Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2023 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $3,162.05 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  42 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

On ‘People of Color’ and ‘Systemic Racism’ — And Why I Am Sick of Hearing It


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://nypost.com/2022/07/17/minneapolis-mom-arabella-foss-yarbrough-who-was-targeted-by-gunman-yells-at-protesters/

A Minneapolis mom could be seen on video confronting Black Lives Matter protesters gathered outside the home of a man who was fatally shot by police after a tense six-hour standoff.

The mother, Arabella Foss-Yarbrough, called police last Wednesday night after her neighbor Andrew “Tekle” Sundberg allegedly fired shots into her apartment as she was cooking for her two young children.

The gunman was eventually shot dead Thursday morning by two Minneapolis police snipers.

A pistol with an extended magazine and several bullet casings was recovered from his apartment.

“This is not a George Floyd situation. George Floyd was unarmed. This is not OK,” Foss-Yarbrough was seen yelling at a group of protesters on Saturday. “He tried to kill me in front of my kids.”

Photos from inside Foss-Yarbrough’s home show multiple bullet holes in her front door, walls and just above her bathroom sink.

Regardless of the circumstances of the shooting, BLM activists — including Trahern Crews, a lead organizer for BLM Minnesota — gathered outside the building on Saturday to demand justice for Sundberg.

“We’re here to respect life, demand justice, and we’re demanding the release of the bodycam footage,” Crews chanted, according to the star Tribune.

But when Foss-Yarbrough pulled her car up to the building, she unleashed on the protesters, who included Sundberg’s parents.

“My kids have to deal with this and probably have a mental illness now because they almost lost their lives,” she said. “There’s bullet holes in my kitchen because he sat in the f–king hallway watching me move. He tried to kill me in front of my kids.

“I have black children; I am a woman of color!” Foss-Yarbrough, who is of black, white and Native descent, then yelled.

“If I would have lost my life, would you guys do this for me?”

“Yes, ma’am,” Crews responded.

Minneapolis police said that they are working to release footage of the shooting to the public.

The department said there were hundreds of hours of footage from more than 50 officers who responded to the scene.

Sundberg’s family said he was having a mental health crisis at the time of the shooting.

The 20-year-old shooter was adopted from Ethiopia and had many siblings, according to CBS Minnesota.

Sundberg’s parents were outside the building when Foss-Yarbrough confronted the protesters. They said they empathized with their neighbor.

“I wish I could wrap my arms around her and tell her I’m so sorry,” Cindy Sundberg said. “I’m so sorry she had to experience that, I’m so sorry for her pain.

“Tekle was an imperfect human as we are all imperfect humans and he did not deserve to be picked off like an animal from a rooftop,” his mother said.

 

SF is thinking mental crisis or not, an armed shooter needed shot.  A six hour standoff is hardly a racial "murder by cops".  (IMHO) Totally agree with miss Arabella Foss-Yarbrough - don't blame the LEO's this time.  Also noteworthy - the pictures of the BLM protesters indicate a mostly white crowd.......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/berkeley-co-op-person-of-color-theme-house-bans-white-guests-from-common-spaces/

 

Students move into the POC house ‘to be able to avoid white violence and presence,’ rules state

White guests are banned from the common spaces at the Person of Color House, an off-campus housing option for Berkeley students, according to a photo of the guest rules recently posted on Reddit.

Under a section labeled “Guests in Common Spaces,” it states: “Guests are allowed in common spaces but please be mindful if there are house members in the room beforehand. White guests are not allowed in common spaces (see intro).”

The POC House intro states in part that many members moved in “to be able to avoid white violence and presence.” When students do bring a guest, the rules direct them to announce it in the house guest chat and note “if they are white.

 

Isn't this itself racist? 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2022 at 4:26 PM, swordfish said:

 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/berkeley-co-op-person-of-color-theme-house-bans-white-guests-from-common-spaces/

 

Students move into the POC house ‘to be able to avoid white violence and presence,’ rules state

White guests are banned from the common spaces at the Person of Color House, an off-campus housing option for Berkeley students, according to a photo of the guest rules recently posted on Reddit.

