# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about TKAMB because it teaches us about the racial and class conflict and relations in the USA. This is especially important as u

# data[].attributes.body
I think we should learn about TKAMB because it can help us understand the past and conscious of racism that is happening around us.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn to TKAMB because it gives us an idea of the history of racism against the African Americans in the 1930s and it also reflects on what is happening now

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn To Kill A Mocking Bird because it helps us to understand and learn the pass. This helps us to understand and be aware of racism that happened or is happening.

# data[].attributes.body
We should embark on the journey of discovery on TKAMB because this piece of literature shows us the brutality and the cruelty a society can wreak upon a black man, Scout Finch.

TKAMB can teach us different perspectives, and think "differently". It educates us how hard life was for some Americans in the 1930s.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we should learn about To Kill A Mockingbird because it explains to us about the past. This helps us understand about racism, which happened before but is still happening. It also teaches us to have empathy for others.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about To Kill a Mockingbird because it teaches us the unjust racism that was happening in the USA during the 1900s. The 1900s are when racism was at its worst and it also tells us how messed up the world is considering blacks are still being discriminated against.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about TKAMB because it tells us about the racism in the 1930s, and how unfair the criminal justice system was in the 1930s. When learning and reading TKAMB, it allows the readers to take awareness of the racism back then and now.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about TKAMB because it reflects on the racism happening in the American history. It presented us the flaws inside the legal system at the time, and how justice could be achieved. It's also a great piece of literature for us to study.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about TKAMB because it gives a brief explanation on the history in 1930s and it shows the brutality of racism. TKAMB make students take awareness of racism in the present and show how the impact of inequality on both an individual and the society. TKAMB also teaches students about the value of empathy and understanding the difference between different classes.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about To Kill a Mockingbird because its important to study the past and how past people like Harper Lee saw the issues.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn To Kill A Mockingbird because as a bildungsroman, it shows the connections between the moral values of a society and the maturation of its characters.

To Kill A Mockingbird teaches us about perspective and the importance of empathy. The novel's principle character: Scout Finch, starts off not quite knowing how to get along with others, baffled by how Walter Cunningham had his lunch and resorting to violence to resolve her problems. Over the course of the narrative, Scout witnesses racial prejudices and how people dismiss families by labelling them according to "inherited" characteristics. She goes from thinking Boo Radley strange to be unwilling to leave his house, to understanding his desire to distance himself from the capacities of evil in people.

To Kill A Mockingbird teaches us to develop critical thinking. If the people of Maycomb had been less ignorant to the struggles of a Black man, would the jury still have convicted Tom Robinson? If there had been women on the jury, would the result have been different?

To Kill A Mockingbird is definitely a book worth learning, as we as children grow up, we may find parallels between our experiences and Scout's, in which case it would definitely be beneficial to approach the book open-mindedly.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn to kill a Mockingbird should be learned because it reflects on what is happening in BLM right now.

By learning about BLM, we learn about racism in the modern society, while by learning about TKAMB, we are learning about racism problems from the past.

# data[].attributes.body
I think black lives do matter and that they should be valued equally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things Shawn Gio KWAN has made

# data[].attributes.body
BLM has been around for many years already. But it was further spoken about recently after the death of George Floyd. Many people felt this was unjust and racist, because people think that it would not have happened had it been a white man. Many protestors rioted along the streets, as well as looting and burning of buildings. Although i do agree that Black lives do matter, these protestors are going too far. Im afraid nothing is going to change.

# data[].attributes.body
We should learn about To Kill A Mockingbird because it portrays racism in 1930s and shows how deeply flawed their criminal justice system was. It shows how much prejudice affects a society and reminds the reader how present these problems still are in modern society. Also, it's regarded as a masterpiece of American literature and has a 4.3 rating on goodreads.

# data[].attributes.body
The blm acts are important because they matter, and racism should still be improved. All the policeman who have murdered black people should serve time. Equity is important because it gives everyone the opportunity to do what they want. The looting is not okay and not the way they should spread the message, but as of right now thats the only thing they can do

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that black lives should be treated fairer and with much more respect. I definitely support the BLM movement because it helps to stop the racism and unfarinest treated towards black lives.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the BLM movement is essential in the American history, since citizens should be treated equally. Although, the violence caused by both sides in this movement should cease and peace should be achieved in order to receive peace and stop racism.

# data[].attributes.body
To Kill a Mockingbird should be learned because it portrays what happens because of the unjust criminal justice system.  Tom was falsely accused with very little evidence to prove he did what happened.
It is important to learn about how class, race and gender impacted people and it can help students form an opinion.
It teaches the reader values from the way the story replicates what would have happened, or something similar to what could have happened.
-The narrator of TKAM is not the most trustworthy as Scout Finch was a child-unrealistic when it happened.

# data[].attributes.body
Apologies if I offended anyone.

I think that race and black people should be treated with respect, and that black and whites are equal in the United States of America, I support the Black Lives matter movement, as the deaths of many blacks and police brutality in certain states is unacceptable.

However, I think that the protesters way overreacted over the death of George Floyd. He received a funeral worthy of a president's when he was just an average citizen. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I think that it was overkill for protesting so hard over the death of 1 man, as the protests and support for him have caused the deaths of many others too. So in conclusion, I support the BLM movement, but I think that its overkill and people overreacted over the death of George Floyd.

- Shawn

# data[].attributes.body
To my opinion, I think that BLM is important as everyone deserves the same treatment of life. Racism improved throughout history but it is still a problem in America. I clearly understand the anger blacks have toward racism and the thoughts they have about injust. I disagree with looting, hurting others and demolishing properties but I do understand why blacks do these particular actions. To alleviate the conditions of racism and ease peace, the whites need to change their perspective and opinions on blacks and the government needs to take obvious actions on economic inequality and injustice caused by skin color difference.

# data[].attributes.body
My opinion on this matter is that the BLM movement is extremely important since racism and oppression towards black people is still a major problem in America. I believe that the police officers who murdered black people should be convicted. I don't agree to the looting and destruction of stores, but I believe their actions are somewhat justifiable, since no action has been taken to change their policing system after many peaceful protests.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that race shouldn’t be such a big playing factor in politics and the treatment of people. However, although I find it saddening that people are desperate enough to resort to violence, I don’t believe that either side should be using violence to voice out their opinions and make themselves heard.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that whether or not we use a peaceful or violent way of approaching the topic of racism, some people are bound to be unhappy. Likewise, the happy people will oppose those that aren't. Therefore, I don't give a crap and y'all can do whatever you want.

# data[].attributes.body
I think black lives definitely matter, and the violence and oppression happening to them (in the past and the present) is unjust and unfair. I support peaceful protests because they are not hurting others or defacing property. However, if the protests escalate and people begin to loot stores or intentionally hurt others, I think they have crossed a line.

-racism may be enforced by the history of one's race.
-most people are subconsciously racist and do not think that they are racist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am sitting in my eighth-grade civics class learning what it is to be an American.

