But I didn’t see photographs of white people so full of hatred and violence.
I keep thinking that these are the latest in a long line of violehnt white supremacists. And how Whiteness erases its traces to seem seamless.
I only saw these photos of segregationists from the Civil Rights Movement era as an adult. https://t.co/j2YdXSBpXv
Who are they? Start ID\u2019ing them pic.twitter.com/c4RPj4l0zU
— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) January 6, 2021
But I didn’t see photographs of white people so full of hatred and violence.
Instead media relentlessly peddled images of Black and brown men engaged in violence
Despite all the evidence, White cops killing Black and brown civilians are seen as anomalies, White terrorists as lone wolves/mentally ill
And the most important part for me is not the press photos. These invariably focus on the most eye-catching, attention grabbing visuals.
More from Legal
These people weren't murdered. They were legally executed after convictions for horrendous crimes, being sentenced to the death penalty, and going through countless appeals.
You can oppose the death penalty as a punishment without pretending that the people executed were victims or that carrying out those executions is comparable to murder.
As an example: Daniel Lee was a white supremacist who murdered a family (including an 8-year-old girl) by suffocating them with bags and then dumping their bodies in a swamp.
That's whose name @CoriBush wants you to remember.
Wesley Purkey admitted to kidnapping, raping, and then murdering a 16-year-old girl named Jennifer Long. He then dismembered her body. He also beat an 80-year-old woman to death.
Maybe we should learn the names of his victims instead, @CoriBush?
Dustin Honken was a meth dealer that murdered 5 people, including 2 girls under the age of 11, because their dad was set to testify against him on drug charges. He was specifically sentenced to death for killing the 2 kids.
The 13 people murdered by Trump's death row killing spree:
— Cori Bush (@CoriBush) January 17, 2021
Daniel Lee
Wesley Purkey
Dustin Honken
Lezmond Mitchell
Keith Nelson
William LeCroy Jr.
Christopher Vialva
Orlando Hall
Brandon Bernard
Alfred Bourgeois
Lisa Montgomery
Corey Johnson
Dustin Higgs
Say their names.
You can oppose the death penalty as a punishment without pretending that the people executed were victims or that carrying out those executions is comparable to murder.
As an example: Daniel Lee was a white supremacist who murdered a family (including an 8-year-old girl) by suffocating them with bags and then dumping their bodies in a swamp.
That's whose name @CoriBush wants you to remember.
Wesley Purkey admitted to kidnapping, raping, and then murdering a 16-year-old girl named Jennifer Long. He then dismembered her body. He also beat an 80-year-old woman to death.
Maybe we should learn the names of his victims instead, @CoriBush?
Dustin Honken was a meth dealer that murdered 5 people, including 2 girls under the age of 11, because their dad was set to testify against him on drug charges. He was specifically sentenced to death for killing the 2 kids.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