Under a section labeled “Guests in Common Spaces,” it states: “Guests are allowed in common spaces but please be mindful if there are house members in the room beforehand. White guests are not allowed in common spaces (see intro).”

The POC House intro states in part that many members moved in “to be able to avoid white violence and presence.” When students do bring a guest, the rules direct them to announce it in the house guest chat and note “if they are white.

 

Isn't this itself racist? 

 

 

We don’t want the Irish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Blazing Saddles - One of the best comedy movies ever made.  SF doesn't align with Miss Whoopie on much of anything, (except her former humor) but we are together on this one.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/07/whoopi-goldberg-defends-blazing-saddles-against-cancel-culture/

Whoopi Goldberg got fired up Wednesday defending the satirical western “Blazing Saddles” against internet trolls trying to cancel it with claims it takes jokes about racism too far.

The hosts of “The View” launched into a debate about how classic comedies are aging in 2022 — a topic inspired by Mindy Kaling’s recent comment that “The Office” is “so inappropriate now” and could never be made today.

Goldberg argued the 1974 Mel Brooks flick “Blazing Saddles” “deals with racism by coming at it right, straight, out front, making you think and laugh about it — because, listen, it’s not just racism, it’s all the ‘-isms.’ He hits all the ‘-isms.'”

The story, which takes place in 1874, follows a corrupt politician who hires a black sheriff to keep a frontier village from being destroyed.

“‘Blazing Saddles,’ because it’s a great comedy, would still go over today — there are a lot of comedies that are not good, OK? We’re just going to say that — that’s not one of them. ‘Blazing Saddles’ is one of the greatest because it hits everybody,” Goldberg insisted.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching Critical Race Theory Isn't Education; It's Indoctrination: https://mises.org/wire/teaching-critical-race-theory-isnt-education-its-indoctrination

Quote

A recent report by the Manhattan Institute (a conservative think tank) showed that critical race theory (CRT) concepts are being taught in many high schools across America. The report was based on a survey of 1,505 nationally representative Americans aged 18–20 and lends new weight to the idea that CRT is about training students to be social activists rather than teaching them how to think.

The survey asked students who were taught CRT (for example, that the US is a systemically racist country) how their teachers handled counter-arguments. The survey asked, “When you were taught these concepts, what were you taught about arguments against these concepts?” In total, 68 percent of respondents said that they either were not taught about arguments against CRT or that they were taught there were no respectable arguments against it. In other words, a majority of students across the country are being told that this far-left ideology is the only accurate way to see the world.

Many parents might be surprised by this focus on indoctrinating students, but the truth is that critical race theorists are open about their intentions when they are talking to each other. Robin DiAngelo—perhaps the best-known critical race theorist owing to the blockbuster success of her CRT manifesto, White Fragility—is notorious for this. In Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, DiAngelo and coauthor Ozlem Sensoy state that “education is a political prospect.” Is Everyone Really Equal? is a widely used textbook for graduate students training to be teachers. A generation of aspiring teachers are being told that their job is to turn students into political activists for the causes that DiAngelo and Sensoy care about.

It is not just DiAngelo and Sensoy. Across the board, critical race theorists see education as a training ground for future activists. In the prestigious UCLA Law Review, two critical race theorists said that CRT “engages students in social activism to defy majoritarian supremacy.” A workshop by the National Association of Independent Schools’ People of Color Conference taught educators that “kindergartners are natural social justice warriors.” Dr. Alison Bailey, the director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Illinois State University, explicitly rejects the idea of critical thinking:

Quote

The tools of the critical-thinking tradition (for example, validity, soundness, conceptual clarity) cannot dismantle the master’s house: they can temporarily beat the master at his own game, but they can never bring about any enduring structural change (Lorde 1984, 112). They fail because the critical thinker’s toolkit is commonly invoked in particular settings, at particular times to reassert power: those adept with the tools often use them to restore an order that assures their comfort.

