This of course is a much more challenging goal. What would you make of that challenge?

How does this strategic choice fit in with their goal of creating a new type of society?

It would be interesting to find the founding documents of SCLC and see what they stated as their original goal there.

But can it be addressed through policy?

These are different goals--the first two imply legal change, the third a new kind of society.

So what's the point you want to make with these various examples? The impact of media? I'd like that to be clearer.

What do you mean by this?

What made this possible?

I like the analysis here, seeing these factors in relation to each other. But I wonder: is this kind of like what Booker T. Washington says?

instituted?

gained?

And there was de facto segregation in the North

Did the New Right also use the language of freedom?

This would be a good place to connect back to the point you open with--about redefinition of people being the key first step.

Media, I think--social media didn't exist at the time.

But only under pressure. Even the article you link to here states that Kennedy was reluctant to act, and had to be pressured into it.

If see your point about DuBois, but Washington also took this view--they just saw the way to redefinition differently.

Interesting idea.

This is an interesting argument--that these "sideways reparations policies" miss the point.

An interesting, well-supported point.

It seems me this is a key point, for Coates, too--the owning up is as important as any financial part of the reparations, perhaps more so.

But is addressing racism in society the same thing as reparations? I'm not sure it is.

"Ending racist laws" is ambiguous, of course. It could actually mean less government intervention. If a state repeals Jim Crow laws, that actually reduces government regulation of society. But there can be racism and discrimination to address that aren't growing out of laws like that?

This raises an interesting point. Obviously, there are those who think that institutional racism does still exist. So if you would disagree with them on government policy, is it because you view societal conditions differently, and not the role of government?

Greater? Or just different?

Again, an interesting example, which complicates the story somewhat.

This could be an interesting example, if you dig into it. It is an expansive but at the same time limited use of government power.

You've got three categories here: negro history, black history, and mainstream white history. Is there a category of "American history"? Can such a thing exist?

I think this makes sense, given the definitions you provide above. But this is a place where you can make your definitions work for you. Bring them back in here, and show how, for example, oppression calls into question the mainstream white history you talked about earlier.

I would love to see a hyperlink here. I'm sure there are interesting sources online you could link to, to provide an example.

I would say, not just black people.

It was the 15th amendment that did this.

They didn't really suppress him. Eisenhower used troops to enforce a federal court ruling.

Jim Crow actually developed gradually, and wasn't fully implemented until the 1890s.

This could be better

Do you mean ratify?

In your captions, you should aim to go beyond just identifying the image, and instead connect it with the point you're making.

I think this is true. What can it tell us?

More organized by CORE, I believe

This is a nicely written piece, with a clear point. I wonder about how to integrate the struggle along with the injustice. What's striking about the two quotes is that one emphasizes struggle, while the other emphasizes injustice. Is it either/or? Is there a conception of America and American history that incorporates both?

So is America a "solved" problem? Or a problem being solved?

And yet it's both isn't it. The US is marked by injustice--but also struggles for freedom.

Rather than putting in a hyperlink, it looks better to name the source, and then hyperlink the name.

This starts out well, with an interesting comparison about protests in the two movements. The discussion of preconditions for the CRM doesn't have a parallel with the women's movement, so the argument feels a bit incomplete. I wish those two parts--people's voices and preconditions--could be a bit better integrated.

This is an important idea. Can you integrate it with what comes next--the preconditions for success?

Though only after a court ruling--is that relevant?

There's an important point here which I think is also part of Coates's argument--that it's not reparations for slavery per se, but for broader racist treatment of black Americans, treatment, legal government-sanctioned discrimination, which endured into the lives of people living today.

I'm not sure if I would use this term for them--their legal status was unclear, therefore not quite the same as an indentured servant.

Didn't some suffragette groups use protests, too?

Note that this link is not just about Brown.

This would make an interesting opening sentence to the piece.

You end in an interesting place, suggesting education (which I think you construe broadly) as the appropriate form of reparations. It is an interesting idea, and one that aligns with aspects of Coates’s thinking, but would it be true reparations, in the sense of helping to make up the harm done. Overall, I think you could more strongly make the case that, as you put it “today’s inequalities are a product of the constant oppression that Black America faced.” You also need to work on getting the details of the history right—it enhances credibility. For example, your description of the Dred Scott case is not quite correct, nor is the timing you give for the lives of MKA and Malcolm X.

No need to include a works cited in a piece like this—it is not formal academic writing. In a sense, the hyperlinks serve as “citations.”

You should connect this to racism.

Are you sure? Be careful of underestimating the newly freed slaves.

Slaves? Not exactly indentured servants.

