Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America

1. 69

   IslandBitesposted 8 weeks ago

   The Trump administration is ordering the removal of information on slavery at multiple national parks in an effort to scrub them of “corrosive ideology.”
   
   The Trump administration has ordered the removal of signs and exhibits related to slavery at multiple national parks, according to four people familiar with the matter, including a historic photograph of a formerly enslaved man showing scars on his back.
   
   
   
   The individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media, said the removals were in line with President Donald Trump’s March executive order directing the Interior Department to eliminate information that reflects a “corrosive ideology” that disparages historic Americans. National Park Service officials are broadly interpreting that directive to apply to information on racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights or persecution of Indigenous people.
   
   Following Trump’s order, Interior Department officials issued policies ordering agency employees to report any information, including signage and gift shop items, that might be out of compliance. Trump officials also launched an effort asking park visitors to report offending material, but they mostly received criticisms of the administration and praise for the parks.
   
   Separately, Park Service officials have ordered the removal of a photograph illustrating violence against slaves, known as “The Scourged Back,” at one national park. The photograph, taken in 1863, shows scars on the back of a man probably named Peter Gordon from wounds inflicted by his masters before he escaped slavery.
   
   MORE

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Are those conservative love taps on his back? I'll wonder how many will say that pic is fake.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Readmikenowposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         "conservative love taps"
         
         Obviously, you have no grasp of history.
         
         So sad.

         replyreport
2. 82

   Sharlee01posted 8 weeks ago

   AI   After checking the publicly available records:
   
   There is no official White House statement, press release, or executive order that specifically directs the removal of the photograph known as “The Scourged Back” from any national park.
   
   The National Park Service has not issued a directive naming this photograph for removal. Decisions about exhibits are generally made at the agency level, not by the White House directly.
   
   All reporting in the media so far comes from sources citing unnamed officials or “people familiar with the matter,” not from any verifiable document or named government authority.
   
   ✅ Fact: There is currently no verifiable government order mandating the removal of this photograph. Media reports claiming it are based on anonymous sources or interpretation, not on official documentation.
   
   Hopefully, some facts can be offered to substantiate these claims posted by WAPO.  Facts should matter.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Aren't you focusing on picking apart a detail instead of addressing the larger issue. That’s a clever tactic, but it doesn’t change the fact that the bigger point still stands - our history is being removed — and until that is answered directly, all the side-shots in the world won’t move the discussion forward.”

      replyreport
      1. 80

         wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         Yes, the BIGGER point still stands - a report that the picture is ordered removed, along with others, is false to fact.  A lie.  No truth in it.
         
         And that is the "larger issue".

         replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Rest assured that I will be watching Trump and the administrations moves on this matter very closely and I will be all over him like a cheap suit if he attempts to remove the iconic photo or any other whitewashing in regards to African American history from public museums.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         Sharlee is right, there are no first-hand reports that says any material has been removed due to the EO. I trust WAPOs reporting, just as others trust Trump, because they are an honest, truthful newspaper. Sooner or later somebody will take the time to check it out and report on it.
         
         That said, Trump has pulled down thousands of gov't websites which contain information he personally does not like.

         replyreport
3. 69

   IslandBitesposted 8 weeks ago

   Park Service Is Ordered to Take Down Some Materials on Slavery and Tribes
   
   The Trump administration has ordered several National Park Service sites to take down materials related to slavery and Native Americans, including an 1863 photograph of a formerly enslaved man with scars on his back that became one of the most powerful images of the Civil War era.
   
   The moves by the administration were outlined in internal emails reviewed by The New York Times and two people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
   
   At Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia, Trump officials have directed Park Service staff to remove a reproduction of “The Scourged Back,” the famous photo that depicts the formerly enslaved man, who was known as both Peter and Gordon, exposing severe scars on his back from whippings, according to the emails and one of the people briefed on the matter.
   