Bailey essentially says that critical thinking might be used by those in power to maintain control, so we need to jettison the concept completely. It is tough to imagine a more openly indoctrinating worldview.

Another reason that we should not be surprised when students say they are not taught counterarguments to CRT is that CRT activists frame their hypotheses as axiomatic and therefore beyond question. At the National Race and Pedagogy Conference at Puget Sound University, scholar­-activists Heather Bruce, Robin DiAngelo, Gyda Swaney (Salish), and Amie Thurber presented several core tenets of antiracism. Developed by leading CRT practitioners, these foundational tenets represent how CRT is actually applied. One tenet is particularly revealing: “The question is not: ‘Did racism take place?’ but rather ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’” The underlying hypothesis (that racism takes place in every single situation) is framed as something beyond doubt to preemptively undercut any disagreement.

When folks do have the temerity to question CRT, the reaction of prominent critical race theorists is dismissal. In White Fragility, DiAngelo says that every single white person is fragile. How does she know we are fragile? Because when she calls us fragile, we respond with a variety of behaviors including “argumentation,” “anger,” “guilt,” “tears,” “silence,” and “leaving the stress-inducing situation” (that is, the room where the person is being lectured about their fragility).

According to DiAngelo, if you are white, you are fragile. If you disagree, you have proved your fragility. If you remain silent, you have proved your fragility as well. And, of course, agreement is also proof of your fragility. This style of argumentation is known as a Kafka trap. You are accused of something. And if you defend yourself, your defense is considered proof of your guilt. As far DiAngelo and her fellow theorists are concerned, disagreeing with CRT is just further validation. No wonder students are being told there are no respectable counterarguments to CRT.

Why do CRT advocates openly endorse indoctrination rather than traditional education? They do this because they see social institutions (including schools) as so corrupt that they only produce fixed, preplanned outcomes. In Is Everyone Really Equal?, DiAngelo and Sensoy posit a zero-sum, bare-knuckle battle between different identity groups in which a dominant group seizes power and uses that power to maintain itself above oppressed groups. Schools play a critical role here. DiAngelo and Sensoy compare schools to the panopticon, a hypothetical prison in which inmates are always watched so that they only do what the prison guard wants them to do.

In the same way, DiAngelo and Sensoy believe schools (and other institutions) create a harsh atmosphere of self-policing in which white students are conditioned to do what the dominant group wants them to do; that is, continue to keep their boots on the faces of oppressed groups. If social institutions are so corrupt, seizing these institutions and using them to indoctrinate a new generation of student activists motivated to tear down the structures of the dominant group is a moral imperative.

When they are talking to the public rather than to each other, critical race theorists sing a different tune. They insist that CRT is only about teaching an accurate version of US racial history. It is time to call their bluff. There are plenty of gifted scholars, like John McWhorter and Glenn Loury, whose work can be used to teach the checkered history of US race relations without resorting to the indoctrinating nonsense promoted by DiAngelo and many other CRT practitioners.

Yet another ideology working to destroy government education.     

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In light of the recent police beating of Tyre Nichols, SF is left wondering - WTF were the LEO's thinking?  Benefit of the doubt - a "perp" (can't say he was a "perp" since there is no evidence to support that) runs after a traffic stop, and is caught, but then you subdue the guy (as humanely as you can) and begin the arrest proceedings. 

These guys just beat the crap out of him for no reason.  (none that SF can see)

5 black LEO's - and SF was taught by the GID actors a loooooong time ago that a black person can't be racist.  I'm not buying that one anymore, cause I can't see any other reason these officers did what they did.  They were being no different in SF's eyes than any other run of the mill racist pig white guys to a guy that (maybe) deserved nothing more than a ticket or arrest for fleeing on officer.  Prove me wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

In light of the recent police beating of Tyre Nichols, SF is left wondering - WTF were the LEO's thinking?  Benefit of the doubt - a "perp" (can't say he was a "perp" since there is no evidence to support that) runs after a traffic stop, and is caught, but then you subdue the guy (as humanely as you can) and begin the arrest proceedings. 

