Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Peace Prize photo, 1906.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
American sociologist and eugenicist Edward Alsworth Ross (1866-1951)
Typical behavior of a white person new to oppression.
1. Tends to have hope
2. Tends to be unaware oppressed people were here before them
3. Tends to point to ex of extremism as the primary consequence
4. Tends to focus on their own oppression
5. Overall doesn’t know shit.
— Amene (@Ange_Amene) October 7, 2018
Some may not like the bluntness of @Ange_Amene, but I’ve always found her willingness to be true to herself, even if it enrages fellow Democrats and/or white feminists, to be refreshing and much-needed. And I also happen to think she’s right about “doesn’t know shit”; privilege more often than not has protected white folk from knowing and understanding history as it was, rather than as it was taught (often in support of white supremacy). So while it would be easier to stick with something lighter, today I’m focusing on a little-known phrase, “race suicide”, and how one prominent sociologist framed it and popularized the concept.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Moritz von Schwind: Sabina of Steinbach, painted 1844. The existence of Sabina von Steinbach may be a myth, but women chipping away at the patriarchy is not.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Written on border: ‘Jan. 10, 1878’. Just regular old 1870s style.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
The Battle of the Overpass, 1937
Throughout the course of Labor Day, we see reminders of what unions have accomplished for all of us; tweets like this are typical:
Happy #LaborDay! We’re grateful for all that organized labor has done for workers, and we’ll support them as they strive for equitable wages, dependable pensions, and workers’ rights in the future.#ALDems #alpolitics #NewEraForAlabama pic.twitter.com/Zxt7FG682a
— Tuscaloosa Dems (@TuscaloosaDems) September 3, 2018
Sadly, this anodyne and misleading tweet from the GOP is also typical:
Today we celebrate and honor the force that drives our country forward: the American worker. #LaborDay pic.twitter.com/B91vl5OJZo
— GOP (@GOP) September 3, 2018
What gets lost amidst the parades and barbecues, speeches and parties, politicians and public is the often costly path that was necessary to make the gains we now so-often take for granted. Today, I’m going to share one story: the story of the Battle of the Overpass.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Today’s post was prompted by two tweets. First, this one:
OMG, this is SO great!!!!
We republished an excerpt of this on Lawfare recently, but people, read this book. It is short. It is brilliantly written in first rate layman’s prose. And it is the greatest thing ever written on the subject. Here’s the excerpt: https://t.co/Yi8kcRyryc https://t.co/vB1KTdU5kr— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) August 23, 2018
Needless to say, I downloaded the handbook (only 67 pages) on my Nook immediately. The second motivation for this post was this tweet:
Help is on the way https://t.co/RPr3Bpflzm
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) August 26, 2018
It may be unpopular to say it, but Rep. Swalwell is 100% correct. Of course, it’s The Hill, so it’s necessary to go beyond the clickbait headline to read this:
“We don’t want to be as reckless with the facts as he is,” he said. “I think having thorough investigations, putting forth an impenetrable case, doing it in a bipartisan way is the proper way to do this, but we’re not there yet.” Swalwell: We don’t have enough evidence to impeach Trump
So what do we need to know about the process of impeachment that we think we know, but may not really know?
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Not to worry…no Belgium Daily Doubles today
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Last week I mentioned that I was reading a book on the history of lynching, which resulted in more than a few folks expressing trepidation about my next post. Fear not! The post is here, and I should point out that technically, the book, On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-First Century by Sherrilyn Ifill is not a history as much as it is a call for restorative justice. In her 2007 book, she focuses on two lynchings and several averted lynchings which occurred on the Eastern Shore of Maryland during the 1930s, as well as numerous references to lynchings elsewhere in the country. Today’s post, using her book as a template, will focus on white silence and complicity then, the ongoing impact of that silence, and what reconciliation can look like.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Lochner’s Home Bakery, where it all started.
For the past two weeks, I’ve been discussing Lochner v. New York, the opinion, and the dissents. This week it’s time to take on the some analysis; both the once-prevalent view that, “Aside from Dred Scott itself, Lochner v. New York is now considered the most discredited decision in Supreme Court history” (A History of the Supreme Court by Bernard Schwartz, Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 190) and more recent efforts to “rehabilitate” Lochner.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Lochner’s Home Bakery, where it all started.
Last week, the background leading to the Lochner v. New York lawsuit was discussed, as well as the decision of the majority which reversed the holdings of the county court, the New York Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals. (Part One) Initially, the vote was 5-4 in favor of upholding the New York law, and Justice John Harlan wrote the draft opinion, while Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the draft dissent. Somewhere along the way, however, one justice changed their vote (most sources suggest it was Chief Justice Melville Fuller), and the opinion of Justice Harlan, with Justices Edward White and William Day concurring, became the dissent. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a separate dissent.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