   At Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia, Trump officials have instructed park employees to take down a sign that criticizes the post-Civil War “Lost Cause” ideology, which romanticized the Confederacy and denied slavery’s central role in the conflict.
   
   At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, officials plan to substantially alter an exhibit that memorializes nine people enslaved by George Washington. Mr. Trump’s executive order in March specifically flagged exhibits at Independence National Historical Park for review, claiming the Biden administration had advanced “corrosive ideology” there that taught visitors that “America is purportedly racist.”
   
   And at Arlington House in Virginia, the former home of Robert E. Lee, who led the Army of Northern Virginia on the Confederate side, Trump officials have instructed park staff to stop using a booklet that was designed to teach children about slavery, said Stephen Hammond, a descendant of people who were enslaved at the house.
   
   At several other national parks, the Trump administration has ordered the removal of signs and other materials that state that the land once belonged to Native American tribes, according to one of the people briefed on the matter.
   
   Mr. Trump’s March executive order directed Park Service employees to flag materials by mid-July that could be changed or deleted. It said the administration would begin removing all “inappropriate” content starting this Wednesday, Sept. 17.
   
   
   https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/clim … =url-share

   replyreport
   1. 69

      IslandBitesposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Interior says it has not been asked to remove ‘Scourged Back’ photo
      
      “I can confirm that NPS sites were not asked to remove the photo. If any interpretive materials are found to have been removed or altered prematurely or in error, the Department will review the circumstances and take corrective action as appropriate,” Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace told The Hill.
      
      “Our goal is accuracy and balance, not removal for its own sake, and we are committed to making corrections if mistakes occur.”
      
      “Interpretive materials that disproportionately emphasize negative aspects of U.S. history or historical figures, without acknowledging broader context or national progress, can unintentionally distort understanding rather than enrich it,” Park Service spokesperson Rachel Pawlitz previously told the Post.

      replyreport
4. 86

   My Esotericposted 8 weeks ago

   Black man found dead hanging from a tree in Mississippi - Nothing to see here claims authorities.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/us/missi … tudent-hnk

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      He was one of about 50,000 suicides in the US each year.  Black suicides are up recently. 
      
      Is there anything else notable about this unfortunate man?

      replyreport
5. 69

   IslandBitesposted 7 weeks ago

   National parks remove signs about climate, slavery and Japanese detention
   
   
   A display at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City was taken down for making reference to historical events like slavery, Japanese camps and conflicts with Native Americans in describing the park system, according to two people familiar with the matter and photos reviewed by The Post.
   
   “Some very new parks preserve not just lands or buildings but our nation’s ideas and ideals. They remind us of things we hope to live up to — like women’s rights and liberty — and things we hope never to repeat — like slavery, massacres of Indians, or holding Japanese Americans in wartime camps,” the display said, prior to its removal.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Although I personally find this kind of thing reprehensible, I'm not surprised.  We saw it, in spades, as vandals took down whatever they didn't like of our civil war era.  Again, and as we've seen so often, Trump learns fast and what he likes he keeps for possible future use.
      
      For me, our history is ours to keep.  The good, the bad and the ugly are all there and should all be kept.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         It's in the books.

         replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         You mean all those memorials to slavery?

         replyreport
6. 86

   My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

   Given the recent rulings of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court, they are about to approve harmful and inhumane therapy that attempts to interfere with what God has created. What am I talking about? Here is an excerpt:
   
   "Matt Salmon remembers getting into a circle with the other teenagers in his group therapy session and shouting obscenities at a gay boy forced to stand in the middle.
   
   And he recalls being made to sit on the floor and hug other men because, his therapist said, his sexuality was driven by a “void” that needed to be filled with “healthy male intimacy.”
   
