erroneous belief.

"It just doesn't resonate," Deagan said. “I don’t know whether it’s just ingrained English-Anglo attitudes, that anybody who isn’t like us can’t really be American.”

...


The second one is more fundamental and deals with the nature of the Angolans forcibly brought into Jamestown in 1619:

Nell Irvin Painter at The Guardian, Aug 2019 wrote:How we think about the term 'enslaved' matters

400 years ago, the first Africans who came to America were not ‘enslaved’, they were indentured – and this makes a crucial difference when we think about the meanings of our past

The year 1619 is momentous in American history, as a recent visit by the current US president attests. In July, Donald Trump visited Jamestown, Virginia, to commemorate two events in 1619: the July creation of the colony’s representative government, the House of Burgesses, and the August arrival of people he termed “enslaved Africans”.

This phrase improves upon a commonplace in American discourse, the one-word “slaves”. But the term “enslaved”, in and of itself, merits further comment, as history and as ideology. How we use these words makes a crucial difference when we think about the meanings of our past.

People were not enslaved in Virginia in 1619, they were indentured. The 20 or so Africans were sold and bought as “servants” for a term of years, and they joined a population consisting largely of European indentured servants, mainly poor people from the British Isles whom the Virginia Company of London had transported and sold into servitude.

Enslavement was a process that took place step by step, after the mid-17th century. This process of turning “servants” from Africa into racialized workers enslaved for life occurred in the 1660s to 1680s through a succession of Virginia laws that decreed that a child’s status followed that of its mother and that baptism did not automatically confer emancipation. By the end of the seventeenth century, Africans had indeed been marked off by race in law as chattel to be bought, sold, traded, inherited and serve as collateral for business and debt services. This was not already the case in 1619.

Even in 1700, Africans were hardly the only unfree colonists, for a majority of those laboring in Virginia were people bound to service. They were indentured whites. Population numbers are crucial in understanding the demography of labor in early Virginia. By 1680, only about 7% of Virginians were of African descent; 20% of Virginians were of African descent by 1700, and by 1750, the 100,000 enslaved Virginian men and women accounted for more than half the population. Here lies the demography of enslavement.

In short, the 1619 Africans were not “enslaved”. They were townspeople in the Ndongo district of Angola who had been captured by Imbangala warlords and delivered to the port of Luanda for shipment to the Americas. Raiding, capturing and selling people was not an exclusively African practice.

Raiding for captives to sell belongs to a long human history that knows no boundaries of time, place or race. This business model unites the ninth-12th-century Vikings who made Dublin western Europe’s largest slave market (think of St Patrick, who had been enslaved by Irish raiders in the fifth century) and 10th-16th-century Cossacks who delivered eastern European peasants to the Black Sea market at Tana for shipment to the wealthy eastern Mediterranean. The earliest foreign policy of the new United States of America targeted the raiders of the Barbary Coast who engaged in a lively slave trade in Europeans (think Robinson Crusoe). Sadly, the phenomenon of warlords who prey on peasants knows no boundaries of time or place.

There’s more to Virginia history, of course, than bondage. There’s freedom, not only after the American civil war, but also in the 17th century, when an Angolan man called Antonio, arriving in Virginia in 1621, became Anthony Johnson, a wealthy free farmer and slave-owning planter in Northampton and Accomack counties. His immediate descendants prospered. His eighteenth-century descendants, living within a hardened racial regime, did not. It is in the eighteenth century that we find the more familiar, hardened boundaries of racialized American identity.

...


She's an African-American historian, specialized in the history of the American South. This in in line with this post, from another thread.

As for your last question: I don't think narratives should be barred from discussion, particularly in a civics class. But I want history to be based on facts, above all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:By lying about history, I presume. Welcome to the new “factual” history in Florida.


But the very same resolution you posted bars lying about the Civil Rights Movement. So how can you teach the truth about it without dealing, even if left unnamed, with systemic racism?
#15177822
wat0n wrote:I already answered it: Requiring IDs to vote is not disenfranchisement in the same way requiring licenses to drive does not amount to a racial ban on driving.

Again, that's not the same as disenfranchising Black voters. The only thing that means is that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have IDs.


Not quite.

It means that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have IDs that are necessary for voting, and so Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to not be able to vote.

But there is from the perspective of trying to infer intent behind these laws.


Since I am not discussing intent, this is irrelevant to my claims.

But you agree that current voter ID laws in the USA have the practical effect of disenfranchising legal voters since there is no free ID provision being proposed.

