Translate

Showing posts with label racialization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racialization. Show all posts

Thursday, October 14, 2021

"The Myth of Asian American Identity," by Jay Caspian Kang


Do read this excellent, highly personal, angst-filled reflection on Asian American identity—particularly for the upwardly mobile Asian American community—by author, Jay Caspian Kang. According to the New York Times Magazine, it's excerpted and modified from his forthcoming book titled, "The Loneliest Americans."

According to this piece, the combined impacts of anti-Asian prejudice and hostility together with last year's Georgia spa massacre that took the lives of eight people, six of them Asian American women, ignited a fresh sense for many Asian Americans that they, too, are “people of color. Similar to other racial and ethnic minority groups, they suffer the consequences of white supremacist violence.

An insightful statement by Kang was a high point for me. In the wake of anti-Asian violence, he notes how, if but for a moment, some number in the Asian American community were able to make a conceptual shift from a nagging concern on why they're treated differently from white people to one of “What can we do to liberate ourselves and all other oppressed people?” He seems to express a hope or a longing for just such a shift, particularly upon mention of the more panoramic version of the Asian American experience itself that resonates, in particular, with children of immigrants:
"When the second generation “learns their history” — the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the lynchings in Los Angeles’s Chinatown in 1871, the World War II internment of the Japanese — there’s a tendency to rebel against the meek who accept the abuse, seemingly content to squirrel their cash away. I’ve never really understood the intolerance for meekness. What is that forbearance but the solemn acknowledgment that our claims to citizenship are rooted in shallow ground — and the hope that the next generation will find the footing to stand up for itself?"
There is a lot to unpack here. As a race relations scholar, the concept of "racialization" is germane here. That is, what our society construes as a "racial group" is not a static phenomenon. Rather, even as static is they may sometimes seem, the Asian American experience demonstrates just how dynamic this historical process is, however unfortunate.  The same can be said about the Arab/Middle Eastern North African community that resides in the U.S. That is, they were racialized as a consequence of 9-11 and is a process that continues despite abundant evidence that U.S.'s problem with domestic terrorism is almost entirely linked more to white ethnonationalists than to any other community either within, or outside, our borders.

I encourage you as readers to draw parallels to your own experiences and draw meaning from this unblinking look at second-class citizenship as experienced by our Asian American friends, colleagues, and community writ large. In the meantime, let's all support the teaching of Asian American Studies in our schools. This is a history of a highly diverse community that is integral to U.S. history that all of us have a right and responsibility to learn about and know.

-Angela Valenzuela

#StopAAPIHate   #AsianLivesMatter

 #EndWhiteSupremacy

The Myth of Asian American Identity

We're the fastest-growing demographic group in the U.S., but when it comes to the nation's racial and ethnic divisions, where do we fit in?


 by Jay Caspian Kang | The New York Magazine | October 10, 2021

During the first days of the Trump administration, when my attention was split between the endless scroll of news on my phone and my infant daughter, who was born five days before the inauguration, I often found myself staring at her eyes, still puffy and swollen from her birth. My wife is half Brooklyn Jew, half Newport WASP, and throughout her pregnancy, I assumed that our child would look more like her than like me. When our daughter was born with a full head of dark hair and almond-shaped eyes, the nurses all commented on how much she looked like her father, which, I admit, felt a bit unsettling, not because of any racial shame but because it has always been difficult for me to see myself in anyone or anything other than myself. But now, while my wife slept at night, I would stand over our daughter’s bassinet, compare her face at one week with photos of myself at that delicate, lumpen age and worry about what it might mean to have an Asian-looking baby in this America rather than one who could either pass or, at the very least, walk around with the confidence of some of the half-Asian kids I had met — tall, beautiful, with strange names and a hard edge to their intelligence.

These pitiful thoughts quickly passed — for better or worse, my talent for cultivating creeping doubts is only surpassed by an even greater talent for chopping them right above the root. The worries were replaced by the normalizing chores of young fatherhood. But sometimes during her naps, I would play the “Goldberg Variations” on our living-room speakers and try to imagine the contours of her life to come.


My daughter spent her first two years in a prewar apartment building with dusty sconces and cracked marble steps in the lobby. The hallways had terrible light because the windows had been painted over with what in a less enlightened time might have been called a “flesh tone” color. Such cosmetic problems will improve with the arrival of more people like us — the shared spaces will begin to look like the building’s gut-renovated apartments, with their soapstone countertops, recessed light fixtures, the Sub-Zero refrigerators bought as an investment for the inevitable sale four to six years down the road.


