There was also a significant school of thought (that, full disclosure, I wrote my master's thesis on) that black Americans would simply go extinct, outcompeted in a Darwinian struggle
The 1870 census, which included a very significant undercount of the black population (for fairly obvious reasons), gave some steam to this theory
It was also repurposed by some southerners, who may or may not have been sincere adherents to the race extinction idea, to argue that addressing civil rights issues was ultimately pointless, since the black race was doomed in any event
Finally, when the 1880 census count was more accurate, the decade-over-decade comparison created the appearance of meteoric black population growth, which led to a panic in some quarters over the prospect of a geometrically expanding black population taking over the south
Strangely the prescription for THIS problem was identical to the prescription for the exact opposite problem of race extinction: the extension and continuation of white supremacy
(I should say, I'm obviously talking about America after the Civil War, not the America of the founding like Jamelle, although the roots of race extinction theory predate the end of slavery)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dems were NEVER NEVER NEVER going to get significant bipartisan buy-in for this investigation, so the next best thing (which might secretly have been the best thing all along) is an ultra-partisan affair, with the GOP on the side of the insurrectionists.
A hint to House Dems: your committee has exactly as much investigative authority if it proceeds on an aggressive, unremittingly partisan basis as it does if it proceeds on some kind of bipartisan consensus basis.
At the time, a lot of Dem party shills mocked the idea that it would have been wise for Pelosi to proceed immediately into impeachment and removal, or that the Democrats' dithering after the attack had any cost. But as usual, it did
"Impeach him instantly, don't wait, any delay will cost GOP support" was a consistent view many of us held since the afternoon of Jan. 6. The idea that we're looking for things to be mad about in hindsight is easily rebutted by the public record
Anyway there's a small but extremely vicious community on here whose organizing principle is "Democratic leaders are ruthlessly competent political operators who seize every opportunity available to them" and just, imagine believing that
Are the people who insisted the lab leak theory was some kind of case study in media groupthink ever going to turn the same microscope on themselves, now that it’s increasingly clear that lab leak mania was itself evidence-free groupthink on their part? foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/15/lab…
Seems to me that if you’re going to write about how media refusal to take this theory seriously is a “fiasco” that reveals institutional biases, and then it turns out you yourself fell for a bunch of shaky non-evidence, it’s time for some reflection! slowboring.com/p/the-medias-l…
If you’re scared of groupthink, shouldn’t “I embraced a bunch of very tenuous evidence, often sourced to officials in a highly untrustworthy previous administration, that validated certain priors of mine” be the sort of thing that merits self-examination nymag.com/intelligencer/…
One of the ways gerontocracy gets entrenched is that it becomes impossible to criticize longtime leaders, who are afforded great respect simply because they've been important for so long.
When's the last time you read a mainstream piece questioning the competence of Dem elders?
It's particularly frustrating because there has been lots of mainstream commentary about the importance of Trump accountability, bold reform legislation, and so forth.
But no one will complete the loop and wonder if the group failing to do this is perhaps not up to the task.
You'll get fancy NYT columnists who will write over and over about how we must hold Trump to account for his abuses. Then, Nancy Pelosi simply refuses to take basic steps towards that end.
absolutely loving watching the Democratic Party shills dutifully cheer the (false) news Biden is admitting Ukraine to NATO, something that, if true, would instantly place us at war with Russia
Hey, @anitaM86@jkfecke@reesetheone1@chris_notcapn, since Ukraine is not, in fact, being admitted to NATO, do you still think Biden should admit the country, as you tweeted excitedly mere minutes ago? Or has your view mysteriously shifted to align with his?
Incredible. Anita still believes Ukraine is joining NATO. Jeff thinks it's bad that Ukraine isn't joining NATO, although he's relieved there won't be a nuclear war. Stay tuned for more adventures in cognitive dissonance!