No, I said it would be illegal to teach it as a fact. It's not clear, either, it would be illegal to defend it in a high school debate, for instance.


It explicitly says you cannot state it as fact. Defending its veracity would mean that you are teaching it as fact.

I take it you haven't read the original claim by the 1619 Project lead here, right? The slavery claim by Nikole Hannah-Jones was the following:



Clearly, the facts show that's not the case. Slavery was hardly "one of the primary reasons behind the American Revolution" nor the Americans "may never have revolted against Britain if the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so", as Leslie M. Harris above argues. It's not even clear just how important it was as a reason at all, since there were some Founding Fathers were against slavery. Even worse, Sean Wilentz argues that slavery wasn't even in danger in the British Empire either, as the changes would have only affected the British Isles and not the colonies:


Everyone can read for themselves the exact criticism made by the previous historian, and the previous historian you quoted did not say any of these claims were incorrect, She only said that preserving slavery was probably not one of the more important reasons, but it was a reason nonetheless.

Another issue, again just with facts, lies with two other things. First a nitpick perhaps but nonetheless important:


The 1619 claim is: the first slaves in the British colonies that later became the USA were a boatload that arrived in Virginia that year.

The second one is more fundamental and deals with the nature of the Angolans forcibly brought into Jamestown in 1619:


It is not clear that they were not slaves at the time since they were enslaved by Portuguese merchants, or whoever sold them to the Portuguese. The author you cited seems to be assuming that these Angolans were immediately considered indentured servants when they were taken off the boat, which may not be the case.

While there laws for indentured servants at the time, it is not necessarily true that these laws were applied to people who could be considered “plunder”.

As for your last question: I don't think narratives should be barred from discussion, particularly in a civics class. But I want history to be based on facts, above all.


I asked no questions in my last post, so I have no idea what you are discussing.

But the very same resolution you posted bars lying about the Civil Rights Movement. So how can you teach the truth about it without dealing, even if left unnamed, with systemic racism?


Yes, the resolution is poorly worded and makes it impossible to accurately teach history.
#15177826
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite.

It means that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have IDs that are necessary for voting, and so Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to not be able to vote.


Yet, they are not banned or otherwise restricted by the institutions to get them - even if those other non-institutional restrictions could and indeed should be alleviated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I am not discussing intent, this is irrelevant to my claims.

But you agree that current voter ID laws in the USA have the practical effect of disenfranchising legal voters since there is no free ID provision being proposed.


And yet disenfranchisement is about intent, just as systemic discrimination is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It explicitly says you cannot state it as fact. Defending its veracity would mean that you are teaching it as fact.


You could defend it in other terms, e.g. as a different way to understand history.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Everyone can read for themselves the exact criticism made by the previous historian, and the previous historian you quoted did not say any of these claims were incorrect, She only said that preserving slavery was probably not one of the more important reasons, but it was a reason nonetheless.


I agree everyone can read, and indeed they can read Nikole Hannah-Jones explicitly claimed preserving slavery was a primary reason for American Independence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The 1619 claim is: the first slaves in the British colonies that later became the USA were a boatload that arrived in Virginia that year.


Sure.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not clear that they were not slaves at the time since they were enslaved by Portuguese merchants, or whoever sold them to the Portuguese. The author you cited seems to be assuming that these Angolans were immediately considered indentured servants when they were taken off the boat, which may not be the case.

While there laws for indentured servants at the time, it is not necessarily true that these laws were applied to people who could be considered “plunder”.


She's claiming they were indentured servants, a treatment POWs also got at the time IIRC.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I asked no questions in my last post, so I have no idea what you are discussing.


Sorry, I should have said assumption as in "I assume you agree with the bolded parts." I think many historians agree with the idea of "rescuing" the African-American facet of e.g. American Revolution even if Nikole Hannah-Jones got the facts wrong and paints a picture that is not particularly accurate (and makes US history look more hostile to Blacks than it is).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the resolution is poorly worded and makes it impossible to accurately teach history.


Maybe, or perhaps it refers to e.g. claims about systemic racism in present-day US or using 1619 Project material as factual when it's not.
#15177829
wat0n wrote:

Again, that's not the same as disenfranchising Black voters. The only thing that means is that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have IDs.





That's only one way they are limiting Black voting. They have never limited themselves to one despicable scam.

