Latest Breaking News On - Roxanne dunbar ortiz - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
claudio is codirector of the center for virtual history and associate director of the institute of native american studies at the university of georgia. he is author of three previous books on american history. west of the revolution, black, white, indian and a new order of things. and to thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you so much for hosting and thanked the center for sponsoring thiss event. >> unworthy republic challenges thet idea that so many historis have presented at the expulsion of native americans as an inevitability rate you uncover a lot of evidence of political and economic motivation so how much land first indians own in the southeast in the decades before the 1830s? >> they owned a huge amount, half of alabama, two thirds what became mississippi, about a fifth of georgia. and it's not just how much land they own, but how valuable that land was for his mom the most valuable agricultural land probably in the entire world at the time. the removal covered the entire united states. we read largely the southern story glass and removed as well. they are much smaller plots of land. >> you do cover a number of other tribes, tribes who were also expelled from new york, ohio, he notes different to tribe and state to state. but generally what rights or autonomy did indian tablet say in the south? >> you are right that it buried. it was also contested it is still contested to this day. but they were until a series of court cases fully sovereign people. the only limitation being they could not sell their land to a foreign the cherokees could not sell their property to france for example. otherwise there fully sovereign people. they had elections. they had court systems. they had constitutions. the same way as the united states there is sovereign in the early 19th century. >> beef for the drive to dispossess america's of the native lands in the 1830s to prevailing u.s. policy toward indians pretty much since the jeffersonian era was a civilization us. could you give us an overview of how indians lived with that approach? x we also call it i jeffersonian indian policy. this was a federal policy from the beginning of the republic it was ethnocentric. sometimes well-intentioned. sometimes not the ultimate goal is to civilize these people that is to teach them english, to turn them into good christians, to make them a farm in the same way as white farmers did. that is with up plaut rather than a coat. to get out there seasonal punt. to dress like white people. so in short, and always to turn them into good u.s. citizens. and this was the policy. it was a policy of the native people pushed back on and many, many ways. they also embraced parts of it. sometimes they did that sincerely and sometimes they did that strategically in order to make their way in the shadow of the republic. >> the election of andrew jackson in 1820 was an absolute game changer in that policy. he ran on the promise to solve the quote indian question by pushing indians west of the mississippi. this was presented as a humanitarian solution to rescue indians from extinction. so what evidence did proponents have for this? and how is that framed? >> is the fascinating part of the story. i should preface this by saying at the onset they had been dispossessed of their land from the first moment the europeans set foot on the continent. between the founding of the republic in 1830 plots the native people and they lost thousands of acres of land. but until the removal act which was -- there was no formal, consistent, federal policy to dispossess native people. it really was a significant moment in the history of relations between native peoples to get this act this piece of legislation through congress, the advocates of the policy needed to find a i allies. they needed to put up a good front. they could not say simply we want their land in alabama and mississippi. instead they had to say this was the best thing for them. and if you, as a congressman really careded about native people, if you cared about their welfare and their future, then you would support this policy. though probably the key piece of evidence which they presented and they distributed in the popular press and numerous articles that they planted was that the indigenous populations were diminishing. if it were to remain they would go extinct. and so they pointed to the significant decrease of the native population. which certainly had occurred between 1500 and 1820s. everybody knew the populations had diminished. but the dynamics are quite complicated. in the best evidence shows that in the early 19th century these populations in the united states, the business populations were stable and possibly even developed. people pushed backward to set it over and over again. they were frustrated they cannot get this message out. cherokees and creeks writing to congress, to the president saying you keep repeating this over and over again that we are diminishing. we are not. we may be small in number but we are a growing population i would to stay where we are. >> it is the voice of the natives. let say those were diplomats printing pamphlets, petitions by the thousands against indian removal. it is well known that indian removal as it was genteel he by jackson was a signature policy. what was new to meet with these kinds of arguments for and against expulsion and who is making them pray there was a vigorous opposition to indian removal. who was aligned in that opposition? and how organized was it? x obviously the most fervent opposition was rooted in the indigenous' communities. that is not to say native people were unanimous. there were a number of people who simply wanted to cut their losses. they did not think this was a just a policy necessarily. they found that in fact given the tremendous pressure they were on and the squatters who moving in and the effect of state government and the federal government were not protecting way.in any in fact they were encouraging