Around me, the cool kids wear Abercrombie & Fitch, and I do too, ever since I persuaded my parents to buy me some. (I cycle relentlessly through my three precious items; one is a dark olive-green "muscle T" whose purpose is entirely lost on my slight frame.) Our textbook cover bears the rippling glory of the stars and stripes. In it, we learn about the three branches of government and major Supreme Court cases. We read and discuss novels like Lord of the Flies and To Kill a Mockingbird. We watch movies. An adaptation of Mockingbird and High Noon, black-and-white movies about White (not Black) heroes.

On this day, on a boxy television screen, Gregory Peck, tall and handsome in his button-down vest, grapples with his sense of duty-to community, to loved ones, to the ideals of law and nation. Peck stands up to an angry mob and offers a vision of who I might become: a movie star. Or, failing that, Atticus Finch. A little less than a decade earlier and a thousand miles from where I grew up, David E. Kirkland was also introduced to Mockingbird in a classroom. While I read it as a White eighth-grader in the Northern Virginia suburbs, he read it as a Black ninth-grader in Detroit. Our real-life civic lessons were different.

While I had been aware of the recent Bill Clinton scandal involving Monica Lewinsky and the mass shooting at Columbine High, he had been aware of rioting in L.A. and the death of unarmed Malice Green at the hands of his city's police. "So I had a lot of questions," said Kirkland, who would later become an English professor, an activist, and executive director of New York University's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools. "I was glad to begin to explore issues of racism, and racial injustice, as they existed in my reality, through a text that would talk about it." Instead, he and his classmates "got a chance to romanticize Atticus Finch."

"We had an opportunity to see a young girl live in her innocence. We had an opportunity to feel sorry when that innocence was disrupted by this reality that racism existed. Well, I lived in a community where young kids didn't get to enjoy innocence." Ultimately, he said, the discussion of the book was more harmful than if "the text had not been talked about in the class in the first place."

Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird is the closest thing America has to required reading. Oprah Winfrey has called it "our national novel." The story follows Scout Finch, a young White girl in Depression-era Alabama, as her attorney father, Atticus, defends a Black man, Tom Robinson, who has been wrongfully accused of rape. In 1961, the book won Lee the Pulitzer Prize and the next year was adapted into an Academy Award-winning film. It has since sold more than 40 million copies.

The book has been as controversial as popular. Attempts to ban it from schools began in Ohio in 1963 and continue today. When that happens, defenders and detractors alike rise up to debate its place in our classrooms. Meanwhile, the book is called on as a source of moral authority for specious causes, such as when Sen. John Cornyn compared the Republican defense of Supreme Court then-candidate Brett Kavanaugh to Atticus' defense of Tom Robinson. Amid this swirl of adoration, vitriol, and confusion, educators across the country continue to teach Mockingbird. That includes me.

I've adored the book ever since my eighth-grade civics class; that was at an impressionable age for sorting ideals of manhood. I read it again in college and several times since. The relationship between Scout and her brother, Jem, is richly observed, and for a long time I saw Atticus Finch as a model for how to be an upstanding White man in an unjust world. But when I tried teaching Mockingbird to my own students, I wasn't particularly successful at engaging them in the story or having meaningful discussions about its contemporary relevance. This is a struggle I have heard echoed repeatedly over the last year and a half as I've spoken with dozens of educators, parents, students, experts, and writers, trying to understand Mockingbird 's place in our culture and classrooms. It's become a literary infatuation.

I've traveled to Lee's Alabama hometown, Monroeville. I've reported in Biloxi, Mississippi, one of the many places where the book has been pulled from school curricula. I've reflected on my own relationship with the book and analyzed both the new "biography" of Atticus by historian Joseph Crespino and the new Broadway adaptation of Mockingbird by Aaron Sorkin. I've spoken with teachers from Chicago to Hawai'i and collected a nearly teetering pile of books about the book.

We live in an America in which the majority of public school students are people of color and about 80 percent of public school teachers are White. We assign our students this novel by a White author about a White girl whose White father tries (and fails) to save a Black man. Meanwhile, our students are living in Trump's America. They are worrying about their parents' immigration status and their physical safety on the streets of their neighborhoods and whether the state has control over their bodies. They are scrolling through Instagram and soaking up the stories and images of Black Lives Matter and #MeToo-and Make America Great Again.

Too many White teachers, including me, fail to make Mockingbird resonate because we ignore the ways in which discussions about racial justice have changed since we ourselves were taught Mockingbird. And as Kirkland attests, we are damaging too many students of color in the process-and have been for a long time. The book never worked for them at all. So how do we teach To Kill a Mockingbird today?

1. Take Atticus Off His Pedestal

Earlier this year, the nonprofit Facing History and Ourselves hosted a two-day workshop, "Teaching Mockingbird," designed to provide resources for teaching the book in a more historically informed and culturally relevant way. The Facing History folks allowed me to report on the training on the condition that I actively participate. And so I found myself in snowy Chicago, sitting in a bright conference room alongside some of the hardest-working people in America: a dozen or so middle and high school teachers. The educators there were predominantly White women. One 35-year classroom veteran estimated she had taught the book 20 to 25 times. As a child, she said, she'd wanted Atticus Finch to be her father. As a grown-up, she'd wanted him to be her husband. "Don't mess with him!" she implored, punctuating her point by jabbing her index finger. This was a common refrain. Driven in no small part by the chiseled features and pacifying nobility of actor Gregory Peck's portrayal, people talk about Finch in tones not only of reverence, but of attraction-and protectiveness. At another moment in the workshop, when I noted some of his flaws, a teacher responded, "Not Atticus. Not my Atticus! I've tried to keep him as a good thing in my head."

Teachers who want to prepare young people for texts like this need to be trained in leading healthy discussions about race and identity.

"When I read this book in high school, I was guided to think that Atticus is the savior," noted another teacher the next day. Someone else offered that this was perhaps a result of "our misreading of the text itself, and our need to lionize" our heroes. "Our" in this case refers mainly to White readers, like me. And I completely understood where those teachers were coming from. When author Malcom Gladwell published a critique of Atticus' limited liberalism in The New Yorker in 2009, I sent him a self-righteous rebuttal, 2,500 words long and with no fewer than 19 pieces of textual evidence. Gladwell, to his credit, did not respond. "You want to believe in the Gregory Peck version of him," a facilitator explained at one point during our workshop, but as you're reading you will realize "he's a man of his time." Specifically, a White man of his time and far from revolutionary. In Chapter 15 of Mockingbird, Atticus assures his son that the local Ku Klux Klan was "a political organization more than anything," one that "couldn't find anybody to scare" and would "never come back." In Chapter 27, when asked whether he's a radical, Atticus replies, "I'm about as radical as Cotton Tom Heflin." I looked it up: Heflin was an Alabama politician and White supremacist. But "I don't want to hate Atticus," said yet another teacher. Someone suggested that Atticus can be both admirable in certain ways and reprehensible in others. "It makes people we admire more accessible when we recognize their humanity."