These guys just beat the crap out of him for no reason.  (none that SF can see)

5 black LEO's - and SF was taught by the GID actors a loooooong time ago that a black person can't be racist.  I'm not buying that one anymore, cause I can't see any other reason these officers did what they did.  They were being no different in SF's eyes than any other run of the mill racist pig white guys to a guy that (maybe) deserved nothing more than a ticket or arrest for fleeing on officer.  Prove me wrong.

I'm also concerned with the knee jerk/immediate cancellation of the SCORPION unit which will make people feel all warm and fuzzy for a few days until the predictable uptick in crime that will follow due to emboldened criminals.

Edited by temptation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, temptation said:

I'm also concerned with the knee jerk/immediate cancellation of the SCORPION unit which will make people feel all warm and fuzzy for a few days until the predictable uptick in crime that will follow due to emboldened criminals.

Special enforcement groups are rife with this stuff. Nothing wrong with patrolling high crime area harder, but these “SCORPION” units gots ta go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, swordfish said:

In light of the recent police beating of Tyre Nichols, SF is left wondering - WTF were the LEO's thinking?  Benefit of the doubt - a "perp" (can't say he was a "perp" since there is no evidence to support that) runs after a traffic stop, and is caught, but then you subdue the guy (as humanely as you can) and begin the arrest proceedings. 

These guys just beat the crap out of him for no reason.  (none that SF can see)

5 black LEO's - and SF was taught by the GID actors a loooooong time ago that a black person can't be racist.  I'm not buying that one anymore, cause I can't see any other reason these officers did what they did.  They were being no different in SF's eyes than any other run of the mill racist pig white guys to a guy that (maybe) deserved nothing more than a ticket or arrest for fleeing on officer.  Prove me wrong.

Agreed. But if you read or listen to most reporting on this the race of the LEO's are either mentioned late in the story or not mentioned at all.  But if the LEO's happened to be white you can bet their race would have been screamed from the opening headlines....................

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Serious question, if I were arrested for murder would I be able to bond out?

I haven’t looked at this in a long while. But my understanding is that there is a presumption of no bail in murder cases. It’s up to the defendant to show, in a hearing held for that purpose, that the prosecution’s case is a weak one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bobref said:

I haven’t looked at this in a long while. But my understanding is that there is a presumption of no bail in murder cases. It’s up to the defendant to show, in a hearing held for that purpose, that the prosecution’s case is a weak one.

Admittedly I’m not a legal aficionado, but I have no recollection of anyone getting bail on a murder charge. I’m quite certain there have been instances however. Now if I’m understanding correctly these officers are out on bail because the state has a weak case. It begs these questions:

1) There is already a perception of preferential treatment because bail is so rare in murder cases. 
2) In his rush to judgment the prosecutor has overplayed his hand. If he presses on and the evidence doesn’t support second degree murder charges and these people walk away from this, people will understandably be outraged. 
3) What those officers did was criminal. I don’t know what legal definition their acts fit, but if they walk away from this, aside from being a gross miscarriage of justice it will further erode the folks’ belief in the system. We watched it with our own eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Admittedly I’m not a legal aficionado, but I have no recollection of anyone getting bail on a murder charge. I’m quite certain there have been instances however. Now if I’m understanding correctly these officers are out on bail because the state has a weak case.

Tennessee law may well be different. As I said, the last time I looked at this issue was quite a while ago , and it was under Indiana law.

Edited by Bobref
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hulu's 1619 Project Docuseries Peddles False History: https://reason.com/2023/01/31/hulus-1619-project-docuseries-peddles-false-history/

Quote

The New York Times' 1619 Project selected Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, as a filming location for its new Hulu docuseries. In doing so, creator Nikole Hannah-Jones sought to bolster her project's most troublesome claim—the assertion that British overtures toward emancipation impelled the American colonists into revolution, ultimately securing an independent United States.