squatters to steal their land and theirat property. given that fact the best thing to do was to cut them off and leave. but the people in fact did to state. they were deeply rooted in the land for their very practical reasons why they wanted to stay. so had a dealer connection to the limits of their ancestors were. they wanted to stay there. i was most fervent opposition of the indigenous community. they did find allies in missionaries. he lived among them and also church -based groups in the north. in fact this is single most controversial issue to come before the republic up to that date. it prompted the first mass petition campaign to congress there were thousands and thousands of americans in the north who dropped petition to both men and women. that was novel at the time because women were not seem to be appropriate participants in the political process. but they drafted petitions and wrote these heartfelt and deeply critical petitions to congress asking all be able to stay in their homelands. >> meanwhile southern newspapers were condemning the northern piety and hypocrisy. "orion georgia journal from 1825 thing if you want to make indian citizens, will be next. that's a critical part of your analysis. the expulsion of natives in expansion of slavery were really intertwined. however protections for slavery exposed an argument they were making for indian removal? parts in so many ways these two issues more deeply, deeply connected. the first that we talked about was thehe native people were on this valuable cotton producing land. as part of fertile soil that runs through georgia and alabama. runs right through the judicial homelands in the chickasaw nation. they had experience with moving people because they had been engaged in first the transatlantic and then engaged in the interstate trade.ts though they were used two commanding people and having absolute right over people of color. so to have people of color that is in ander did just americans living in the south and not command, not under their thumb wasn't insult to white supremacy. i think that was also very much a part of their antagonism and their ability. >> you are disintegrating the union if you force this on us from the north. also confrontations in congress per than the indian removal act passes in 1835 by five votes. in states rights realizing the jackson government to forcibly remove tens of thousands of native people perjured anyone jackson's administration question expulsion? what so you are right. as you say they need need in west of the mississippi they did the federal government to pay for it and supervise there were a few folks who voiced some quiet opposition to this policy. jackson quickly force them out. and appointed and their place. there congressman certainly who, in both parties who opposed aindian removal. her stories jackson went around rightly political careers of these people and said it's going to be the end of your career this threat was as threatening as a threat the tremendous amount of arm-twisting and wheeling and dealing that went on behind the scenes. at amiri five votes of 199 passed in the cows house but did barely squeak through. congress was overwhelmingly jacksonian. >> the southern planters also needed bankers to new york city, boston, london as itth turned ot used trails of money to bankroll this expulsion. refer to them as the northern equivalent of southern planters. that is one of the revelation of your book, following on the money was made and how the money was spent actual player who was c and y with tm people like him critical to the expulsion credit contract? >> on the most surprising part ofof the story i think i stumbld across in my research. i just kept following trails. jd peers as he was commonly called was probably the central player on wall street and financing thisop operation. he was born and raised in connecticut. then moved to new york city this is when wall street was really just emerging as a center for american finance. we kind of got in on the ground floor. it became one of the important planners on wall street. 1820s he was busy insurance and financing crop cultivation in the south. he knew from a distance. and saw this opportunity emerging we recognize instantly relate valuable land available wanted to get his hands on it. inform the joint stock company. it is not alone by the way. every single banker in philadelphia, new york was involved in speculating in the 1830s. they had vastle quantities but massive amount of land in mississippi. it's in the most fertile land in the state. and then they flipped it for enormous profits. they earn ten, sometimes 30 times what they had invested in this property. it is interesting that is a financial circuits lead back to wall street. they also cross the atlantic. there are lending and banking houses that are also speculating and investing at the same time. >> wild. a speculation and corruption also certainly. when companies springing up. especially for land west of the ahchattahoochee river. 53000 people when government lottery for access to land appropriate by the state. or talking four-point to million acres. the majority of cherokee, chickasaw did not want to leavee will be millions of dollars in land sales mean for indian tourists on the land refusing to leave? >> that vary nation to nation. each treaty was distinct and have legal technicalities that made a difference. the end result was the same. generally speaking lands were flooded with hundreds of thousands of dollars. an unwilling sellers. it was to separate these people from their land as cheaply as possible. they knew they could later flip the land for enormous profit. there were different strategies. but then, sometimes they captured indians.pa basically chained up and said were not going to frequently make a mark on this piece of paper which is basically a deed transferring property. or they beat them. they would sometimes sees orphans and then go before a judge i would say oh yes, this is on the up and up. cs they can sell his or her inheritance for repentance. they hired impersonators. chickasaw