   Nearly 20 years later, Salmon is still shaken by his late teenage experience with “conversion therapy,” the discredited practice that purports to “convert” gay people to heterosexuality and is the focus of a blockbuster appeal to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
   
   “I remember watching these boys as they’re essentially being retraumatized and just broken down,” Salmon recalled in an interview with CNN. “I’ve done a lot of healing, but those wounds are still very much present.”"
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/06/politics … y-colorado

   replyreport
7. 86

   My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

   The Supreme Court is going to allow right-wing "talk therapists" to harm children. Colorado in response should pass a Texas-type law that lets any person in the nation to sue the therapist if they observe where the "talk" has harmed a minor.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/07/politics … -arguments

   replyreport
8. 81

   Credence2posted 5 weeks ago

   The very latest from rightwing intelligensia, if you can call it that……
   
   
   
   https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ … aign=share

   replyreport
9. 62

   Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

   This is absolutely disgusting:
   
   "The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening."
   
   I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat
   Thousands of private messages reveal young GOP leaders joking about gas chambers, slavery and rape....
   
   https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/1 … s-00592146

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      You notice no horror from our friends on the right. Their silence must mean they agree with those sentiments. What else can we think?

      replyreport
   2. 69

      IslandBitesposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      The future of the party. Disgusting. That's MAGA. The GOP no longer exists.
      
      We got a governor (PR) out for less, over some leaked texts too.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         The comments of these Young Republicans should disqualify them from ever working in politics again.   But I have no doubt many of them will have no trouble finding MAGA jobs.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            IslandBitesposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yup. Vance already minimized the texts.

            replyreport
10. 86

    My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

    Well, it looks like MAUGA is going to get its wish, the Radical Right Supreme Court - the worst since Reconstruction -  is poised to take Blacks out of any meaningful participation in our elections by allowing Red states to totally dilute their vote through racial gerrymandering. ey
    
    If they rule to reinstate segregation like they did in the 1890s, the only solution is a majority of Democrats in the House and a supermajority in the Senate that will tell the states how to draw their political lines. Since the Constitution gives them that authority, the Radical Right segregationists on the Court can't do a damn thing about it.
    
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/14/politics … servatives

    replyreport
11. 81

    Credence2posted 2 weeks ago

    Perfect example of the servant feasting upon itself….
    
    https://www.salon.com/2025/10/21/kash-p … aga-truth/

    replyreport
12. 86

    My Esotericposted 5 days ago

    Well, the bigoted, transphobic conservatives did it again in their campaign to, as another conservative said, "eliminate" trans from our society. We all know who said that about Jews, I hope. Well, the end goal is no different here.
    
    "Supreme Court allows Trump to limit passport sex markers for trans and nonbinary Americans"
    
    Fortunately, the next real president can undo that injustice.
    
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics … ransgender

    replyreport
    1. 80

       wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

       Good for SCOTUS!  You know, the intrinsic value of any is only as good as the information it contains.  Lying on an ID does no one any good and destroys the entire point of Identification.
       
       When that ID informs the reader that the man holding it is a woman, or vice versa, it is a worthless piece of trash and should be treated as such.

       replyreport
       1. 82

          Sharlee01posted 4 days agoin reply to this

          Agree

          replyreport
       2. 86

          My Esotericposted 4 days agoin reply to this

          I understand conservatives need to deny science. But then this is how it started for the Jews in Germany in the 1930s isn't it.

          replyreport
          1. 80

             wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

             Deny science.  Right!  Because "science" says that if you suddenly decide he is a female...then he is a female. 
             
             Your "scientists" are nothing but idiots legislating from the bench, thinking that if they can make a law then it has to be true, whether the universe disagrees or not.  Mother Nature disagrees, violently so.

             replyreport
             1. 82

                Sharlee01posted 4 days agoin reply to this

                Last I knew, science clearly states --- Chromosomes determine the blueprint (XX = female, XY = male).
                
                However, it has become clear some feel they can change the true science of gender--- just by saying   'It just isn't so. ' Go figure.

                replyreport
                1. 86

                   My Esotericposted 4 days agoin reply to this

                   And I have presented much evidence that shows that medieval thinking isn't true.

                   replyreport
                   1. 82

                      Sharlee01posted 4 days agoin reply to this

                      Well, I would guess that by your reply, you have decided to make an argument against science, to suit your narrative. Now, I prefer facts and science, and would not even think of attempting an argument against science.
                      