This link isn't working. I'm also a little concerned about the agenda of the maker of the image. Do you know its provenance?

Any way to make captions single-spaced?

This is an interesting link, but not as good at making this particular point, I think.

I've long thought these twin discoveries made him one of the most important people in antebellum America--simultaneously industrializing the north while putting the south on a path to slavery.

This is unclear. I'm sure we know about ships before this.

Their slaves?

This overall point of this paragraph is unclear, and you jump around a lot. Also, what is this telling about slavery?

Not an escape--it was a revolt.

They kind of did--for example, by citing Biblical passages that justified slavery, or seemed to.

I'd like to see you connect to the history of slavery here, rather than to South Carolina today. You really only mention slavery once in this paragraph, and that is very much in passing.

Sort of. What he says is that that many black Americans came through the ports of Charleston and Savannah. But that doesn't mean they lived in the Gullah region.

Though here, too, I think you can stress a point you make in the other entries--the double-edged nature of this aspect of slavery, as a means of control and a means of resistance.

I think this could be phrased more clearly.

What do you mean by this? That field hands had different lodging?

This again, is a pretty good statement of your argument. So by race, do you mean "observed differences"? A clear statement of definitions of these key terms would help your argument.

Odd definition. By that logic, I and my extended family constitute a "race." Surely there must be more.

In addition, social scientists now overwhelmingly agree that race is a social construct--important to remember.

So the idea is that the law was not racist in intention, but was racist in effect (esp. its effect on ways of thinking)?

Unfree labor, yes. Slaves, no. There is a difference.

Yes and no. True, it wasn't until 1706 that slavery was equated with blackness. But hereditary status of black slavery had existed since the early 17th century (Coombs claims by the 1620s) and hereditary slavery was recognized by law in Virginia by 1662.

I think this is the key point in your argument. I like that you state it so clearly.

What do you mean by this?

Not exactly correct--not all Europeans look like. Hair color, complexion, etc.

Do you mean "natural"? Because what you seem to be suggesting here is that these distinctions, far from being "natural," was a result of direct human intervention.

This link doesn't seem to work. Is it supposed to be a hyperlink?

Rather than putting in the whole URL, you should say Source: History.org, then hyperlink the name of the source.

Really against the Virginia colonial leadership

Can you give me an example or two?

The "were targeted" part is crucial. The key question is: targeted why?

Does it?

Again, your framing is very interesting--though I note that the description on the webpage you link to suggests that it was for a slave child.

Pretty good article--but only a preview is available, unfortunately.

I like the way you frame this piece, around the sense of violence being fundamental to the slave system--an important point to stress.

But this was not a widespread phenomenon.

How so? Weren't there laws about slavery in place by this point?

I'm not sure I would go this far. Historians usually use the word "unfree" to describe their status.

This formulation is challenging. Given that courts are official, social institutions, it seems odd to say that "society" wasn't racist. Does it depend on how widespread the discrimination is, or how "official" it is?

The Wikipedia page you link to does not have this picture on it. Also, you should provide a caption. Finally, this isn't really a good picture of Anthony Johnson--he's clearly dressed in 19th-century clothes.

Actually in Africa

I think you're right that this is the key transformation. I think you could explore the complexity of how it happened a bit more.

So, in other words, 36 years before Bacon's Rebellion.

Hadn't it already started?

Note that legalized slavery was already in place by this point.

Since you earlier define racism as "racial hierarchy," this means that racism preceded slavery?

So from the start there were distinctions drawn between Europeans and Africans. How does that fit into your argument about race and racism?

This was certainly true (eventually) in New Amsterdam, as we read. Was this true of Virginia as well?

What exactly this means is key.

I'm not sure this is true. The link about indentured servitude you have above, for example, says nothing about this.

Indentured? Was all indentured servitude due to debt?

Is this "race"?

No need to include the word "caption" -- I know it's a caption.

Notice that this is before Bacon's Rebellion.

This is one of those questions that is much debated among historians--some supporting this view, some supporting other interpretations.

Do you know anything about the quality of this site?

This would be a good place to put in a supporting hyperlink--it's the kind of claim that could use support.

Avoid passive voice. Who saw them this way?

As I note above, this suggests a difference from the get-go beyond economics. Africans (and Indians) were treated differently from very early on. How does that fit into your account?

Not exactly--not how a person in the 17th century would have dressed. Looks very antebellum.

For some reason I can't get this link to work.

What about Coomb's suggestion that hereditary slavery for Africans existed by the 1620s? That would signify a different treatment for blacks vs. whites.

Just that people are different? It seems like "race" means more than that.