2. Decenter Whiteness

One of our tasks during the workshop was to act out the chapter in which a lynch mob arrives with the intention of kidnapping and killing Tom Robinson. Its climax is the moment in which Scout accidentally (and ahistorically) turns the mob away. I offered the suggestion that one of us play Tom Robinson, even though he had no dialogue at all on the pages we'd been assigned. He is rendered a virtual footnote in this scene in which his life nearly ends, speaking only at the very end of the chapter to ask Atticus whether the mob has left. As we discussed Tom's silence, one of the teachers admitted that, while she knew the men of this "strange assembly" wanted to hurt him, she had never explicitly understood that the scene was about a lynch mob. This was a symptom of the book's greatest flaw: its centering of Whiteness. Readers see the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama, solely through the eyes of a White, privileged little girl, and that's part of why we focused on this scene. We were to ask ourselves what problems with reliability this perspective causes. Scout is charming, sure. But she's also limited. Her blind spots swallow whole worlds. She never uses the word "lynch," perhaps because she doesn't know it. Hence Kirkland's ninth-grade alienation when he encountered Scout. While my eighth-grade self slowly lost my innocence alongside her, he was left to wonder what such innocence might have felt like in the first place. During Kirkland's years as a high school teacher, he was required to teach the book. So he approached it through a Black critical lens with his students. What they found together was that in Mockingbird, "there is no space for Black humanity. There is no value for Blackness. In a sense, in that book, Black lives don't necessarily matter. "The event of a White man defending a Black man was not about the Black man's life, but, in fact, it was about the White man, and about Whiteness, and about the ability for White people to be seen as human, and moral, and good." Echoing that is Angela Shaw-Thornburg, a Black writer and former professor of American and African literature. In her 2010 essay "On Reading To Kill a Mockingbird: 50 Years Later," she describes her reluctance to teach Mockingbird because it "represents African Americans as peripheral, incapable of self-representation, monumentally passive, and positively grateful for the small compensation of White guilt over injustices done to African Americans." What gets to her "are those moments of struggle or, even worse, dreadful silence when ... students who are people of color try to figure out why they feel unvoiced by the literature they are reading."

Film still from Universal International Pictures.

One way to counteract this phenomenon is to offer a balance of authors. Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Zora Neale Hurston, Sandra Cisneros, and many others-works such as March, The Hate U Give, On the Come Up, Dear Martin, All American Boys, I Am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter, and Turning 15 on the Road to Freedom-wrestle with some of the same themes as Mockingbird while centering Black and Latino perspectives. And when considering Mockingbird, ask whose voices, thoughts, and emotions are and aren't being heard. Who gets to be three-dimensional? Why, for example, at the end of the trial scene, do we learn nothing of Tom's reaction to the verdict? (The Broadway adaptation of Mockingbird by Aaron Sorkin adds scenes to flesh out the perspectives of Tom Robinson and Calpurnia. In each of them, Atticus Finch is not the wisest person on the stage.)

3. Explore Identity

Facing History's Mockingbird curriculum is comprehensive, asking students to explore their own identities before they even begin reading the novel. The exercises push students to consider stereotypes and the labels they've been given, "in" groups and "out" groups, and key moments in their own moral development. The exercises are important for teachers as well, because they need to be able to navigate conversations about identity honestly and with emotional intelligence. Some of the most divisive fights have occurred, for example, when White teachers are unsure how to handle the N-word with students when it comes up in the text. That's what caused the Biloxi, Mississippi, school district to stop teaching the book in 2017. I met with Yolanda Williams, the Black mother whose complaint set the events in motion. Williams said that when her daughter's eighth-grade classmates reached the N-word in their texts, both the young White teacher and her students read the word aloud. Students reacted in a rowdy manner, she said, openly laughing and using the word outside of the text. Williams decided to speak up. She scheduled a parent-teacher conference with the principal. "My grandfather marched with Martin Luther King Jr.," she explained. "My uncle was one of the first to attend all-White Biloxi High School. My parents had crosses burned in their yard. Just from my history, I think, is where a little bit of the fire in me comes from." The controversy was oversimplified in the national press as a case of censorship. (Biloxi Public Schools administration declined to comment for this article.) Teachers who want to prepare young people for texts like Mockingbird need to be trained in leading healthy discussions about race and identity. According to Biloxi Junior High's online curriculum resources, teaching Mockingbird was intended to raise important questions such as "What does it mean to be racist?" and "What does it mean to take a stand?" It's worth remembering that because many students will never actually read Mockingbird (or any book they've been assigned) cover to cover, the stands we take in class will stick with them the most.

4. Include Go Set a Watchman

In 2015, Lee shocked the literary world with a sequel; she hadn't published a novel since Mockingbird. She hadn't even given a substantial interview in a half-century. Go Set a Watchman, about an older Scout reassessing her father, sold more than 1.1 million copies in its first week, a mark against which today's bestsellers still measure themselves. Critics were largely negative, deriding the book as didactic and clunky, and some were distracted by intrigue over its authenticity as well as whether Lee consented to its publication. The new work painted Atticus as an NAACP-opposing racist, and many simply refused to read it. Author Charles J. Shields, who published an unauthorized biography of Lee in 2006, says he was changed by Watchman. He realized he needed to update the Lee biography to contend not only with Atticus' more evident racism in Watchman, but also the lawyer's racism in Mockingbird. This was a point that had actually been made for years, Shields noted, often by Black scholars. Shields, who is White, was frustrated with himself for missing this the first time around. "I was relieved that I had the opportunity to revise the book." Author and Auburn University professor Wayne Flynt is considered a scholar of Southern history and culture, particularly the civil rights movement. A longtime friend of Lee, he said he was inspired to move back home to Alabama as a young man by the example of Atticus Finch. When Lee died in 2016, he eulogized her at her funeral, at her request, by describing Atticus and the values he espoused in Mockingbird.

We-White people-don't really have to deal with racial stress very much. As a result, we aren't very good at it.

Yet he too appreciates the more complicated man of Watchman. "I really like the new Atticus better than the old Atticus," said Flynt, who is White, "because the new Atticus is more like me, more like my father, more like the world, more like reality. It's To Kill a Mockingbird that is unbelievable, not Watchman." Kirkland, for one, believes there may be a simpler, subtler reason for what seemed to be a collective rejection of Watchman: It made people uncomfortable. " Mockingbird has been given to so many of us as our dose of Americana. It has been the elixir that made us aspire to the Dream. To remain in our slumber. To remain asleep. Mockingbird was that book that was our sedative. Watchman was the book that would wake us up." The timing of that wake-up couldn't have been more urgent. Watchman was released on the same day as Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me. A month earlier, Donald Trump descended a golden escalator and formally declared his candidacy for president. The next day, a White terrorist murdered nine Black worshipers at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. "And as we can see right now, there isn't much conversation about Watchman," Kirkland said. "There wasn't much conversation six months after it was published! They succeeded in putting it to bed, and the way that they put it to bed was to discredit its literary merit. Which I think was the most unfortunate, and most anti-intellectual, circumstance surrounding this book."

Author Harper Lee on the film set with Mary Badham 10 who played Scout. Photo from Universal International Pictures.

Robin DiAngelo, author of the 2018 bestseller White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, has a theory that goes like this: White people in North America get to be racially comfortable. We-White people-don't really have to deal with racial stress very much. As a result, we aren't very good at it. So we develop "White fragility." This leads us to do whatever it takes to avoid racial stress. We get angry. We get scared. We feel guilty. (Or some of us write an unsolicited essay to Malcolm Gladwell-"not defending Southern liberalism," as I wrote in a footnote, "just Atticus.") Or we refuse to read Watchman. And we say it's because it's "not a good-enough book," "not legitimate." Even if it's actually because we can't take it.