"Before walking through Posner’s opinion, a few words about why he’s important. Posner, 75, is no wooly-headed liberal, but a card-carrying conservative who was appointed to the circuit bench by Ronald Reagan in 1981. He’s widely regarded as the smartest jurist in the federal judiciary, and was identified in 2000 by Fred Shapiro of Yale Law School as the most-cited legal scholar of all time.

In a 2013 book, he accepted the view that such laws are properly regarded as “a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention.” That’s the view that informs his latest opinion.

“There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud,” he writes, “and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html
#15177830
late wrote:That's only one way they are limiting Black voting. They have never limited themselves to one despicable scam.

"Before walking through Posner’s opinion, a few words about why he’s important. Posner, 75, is no wooly-headed liberal, but a card-carrying conservative who was appointed to the circuit bench by Ronald Reagan in 1981. He’s widely regarded as the smartest jurist in the federal judiciary, and was identified in 2000 by Fred Shapiro of Yale Law School as the most-cited legal scholar of all time.

In a 2013 book, he accepted the view that such laws are properly regarded as “a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention.” That’s the view that informs his latest opinion.

“There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud,” he writes, “and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html


Yes, that's also a possible reason. But, then, it's up to democrat voters to take voting seriously if they are indeed more likely to be affected by the restrictions (I wonder if this would actually be the case though? If e.g. 7.5% of Blacks have no ID and 3.75% of Whites do, both vote for opposing parties and there are, say, 3 times more Whites than Blacks, then the party that has White support would stand more to lose here. I actually wonder what would the actual effect be in a real world setting). This could be alleviated and possibly wholly solved by also funding IDs and such, particularly at the Federal level (since Democrats control Congress and the Executive branch, they can just appropriate Federal budget to assist people to get IDs).

Maybe this is because the US has never been a dictatorship, but those of us who come from countries with different histories would not just leave that opportunity on the table. I am myself finding I have few candidates I like in my country's upcoming elections, yet I won't just stay home because of it. I'd rather show up, pick up the ballot, draw a penis or protest creatively and then go home than just stay at home and wait.
#15177832
wat0n wrote:Yet, they are not banned or otherwise restricted by the institutions to get them - even if those other non-institutional restrictions could and indeed should be alleviated.


Whether or not the ID issuing places have an explicit ban is irrelevant.

And yet disenfranchisement is about intent, just as systemic discrimination is.


No, intent is not important when it comes to systemic discrimination. Please refer back to the definition of systemic racism that I provided for you the last time you made tis error. When rereading it, please note that intent is not mentioned at all.

You could defend it in other terms, e.g. as a different way to understand history.


And then be taken to court, and then you can hopefully not be charged, but since you are a teacher, your lawyer is not very good since you cannot afford a good one.

I agree everyone can read, and indeed they can read Nikole Hannah-Jones explicitly claimed preserving slavery was a primary reason for American Independence.


and the historian you cited agrees that this is one of the reasons. He or she or they simply think it was not an important reason.

In reality, it was probably an important reason for some revolutionaries some of the time and not an important reason for other revolutionaries at other times.

Sure.

She's claiming they were indentured servants, a treatment POWs also got at the time IIRC.


I do not see how, since indentured servants had signed a contract with the boat owner or shipping company to get across the Atlantic and then had a contractual obligation to serve in the colonies for whatever amount of time.

These Angolans signed no such contract. They were forcibly taken in Angola and then forcibly taken from the Portuguese ship by English privateers, so they could not have been indentured servants in a technical sense.

And that is why it seems like the author is assuming that the Angolans ended up being treated as indentured servants when they got off the boat, and why it might not be true.

Sorry, I should have said assumption as in "I assume you agree with the bolded parts." I think many historians agree with the idea of "rescuing" the African-American facet of e.g. American Revolution even if Nikole Hannah-Jones got the facts wrong and paints a picture that is not particularly accurate (and makes US history look more hostile to Blacks than it is).


The point made was that the critics of, and the movement against, CRT are doing more damage to teaching US history accurately than CRT or the 1619 project.

Maybe, or perhaps it refers to e.g. claims about systemic racism in present-day US or using 1619 Project material as factual when it's not.


    Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We can discuss possible loopholes as much as you want, but since teachers have to worry about being sued, it is logical to assume that they will then choose to not teach anything that might even come close to suggesting systemic racism.
#15177841
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whether or not the ID issuing places have an explicit ban is irrelevant.