At the time, it seemed like the other markers of her upper-middle-class life — grape leaves from the Middle Eastern grocery Sahadi’s, the Japanese bridges of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, weekends at her grandparents’ home in Newport — would keep pace with the changes in the building. If she enrolled at St. Ann’s or Dalton or P.S. 321, in nearby Park Slope, she would join other half-Asian and half-white children at New York City’s wealthiest schools.

In December 1979, my mother flew back to Korea from the United States to give birth to me, because she assumed her stay in America would be temporary and I would need Korean citizenship. I have since renounced that Korean citizenship, because it would have required me to serve in the Army, and today my parents live on a farm that sits on five flat acres on an island in Puget Sound. Nearly two acres have been planted with springy, waist-high lavender bushes that bloom in mid-June and are cut down and composted or burned at the end of the summer. There are 20 rows of grapes, a greenhouse filled with tomatoes, squash, cucumbers and Korean herbs, several hundred bulbs of garlic, an overgrown patch of buckwheat and an assortment of potatoes and onions. I met my wife at the farm. She and her best friend had come to pick lavender to sell at a farmers’ market.

A couple of houses down the road, there’s a retreat for female writers. Every summer, the residents stop by the farm to pick lavender for their cabins. Gloria Steinem used to come for many years and got to know my mother. When Steinem gave a talk in Seattle some years back, she acknowledged my mother in the crowd and told everyone that she was happy that her “good friend” had come to see her.

All this, I suppose, is the fruit of assimilation.


I don’t find my family’s narrative to be particularly sympathetic, but for those who might disagree, let’s construct a happy way to tell the story. You could begin with the birth of my mother during Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s liberation of Seoul, amid all the exploding bombs, and some opening like: “On the day my mother was born, the skies over the 38th parallel lit up red.” You could also point out that both sets of grandparents were refugees from North Korea and that dozens of our relatives who stayed behind were very likely killed. We will never know, either way. I suppose that would count as generational trauma.


Or you could start with the moment that my parents stepped off the plane with two suitcases. Then go straight to the Rindge Towers, where we spent our first year in Cambridge, Mass. Those three brick slabs rising up over Fresh Pond are pitch-perfect markers of poverty for someone like me because they are familiar to anyone who went to school “around Boston” — the same people who will be reviewing your books, managing your finances, protecting your legal interests.

From there, you could construct the story of a family on the way up.

Act 1: We open in that Cambridge housing project. Some details of our poverty paired with an anecdote about a friendship with a Black kid down the hall. We close with me coming to some nascent realization about race.

Act II: I tell you about being shoved onto the concrete of the playground at my elementary school by a group of white kids screaming “Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees, look at these.” (My reaction, which I can recall more vividly than the bullying itself, was to bargain with them.)

Act III: I talk about our move to Chapel Hill, N.C., which I suppose I could more vaguely call “the South” — with all its implications. In this telling, I caught the expected amount of harassment in the South. My teachers never seemed to like me. I was kicked out of Social Dance, a genteel weekly event where the white kids in my town dressed up in modest suits and floor-length dresses and learned the fox trot and the waltz. The official reason was that I had worn a pair of white Nike Air Maxes instead of the usual brown or black dress shoes. (This might suggest some slightly hip-hop rebellion, that I was rocking Nikes as my truest form of expression. The reality was that I simply did not have a pair of dress shoes.)

This litany of racial moments would justify the eventual happy ending. The audience would be satisfied that I had suffered for the spoils of assimilation — the prewar apartment with the good bones, the summers at the family farm, the creative networks that could get my child into the Grace Church 2-year-olds and the St. Ann’s 3-year-olds. It might be edifying to hear that the gears of upward mobility in this country can still grind out someone like me.


Artwork by Kensuke Koike. Photograph by Tommy Kha for The New York Times.

