Systemic / Institutional / Societal Racism

[surfndestroy]

Welp, looks like all the usual middle aged white guys have weighed in.

Considering that's one of the groups that is supposed to be part of the problem you should find it encouraging that they are engaging in the conversation.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Welp, looks like all the usual middle aged white guys have weighed in.

Considering that's one of the groups that is supposed to be part of the problem you should find it encouraging that they are engaging in the conversation.

[verb_to_trust]

The top 5 racist rmers are the five that infantilize black people the most. I don't even have to list them. You know who they are.

[spike]

list them you coward

[BurtReynolds]

Please don't call me middle aged.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Please don't call me middle aged.

if the dockers fit...

[Bi_3]

[wease]

Sounds about right

[Bi_3]

World Socialist WS utterly destroys the nonsense “1619” lie:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/1 ... i-n25.html

The New York Times’ Jake Silverstein concocts “a new origin story” for the 1619 Project
Tom Mackaman
24 November 2021

On November 9, the New York Times published a new defense of the 1619 Project by Jake Silverstein, editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine (“The 1619 Project and the Long Battle Over U.S. History”). Silverstein’s purpose was to prepare public opinion for the release of a book version of the project titled The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, which was released on November 16. The original magazine edition, masterminded by Times staff writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, suffered devastating criticism after its release in August 2019—criticism that began with the WSWS.

Silverstein has staked his reputation on the 1619 Project. This has gone badly for him. His name will forever be associated with the secretive manner through which the project invented its false and error-ridden historical interpretation, as well as the orchestration of the cover-up that has followed.

Specifically, Silverstein bears responsibility for the exclusion of leading scholars of American history—who would have objected to the 1619 Project’s central historical claims—and the intentional disregarding of objections made by the project’s own handpicked “fact-checkers.” Silverstein penned the devious reply to leading historians who pointed to the project’s errors. He then organized surreptitious changes to the already published 1619 Project, and, when exposed, claimed that it had all been a matter of word choice.

Silverstein’s 8,250-word essay is just the latest in this long line of underhanded journalism and bogus history. Once again, he fails to deal with any of the substantive historical criticism of the 1619 Project—in relationship to the origins of slavery, the nature of the American Revolution, the emergence of capitalism and the interracial character of past struggles for equality.

Instead of addressing any of this, and in keeping with the modus operandi of the 1619 Project, Silverstein’s essay piles new layers of falsification on old. If the original 1619 Project falsified American history, Silverstein’s latest essay falsifies the history of American history-writing—and it openly embraces a historical method that privileges “narrative” over “actual fact.”

….

Too long to post the whole article, but worth a read if you still think 1619 has academic merit.

[simple schoolboy]

The private sector equivalent of the Department of Anti-racism.

[simple schoolboy]

Didn't a ton of tribes with actual income restrict tribal membership during this timeframe (if not earlier?). Maybe by making it more common to have verified tribal ancestry without making the blood quantum cut, it opened up the Native identity to people that aren't tribal members.

This is me spitballing at what is probably close to dead last of reasons why more people are self IDing as Native, if this is to be believed. Senator Warren was a trendsetter!

[elliseamos]

People bubble things incorrectly all the time.

[simple schoolboy]

People bubble things incorrectly all the time.

Who are we to question the bubble's lived experience?

[BurtReynolds]

Rachel Dolezal is a martyr.

[B]

[BurtReynolds]

Is it called democracy?

[elliseamos]

Is it called democracy?

But that requires equitable representation, so that can't possibly be what exists in Mississippi.

[BurtReynolds]

Yeah I'm sure a bankrupt "theory" like CRT would be ok if Congress was 38% black instead of 29%.

[elliseamos]

I can't imagine how the conversation changes. It's so hard to know.

[Bammer]

Did a bunch of posts in this thread just get deleted?