It's exactly what disenfranchisement is about, though: Taking rights from someone or a group.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, intent is not important when it comes to systemic discrimination. Please refer back to the definition of systemic racism that I provided for you the last time you made tis error. When rereading it, please note that intent is not mentioned at all.


I read your definition and intent is important for it, too. Even the broader ones are important, the one used in the Lawrence report, mentions that "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". The safest word there, I suppose, could be thoughtlessness yet even that can perfectly show intent.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And then be taken to court, and then you can hopefully not be charged, but since you are a teacher, your lawyer is not very good since you cannot afford a good one.


I can see plenty of assumptions here. It's more likely the teacher would be fired, I'm not sure why would they tale him or her to court.

Pants-of-dog wrote:and the historian you cited agrees that this is one of the reasons. He or she or they simply think it was not an important reason.

In reality, it was probably an important reason for some revolutionaries some of the time and not an important reason for other revolutionaries at other times.


...And that is substantially different from claiming that the Revolutionary War was about slavery, as the Project was initially claiming (I'm not sure if they changed this).

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not see how, since indentured servants had signed a contract with the boat owner or shipping company to get across the Atlantic and then had a contractual obligation to serve in the colonies for whatever amount of time.

These Angolans signed no such contract. They were forcibly taken in Angola and then forcibly taken from the Portuguese ship by English privateers, so they could not have been indentured servants in a technical sense.

And that is why it seems like the author is assuming that the Angolans ended up being treated as indentured servants when they got off the boat, and why it might not be true.


It's possible indeed, although it's not that simple as there seems to evidence some were considered to be indentured servants and indeed gained their freedom. Furthermore, slavery seems to have become truly hereditary, following maternal line, almost 50 years after the arrival at Jamestown.

OTOH, you are right that - at least while they were under Portuguese control - they were regarded as captured slaves.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The point made was that the critics of, and the movement against, CRT are doing more damage to teaching US history accurately than CRT or the 1619 project.


I would say both are, in their own way.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We can discuss possible loopholes as much as you want, but since teachers have to worry about being sued, it is logical to assume that they will then choose to not teach anything that might even come close to suggesting systemic racism.


But they cannot do that if they have to teach about Jim Crow... Right?
#15177846
wat0n wrote:It's exactly what disenfranchisement is about, though: Taking rights from someone or a group.


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.

I read your definition and intent is important for it, too.


Please quote the exact text in the definition. Thank you.

Even the broader ones are important, the one used in the Lawrence report, mentions that "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". The safest word there, I suppose, could be thoughtlessness yet even that can perfectly show intent.


Processes, attitudes and behaviour do not require intent, nor do prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.

I can see plenty of assumptions here. It's more likely the teacher would be fired, I'm not sure why would they tale him or her to court.


So you agree that there are multiple reasons why this policy will effectively muzzle teachers and any discussion on systemic racism.

...And that is substantially different from claiming that the Revolutionary War was about slavery, as the Project was initially claiming (I'm not sure if they changed this).


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.

It's possible indeed, although it's not that simple as there seems to evidence some were considered to be indentured servants and indeed gained their freedom. Furthermore, slavery seems to have become truly hereditary, following maternal line, almost 50 years after the arrival at Jamestown.

OTOH, you are right that - at least while they were under Portuguese control - they were regarded as captured slaves.


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.

I would say both are, in their own way.


Yes, I can see you would, but the historian you cited thinks the Republicans and their censorship are the real problem.

But they cannot do that if they have to teach about Jim Crow... Right?


Then the only option for teachers who do not want to get fired or sued is to not teach about Jim Crow.
#15177853
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."[4][5]


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.[2] 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]".[3]


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/
#15177924
wat0n wrote:Right, but here's the thing: They can actually do something about it. Disenfranchised people, like Blacks in the South at the time, cannot.


The fact that Jim Crow laws like the grandfather clause no longer apply tells us that black people at the time were not only capable of doing something about it, but also that they were eventually successful at it. So, while I get your point, I think there is a historical error in that particular premise.

And that is not the only similarity. The grandfather clause was also written in such a way that it excluded many black voters and few white voters while carefully not discussing race at all. In this respect, it is also similar to the current voter restrictions.

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.


The success of the voter registration movements in Georgia and Arizona for black and Indigenous people shows that if given the chance, BIPOC people can and do vote in significant amounts.

This is what Wiki has about the definition in the Lawrence report:

Others would point even more so towards intent, e.g. from the same source:

i.e. it's intentional, but hidden.


I still have no idea how you or anyone else can infer intent from all of that.