indians at the time some of them were literally close to starvation. speculators would show up and say will give you $10 if you go before this judge and so you are indeed such and such a person, even if you are not. just make your mark on this piece of paper. sometimes the same indian did that literally hundreds ofs times. it's just a firestorm of fraud and violence that unfolded. probably the worst of that was in alabama right across the chattahoochee river. they are based in columbus, georgia. proxy stories are just incredible that you tell the book t. purveyors are dragging their chains right to somebody's field. people buying land i went right up to the porch for the doorstep of other people. some people leaving their homes and coming back and finding squatters in them. it's a disgrace. it's a pivotal time not only in the history of indigenous people but also for young republic eager to flex its administrative muscle. i think with the triumphs of the book is tracking governance accounts showing how woefully incapable that was for that task. you have some examples of how those limitations played out? xo, there's about 80000 people in the federal government wanted to do porch bird which does not sound like a a lot. like a lot in 21st century terms but it was a huge operation or a very small young republic had but eight or 9000 employees. 7000 of them worked for the post office. but they were completely overwhelm with logistics. they had not been involved in any operation to this extent. humanitarian operations purportedly in the sense they're not moving soldiers around who are cooperating willingly moving and direction you're telling them too. families, their infants, their pregnant women, their elderly folks there are infirmed people. they are m trained by the hundrs may be a thousand miles to the west and their roads that don't exist for they have to build those. maps are atrocious they do not know where they are going. do not have weather reports they get caught in severe winter storms lead to people shivering in the cold for weeks on end. so they are completely overwhelmed by the logistics of it. they simply do not have the capabilities. the other things they don't really care that much people of color t. so there is a certain disregard at theat end of the day it doest really matter that much to mostt of these were involved in the operation that these people are suffering that much. but you have one quick example is well over 1000 who get stranded on the of the arkansas river the winter of 1833. most of them do not have closed to keep them warm. there are a handful of tents. the steamboats are not for they are supposed to be. there are a few supplies to feed these people. some of them sit there for six, to eight weeks waiting for the river to soften they can continue their journey westward. that's one of numerous examples of the failure of the federal government to see this operation through in a way that had promised people in 1830. there are a number of cogs in this wheel. brings a lot of life to the accounts but one is george gibson is ahead of the removal budget for the war department. his dimension known to calculate cost of the fractions of a penny. and having preciseon instructios on how to fold up the reports. the account for decades worth i believe he is a man when somebody sympathetic field officer appealed for funds to help feed these people on arkansas river is it's a disagreeable state of things but everything must be done to influence their self-reliance.s there is this absolute lack of care. hundreds of marches relentlessly grandma made even worse when it breaks out of the midwest and cholera is carried by the soldiers. learning about this misery, where to go to as a historian when you're reading about this?a >> yes. some of the stories are really hard to deal with. astounding to see these records in the federal archives recording all of this. these records that are in these boxes and are these crumbling records atrocious in advance. the challenge of covering the story presenting them in a way that's understandable. women during the research. it was a depressing project in a lot of ways. there's ann important one. i was amazed by the kinds of evidence that was just sitting there in the federalfo archive. he mentioned george gibson the commissary generals. he is in chargehi of supplying food. if you read there is correspondence before 1830 sending so many pounds of beef, or pork to such and such a pork here or there. the old friend of jackson's. he had known jackson beforen 1812. within this operation the authority away from the superintendent and give it to the commentary. it was meticulous. both obsess with every dollar in every sense given to the fraction of a penny or these accounts there's thousands and thousands of pages eight note we certainly cannot afford this we should not pay for them. it indian agent had wrote back with an account that would be $83.32. he would say you have miscalculated that by a fraction of a penny. please revise this and send it back. he is obsessed with this but he does not see the bigger picture. he does not see the human misery that this has created. the rush that he himself is overseeing. >> one of the somethings that were not afforded along the way? >> of medicine was one of the big ones. two people on the ground, some of them were more sympathetic to the peoples they were moving in summer last. but it is hard to be unsympathetic when you were right there watching suffering. some of these agents would say it is preposterous to move 1000 people 800 miles you have a women and children and to not have any medicine. or to not have a doctor. why would you not pay for a doctor? i would write back i am not authorized to pay for that. are the number of wagons available to move stuff. our fees to pay for indian ponies. some of the most viable properties native people had. the government would not pay to feed the animals. we are not authorized to pay for that. he underscored over and over again economy is the single most important thing here. you're trying