3 ms·
> I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I think I was very clear - the article's phrasing of "until the nation confronts and acknowledges this history" wo
by deogeo 7y ago
> I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
I think I was very clear - the article's phrasing of "until the nation confronts and acknowledges this history" would have to be re-written as "until the nation examines this history in even greater detail". As it stands, it is at best highly misleading.
And I never said to stop talking about it - but you cannot simultaneously saturate the media with it, and claim it is unacknowledged. Do I really deserve to be compared to Nazis for noticing this?
For contrast, living in the EU, I hear far more about US slavery and the civil rights movement, than the Holodomor, with an estimated 4 million dead, that was much more recent and practically next-door. That held true even when Russia invaded Ukraine to take Crimea. To relate this to your Nazi comparison, imagine if Germany invaded Israel, and somehow the Holocaust wouldn't get mentioned.
Let me put it this way - which historical atrocities get more coverage than US mistreatment of blacks? How short would that list have to get, before you would take issue with "until the nation confronts and acknowledges this history"?
- cjohnson318 7y agoThe article's phrasing of "until the nation confronts and acknowledges this history" is accurate. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta. Practically no one knows about these massacres. People think the sum total of racial violence after the war is what they've seen in the media: some civil rights protests, and a couple of lynchings by the KKK. Acknowledging a thing, and then rejecting its significance is called lip-service. In America, we give a lot of lip-service to history, but we don't really accept it, or confront it.