In the past three years, the Times has grappled with the fallout from Hannah-Jones' assertion, including the revelation that it ignored its own fact-checker's warnings against printing the charge. The Times tempered its language to apply to "some of" the colonists, only to see it reasserted by Hannah-Jones in her public commentaries. Later, a related line about the Project's goal of replacing 1776 with a "true founding" of 1619 disappeared without notice from the Times' website. The newspaper found itself in a balancing act between its writer's uncompromising positions and the need to preserve credibility as it made a Pulitzer Prize bid with the series. But Hannah-Jones was not ready to abandon the claim at the center of her lead essay, and the first episode of the Hulu series makes that abundantly clear.

The scene opens in Williamsburg on the grounds of its reconstructed colonial Governor's Palace, where Hannah-Jones joins University of South Carolina professor Woody Holton—one of a handful of heterodox historians who defended the 1619 Project's original narrative. As the cameras pan across streets filled with historical re-enactors and tourists in front of restored colonial buildings, the pair take another stab at resurrecting the 1619 Project's narrative about the American Revolution. The evidence that a British threat to slavery impelled Virginians—or perhaps "the colonists" at large, in Hannah-Jones' imprecise phrasing—to revolt may be found in the November 1775 decree of John Murray, fourth earl of Dunmore, Virginia's last Royalist governor. Facing the collapse of British rule, Dunmore announced that any enslaved male from a household in rebellion would be granted freedom in exchange for military service on the British side.

Dunmore's decree made him the author of an "Emancipation Proclamation" of sorts, both Hannah-Jones and Holton contend. Their language intentionally evokes parallels to President Abraham Lincoln's famous order freeing the slaves of the rebellious Confederacy in 1863. Prompted by Hannah-Jones' questioning, Holton then recounts his version of the lesser-known events of some four score and eight years prior. "Dunmore issued that Emancipation Proclamation November 1775," he explains, "and that Emancipation Proclamation infuriated white southerners."

We see the visual power of the Hulu production at this moment as Holton lifts his finger, pointing at the Governor's Palace, the centerpiece of the Colonial Williamsburg historical park. The camera quickly shifts to the recreated structure as he begins to speak. "Because this building is supposed to symbolize white rule over blacks, and now the guy inhabiting that building," Dunmore, "has turned things upside down and is leading blacks against whites." Hannah-Jones interjects, "So you have this situation where many Virginians and other southern colonists—they're not really convinced that they want to side with the patriots. And this turns many of them towards the revolution. Is that right?" Holton answers without a flinch. "If you ask them, it did. The record is absolutely clear."

The scene is an authoritatively delivered pronouncement set to stunning cinematography, but it's also false history.

At the time of his decree, the real Dunmore had not set foot in Williamsburg in almost five months. His order, decreeing martial law in the colony and calling on slaves to enlist in a Royalist militia, came not from the governor's residence but from a position of exile aboard the HMS William, a naval ship anchored off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia.

Dunmore abandoned the Governor's Palace on June 8, 1775, amid signs that patriot militiamen were converging on Williamsburg to defend the House of Burgesses from a threatened power grab by the crown. The trouble began a few weeks earlier with a botched attempt by Dunmore to seize the colony's gunpowder stores as a preemptive strike against revolutionary grumblings.

Indeed, when Dunmore fled the capital, he carried away a sizable staff of "servants" from the palace grounds and relocated them to Porto Bello, his sprawling plantation a few miles up the river. Yes, the 1619 Project's designated agent of "emancipation" for the British crown was an enslaver himself. Dunmore encamped on a succession of warships anchored in the nearby York River, never to return to the building where Holton erroneously situated the decree. He occasionally took a barge over to the plantation house at Porto Bello to enjoy fine dining with his officers, served by his relocated slaves. But that ended as patriot militias gained control of the peninsula on which the property sat, and Dunmore withdrew to Norfolk. By November 7, 1775—the date of the order—he had long lost any semblance of control over the colony. The decree anticipated an unsuccessful campaign to regain a foothold in the colony. In retrospect, it was a desperate move to restore himself to power by inducing a slave revolt amid the already-unfolding revolution, rather than any true attempt to affect "emancipation" at large.