to save money. >> the people who were deported that's a polite word, charged with the cost of the deportation order. what with some of things they are billed for? >> this is really an awful part of thehe story. they have to pay for their own removal. and so the chickasaw or received a bill. this goes on and on a decade after the fact the government is still trying to rectify. the chickasaw receiveda a billa decade later. they're looking at it as does the x number of people moved by what they write back and said this is not right. we had only a fraction of people. or we had to pay for the rations of so many people but they died. they died soon after we set out and you're still billing us for rations in the indian territory. they are billed for the cost of postage. they are billed for any for the horse of it indian agent. they are billed for pencils. they are billed for the commentary general they are billed there's labor the accountants who are working in washington d.c. every possible item is added upi and they send the bill to the victims to this operation. perhaps it is really incredible when you see it do that administrative lands. meanwhile those who did stay, stbeen exposed to starvation something hunted in theme woods for poaching food from their own land. there is extreme pressure for them to leave. the creek war some resistance sit with the seminole 1836 in the middle of the decade. some peoplese do stay. paul has a question here please elaborate on the eastern band of the cherokee indians match from pronouncing that right. why they were able to remain on the historic western north carolina? there are some very small groups who are able to stay in the r south. despite the best efforts of the federal government. probably the son of the seminoles in florida. but also the eastern band of cherokee's in the north carolina's. the federal government recognizes early on your keys lift is going to be the people who live in the mountains of north carolina will be the most difficult for us to move it. they send in an engineer the region. he writes back and said one, these people are determined are not going to move for the second he says is there is no way any of these mountains are so precipitous the foliage is so dense if we have to send troops here it is going to be a disaster for us. that was a very small number of people some around 400 or 500 hiding out in the mountains. what's interesting about this federal government north carolina has lost interest the alternative people could have stayed even as late as late 1837 there are still negotiations between the cherokee's in the federal government. there is still the window is still open and some small possibility they can still stay in their homeland. there is nothing about the story. that's right, that is one of your points in the book. this was not an inevitability but a political and economic decision. the mid- 1830s your fugitives hunted in swamps. women smothering their children because they cannot run. it is just a horrible, horrible story. but because of the resistance of the creed and that seminole, it sends a shudder through white planters who by this time are outnumbered by enslaved people in alabama and mississippi. how does that change the u.s. response to expulsion? >> this is really the turning point really lays bare the pretense of seed that is humanitarian. it is philanthropic. it isn't benevolent. it's the best thing we could do for the native people. but the mid- decade the creeds have said we do not want to go. our treaty says we don't have tk god . we can stay, we can take our land we can divide up our communal lands and hold it as individual landowners. take that option this is to the great disappointment planters who want that land as speculators. and so the federal government sends in troops to put down the unrest and force these people out. this is the work 1836. it is a brief but violent war it ends of that 1500 men being marched in chains to montgomery, alabama there putting on steamboats to head down the river eventually to indian territory. and at the same time there is resistance in florida. we now call the second seminole war which runs. these really become wars of extermination. and i do not use that word lightly. federal officers who say it has become a war of extermination. one of them a high-ranking general rights and private correspondence of the secretary of war was to exterminate. the stories are h horrendous. the troops are down there in the malaria environment. they are dying from disease. they are also chasing down seminole families. there are these awful stories of seminole families, husband and wife andch their two children. i remember this one detail a man is amending his moccasins and troops descend on them. and the woman runs with her children and the troops running capture them. and then they are put inin chai. we do not know what their fate was in the day. but they were most certainly moved west. >> there is a question here, can you comment on the extent should it make the point there were also escaped or enslaved people who are fighting with the seminole? this is a related question, can you extent on them, them slaveholding by the tribe in the state and the blacks in the removal? >> your earlier question, the great fear is not just native people are holding onto their land. they form alliances. this enslaved african americans. this is the ultimate fear could be an indian uprising joins together with the slave up writing that can sweep across the south and ultimately turn the entire south to flames. this is their ultimate fear. the relationship between african-americans and native people is quite complex. as this question indicates there indians who used enslaved people to cultivate cotton. somewhat resembled across the south. but these folks were small in number. there were also lots of fugitive slaves taking refuge with the seminoles and the creeds in smaller numbers the cherokees who were then embraced by native families and incorporated into these nations. most important thing we put this in perspective