5. Have a Reason

Christina Torres is an eighth-grade English teacher in Hawai'i. She has taught Mockingbird six times in her seven years in the classroom. Each time, her process evolves. At first, she said, her approach was "Isn't this such a great story that proves how racism is bad?" But over time, the novel became more of an entry point for talking about social justice. As her teaching of it continued to evolve, she began to see the book as a way to talk about privilege-racial, class, and gender. Now she is pushing her students to discuss privilege both within the story and outside of it: Is Atticus a 'White savior'? What does it mean for this White author to tell this story through a White lens? What would it mean if the story were told through the eyes of Calpurnia, the maid? I asked Kirkland how he would teach the book today-if he were forced. He said he'd create a three-book unit: To Kill a Mockingbird, Go Set a Watchman, and Between the World and Me. "I'd put all three in conversation. And then we'd begin to grapple with what those three texts in conversation might mean." Kirkland said he'd push his students to compare the two versions of Atticus and to ask the tough questions such a comparison provokes: "How did [Lee] originally see race relations in the United States? And when did she happen upon the type of colorblind, kumbaya, To Kill a Mockingbird statement that later gets made?" After all, Kirkland noted, "Harper Lee wanted to tell the truth [in Watchman], before her editors pushed her to write a more fairy-tale version of that narrative [in Mockingbird]." These two teachings of Mockingbird-in Torres' actual classroom and in Kirkland's hypothetical one-are both driven by a purpose deeper and smarter than my own. When I taught Mockingbird, I was doing so nostalgically. I loved it and wanted my students to love it, too. During the Chicago Facing History and Ourselves workshop, we reread a passage from after the trial. Miss Maudie, one of the Finch family's White neighbors, tells Scout, "Well, we're making a step-It's just a baby step, but it's a step." The line is chillingly euphemistic, given Tom Robinson's ultimate fate. Not too long after that rereading of Miss Maudie's musing, one of the participants reflected on how she hoped to teach Mockingbird in the future. "At least we're looking at this book differently," she said. We may not have it all figured out, but this was "a little baby step." True. But it's time to stride.

"You want to believe in the Gregory Peck version of him," a facilitator explained at one point during our workshop, but as you're reading you will realize "he's a man of his time."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Do We Teach "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Honestly Confront Racism? - Yes! Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am sitting in my eighth-grade civics class learning what it is to be an American. Around me, the cool kids wear Abercrombie & Fitch, and I do too, ever since I persuaded my parents to buy me some.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/travel/opinion/2019/07/09/books-teach-to-kill-a-mockingbird-racism/

# data[].attributes.body
i think racial inequality is a large ongoing problem in america, I believe that race should not be a big factor in politics and everyone should be treated equally and fairly. I do agree with the Black Lives Matter movement however I think there are better ways to voice their opinions and looting and violence is never the answer to anything. racial discrimination in america is one of the biggest ongoing issues and people need to change and treat everyone of every race fairly.

# data[].attributes.body
Some part of the reason why Trump was elected or might get elected again were because the young voters that would have been useful in getting a 'better' president didn't vote.  The younger people thought more about how the candidates could help THEM but the older people were more focused on getting an ally that could potentially cause some sort of change.   They were not all compelled to either campaign or vote for either candidates.

The Republican vote is based mainly in very southern states, (including Alabama which was mentioned in TKAM). They are based mainly in the suburbs where the old rich people live because they have different morals and virtues than states considered more leftist like New York.

The young people have a more well rounded upbringing, around media that sometimes brought a light onto movements like BLM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The recent protests against police brutality are some of the largest and most widespread in American history. An estimated 15 million to 26 million Americans have taken to the streets to protest police violence and advocate for Black lives.

The remarkable size and scope of these demonstrations has translated into real policy gains, too. Dozens of state and local police reforms have been enacted since the protests started. And at the federal level, President Trump signed an executive order that outlines his administration's priorities for police reform, including creating a national database that catalogues police misconduct. The House of Representatives passed an even more ambitious piece of legislation that proposes a series of reforms, like tying federal funding to bans on chokeholds and setting up a task force to address excessive police force, but the GOP-controlled Senate hasn't taken it up.

Arguably, though, the protests' impact on public opinion has been even more immediate and wide-ranging. Unfavorable views of the police, acknowledgement of widespread discrimination against African Americans and support for Black Lives Matter all jumped up by at least 10 percentage points, according to tracking polls conducted shortly before and after the protests by both Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape and Civiqs.

These changes in public opinion are being driven in large part by white Americans, who for years have been much less likely than Black Americans to acknowledge that racial inequality remains a real problem. Since the first wave of large-scale Black Lives Matter protests in 2014, white Americans' racial attitudes have gradually become more liberalized while Black Americans' views have remained relatively steady.

Trump's many offensive statements may be contributing to this trend, as they seem to be driving Democrats, particularly white Democrats, to adopt more liberal views on race in response. That's one reason so many white Democrats showed up at the most recent protests.

But the protests' impact on public opinion appears to be fading - particularly among white Americans, as you can see in the chart below. Black Americans' opinions have stayed much steadier, as they have in the past.

Drawing on data from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape's weekly tracking surveys, I found that unfavorable views of the police are trending back down toward their pre-protest levels among white Americans and have dipped among Black Americans. White respondents are also becoming somewhat less likely to say that African Americans face "a lot" or "a great deal" of discrimination, though those numbers remain higher than they were before before George Floyd was killed in May. Black Americans' views on the discrimination they face have remained essentially unchanged.

The same patterns are evident in tracking surveys from Civiqs and YouGov/The Economist. In the Civiqs data, white respondents' net support (support minus opposition) for the Black Lives Matter movement surged from -4 shortly before the protests to +10 in early June, but has since dropped to 6 points underwater. Meanwhile, Black Americans' net support went from +76 in early May to +85 in early June and has remained within a point of that mark ever since. And in the YouGov/The Economist surveys, the share of white Americans who said racism is a big problem decreased from 45 percent in June to 33 percent when the question was last asked in early August. Three-quarters of Black Americans, on the other hand, said racism was a big problem in both surveys.

Why, then, do white Americans' views on racism and the police seem to be returning to their baseline, but Black Americans' views remain steady? Well, as media attention turns away from the protests, it may simply be easier for white people to forget about the issue, while the stakes were always greater for Black Americans.

In an analysis of closed captioning data of cable news broadcasts from the TV News Archive, we found a huge spike in the number of clips that mentioned " racism" or "Black Lives Matter " as the protests raged during the first two weeks of June. But, as you can see in the chart below, the amount of attention cable news paid to racism and the Black Lives Matter movement has dropped as we've moved farther away from peak protest activity. (Coverage of these two issues is still higher than it was prior to Floyd's death, however.)

This surge and decline in media attention clearly corresponds to changes in public opinion among white Americans, and it's possible that some of the historic gains we've seen in white views of the Black Lives Matter movement might not last.

