I'm still trying to process how Carlson wrote about wanting to PUNCH A 69-YEAR-OLD MINISTER IN THE FACE because the civil rights leader had the audacity to denounce white supremacy while touring a memorial to the slave trade.
"Let's see your citations" is a pretty good rule of thumb for reporting, it turns out.
What's really remarkable about all this is how many critics of Critical Race Theory believe -- with 100% confidence -- that it was designed specifically and solely to make white kids feel bad.
Which is both insane and a deeply narcissistic & self-centered way to see the world.
Deleting this thread because I think people are right in noting that I misread the legislature's language a bit.
Though it seems what they wrote is actually worse?
I read the highlighted lines as Florida only wanting American history to deal with the founding era -- it's poorly written, and the emphasis on "the creation of a new nation" threw me -- but as others noted, the emphasis seems to be on the *principles* of the new nation.
Teaching US history just through the Declaration's principles is like assessing a 50-year marriage through the wedding vows, or maybe just the marriage proposal.
You can't just focus on the intentions. You've got to address what happened after (and before!) that big moment.
Those who liberated the Nazi extermination camps firmly believed that the horrors that happened there needed to be witnessed widely, so they would never happen again.
In early August 1945, portions of the Third US Army came upon Ohrdruf, a Nazi labor camp and a subcamp within the larger Buchenwald system.
Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George Patton toured the camp. The sights and smells of what had happened there -- torture, mutilation, murder -- were so overpowering that even a veteran soldier like Patton (on the left here at the camp) turned away and vomited.
I'm thrilled to announce that @julianzelizer and I have put together a terrific crew of historians for a forthcoming collection on myths about American history, to be published by the good people at @BasicBooks .
For a while, we've been looking for a way to take what historians do on Twitter -- challenging the myths and misrepresentations that partisans make about American history -- and fleshing them out into a full volume aimed at a broad readership.
We hope this collection does that.
We've assembled an all-star collection of contributors:
There's bipartisan opposition when the questions are presented in Republicans' odd framing by a Republican polling outfit, a detail which is finally revealed in the tenth paragraph here.