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.


We should. The fact that we ignore how sexism has negative impacts on men in clear and verified ways is a result of said sexism.

Normally, you would require that there is some discrimination through some of the aforementioned means to claim so.


Yes, I am sure that intent is not necessary at all.

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.


The exact scenarios will vary depending on the exact conditions each teacher faces, I assume. The overall effect will almost certainly be a significant drop in discussion about systemic racism.

"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.


This seems to be discussing how the wealth created by slavery was one of the ways by which the revolution was paid for, and this economic price would not have been feasible had the slavery wealth not existed.

This does not seem to be claim about relative importance of the reasons why the colonists revolted.

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.


Yes.

Which historian? Leslie M. Harris? Yes. Sean Wilentz? He's more hostile to the Project than Harris is.


The one that said that the critics of CRT are the real problem.

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/


If your argument is that this policy contradicts law and is illogical, I completely agree.
#15177931
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that Jim Crow laws like the grandfather clause no longer apply tells us that black people at the time were not only capable of doing something about it, but also that they were eventually successful at it. So, while I get your point, I think there is a historical error in that particular premise.


No, it's not a "historical error" to say that Black people effectively did not have a legal way to vote under Jim Crow. Also, Jim Crow started to be demolished by the American elites, not by Black people. We know this because Eisenhower and the Warren Court kick-started the process as a way to deal with Cold War Soviet propaganda. Black leaders like MLK and institutions like the NAACP realized the opportunity and took it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And that is not the only similarity. The grandfather clause was also written in such a way that it excluded many black voters and few white voters while carefully not discussing race at all. In this respect, it is also similar to the current voter restrictions.


No, it is not. Grandfather clauses were not similar to ID requirements because the literacy requirements would apply differently to people whose ancestors could vote before 1866. That means that there was a quite evident discrimination, as those who had to deal with that system could do nothing about the prevailing election laws before 1866. Indeed, it's why the SCOTUS ruled them unconstitutional in 1915, and part of the reason had to do specifically with the date chosen.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep238347/

Furthermore, the realities of the segregated school system, where schools had different qualities and even budget depending on the student body they served, meant it was also close to impossible for Blacks to learn how to read. This is hardly comparable to getting an ID.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The success of the voter registration movements in Georgia and Arizona for black and Indigenous people shows that if given the chance, BIPOC people can and do vote in significant amounts.


Sure, if they want to. That's exactly the point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I still have no idea how you or anyone else can infer intent from all of that.


You can depending on the situation, just like the SCOTUS did when knocking grandfather clauses down.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We should. The fact that we ignore how sexism has negative impacts on men in clear and verified ways is a result of said sexism.


Weird, because supposedly sexism is there to benefit men. But just as importantly, you'd also have show how this finding is due to sexism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I am sure that intent is not necessary at all.


And you'd be wrong as well. Instead, I'd read it as saying that "thoughtlessness" seems to be intentional - Carmichael's definition is even clearer as the only thing he's saying is that institutional discrimination can enjoy a veil of respectability by not being associated to any particular individual (well, sometimes).

Pants-of-dog wrote:The exact scenarios will vary depending on the exact conditions each teacher faces, I assume. The overall effect will almost certainly be a significant drop in discussion about systemic racism.


That last part I can agree.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems to be discussing how the wealth created by slavery was one of the ways by which the revolution was paid for, and this economic price would not have been feasible had the slavery wealth not existed.

This does not seem to be claim about relative importance of the reasons why the colonists revolted.


That's an odd way to interpret what she wrote, given she claimed slavery was on its way to be abolished in 1776 in Britain's colonies (also not true, given Wilentz's points). In fact, it's a disingenuous interpretation of what Nikole Harris-Jones was claiming.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The one that said that the critics of CRT are the real problem.


Neither mentioned CRT, they mentioned the 1619 Project

Pants-of-dog wrote:If your argument is that this policy contradicts law and is illogical, I completely agree.


More like it's not as broad as you are saying, as teachers would be protected by the law.
#15177933
wat0n wrote:

More like it's not as broad as you are saying, as teachers would be protected by the law.



Few Supers will fall on their sword to protect a teacher.

Most of what you say about education falls under the 'you've gotta be kidding' category, like this.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 16

Call me sick/morbid, but one of the reason's I su[…]

I support you 100% on the principle of voting rig[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Actually yes you should, because that's how it wor[…]

They're the rules of doing history. First rule[…]