This is a nice statement of the "so what?" aspect of the argument.

Given the way they are dressed--in suits, dresses, etc--I doubt that they are slaves.

Its better to name the source, and then put in a hyperlink, rather than including the full URL--that looks better.

So they key chronological point is that ideological views of race came after (or perhaps were simultaneous with) the economic system of slavery.

As I noted above, racism kind of is slavery.

There is a deeper point that your argument raises that is worth thinking about. Even here you are presenting the turn to slavery as being economically driven: African slaves were economically more advantageous. But if race came first, does that imply that Europeans turned to Africans because they saw them as inferior, more suitable to slavery, etc.? That's the deeper meaning of the "race came first" argument--that African slavery (as opposed to desire for free labor more generally) was driven by racial notions of inferiority. So Africans weren't just different, the were inferior.

Seeing that difference is the same thing as "race" in your view?

Oddlyl enough, this displays in Firefox, not Chrome. In Firefox it is enormous--really, too big.

I think you might be able to find an impetus that involves political power. That being said, your definition of racism, which involves a system of oppression, almost by definition doesn't make any sense as a purely ideological construct. It has to be connected with a system of hierarchical social relations--by definition. So in that sense, I think it has to be connected with economics, politics, or both.

In another sense, slavery = racism (or perhaps is one part of the larger set "racism"). Racism, per your definition, is a "system of oppression based on a racial hierarchy," and that would certainly be a correct description of slavery.

You make some good points in here. The links are pretty general. Links should links to articles that are more specific to the point you want to make.

Make sure you stay in past tense, and watch for other usage errors. Captions on the pictures would be a good addition.

You need to provide sources for images.

I think we saw one example in the slave narratives we looked at in class. But I take your general point--even if it happened, it was very rare.

I'm not sure this is correct--I think slaves knew that slavery was bad.

You make some good points here, but overall it's not fully convincing. The evidence you present doesn't seem fully adequate. For example, the progress of the gay rights movement has been, if anything, quite rapid when compared to other movements, and it isn't true that there wasn't leadership. Even with civil and labor rights, there was more going on than just leadership.

A couple of other notes, both pointing out the importance of reading the internet critically. First, there doesn't seem to be much empirical support for Price's Law (the one link you provide says that it is false), and in any case, as originally phrased, it only applied to scientific literature. Second, the Gandhi picture is clear not a real picture, and shouldn't be used.

I note, also, that you don't provide sources for your images.

The story is a bit more complicated--some of the impetus came from the workers themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by this--after all, it went from zero to gay marriage in about forty years--which by the standards of some other movements is pretty fast.

The story is a bit more complicated than this.

They had been legal since Commonwealth v. Hunt

What rights?

You should provide additional citations to back this up. I did a quick Google search and found no empirical evidence to back it up.

The article this links to seems to disprove Price's Law.

This is an interesting way of putting it, and suggests an interesting response to the question: African American history saves American history.

This sounds like it could be a piece in its own right--the role of community in the story of black America.

You should include the quotes, for clarity's sake.

Does the Voting Rights Act restrict all Americans' freedom? Or just some Americans' freedom.

There is a deeper question here that you should wrestle with. To take just one example: the Meat Inspection Act limits businesses' ability to sell tainted meat. In that sense, their freedom is limited. But could consumers' freedom be increased, as they now no longer have more freedom to consume meat without having to worry about food poisoning? Again the point here is that while businesses' freedom may be limited by government, consumers' freedom may be limited by business. The deepest question is this: is government action the only threat to freedom, or can freedom also be threatened by people and organizations in society (large corporations, the KKK, etc.)?

Again, I note that the way you've phrased it begs the question. Of course if freedom is defined as "no limits by government" then expanding government scope limits freedom. But freedom can be limited by other people as well. Slavery is a good example. Slaves were not owned by the government, they were owned by people, and it was people who restricted them (albeit with the backing of the government). So by this definition of freedom, slaves were free (since they weren't, directly, being impeded by the government). And that, as you yourself note, isn't correct--slaves weren't free. So I think the definition of freedom you're working with here is problematic.

How do you define basic human rights?

Why add the phrase "with little government interference"? To add that biases the answer against government. If freedom means just being allowed to do what I want, without being hindered by others, then government action that allows me to, say, go into a restaurant that tries to exclude me increases my freedom, because I am now free to do something without being hindered by the restaurant owner.

That is a definition of freedom. There are many others. It's a nuanced topic, much discussed by political scientists.

Keep in mind the source Daily Kos is definitely a progressive/left website. Doesn't mean they're wrong (there is no source without bias), you just have to keep that in mind.