                      Last I knew, science clearly states --- Chromosomes determine the blueprint (XX = female, XY = male).

                      replyreport
                      1. 62

                         Willowarborposted 3 days agoin reply to this

                         Okay tell that to the person who has female chromosomes but has the psychological make up of a male...

                         replyreport
                         1. 80

                            wildernessposted 3 days agoin reply to this

                            Female chromosomes = female.  Not male.
                            
                            This is science.  Very simple science, in fact.  Science that everyone in the country over the age of about 10 should know.

                            replyreport
                   2. 85

                      gmwilliamsposted 3 days agoin reply to this

                      If a person is XX, that person is FEMALE while if a person is XY, that person is MALE.   These are FACTS.   One cannot change FACTS.

                      replyreport
                      1. 86

                         My Esotericposted 2 days agoin reply to this

                         Those are only SOME of the FACTs, not close to all of them. It is just it is ONLY those facts that matter to you.
                         
                         Other FACTS that are outside your myopic view:
                         
                         XO
                         XXY
                         XYY
                         XXX
                         XXYY
                         XXXX
                         XXXY
                         45,X/46, XX
                         46, XY/47, XXY
                         
                         OH, I could be wrong, but you seem to be choosing to close your eyes to genes outside the sex gene. Scientists think that sex behavior could be explained by genetic factors spread across many hundreds or thousands of genes—each with tiny effects.:
                         
                         So, in my view, it is entirely reasonable to believe that there women who have surface features that suggest they should act like women do but have thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men.

                         replyreport
                         1. 82

                            Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

                            Science has explained these abnormalities.
                            
                            From a scientific, biological perspective, most chromosomal variations do not change the fundamental classification of male or female in the majority of cases. Here’s a clear breakdown:
                            
                            Typical sexes:
                            
                            XX → female
                            
                            XY → male
                            
                            Common variations:
                            
                            XO (Turner syndrome): female. One X chromosome.
                            
                            XXY (Klinefelter syndrome): male. Extra X.
                            
                            XYY: male. Extra Y.
                            
                            XXX:  female. Extra X.
                            
                            "So, in my view, it is entirely reasonable to believe that there women who have surface features that suggest they should act like women do but have thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men." ECO
                            
                            That statement is not scientific because it confuses physical appearance, gender identity, and genetics in a way that isn’t supported by biology. Let’s break it down:
                            
                            “Surface features that suggest they should act like women do”
                            
                            This refers to secondary sex characteristics (breasts, facial structure, voice, etc.) or social expectations of behavior.
                            
                            Biology does not dictate behavior; there’s no set of genes that makes someone “act like a woman” or “act like a man.” Behavior is influenced by culture, environment, and personal choice.
                            
                            “Thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men”
                            
                            There is no scientific evidence that genes directly determine gender identity in the brain. While sex chromosomes and hormones affect development, there is no single gene or set of genes that make someone’s brain identify as male or female.
                            
                            Gender identity is a complex interaction of biology, environment, and psychology — it is not directly encoded in “thousands of genes.”
                            
                            Overall problem:
                            
                            This statement treats gender identity as a purely genetic command overriding physical sex characteristics.
                            
                            Science does not support the idea that genetics alone dictate whether someone “feels” male or female.
                            
                            In short: it’s mixing appearance, behavior, and genetics in a way that misrepresents biology.
                            
                            Regarding your statement, "thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men." ECO
                            
                            That claim is misleading. Here’s the scientific clarification:
                            
                            Humans have about 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes, not “thousands” in the sense of each one individually determining sex or gender identity.
                            
                            Sex determination is primarily controlled by sex chromosomes (X and Y) and a small number of key genes, especially SRY on the Y chromosome, which triggers male development.
                            
                            The vast majority of genes in the genome do not dictate male or female characteristics, and there is no gene “telling the brain” its gender identity.
                            