The inescapable progression of the timeline has always worked against Hannah-Jones' narrative. Leaning heavily on Holton's academic work, she asserts that Dunmore galvanized the southern colonies against Britain by imperiling their slave plantations and moving them into the revolutionary column. Holton's commentaries in the docuseries signal his concurrence with this view insofar as it relates to Virginia, even as he stops short of Hannah-Jones' blurry ascription of this motive to "the colonists" of the future U.S. at large. Yet as a matter of history, it collides with easily documented facts.

As the events around Williamsburg revealed, Dunmore's order was a reaction to—not a cause of—a revolution already in full swing. The road to American independence began in Massachusetts over a decade earlier with men such as James Otis (incidentally, an early abolitionist) rallying against the crown under the banner of "no taxation without representation." Virginia expressed solidarity with this cause long before Dunmore's order.

In 1774, the House of Burgesses adopted a resolution of fasting to show their support for the people of Boston, then under a punitive edict from London in retaliation for its tax protests. A short time later, a group of leading Virginians including George Washington and George Mason signed the Fairfax Resolves, stating a long list of grievances against the crown (its promotion of the slave trade among them) and rejecting parliamentary control over the colonies. Patrick Henry, another Virginian, delivered his famous "Give me liberty, or give me death" speech in March 1775 before Dunmore even uttered a word about enlisting slaves. Washington himself would take command of the Continental Army on June 19, 1775, organizing his troops in New England after the Battle of Bunker Hill.

As his shipbound circumstances illustrated, the remnants of Lord Dunmore's governorship amounted to little more than paper when he issued his decree that autumn. It is undoubtedly true that Dunmore's order further inflamed an already-raging revolution, including nudging some slave-owning planters off the fence. But its sweeping martial law provision was likely the greater source of outrage. As Dunmore's own financial interests illustrate, he had every intention of honoring the decree's explicit exemptions for the human property of Royalist enslavers. None of these complicating details receive even the slightest amount of attention in the Hulu presentation from Williamsburg.

Hannah-Jones' latest chronological mishap adds to a long list of errors that have plagued the 1619 Project. In this instance, it also speaks to a deeper underlying negligence around matters of basic fact. As a flashpoint of controversy since the 1619 Project's inception, the claims about slavery in the American Revolution warranted careful attention. The docuseries offered Hannah-Jones yet another opportunity to clarify her case, ostensibly with the guidance of trained historians such as Holton. Instead, she pushed ahead, unaware of a timeline that any tour guide at the Governor's Palace could have resolved for her.

Holton's case is a bit more complicated, as his academic works, including his 2021 book Liberty Is Sweet, evince awareness of Dunmore's shipbound circumstances after his June 1775 flight. In fact, Holton's scholarly publications have attempted to walk a fine line around the 1619 Project that chafes with his ringing public endorsements of the same in popular media. A revealing footnote tucked inside Liberty Is Sweet states that Hannah-Jones "vastly exaggerates the size and strength of the British abolition movement" in the years before the revolution, dampening her attempts to use the 1772 anti-slavery Somerset case as an instigating cause of American independence. Yet as the docuseries shows, it is Holton who assigns particular significance to the filming location in Williamsburg, and it is Holton who points to the governor's residence as the source of his own vastly exaggerated "Emancipation Proclamation."

This peculiar convergence of factual error and cinematic misdirection comes with an ironic twist. If there are historical parallels to be drawn between Dunmore's order and later events, it is not Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation but rather the desperate actions of his Confederate adversaries. In the waning days of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis authorized what became known as General Orders No. 14. The measure called for the "enlistment of colored persons" into the Confederate army, with provisions to accept any male slave "with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as he may, the rights of a freedman" in exchange for service. The Confederates paraded a handful of black companies on the streets of Richmond in late March 1865. Some of these troops were likely involved in a rearguard skirmish as Robert E. Lee's army abandoned the city and made its fateful retreat toward Appomattox Courthouse.