What is an Asian American? For decades, the label has been defined by stories like mine, and the politics of the “race” or “group” or whatever you want to call it have reflected the upward mobility of the Asians, largely East Asians, who came to the United States after the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, often referred to as Hart-Celler, after its congressional sponsors, which lifted restrictive quotas on migration and effectively opened up the country to millions of new Americans. The confusion and the vagaries of “Asian American” result, in part, from necessity: What else could you possibly do with a group that includes everyone from well-educated Brahmin doctors from India to impoverished Hmong refugees? How could you tell a unifying story that makes all those immigrants feel as if they’re part of some racial category, especially those, like my daughter, who will grow up mixed-race?


According to the latest census figures, there are nearly 20 million Asian Americans who come from more than 20 different countries. This constitutes a tripling of the 6.6 million Asians who lived in the United States in 1990. And over the past two decades, they have been the fastest-growing demographic group in America. These recent immigrants are settling not only in New York and California, but all over the country, whether the Dakotas, Indiana or West Virginia. Most have no real connection to the term “Asian American,” which was coined by student activists at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1968. It was meant to be political at a time when consciousness groups like the Black Panthers and the Chicano Movement were emerging on college campuses. Today, “Asian American” is mainly a demographic descriptor that satisfies almost nobody outside the same upwardly mobile professionals who enter mostly white middle-class spaces and need a term to describe themselves and everyone who looks like them. I know many people whose families emigrated from Asia. I know almost no one invested in the idea of an “Asian America.” And yet, while most Asian Americans may not feel any fealty toward the identification, that’s the box they check whenever they’re asked to check a box. And if people who look like them are being attacked in the streets, they understand that the attackers almost certainly don’t care about the differences between, say, a Vietnamese immigrant and a Chinese one.

In the years leading up to the pandemic, Asian American politics tended toward the ornate and insular. An unusual amount of energy seemed to be expended on matters of Hollywood representation, which, when distilled to its essence, is a demand by the already privileged for access into one of the few industries that won’t have them. The more radical version of Asian American politics was ultimately nostalgic — an attempt to reclaim the ’60s and ’70s and genuine civil rights heroes like Grace Lee Boggs, the labor and Black Power activist, and Yuri Kochiyama, who had lived in an internment camp and famously cradled Malcolm X’s head as he lay dying — and called for solidarity with Black and Brown people. These ties are nice and inspirational, but they do not mean anything to a vast majority of Asian Americans who came to this country post Hart-Celler. The Berkeley students who coined the phrase “Asian American” had probably come from families that were in this country for generations and lived as anomalies in a country that was Black and white. Given a choice, those activists identified with Black people and tried to forge solidarity among all those who had suffered under American imperialism and white supremacy.

But the immigrants who came to the United States after Hart-Celler, and who now constitute an overwhelming majority of the 20 million Asian Americans, do not see the country in such binary terms. They — we — are many other things, but we are not all that political, nor are we particularly interested in race per se. According to the Pew Research Center, Asian Americans have the widest internal income disparity of any racial group in America: The median Indian American household in America earns $119,000 a year, while the average Burmese family earns $44,400. Twenty-five percent of Burmese immigrants live below the poverty level. For Filipinos, the rate is a mere 7 percent.

Our politics are also diverse. A summer 2020 survey showed that 65 percent of Indian Americans planned to vote for Joe Biden in the 2020 election, 28 percent for Donald Trump and 6 percent said they didn’t know. For Vietnamese, the numbers were 36 percent for Biden, 48 percent for Trump and 16 percent didn’t know. A full 23 percent of Chinese Americans didn’t know.

We, the 20 million, are either poor or we are assimilation machines. Those are the two outcomes.

Every few months I come across assimilated Asian men venting on social media about the time one of their white neighbors in buildings just like mine in Brooklyn mistook them for delivery men, inevitably followed by a firm statement of their credentials: “I guess he didn’t know, I am a journalist/doctor/lawyer/hedge-fund manager!” It’s embarrassing for both sides when this happens, but the implication has always felt so bizarre to me; the real offense is being mistaken for being poor. What sets modern, assimilated Asian Americans apart, when it comes to these sorts of differentiations made by so many immigrant groups, is that our bonds with our brothers and sisters are mostly superficial markers of identity, whether rituals around boba tea, recipes or support for ethnic-studies programs and the like. Indignation tends to be flimsy — we are mad when white chefs cook food our parents cooked, or we clamor about what roles Scarlett Johansson stole from Asian actors. But the critiques generally stay within those sorts of consumerist concerns that do not really speak to the core of an identity because we know, at least subconsciously, that the identity politics of the modern, assimilated Asian American are focused on getting a seat at the wealthy, white liberal table. Or, if we want to be generous, we fight about food and representation and executive-suite access because we want our children to live without really having to think about any of this — to have the spoils of full whiteness.