This drop is not surprising, since we've seen it before in how public opinion changes on school shootings, for example. Because media attention on even the most high-profile mass shootings tends to be fleeting, so are these shootings' effects on public opinion. And now, white Americans' opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement may be following the same trajectory. That's driving a decline in overall public support even as Black Americans continue to back the movement at very high rates.

This decline in public opinion is consistent with a long line of political science research that tells us that the effects of events on public opinion tend to last only for as long as they are at the forefront of the country's - or, in this case, one group's - collective consciousness. That also means that without prolonged activism and sustained media attention, the impact of this year's protests on white public opinion could evaporate entirely.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Support For Black Lives Matter Surged During Protests, But Is Waning Among White Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The recent protests against police brutality are some of the largest and most widespread in American history. An estimated 15 million to 26 million Americans have taken to the streets to protest police violence and advocate for Black lives. The remarkable size and scope of these demonstrations has translated into real policy gains, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated June 2, 2020

Black Lives Matter: An Activist Movement

Black Lives Matter is an activist movement which began as a hashtag (#BlackLivesMatter) after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African-American teenager killed in Florida in July 2013. The movement became more widely known and popularized after two high-profile deaths in 2014 of unarmed African-American men (Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY and Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO). Neither of the police officers involved in their deaths were indicted (i.e., formally charged with a crime).

Violence against African Americans

There is a larger context and history of African American men and boys who were killed at the hands of the police, many of whom, like George Floyd (2020), were unarmed. Since 2014, other high-profile deaths include Tamir Rice (2014), Laquan McDonald (2014), John Crawford (2014) Freddie Gray (2015), Walter Scott (2015), Alton Sterling (2016), Philando Castile (2016), Terence Crutcher (2016), Antwon Rose (2018) and others. Black women and girls are also targets of police violence, a reality that sparked the "Say Her Name" movement to highlight how this violence often goes unnoticed. Women who have died as a result of police interactions include Sandra Bland (2015), Deborah Danner (2016), Atatiana Jefferson (2019) and Breonna Taylor (2020).

From Protests to Policy Solutions

Ongoing local and national protests and other actions-often sparked by the deaths of other unarmed African Americans-have brought the Black Lives Matter movement to the public consciousness and conversation. Black Lives activists released "Campaign Zero," which includes ten policy solutions developed in conjunction with activists, protestors and researchers across the country, integrating community demands, input from research organizations and the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

On March 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the findings in two separate investigations related to Ferguson. One report found a pattern of civil rights violations on the part of the Ferguson Police Department. A second report determined that "the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson." Two weeks later, on March 17, the Department and the city of Ferguson formally announced an agreement "aiming to remedy the unconstitutional law enforcement conduct that the Justice Department found during its civil pattern-or-practice investigation." The announcement resolved a pending federal lawsuit against Ferguson, and addressed a range of issues including bias-free police and court practices, protecting all individuals' First Amendment rights, and reorienting Ferguson's use of force policies.

Black Lives Matter continues to pursue policy solutions beyond the events of Ferguson.

About the Lesson Plan

This high school lesson provides an opportunity for students to learn more about Black Lives Matter and the activists involved, explore the controversy about using the term "All lives matter," and posit their point of view in writing to a person of their choice.
Learning Objectives:

Students will learn about the history of the Black Lives Matter movement and how it evolved.

Students will analyze the controversy around politicians and other people using the term "All lives matter" instead of or in addition to "Black lives matter."

Students will reflect on their perspective of Black Lives Matter and write a letter to a person of their choice which reflects their new knowledge and point of view.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Lives Matter: From Hashtag to Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated June 2, 2020 Black Lives Matter is an activist movement which began as a hashtag (#BlackLivesMatter) after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African-American teenager killed in Florida in July 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
A New York Times project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor that became a leading subject of the American history wars. The 1619 Project is a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War. It was developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine. It focused on subjects of slavery and the founding of the United States. The first publication from the project was in The New York Times Magazine of August 2019. The project developed an educational curriculum, supported by the Pulitzer Center, later accompanied by a broadsheet article, live events, and a podcast.

The 1619 Project has received criticism from historians, both from the political left and the right, who question its historical accuracy. In a letter published in The New York Times in December 2019, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria E. Bynum, and James Oakes applauded "all efforts to address the enduring centrality of slavery and racism to our history" and deemed the project a "praiseworthy and urgent public service," but expressed "strong reservations" about some "important aspects" of the project and requested factual corrections. These scholars denied the project's claim that slavery was essential to the beginning of the American Revolution. In response, Jake Silverstein, the editor of The New York Times Magazine, defended The 1619 Project and refused to issue corrections. On May 4, 2020, the Pulitzer Prize board announced that it was awarding the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary to Hannah-Jones for her introductory essay.

In March 2020, in light of persistent criticism of the project's portrayal of the role of slavery, including from one of its own consulting historians, Leslie M. Harris, The New York Times issued a "clarification", modifying one of the passages on slavery's role that had sparked controversy. In September 2020, controversy again arose when the Times updated the opening text of the project website to remove the phrase "...understanding 1619 as our true founding..." without any accompanying editorial note to point to what was being redone. Critics - including the Times' own Bret Stephens - claimed the differences showed that the newspaper was backing away from some of the initiative's controversial claims. The Times defended its practices, with Hannah-Jones saying that most of the project's content had remained unchanged.

In 2020, The New York Times premiered a dedicated podcast series. In 2021, a book anthology of essays and poetry The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story was published, as well as a children's picture book The 1619 Project: Born on the Water by Hannah-Jones and Renée Watson. In January 2023, Hulu premiered a six-part documentary TV series created by Hannah-Jones and The New York Times Magazine. This series won an Emmy for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series at the 75th Creative Arts Emmy Awards.

A 1901 illustration of the landing of the first Africans in Virginia in 1619. The White Lion is seen anchored in the background.

The 1619 Project was launched in August 2019 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the British colony of Virginia. In 1619, a group of "twenty and odd" captive Africans arrived in the Virginia Colony. An English privateer operating under a Dutch letter of marque, , carried 20-30 Africans who had been captured in joint African-Portuguese raids against the Kingdom of Ndongo in modern-day Angola, making its landing at Point Comfort in the English colony of Virginia.

Although the project places this moment in the context of slavery in the colonial history of the United States, some critics have taken issue. The first enslaved Africans were brought to North America in 1526, and European enslavement of Native Americans has been documented as far back as Columbus in 1493-94. (There is also some evidence for free Africans from Spain among Christopher Columbus' crew.)

The project dedicated an issue of the magazine to a re-examination of the legacy of slavery in America, at the anniversary of the 1619 arrival of the first enslaved people to Virginia. This framing challenges the idea that American history began with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, which created the United States, or with the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620.

The project quickly grew into a larger endeavor, encompassing multiple issues of the magazine, with related materials in other Times publications, as well as a school curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center. With support from the Smithsonian, the project recruited a panel of historians to research, develop, and fact-check content. The project was envisioned with the condition that almost all of the content would be from African-American contributors, deeming the perspective of Black writers an essential element of the story to be told.