The Confederates' measure was no act of magnanimity by the slavers, but rather an exercise in desperation by a government on the precipice of collapse. Like Dunmore some 90 years before him, Davis lost his seat of power and found his forces in disarray. Most historians interpret his actions in this panicked context, not as some sudden change of heart on the central issue that sparked the Civil War.

And yet a parallel scenario from the American Revolution is now being touted as proof of a long-forgotten British antislavery crusade? We may look on in amazement, amusement, and disgust as the 1619 Project's creator and its academic boosters attempt a peculiar rehabilitation of Dunmore—enslaver, plantation master, and Royalist autocrat—as a leading and even celebrated agent of emancipation.

A quite disturbing attempt by the "1619 Project" to rewrite history, and rewrite it incorrectly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A diversity event that is not "Diverse"?  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/high-school-asks-employees-avoid-inviting-white-peers-event-people-of-color-due-mistrust

High school asks employees to 'avoid inviting' White peers to event for people of color due to 'mistrust'

A California school district hosted an event for employees of color but warned their White peers were not invited to participate

California school district held an event for employees of color but warned educators that they should not invite their White peers because of "feelings of uneasiness and mistrust."

The Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD), in the Bay Area, hosted an event for all employees of color on February 8, but Dr. Lynnā McPhatter-Harris, the director of Student Support Equity & Inclusion for the district reminded employees their non-White peers should not be invited to participate, according to an email shared exclusively by Libs of TikTok with Fox News Digital. 

"Hello POCC staff, we are ready for out first coming together in 2023," McPhatter-Harris' email read. "We are looking forward to seeing our people of color in the district. Please invite any employee of color to this event."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, swordfish said:

A diversity event that is not "Diverse"?  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/high-school-asks-employees-avoid-inviting-white-peers-event-people-of-color-due-mistrust

High school asks employees to 'avoid inviting' White peers to event for people of color due to 'mistrust'

A California school district hosted an event for employees of color but warned their White peers were not invited to participate

California school district held an event for employees of color but warned educators that they should not invite their White peers because of "feelings of uneasiness and mistrust."

The Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD), in the Bay Area, hosted an event for all employees of color on February 8, but Dr. Lynnā McPhatter-Harris, the director of Student Support Equity & Inclusion for the district reminded employees their non-White peers should not be invited to participate, according to an email shared exclusively by Libs of TikTok with Fox News Digital. 

"Hello POCC staff, we are ready for out first coming together in 2023," McPhatter-Harris' email read. "We are looking forward to seeing our people of color in the district. Please invite any employee of color to this event."

 

"Unity/equity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, temptation said:

Of course it is.  A sympathetic prosecutor made a plea deal instead of trying the case in 2019.  But it's not his fault, we need more gun laws.  When are we going to learn?  ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS AND PROSECUTE THE LAWBREAKERS.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/us/michigan-state-university-mass-shooting-wednesday/index.html

The Michigan State University killer was previously charged with a felony but was still able to buy guns. Here’s why

CNN — 

Years before Anthony Dwayne McRae killed three Michigan State University students and critically wounded five others, he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon – a felony count that would have prevented him from being able to buy a gun if he were convicted.

That felony case never went to trial. Instead, a 2019 deal allowed McRae to plead guilty to a misdemeanor – possession of a loaded firearm in or upon a vehicle, the Ingham County prosecutor’s office said Tuesday. McRae spent a year and a half on probation.

Now, questions abound over whether the slaughter at Michigan State on Monday evening could have been prevented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

San Francisco reparations idea: $5 million per Black person: https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-black-reparations-5-million-36899f7974c751950a8ce0e444f86189?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_07

 

Quote

Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a family.

These are just some of the recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked with a thorny question: What would it take to atone for the centuries of U.S. slavery and generations of systemic racism that continue to keep Black Americans on the bottom rungs of health, education and economic prosperity, and overrepresented in prisons and homeless populations?

A first hearing before the city’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday could offer a glimpse of the board’s appetite for advancing a reparations plan that would be unmatched nationwide in specificity and breadth. Critics have slammed it as financially and politically impossible. One conservative analyst estimated that each non-Black family in the city would have to pay at least $600,000.