We, in other words, want to become as white as white will allow. For the first three decades of my life, this process felt inevitable. I tried on several different selves with wildly contradictory politics: a radical, a revolutionary Marxist in my teens, a Buddhist in my early 20s, followed by a bout of self-destruction and then a more stable period as a professional writer. During those phases, each of which was deeply felt, it never occurred to me that I wouldn’t end up fine. In retrospect, I don’t really know why I believed that — things could certainly have gone wrong, and for a while in my 20s, they did — but because I knew all my middle-class Asian and white friends would be fine, it followed that I would be, too.


On those rare instances when I would think about having a child, I assumed her life would be less complicated than my own. The stubborn optimism of the immigrant dictates that while your own life often shows just how quickly things can get catastrophically worse, American progress remains immutable. The second-generation immigrant envisions progress as an incline: Our immigrant parents push us halfway up the slope, we hike the rest of the way and then gently roll our own kids over the summit.



Artwork by Kensuke Koike. Photograph by Tommy Kha for The New York Times.

Monday, September 27, 2021

New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools

The current anti-Critical Race Theory debate is fully about turning a blind eye and negating disparities between whites and people of color while enhancing the power and privileges of white people. 

Racism's greatest power is both to reinscribe not only the idea of a "white" identity to begin with, but also to socialize whites into being prejudicial and discriminatory while erasing the histories of people of color, the vast majority of whom are native to this continent. Note: There is no country or continent named "White" such that whites come from somewhere else. Trite but true.

And this isn't only a "white people problem," but also a people of color problem to the degree they buy into these fictions.

This work by an anti-CRT Cornell Law School professor named William Jacobson also reminds us that attacks against native peoples are ongoing racial projects themselves. 

He brings to mind a person named Felix S. Cohen, solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior who in 1940 set up a task force of case law pertaining to Indian rights so that he could create a plaintiff-friendly "handbook" designed as an "authoritative" source for ostensibly limiting—and according to scholar Vine Deloria, Jr.—actually ending Native Americans' "political existence and the merging of Indian rights into domestic American law." (p. 95) He describes this text as getting elevated "to the status of a treatise—an elevation it never deserved." (p. 95) 

Hence, Felix S. Cohen's "handbook" was the tool of conquest in its day—not unlike Professor Jacobson's website today.

-Angela Valenzuela

*Deloria Jr, V. (2006). Conquest masquerading as law. Unlearning the language of conquest: Scholars expose anti-Indianism in America, 94-107.


New website tracks where critical race theory is taught at US schools


A Cornell Law School professor has launched a new website about critical race theory curriculum in the US — in hopes of educating “concerned” parents about how the controversial movement impacts education.

Criticalrace.org, created by William Jacobson, features a state-by-state list of more than 200 colleges and universities promoting critical race theory — which he describes as “a radical ideology that focuses on race as the key to understanding society, and objectifies people based on race.”

“The website is a resource for parents and students who no longer can assume they will be left alone,” Jacobson told Fox News. “The entire ideology of CRT and ‘anti-racist’ training is that ‘silence is violence.'”

He added, “As we head into college application and selection season, we need to get parents, in particular, to focus on CRT that will be forced on their kids.”

Launched last weekend, the website was a six-month project by Legal Insurrection, the conservative blog run by Jacobson. It contains information about various schools — including Cornell in Ithaca, where Jacobson teaches — as well as links to critical race training activity there.


Jacobson told Fox News that people need to know that higher education “is the source of the problem.”

“It provides the ideological mothers’ milk for activists and trains the people who then go onto jobs in government and primary/secondary education and the ‘journalists’ who push this coverage,” he said.

The website includes a database of over 200 colleges and universities teaching critical race theory.
The website includes a database of over 200 colleges and universities teaching critical race theory.
criticalrace.org

“This summer, Cornell University announced a series of actions to respond to advocates of critical race theory,” the website reads. “A for-credit, university-wide graduation requirement covering ‘systemic racism, colonialism, bias and inequity’ is under development. Additionally, the university announced the creation of an ‘anti-racism’ research center, as well as possible reform of its police department.”