August 18, 2019, magazine issue

The first edition appeared in a 100-page issue of The New York Times Magazine on August 18, 2019. It included ten written essays, a photo essay, and a collection of poems and fiction, with an introduction by editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein, as follows:

"Our Democracy's Founding Ideals Were False When They Were Written. Black Americans Have Fought to Make Them True", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones

"American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond

"How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Difference Still Live in Medicine Today", essay by Linda Villarosa

"What the Reactionary Politics of 2019 Owe to the Politics of Slavery", essay by Jamelle Bouie

"Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?", essay by Wesley Morris

"How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam", essay by Kevin M. Kruse

"Why Doesn't America Have Universal Healthcare? One Word: Race", essay by Jeneen Interlandi

"Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery", essay by Bryan Stevenson

"The Barbaric History of Sugar in America", essay by Khalil Gibran Muhammad

"How America's Vast Racial Wealth Gap Grew: By Plunder", essay by Trymaine Lee

"Their Ancestors Were Enslaved by Law. Now They're Lawyers", photo essay by Djeneba Aduayom, with text from Nikole Hannah-Jones and Wadzanai Mhute

"A New Literary Timeline of African-American History", a collection of original poems and stories

One of the claims made by Hannah-Jones is that the colonists fought the Revolutionary War to preserve slavery. The claim was later softened to say that "some of" the colonists fought to preserve slavery. The essays further discuss details of history as well as modern American society, such as traffic jams and the American affinity for sugar, and their connections to slavery and segregation. Matthew Desmond's essay argues that slavery has shaped modern capitalism and workplace norms. Jamelle Bouie's essay draws parallels between pro-slavery politics and the modern right-wing politics. Bouie argues that the United States still has not let go of the assumption that some people inherently deserve more power than others.

The magazine issue was accompanied by a special section in the Sunday newspaper, in partnership with the Smithsonian, examining the beginnings of the transatlantic slave trade, written by Mary Elliott and Jazmine Hughes. Beginning on August 20, a multi-episode audio series titled "1619" began, published by The Daily, the morning news podcast of the Times. The Sunday sports section had an essay about slavery's impact on professional sports in the United States: "Is Slavery's Legacy in the Power Dynamics of Sports?" The Times plans to take the project to schools, with the 1619 Project Curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center. Hundreds of thousands of extra copies of the magazine issue were printed for distribution to schools, museums and libraries.

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting has made available free online lesson plans, is collecting further lesson plans from teachers, and helps arrange for speakers to visit classes. The Center considers most of the lessons usable by all grades from elementary school through college.

In November 2021, Random House's One World imprint published the anthology The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story. It is a book-length expansion of the project's essays. The book was created by Nikole Hannah-Jones and The New York Times Magazine, and is edited by Hannah-Jones, Caitlin Roper, Ilena Silverman and Jake Silverstein. Six of the essays from the anthology were adapted into a six-episode miniseries, "The 1619 Project", which premiered on January 26, 2023, on Hulu.

Historical accuracy

In an essay for The New York Review of Books, historian Sean Wilentz accused the project of cynicism for its portrayal of the American Revolution, the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, who Wilentz wrote is "rendered as a white supremacist". In a December 2019 letter published in The New York Times, Wilentz, along with fellow historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the authors of a "displacement of historical understanding by ideology". The letter disputed the claim, made in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay, that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery". The Times published the letter along with a rebuttal from the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jake Silverstein, who defended the accuracy of the 1619 Project and declined to issue corrections. Wood responded in a letter, "I don't know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves... No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776." In an article in The Atlantic, Wilentz responded to Silverstein, writing, "No effort to educate the public in order to advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for basic facts", and disputing the accuracy of Silverstein's defense of the project.

Also in December 2019, twelve scholars and political scientists specializing in the American Civil War sent a letter to the Times saying that "The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery." While agreeing to the importance of examining American slavery, they objected to what they described as the portrayal of slavery as a uniquely American phenomenon, to construing slavery as a capitalist venture, and to presenting out-of-context quotes of a conversation between Abraham Lincoln and "five esteemed free black men". The following month, Times editor Jake Silverstein issued a response stating that no corrections were necessary.

In January 2020, historian Susan Parker, who specializes in the studies of Colonial United States at Flagler College, noted that slavery existed before any of the Thirteen Colonies. She wrote in an editorial in The St. Augustine Record that "The settlement known as San Miguel de Gualdape lasted for about six weeks from late September 1526 to the middle of November. Historian Paul Hoffman writes that the slaves at San Miguel rebelled and set fire to some homes of the Spaniards." Writing in , several historians-among them Parker, archaeologist Kathleen A. Deagan also of Flagler, and civil rights activist and historian David Nolan -all agreed that slavery was present decades before the year 1619. According to Deagan, people have "spent their careers trying to correct the erroneous belief" in such a narrative, with Nolan claiming that in ignoring the earlier settlement, the authors were "robbing black history".

In March 2020, historian Leslie M. Harris, who had been consulted for the project, wrote in that she had warned that the idea that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery was inaccurate, and that the Times made avoidable mistakes, but that the project was "a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories". Hannah-Jones has also said that she stands by the claim that slavery helped fuel the revolution, though she concedes she might have phrased it too strongly in her essay, in a way that could give readers the impression that the support for slavery was universal. On March 11, 2020, Silverstein authored an "update" in the form of a "clarification" on the Times' website, correcting Hannah-Jones's essay to state that "protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists". This "clarification" was reportedly prompted by a private warning to Silverstein by Harvard classicist and political scientist Danielle Allen that she might go public with criticism if the passage on the revolution were not corrected.

In December 2023, historian James Oakes wrote a detailed essay published in that criticized the historical accuracy of the project in multiple areas, stating that it "has botched the history of the slave economy, misconstrued the origins of Northern economic development, erased the history of antislavery, and rendered emancipation irrelevant".

In September 2020, Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project because it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding". Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones that 1619 was the nation's true founding. Critics cited by The Washington Post, such as magazine, argued that this showed that the Times was quietly revising its position without acknowledgement of the original mischaracterization. The conservative National Association of Scholars published a letter asking for the revocation of the project's Pulitzer Prize.

In an opinion column in the New York Times, Bret Stephens said that Hannah-Jones had said the argument about dating the founding to 1619 was self-evidently metaphorical, but said "these were not minor points. The deleted assertions went to the core of the project's most controversial goal, 'to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation's birth year'", and argued, "The question of journalistic practices, however, raises deeper doubts about the 1619 Project's core premises." This column led to tension within the Times, and prompted statements by Times executive editor Dean Baquet, publisher A. G. Sulzberger and New York Times Magazine editor Jake Silverstein in support of the 1619 Project. Responding to criticism, Hannah-Jones wrote on Twitter, "Those who've wanted to act as if tweets/discussions about the project hold more weight than the actual words of the project cannot be taken in good faith", and that "Those who point to edits of digital blurbs but ignore the unchanged text of the actual project cannot be taken in good faith."

