In case you missed it, my creepy stalker @DineshDSouza is back, repeating his bizarre claim that "progressive historians" never write about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, segregation and white supremacy.
D'Souza has repeatedly promised he'll show examples of this trend he insists is incredibly widespread -- examples that are surely at his fingertips! -- but it's been years now.
(He *does* apparently have plenty time to tell everyone else in his replies how very important he is.)
Perhaps we can all help D'Souza out here by identifying any "progressive textbooks" that do, in fact, acknowledge the Democrats' past ties to slavery, segregation and white supremacy.
That way, he can rule those suspects out and move more quickly on to the others.
I'll start.
Howard Zinn probably looms large when people think of leftist histories of the US, so let's start there.
"Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation."
Huh, seems like Zinn gave up the secret. Well, he's probably the only one.
How about Eric Foner?
He's a huge name and his textbook is one of the more widely used ones. I bet *he* hides the Democrats' ties to --
Yikes, the Klan was effectively the "military arm of the Democratic Party in the South."
Huh. That seems bad.
OK, OK, that's two.
OK, let's try Liberty, Equality, Power, the textbook that several of my former colleagues like Jim McPherson and John Murrin and huge figures like @glgerstle wrote.
They're suspiciously progressive, so I bet they hid the Democrats' role in Jim Crow and ... nope.
Three for three
Hmm, let's try David Henkin and Rebecca McLennan, two historians from the godless leftist world of UC-Berkeley.
I bet *they* can be counted on to hide the Democrats' very secret --
Goddammit.
Well, let's try These United States, a recent textbook by progressive historians @GilmoreGlenda and @TomSugrue.
I'm sure *they* hid Democrats' role as the party of white supremacy in the South, because --
Nope.
All right, I bet I can find an example for D'Souza if I look for a textbook that *explicitly* identify themselves as "progressive histories" because they'll surely be in on this very real scam and ...
Damn, really?
Maybe it's a generational thing?
I bet younger leftist scholars like the ones behind the online textbook of @AmericanYawp are pushing this thing. Dinesh always knows what the kids are up to, right?
Well, let's see and ... no.
Well, crap.
Zinn. Foner. McPherson, Murrin, Gerstle, et al. Henkin & McLennan. Gilmore & Sugrue. Carroll. Even the Yawp crew.
They *all* let this really big secret about Democrats' history with slavery and segregation right out of the bag.
I'm not sure where else to look.
Maybe you all can help @DineshDSouza out by providing screenshots here of more books that actually acknowledge this very secret history, so he can cross those off his list too.
Historians, add your own work! Everyone else, check your libraries.
Weird, I write about Democrats being segregationists in my book. And you wrote about Democrats’ support for slavery in *your* book?
Hmm, it’s almost like D’Souza doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
I mean, check out these dire threats to America ... slavery, fascism, communism and (squints) progressivism and identity politics?
The idea that affirmative action was somehow a repudiation of King's vision -- WHEN MLK EXPLICITLY ENDORSED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND CHARACTERIZED AS AN EXTENSION OF THE MOVEMENT -- is just insanely stupid.
And to release this ahistorical garbage on MLK Day? Goddamn.
As @julianzelizer and I noted here, Ford’s pardon — which he sincerely, I think, believed was necessary for the nation — set a horrid precedent for the presidency.
It wasn’t an automatic shift. Indeed, as I detailed in my chapter in this volume, Jimmy Carter went to great lengths — even testifying before Congress in one inquiry — to show he was not above the law.
Now, to be clear, a 306-232 margin in the Electoral College isn't a landslide -- it wasn't when Trump landed it in 2016, and it isn't now that Biden racked it up in 2020.
Both of them, in fact, are in the bottom fifth of EC margins all time. See here:
That said, Trumpworld has spent the past four years insisting that a 306-232 margin -- actually 304-227 after the EC voted for real -- definitely WAS a landslide, so it's pretty funny that they're on the other end of this.