                            So saying “thousands of genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men” is completely unscientific. It exaggerates the role of genes and misrepresents what biology tells us about sex and gender.

                            replyreport
                            1. 81

                               Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

                               I don’t know about all of that. Once that I have learned that this gender identity issue is more involved than just personal choice among standard men and women, but instead is based on scientific evidence saying that divergent behavior of either sex has a medical explanation. I believe that idea is food for thought. This idea that a man is man and a woman is a woman may prove simplistic, when the situation may be considerably more complicated.
                               ———————
                               Yes, chromosomal variations can affect the sexual identity (gender identity and sexual orientation) of an individual, often as part of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. These variations can lead to differences in sexual development (DSDs) which may result in a person's physical sex characteristics being different from typical male or female bodies.
                               
                               How Chromosomal Variations Can Influence Identity
                               
                               Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs): Certain chromosomal variations, such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) or Turner syndrome (XO), can lead to DSDs, formerly known as intersex conditions. These conditions often involve a mismatch between genetic sex, gonadal sex (ovaries/testes), and/or external genitalia.
                               
                               Hormonal Influences on Brain Development: Chromosomes direct the development of gonads, which in turn produce hormones that influence the differentiation of the brain and body. Variations in this process, such as mutations in androgen receptor genes (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, AIS), can lead to a discordance between genital development and brain development. For example, a genetically male (XY) person with complete AIS will have female external genitalia and be raised as a girl, and typically identifies as a woman.
                               
                               Brain Structure and Identity: Research suggests that brain anatomy and neuronal signaling pathways are more closely aligned with a person's perceived gender identity than their biological sex assigned at birth. Studies of transgender individuals have found brain structures that are more typical of their identified gender than their chromosomal sex, pointing to a biological underpinning of gender identity.
                               
                               Multifactorial Trait: Gender identity is considered a complex, multifactorial trait influenced by many genes, not just the sex chromosomes, as well as environmental factors, including prenatal hormone exposure. No single gene can predict an individual's gender identity.
                               
                               Spectrum of Development: Intersex variations highlight that sexual development exists on a spectrum rather than a strict male/female binary. People with intersex variations have the same range of sexual orientations and gender identities as non-intersex people; some identify with their assigned sex, while others may identify as another gender (transgender) or non-binary.
                               
                               In essence, while chromosomes provide the initial trigger for sexual differentiation, a cascade of subsequent genetic, hormonal, and developmental processes work in concert to establish a person's sexual identity, and variations in any of these steps can affect the final outcome.

                               replyreport
                               1. 82

                                  Sharlee01posted 2 days agoin reply to this

                                  What I offered ECO was simply to address the biological science, specifically, the chromosomal structure that defines male and female, along with the small number of known abnormalities and how those are medically classified.
                                  
                                  You’ve clearly taken time to think through this, and I respect that. However, while certain chromosomal or hormonal variations can affect development, those cases are extremely rare and medically classified as disorders or differences of sexual development (DSDs). They do not redefine what constitutes male and female in biological terms; they’re exceptions within the framework, not a replacement for it. Biologically, sex remains determined by reproductive anatomy and chromosomal makeup: XX for female, XY for male.
                                  
                                  What often gets blurred in these conversations is the distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Gender identity involves psychological and social factors, but from a strictly biological standpoint, human reproduction and sexual differentiation are binary. The existence of variations doesn’t erase that reality; it simply shows that, as in all of biology, anomalies occur. Recognizing that doesn’t make the science less clear; it makes it more complete.

                                  replyreport
             2. 86

                My Esotericposted 4 days agoin reply to this

                No, they don't have rigid minds that don't take the whole person into account. As has been proven before, genitals are not the only thing that determines who you are.

                replyreport
13. 86

    My Esotericposted 2 days ago

    Finally, the Conservatives on SCOTUS get something humane and right for a change. But don't hold your breath for them to do it again.
    
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/10/politics … -kim-davis

    replyreport