Motivations for the American Revolution

Significant controversy has centered on the project's claim that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery". According to Princeton University professor Sean Wilentz, the claim that there was a "perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776" is an ahistorical assertion, noting that the British abolitionist movement was practically non-existent in 1776. Wilentz also criticized the project's mentioning the Somerset v Stewart case to support its argument, since that legal decision concerned slavery in England, with no effect in the American colonies. Wilentz wrote that the project's claims that "if the Revolution had caused the ending of the slave trade, this would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South" did not consider the numerous attempts to outlaw-or impose prohibitive duties on-the slave trade by several colonies from 1769 to 1774. The historians critical of the project have said that many of America's Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, James Otis, and Thomas Paine, opposed slavery. They also said that every state north of Maryland took steps to abolish slavery after the revolution.

In defense of the project, Silverstein said that the Somerset case caused a "sensation" in American reports. But Wilentz countered that the decision was reported by only six newspapers in the southern colonies, and the tone of the coverage was indifferent. Also at issue was the significance of Dunmore's Proclamation as cited by Silverstein, with Wilentz asserting that the event was a response to rebellion rather than a cause; he also questioned the reliance on a quotation by Edward Rutledge as interpreted by Jill Lepore. Harris has also pointed to Dunmore's Proclamation as a spur to the disruption of slavery by the revolutionary side as well.

The 1619 Project received positive reviews by Alexandria Neason in the Columbia Journalism Review and by Ellen McGirt in magazine, which declared the project "wide-reaching and collaborative, unflinching, and insightful" and a "dramatic and necessary corrective to the fundamental lie of the American origin story."

Andrew Sullivan critiqued the project as an important perspective that needed to be heard but that was presented in a biased way under the guise of objectivity. Writing in The Washington Post, George Will called the project "malicious" and "historically illiterate." Writing in , Damon Linker found the 1619 Project's treatment of history "sensationalistic, reductionistic, and tendentious." Timothy Sandefur deemed the project's goal as worthy, but observed that the articles persistently went wrong trying to connect everything with slavery. In National Review, Phillip W. Magness wrote that the project provides a distorted economic history borrowed from "bad scholarship" of the New History of Capitalism (NHC), and Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery, such that 'it was Africans who captured other Africans, and marched them to the coast to be sold to European slavers', smears the Revolution, distorts the Constitution, and misrepresents the founding era and Lincoln. Victor Davis Hanson said that the 1619 Project reveals that The New York Times "does not care about the truth" and instead "hires and promotes its reporters and editors on woke - race and gender - criteria rather than proven reporting excellence."

In the May 2022 issue of the libertarian magazine Reason, reporter Phillip W. Magness criticized the 1619 Project as "junk history." Magness contrasted the present work of Hannah-Jones with past work at historical understanding of slavery by prominent African-Americans such as Zora Neale Hurston. Magness stated:

Hurston did not aim to bury an ugly past but to search for historical understanding. Her 1927 interview with Cudjoe Lewis, among the last living survivors of the 1860 voyage of the slave ship Clotilda, contains an invaluable eyewitness account of the middle passage as told by one of its victims. Yet Hurston saw only absurdity in trying to find justice by bludgeoning the past for its sins. "While I have a handkerchief over my eyes crying over the landing of the first slaves in 1619," she continued, "I might miss something swell that is going on in" the present day.

The project received varied reactions from political figures. Then-Democratic Senator Kamala Harris praised it in a tweet, stating "The #1619Project is a powerful and necessary reckoning of our history. We cannot understand and address the problems of today without speaking truth about how we got here."

High-profile conservatives criticized it. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "brainwashing" and "propaganda," later writing an opinion piece characterizing it as "left-wing propaganda masquerading as 'the truth'". Republican Senator Ted Cruz also equated it with propaganda. President Donald Trump, in an interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace, said,

I just look at-I look at school. I watch, I read, look at the stuff. Now they want to change-1492, Columbus discovered America. You know, we grew up, you grew up, we all did, that's what we learned. Now they want to make it the 1619 project. Where did that come from? What does it represent? I don't even know.

In July 2020, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas proposed the "Saving American History Act of 2020", prohibiting K-12 schools from using federal funds to teach curriculum related to the 1619 Project, and make schools that did ineligible for federal professional-development grants. Cotton added that "The 1619 Project is a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded." On September 6, 2020, Trump responded on Twitter to a claim that the State of California was adding the 1619 Project to the state's public school curriculum. Trump stated that the Department of Education was investigating the matter and, if the aforementioned claim was found true, federal funding would be withheld from California public schools. On September 17, Trump announced the 1776 Commission to develop a "patriotic" curriculum.

In October 2020, the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy group, published an open letter with 21 signatories calling on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind Hannah-Jones' prize because of the project's claim that "protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence."

In November 2020, Trump established the 1776 Commission by executive order, organizing 18 conservative leaders to generate an opposing response to the 1619 Project. The 1776 Report, released on January 18, 2021, was widely criticized for factual errors, incomplete or missing citations, and lack of academic rigor. The commission was terminated by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.

On April 30, 2021, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sent a letter to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona protesting the Department of Education's proposal to modify federal grants to states and local schools to "incentivize them to use tools like the 1619 Project in their classrooms" and demanding that the proposal be abandoned. McConnell's letter charged that the programs were being modified "away from their intended purposes toward a politicized and divisive agenda" and said that "Actual, trained, credentialed historians with diverse political views have debunked the project's many factual and historical errors."

The World Socialist Web Site criticized the New York Times' "falsification of history", saying that it wrongly centers on racial rather than class conflict.

Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her essay. The award cited her "sweeping, provocative and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America's story, prompting public conversation about the nation's founding and evolution."

In October 2020, New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute named the 1619 Project one of the ten greatest works of journalism in the 2010-2019 decade.

Donald Trump, in his final few months as president of the United States, vowed to ban the 1619 Project from state curricula, accusing educators of teaching their students to "hate their own country." Echoing Trump's proposal, Republican lawmakers also sought to ban the project from state curricula; bills were introduced by US Senator Tom Cotton at the federal level, by State Representative Mark Lowery in Arkansas, by State Representative Skyler Wheeler in Iowa, and by Senator Angela Burks Hill in Mississippi. By the end of the summer of 2021, 27 states had introduced bills echoing the language and intent of Cotton's bill.

Under Ron DeSantis, the 1619 Project was banned from being taught in Florida public schools, first by a 2021 Florida State Board of Education amendment banning critical race theory and again in 2022 by the Stop WOKE Act.

Gordon-Reed, Annette; Stremlau, Rose; Lowery, Malinda; Reed, Julie L.; Barker, Joanne; Sharfstein, Daniel; Scott, Daryl Michael; Wulf, Karin; Greene, Sandra E.; Sweet, James H.; Troutt Powell, Eve M.; Schine, Rachel; Mikhail, Alan; Edwards, Erika Denise; Williams, Danielle Terrazas (2022). "The 1619 Project Forum". The American Historical Review. 127 (4): 1792-1873.

Jesuthasan, Meerabelle (September 10, 2019). "Evaluating and Reshaping Timelines in The 1619 Project: New York Times for Kids Edition [lesson plans]". The New York Times.

Magness, Phillip W. (2020). The 1619 Project: A Critique. American Institute for Economic Research. ISBN 978-1-63069-201-8.

Mysore, Meghana (August 16, 2019). "The New York Times Magazine Presents 'The 1619 Project' Onstage". Pulitzer Center.