Critics, including Discovery Institute researcher Chris Rufo, believe critical race theory perpetuates racism by encouraging segregation, Fox News reported.

Proponents say the intellectual movement helps people better understand race and its relevance to all social interactions.

“Racism is not extraordinary,” Angela Onwuachi-Willig, an expert on the theory at Boston University School of Law, told the Boston Globe. “Race and racism are basically baked into everything we do in our society. It’s embedded in our institutions. It’s embedded in our minds and hearts.”

Thursday, July 01, 2021

The Hubris of Anglo Racial Thought by Emilio Zamora, Ph.D.

I am happy to share this blog post by past-President of the Texas State Historical Association and University of Texas Historian, Dr. Emilio Zamora. You can learn more about him here. It provides a cogent example of historians' craft, examining text, subtext, and context in the assessment of early 1900s, Anglo racial thought in Texas and its relevance to us both in its time, as well as today in the current battle over history curriculum—masquerading as opposing Critical Race Theory—in the Texas State Legislature.

I don't know about you, but I think he needs to keep blogging. 

Enjoy!

-Angela Valenzuela


The Hubris of Anglo Racial Thought


by


Emilio Zamora, Ph.D.

Blog Contributor


Department of History, University of Texas at Austin


Ultra-conservatives like the Republican members of the Texas State Legislature continue to condemn the history of race thinking, racial discrimination, and racial inequality as a regular subject of study and learning in our classrooms, and they do it descaradamente (with a shameless, consummate “hubris”).  

Their reluctance to consider this history and its continuing relevance is understandable.  Why would they turn to history if it proves that race explains major parts of our recorded experience, including slavery, Jim Crow, differences in employment, education, and political representation, health disparities, voter suppression, injuries to a sense of worth, and racialized identities among Anglos, Mexicans, and Blacks? According to a growing number of accounts by the press, ultra-conservatives instead prefer to falsely accuse teachers of advancing a theory of race that blames Anglos and their children for the evils of race. They continue to make such accusations without evidence while also advancing the notion that race is not necessary in the classroom.  

Texas Republicans seem to believe that they do not have to explain anything since they are in power, meaning that they can do as they please without fearing any repercussions at the polls.  They are mistaken.  In a Democracy, those in power are obligated to advance the principle of shared governance that minimally requires a fair, honest, and open process of dialogue and law-making in cooperation with the opposition.  The citizenry also rightfully expects comportment of the highest order and deserves the greatest and highest good that their representatives can provide.  Their monumental failing at this moment of the debate on the teaching of race, however, is that they do not ground their views on history. 

To demonstrate this, I offer a racialized text from Mexican American history to argue that sensible and verifiable observations of race in our state’s history offer important lessons not solely for our youth, but also for those whose job in government is to serve and represent the people of Texas well:

"When first discovered, Texas consisted of mostly cosmic junk, including cactus, rattlesnakes, horned toads, tarantulas and four kinds of climate.  Later, the greaser, a species of human invented by the Spaniards moved in and the rattlesnakes moved north in search of a better society.  In the past seventy years, however, great improvement have been made."  (Zamora, 1993, p. 49)

Adopted as a resolution offered by the delegates from El Paso to the annual meeting of the Texas State Federation of Labor held in San Antonio in 1912, the statement clearly broadcasts widespread racial animus against Mexicans, expressed in a language of comical derision intended to foster public approval.

The clearest meaning in the text is that the ostensibly superior Anglos have a demonstrated ability to develop Texas, whereas Mexicans do not, reducing them to such a lowly, sub-human species that even rattlesnakes hold them in contempt. Aside from being deeply offensive, the resolution exaggerates the role of Anglos in Texas history that is nevertheless emblematic of their baseless, racialized resentment—other than for the shameful purpose of reinforcing unequal relations. The lesson is less about Mexicans than it is about the narcissistic and intolerant posture of Anglo supremacist culture.

An underlying theme, or subtext, in the resolution is that an evolutionary interpretation of history based on the Darwinian model of the “fittest” supports its conclusion of socially superior Anglos and socially inferior Mexicans.  Implicit in this theme is the rejection of the lesser known evolutionary view of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who underscored that micro and macro organisms had an equal capacity to adjust to life’s difficulties and to evolve.  At its core, the resolution denies Mexicans their natural, “God-given” worth and potential, while heralding the appearance of a savior-like people imbued with a hubris to demonstrate their self-professed biological and cultural superiority, an unending political project.