Some supervisors have said San Francisco can’t afford any major reparations payments right now, given the city’s deep deficit amid a tech industry downturn, but they still want to discuss the proposals and consider future solutions. The board can vote to change, adopt or reject any or all the recommendations.

 

But reparations committee members consider their results to be an accurate estimate of what it would take to begin to repair the enduring damage of slavery and discrimination, and they bristle at the idea that they should figure out how to pay for it.

“We are the harmed,” said Eric McDonnell, chair of San Francisco’s African American Reparations Advisory Committee. “If the judge ruled in our favor, the judge would not turn to us and say, ‘Help them figure out how to make this work.’”

The idea of paying compensation for slavery has gained traction across cities and universities. In 2020, California became the first state to form a reparations task force and is still struggling to put a price tag on what is owed.

The idea has not been taken up at the federal level.

Fewer than 50,000 Black people still live in San Francisco, and it’s not clear how many would be eligible. Possible criteria include having lived in the city during certain time periods and descending from someone “incarcerated for the failed War on Drugs.”

Critics say the payouts make no sense in a state and city that never enslaved Black people. Opponents generally say taxpayers who were never slave owners should not have to pay money to people who were not enslaved.

Advocates say that view ignores a wealth of data and historical evidence showing how long after U.S. slavery officially ended in 1865, government policies and practices worked to imprison Black people at higher rates, deny access to home and business loans and restrict where they could work and live.

“There’s still a veiled perspective that, candidly, Black folks don’t deserve this,” said McDonnell. “The number itself, $5 million, is actually low when you consider the harm.”

Justin Hansford, professor at Howard University School of Law, says no municipal reparations plan will have enough money to right the wrongs of slavery, but he appreciates any attempts to “genuinely, legitimately, authentically” make things right. And that includes cash, he said.

“If you’re going to try to say you’re sorry, you have to speak in the language that people understand, and money is that language,” he said.

Black residents once made up more than 13% of San Francisco’s population, but more than 50 years later, they account for less than 6% of the city’s residents — and 38% of its homeless population. The Fillmore District once thrived with Black-owned night clubs and shops until government redevelopment in the 1960s forced out residents.

John Dennis, chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, does not support reparations although he says he’d support a serious conversation on the topic. He doesn’t consider the board’s discussion of $5 million payments to be one.

“This conversation we’re having in San Francisco is completely unserious. They just threw a number up, there’s no analysis,” Dennis said. “It seems ridiculous, and it also seems that this is the one city where it could possibly pass.”

Led by Supervisor Shamann Walton, the board created the 15-member reparations committee in late 2020, months after California Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a statewide task force amid national turmoil after a white Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd, a Black man.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the board could direct staff to conduct further research, write legislation or schedule more meetings. The committee’s final report is due in June.

California’s task force continues to deliberate recommendations, including monetary compensation. Its report is due to the Legislature on July 1. At that point, it will be up to lawmakers to draft and pass legislation, often a time-consuming process.

The state panel made the controversial decision in March to limit reparations to descendants of Black people who were in the country in the 19th century. Some reparations advocates said that approach misses the ongoing harms that Black immigrants suffer.

Under San Francisco’s draft recommendation, a person must be at least 18 years old and have identified as “Black/African American” in public documents for at least 10 years. Eligible people must also meet two of eight other criteria, though the list may change.

Those criteria include being born in or migrating to San Francisco between 1940 and 1996 and living in the city for least 13 years; being displaced from San Francisco by urban renewal between 1954 and 1973, or the descendant of someone who was; attending the city’s public schools before they were fully desegregated; or being a descendant of an enslaved U.S. person before 1865.

The Chicago suburb of Evanston became the first U.S. city to fund reparations. The city gave money to qualifying people for home repairs, downpayments and interest or late penalties due on property in the city. In December, the Boston City Council approved of a reparations study task force.

What a load of crap and a huge waste of time that this is being discussed at all.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...