potentially is a place of wreckage potentially as allies. >> clarify for p2 asked the question about civil rather than civilizing the savages was the goal of the u.s. policy both neil and one, two to eliminate in the indian communities who possess i believe there were answering that question.d claudia didn't know if you have anything to ask her. >> well, talk about policy i suppose you could step back and suggest there is some kind of broader whenwe we say policy wod need to be specific about what we mean. you could step back and say there's some broader sentiment that existed y from 1500 could y up to the present. which was a desire to limit tate to take their land and eliminate them. we talk specifically about policy, about the political choices people make, those vary over time. they arere hotly debated bird that's one of things i really wanted to underscore in my book. this policy there is nothing automatic about indian removal. it is hotly debated. he petitions that come in are from the opponents of this policy say the future of the republic depends on what it does the native people. is it going to abide by its principles in the declaration of independence they going to treat allhe people equally? or instead is it going to be more can to the corrupt existed in europe. they truly believe the fate of the republic rested on this decision for this political decision was made in 1830. >> it is so moving to see and read some of the things native americans argued for. appealing to the constitution, liberty and the concept of equality in the book. but i want to move forward before we have to close. then we find may of 1836 the cherokee is expulsion really began not one native person go back to your point lead books cover treaty in the u.s. government backtracked on them but the cost again is one of the things you talk about here. the u.s. had planned to spend 500,000 to expel these 80000 hapeople. by your calculation the government spent $75 million fee that is a trillion dollars today, equalil to $12.5 million per reporting. if you could quickly go through how you arrived at that what are some the calculations? >> one of them is simply to ayconvert 1830s dollars to the present for their multiple ways of doing that. an the first decision you need to make. economists have worked out certain strategies for determining the best way to convert given theth clandestine you might be asking. but the costs to the federal government it's a matter of converting the figure. what i think is most important years not just the cost the federal government will get per household or family because of those numbers for us? >> it's equivalent for the most important thing is it's equivalent to the net worth of the average american family today. you can just imagine all of your family's wealth was wiped out overnight. multi generational inheritance taken from you literally overnight. another way to look at this is to look at the value of the chickasaw land that was taken from these nations. it was equivalent to the capitalization of one of the largest corporations in the united states at the time. so imagine being this these are relatively small nations. they have somewhere between 12 and 18000 citizens each. they are co-owners of this corporation if you continue the analogy that it is stolen from themas overnight. it is your multi generational inheritance which is stolen from you but it also resonates for generations and generations when you have that kind of dispossession. the one thing that strikes me is children married into european royalty. amazingly is great, great, great granddaughter died in 1990. was married according to behind one of his mahogany tables made in for the "new york times". this just shows you the perversion the chickasaw families are accomplished by this. in the impoverishment echoes through generations. then the wealth that is amassed that wealth is a passed down to the generations. x that is the thing that's extremely profitable something tragically expensive in dollars and in life and culture. as the collateral costs of the explosive growth in slave trade. every families and other reasons we have racial reckoning anded cultural reparations that are being discussed now by policymakers and citizens alike. anyways i think will be unimaginable just a couple of years ago. have there been any calls for it reparations indigenous people? and what would that mean. >> the indian court of claims was set up in the late 1940s , 50s. this was a policy called termination. to the federal government wanted to basically terminate its indian nations. this was enacted cynically and knowing no one was satisfied at the end of the day. that is not how to do it. how it needs to distill an open question. is a conversation that americans have to have with indigenous americans. reconciliation compensation why did justice look like? that remains an open question. >> there's a lot of analysis in this book about the expulsion being the war that slaveholders one. your little so quickly could you answer what that means to you? >> you mentioned sometimes the south threatens to succeed borja on the brink of civil war with the federal government in the 1820s over this issue. there were letters, op-ed pieces and georgian newspapers think we will meet federal troops on the border but will defend our homeland. we will defend our slaves and we will defend our rights to indian lands. and so at the end of the day the federal government backed down. jackson was in the white house there is a more sympathetic figure. though slaveholders push this because until they got what they wanted. at the end of the day they did get exactly what they wanted. what they wanted was to expand the south, to move slaves from the chesapeake from virginia and north carolina. and wasn't broken up hundreds of thousands and provisions over the federal government taking over the entire continent. they had visions of taking g mexico and cuba as well. they thought they were going to lose the world forever. this is a key step in the process. was a war that certainly they one in the