The historical context adds meaning to the resolution and underscores the importance of using race as a tool for understanding our past.  The first contextual point that is worth noting is that the delegates from El Paso proposed the resolution and that the labor meeting occurred in San Antonio. This suggests that the large concentrations of Mexicans in the two cities did not deter the assembly from openly stating their racialized views.  They may have thought it necessary to adopt the resolution to psychologically prepare the Anglo and possibly Black population for the unsavory plans by local, state, and federal authorities to deport and repatriate to Mexico hundreds of thousands of Mexican Nationals and Mexicans Americans in the 1920s and 1930s.  Organized labor and nativist organizations (made up mostly of Anglos) were complicit in thought and deed when they supported the expulsions because of the unfounded fear that employers would replace them with Mexican workers, depress their wages, and destroy the unions.  

The context of an increasingly bloated labor market and the fears of labor competition also offers evidence of a robust organizational life in Mexican communities that, according to several labor histories, included large numbers of independent workers’ organizations and mutual aid societies.  In other words, Mexican workers were demonstrating a capacity to self-organize and their leadership from places like El Paso and San Antonio had begun to question the failure by Anglo organized labor to incorporate them, calling out their exclusion as a callous form of racial discrimination.  The resolution by organized labor, in other words, may have been more than an expression of racial thinking that disregarded fellow Mexican unionists, derailing any possibility of inter-ethnic solidarity. The segregationist Anglo unionists were acting like a labor cartel in response to a perceived racialized threat.

 An examination of a single act in history like a resolution, even if accompanied by sensible observations of text, subtext, and context, may seem to some like a limited exercise in the historical interpretation of the significance of race. The study of race in the history of the United States, however, inescapably consists of such focused observations, underscoring their indisputable, thematic importance in our classrooms.

Texas historians have also developed a rich historiography on race and ethnic relations since the early 1970s that allows us to see the 1912 resolution as a representative record of racism that we must heed, especially at a moment like this when ultra-conservative Republicans seek to deny a vast, illuminating body of knowledge of our country’s racial past and present.

In Lak Ech



Zamora, The World of the Mexican Worker in Texas (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1993). To Purchase the book: https://www.amazon.com/Mexican-Worker-Centennial-Association-Students/dp/0890966788


Monday, May 31, 2021

Why Conservatives Want to Cancel the 1619 Project: Why Anti-CRT Bills Matter to Higher Education

The fight over Texas' HB 3979 bill that I've addressed in this blog over the past few weeks is currently a K-12 issue. That said, higher education should care deeply about this as it will soon migrate to higher education. This is already happening in Idaho [read: Idaho moves to ban critical race theory instruction in all public schools, including universities], as well as in the case of award-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones' who was denied tenure by the University of North Carolina Board of Regents. 

According to Adam Serwer at The Atlantic, this took place because of her viewpoints, most notably, her work on the "1619 Project." This is clearly a blow to Academic Freedom that exists to create a space in universities to be independent thinkers, scholars, and critics, a feature of liberal democracies that like a free press, help society to be informed and self-correcting.

The UNC Board of Regents disregarded this, as well as her meritoriousness.  Merit always counts in such decisions, however, Hannah-Jones' Pulitzer Prize and MacArthur genius grant weren't sufficient because key people in power do not want to address our country's deep racial divides—even if doing so promotes domestic tranquility and a virtuous society. 

They subscribe instead to the unsupportable myth that history plays no role in today's unequal outcomes, thusly necessitating a suppression of critical readings of history which is what the fight over HB 3979 is about, as Serwer thankfully also mentions below. The irony here is an inescapable contradiction that if inequality were solely an artifact of one's individual effort and ability, then why fear the truth of history?

Just as we know that the 50s gave rise to the 60s [see: "It Was The Stultifying 1950s That Provoked The 1960s Rebellions], Serwer's conclusion that moves like these are what set the stage "for the next awakening" is historically on point. And for that, we should be hopeful, grasping in a fresh way, I trust, the power of history, historical memory, and critically consciousness teachers and professors.

-Angela Valenzuela


Why Conservatives Want to Cancel the 1619 Project


Objections to the appointment of Nikole Hannah-Jones to an academic chair are the latest instance of conservatives using the state to suppress ideas they consider dangerous.