Has anyone tried to do an analysis that controls for crime, socioeconomic status, etc.? I'm guessing it's out there somewhere.

This is not quite the same as what you said in your last sentence. I think it's impossible to deny that black lives have improved since, say, the 1950s. But that's not the same as saying (as you do in your previous sentence) that most Americans treat blacks and whites equally.

I'm not sure I would agree this this--there's lots of evidence out there about continuing racial discrimination. To prove this point, you'd have to discuss and rebut that evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Ratified under Johnson--passed through Congress under Lincoln.

So can you explain a little more clearly how this relates to the "Big Government" idea?

This is unclear.

This suggests a nuance in your argument that is worth exploring.

You could make an analogous argument about black influence on the emancipation process--the whole "Who freed the slaves?" argument.

I'm a little confused by the phrasing here--is this intended to be an either/or thing, or is it government action, but ultimately pushed along by blacks? It's not clear.

The phrasing here is a little unclear--do you mean that big government limits freedom? That would be more direct.

A weak way of phrasing it!

There are other arguments, too--e.g., about who would pay, and who would get paid, whether it would "help," etc.

I suspect that Coates imagines/hopes that the process of deciding to implement reparations would do much to bring down these barriers--reparations would therefore have a moral effects as much as a monetary one. Paradoxically that sort of means that, if they were implemented, they would be that much less necessary.

Does he intend it as this? As you suggest above, it is at least partly a matter of moral atonement.

Though that may also have been true of reparations paid to interned Japanese-Americans.

A pretty broad claim!

You don't need to repeat the title here, too.

Is he talking about eliminating the wealth gap? Or the racial wealth gap? It makes a difference to his argument.

I believe he actually addresses this point in the article.

Unless they are still enjoying the benefits of the fruits of racism--like inheritors of stolen art from WWII.

But how do they intersect? Earlier you seemed to suggest that the intersection was one of tension--American milestones accompanied by black struggle.

I thought you were going to say: many unions excluded black workers (which was true).

So are you fundamentally disagreeing with Douglass at some level?

But is that correct? Lincoln, in his Cooper-Union speech, took a very different view of the Founder's intentions.

I would hardly describe the views as originalist--given that the founders actually did ban slavery in the territories (in the Northwest Ordinance) they clearly thought it was something the national government had power to do.

It seems to me there's a paradox here: blacks need to appeal to whites to overcome local white racial oppression--but white also controlled the national power structure.

Do you think the reasons for disapproval are the same?

Though the idea did come up

This suggests a focus on its lingering political effects.

Again, I'd like to hear you specify a bit more than you do here. Going on at the same time? Playing a significant material role? Being a challenge to ideals? What is it?

The picture is a bit pixelated.

Very interesting link!

So what does "intertwined" signify, exactly? What do you mean by this?

Did she advocate for protests? What did she say about Paul's methods?

Fighting in self-defense is barbaric?

???

Such as who? Who do you have in mind?

But didn't many whites have a negative view of the CRM?

No training, for example?

Are there specific legislative demands that have been made? I wonder.

So Wolfe resigned. Did conditions for black students at the university improve? That would be a sign of true effectiveness.

I'm not sure what you mean by lack of evidence. Plenty of specific historical evidence was presented about the history of government directed racially discriminatory policies, and the article is full of statistics. So I guess my question for you would be: what additional evidence were you looking for?

Again, you need to provide evidence

Again, you need to provide specific evidence. Also, you need to be careful to differentiate between specific people (even leaders) and the movement as a whole.

Referencing specific studies would help here, in terms of providing supporting factual evidence--was the URL here supposed to be that?

He actually addresses this point in the essay: e.g., if we take credit for the good things the country has done in the past, we also have to take the blame and responsibility for bad things. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, but it is inaccurate to present him as not having considered this point.

I don't think is correct. To take just one example: your argument against reparations for most of this blog post hasn't been about practicalities, and more about whether it is the right thing to do. So, at least in this post, the question of practicalities is not "the entire argument" (though it is part of it).

So right after this sentence he goes on to make a concrete proposal--set up a commission to investigate the practicalities of providing reparations. If you're going to critique his argument on this point, you would have to engage with that suggestion and show why we shouldn't set up such a commission.

What do you mean by this? It's an interesting line.

Well, I'm not sure if reparations are about "fixing" things; it's more about righting a moral wrong--i.e., I steal something from you, I have to pay it back.

Again, I'd like to hear more specifics here.

Again, when you make claims like this, you need to provide specific evidence (including links) to back them up.

Since the link you provided doesn't work, can you provide more information about the picture and where it comes from, etc.?