short term. what he want to thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you. and his book, we do recommend you purchase it from a cappella books the great way to keep the money in the community. we have a load of other talks coming up virtual author talks coming up you go to the atlanta history center.com to see the full schedule. i want to thank you all for being here. thanks for your time. >> on our monthly author common program in depth longtime historian activist, professor and author roxanne dunbar ortiz but joined book tv to talk about american culture and history. the women's liberation movement, the founding of the united states and more. here's a portion of the discussion. >> this term, a nation of immigrants, is actually very recent. i was surprised it dates to 1958. as invented by john f. kennedy when he was senator. it seemed to me that his purpose was planning to run for president, a difficult path because he was a child of immigrants, irish and catholic. every president up until that time of his presidency had been either anglo or scots -- irish. and protestant. inc. what he emphasizes in the book that he published called a nation of immigrants, he emphasizes the great qualities about the irish in particular. it is may be about that. the terminology, i do not remember it frankly when i was in graduate school in history in the 1960s. i do not remember the term having caught on yet. i think it was with multiculturalism or in the 1970s, 80s and the 1990s. it is in all of the textbooks, and public school. it is simply an accepted term. so i see it as a post-world war ii, cold war competition with the soviet union to create a positive image what people around the world were seeing on television. were black people being of bloodied and beaten in the south. the desegregation movements. this was a competition that only in weapons of the soviet union. definitely publicizing the negative qualities. think the nation of immigrants was such an immigration law that john f. kennedy did initiate. he was not able to -- he was not alive when his final pass five. but it did open up immigration for the first time in non- european immigration. so there it was this liberal tension. it's the new nationalism but of course we also have a fast developing white nationalism that opposes that. bill does not want immigrants, people of color pretty much what a white republic. it is not uncontested. >> only go back in history to foucault back to the 1700s or so, whether open borders at that time into the united states? >> there were no immigration laws. but there was a great deal of suspicion of some immigrants. not anglo ones or scots. germans. but alexander hamilton was absolutely paranoid during the french revolution. that these revolutionaries the ideas in hamilton was a major author was a preventative. there was great suspicion who is not english-speaking or german. scandinavian soon after. but in the very beginning it was pretty limited. >> that is life at an easter the first sunday of every month featuring your calls and questions for best-selling authors pretty much previous episodes including our interview with roxanne dunbar ortiz online apple tv.org. just click on the in-depth tab near the top of the page. oco weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, american history tv documents america's story. on sunday, otb brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more. including sparkly. >> the greatest town on earth is a place you call home. it spark like it is our home too. right now we are all facing our raiders challenge. they're working around the clock to keep you connected but we are doing our part so it's a little easier to do yours. >> spark quite like these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. ucla law professor recently spoke about the fourth amendment which defines unreasonable searches and seizures and that the police. here's a portion of that program. >> even think about the trauma of seeing your servants pins get the wall with guns. you having a gun pointed at you. not knowing what any of this is going to go. i didn't really think that much about it in the moment. it's years after years i reflect on it. then call up and realize what a frightening, frightening moment that is. and how that vulnerability is a defining feature of what it means to be black. the extent in which any particular police interaction is potentially a killing zone. and what it means to kind of live with that existenial reality of it. >> watch the full program search or the title of his book unreasonable. booktv.org. x you are watching book tv for complete television schedule visit booktv.org. you can also follow along behind the scenes on social media book tv on twitter, instagram, and facebook. me in welcoming our g. [applause] what a crowd. >> welcome both. >> thank you so much. >> thank you all for being here. >> some
New-yorkUnited-statesGeorgiaAlabamaRiver-isRheinland-pfalzGermanyCubaFloridaBostonMassachusettsColumbusArticle: I USED CRITICAL RACE THEORY FOR 23 YEARS IN THE New York City PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS--AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! - This essay is intended as a primer of sorts on critical race theory (CRT), what it is, why it's under attack, giving an historical overview of the emergence of white suppremacy and how the basic CRT tenets are essential to any truthful accounting of u.s. history
GreeceManhattanNew-yorkUnited-statesEgyptChinaSkoolLimerickIrelandUnited-kingdomBrooklynIowaArticle: I USED CRITICAL RACE THEORY FOR 23 YEARS IN THE New York City PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS--AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! - This essay is intended as a primer of sorts on critical race theory (CRT), what it is, why it's under attack, giving an historical overview of the emergence of white suppremacy and how the basic CRT tenets are essential to any truthful accounting of u.s. history
BrooklynNew-yorkUnited-statesLevittownKansasManhattanReunionFloridaChicagoIllinoisGeorgiaChina