Schulte, Mark; Berk, Hannah; Mostoufi, Fareed (2019). "The 1619 Project: Pulitzer Center Education Programming". Pulitzer Center.

Wood, Peter (2020). 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project. Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1641771245.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor that became a leading subject of the American history wars. The 1619 Project is a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A MERICA'S PROBLEM with racism can be divided into two parts. One contains all the myriad injustices that still blight African-American lives a century and a half after the end of slavery. The other is the way that factions on the right exploit racial division as a political tool. An example of the first occurred on May 25th on a shabby street corner in Minneapolis, when George Floyd was killed by a white policeman. An example of the second occurred on July 3rd, at Mount Rushmore, against the monumental backdrop of the country's greatest presidents, when Donald Trump sought to inflame a culture war centred on race to boost his chances of a second term. To be successful, a campaign for racial justice needs to deal with both.

Leaders like Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King used vigorous protest and relentless argument to push society towards their vision of equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Most Americans still hew to that classical liberal ideal as do many of those who marched with justified anger over the killing of Mr Floyd. But a dangerous rival approach has emerged from American universities (see article). It rejects the liberal notion of progress. It defines everyone by their race, and every action as racist or anti-racist. It is not yet dominant, but it is dynamic and it is spreading out of the academy into everyday life. If it supplants liberal values, then intimidation will chill open debate and sow division to the disadvantage of all, black and white.

The premise underpinning this ideology is correct: that racial inequality is shockingly persistent. Even though attitudes to race have improved, the quality of African-American lives has not kept pace. A third of black boys born in 2001 will probably spend time locked up, compared with one in 17 white boys. In 1968 black households earned around 60% as much as white households, and owned assets that were less than 10% of those of a typical white family. They still do.

This ideology also has some valid insights. Racism is sustained by unjust institutions and practices. Sometimes, as in policing, this is overt. More often, in countless small put-downs and biases, it is subtle but widespread and harmful.

But then the ideology takes a wrong turn, by seeking to impose itself through intimidation and power. Not the power that comes from persuasion and elections, but from silencing your critics, insisting that those who are not with you are against you, and shutting out those who are deemed privileged or disloyal to their race. It is a worldview where everything and everyone is seen through the prism of ideology-who is published, who gets jobs, who can say what to whom; one in which in-groups obsess over orthodoxy in education, culture and heritage; one that enforces absolute equality of outcome, policy by policy, paragraph by paragraph, if society is to count as just.

It is tempting to see such ideas as nothing more than overheated campus radicalism. And, true enough, they have not yet taken over a political party. When people speak of ending white privilege, most of them have good things in mind like inclusion and justice. But ideas are important, and the spread of campus terminology into newsrooms and boardrooms invites in ideologues. Their approach is already taking a toll. In universities research agendas are being warped. Outside them, public shaming and intimidation have been curbing debate.

The pity is that these ideas will not solve America's problems with race. They will not eliminate inequality because they are a poor way to bring about beneficial change. Unless you can freely analyse causes and question orthodoxies you will not be able to solve problems. And unless you can criticise people and practices without fear of being called out, you will not be able to design effective policies and then go on to refine them.

The new race theory blocks progress in another way, too. The barriers to racism can be dismantled only when they are exposed-and so they must be, however painful. But the false idea that ingrained racism will forever block African-Americans at every turn is a barrier in its own right.

And, by focusing on power and division, this ideology only creates more space for some on the right to exploit race as a tool. A fundamental belief in power above persuasion frustrates coalition-building. Essential allies are not carried along, but forced along. When every transaction at work, at home, or at the school gate is seen through a prism of racial power, no encounter between different races can be innocent.

The new ideology of race is not just wrong and dangerous, it is also unnecessary. Liberalism can offer a fairer, more promising route to reform. It asserts the dignity of the individual and the legal, civil and moral equality of all people, whatever the colour of their skin. It believes in progress through argument and debate, in which reason and empathy lift truthful ideas and marginalise bigotry and falsehood.

Liberalism thrives on a marketplace of ideas, so diversity has a vital role. New voices and experiences enrich the debate. Liberalism does not fight power with power, which risks replacing one abusive regime with another. Instead it uses facts and evidence, tested in debate, to help the weak take on the strong.

Liberalism is all about progress, including about putting right its mistakes-and there have been many, especially over race, including finding reasons to accommodate imperialism and slavery. That is one reason why, in the 250 years in which it has been influential, humanity has seen unprecedented material, scientific and political gains, as well as a vast extension of social and political rights. Progress on racial inequities has been part of this-as in South Africa, where liberals joined forces with the trade unions and communists to sink apartheid.

Liberals can help in America, too. Much of the material gulf between African-Americans and whites can be bridged with economic policies that improve opportunity. You do not need to build a state based on identity. Nor do you need tools like reparations, which come with practical difficulties and have unintended consequences. Economic policies that are race-neutral, which people qualify for because of poverty, not the colour of their skin, can make a big difference. They have a chance of uniting Americans, not dividing them. If the mood now really is for change, they would be politically sellable and socially cohesive.

Our Briefing lays out what some of these policies might look like. Top of the list is tackling the housing segregation that is central to America's racial economic inequality. The reform of zoning laws and the grant of rent-assistance vouchers are the chief ingredients. That would bring many benefits, improving public services and lessening violence. More integrated housing would integrate schools too and, given America's locally financed education, mean that more would be spent on black children. Affordable measures, including advice and modest cash grants, have been shown to boost graduation from college. A third tool is the tax system. The earned-income tax credit tops up wages of working adults. A child allowance would cut poverty. A baby bond would help shrink the wealth gap.

In the past liberals have helped bring about change when society faced a challenge to the status quo, as when reforms limited child labour and won women the vote. If America has reached such a moment today, it must not resort to identity politics-and suffer intolerance, intimidation and division. Instead, for reform on race that works, it must look to liberalism. ■

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "The new ideology of race"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A MERICA'S PROBLEM with racism can be divided into two parts. One contains all the myriad injustices that still blight African-American lives a century and a half after the end of slavery. The other is the way that factions on the right exploit racial division as a political tool.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Bui and Jugal K. Patel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the U.S. have participated in recent protests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As protests in Ferguson continued unabated one week after the police killing of Michael Brown, Jr., zones of Twitter and the left media predominantly sympathetic to the protesters began angrily criticizing looters. Some claimed that white protesters were the ones doing all of the looting and property destruction, while others worried about the stereotypical and damaging media representation that would emerge. It also seems that there were as many protesters (if not more) in the streets of Ferguson working to prevent looting as there were people going about it. While I disagree with this tactic, I understand that they acted out of care for the struggle, and I want to honor all the brave and inspiring actions they've taken over the last weeks.

Some politicians on the ground in Ferguson, like alderman Antonio French and members of the New Black Panther Party, block looting specifically in order to maintain leadership for themselves and dampen resistance, but there are many more who do so out of a commitment to advancing the ethical and politically advantageous position. It is in solidarity with these latter protesters-along with those who loot-and against politicians and de-escalators everywhere that I offer this critique, as a way of invigorating discussion amongst those engaged in anti-oppression struggle, in Ferguson and anywhere else the police violently perpetuate white supremacy and settler colonialism. In other words, anywhere in America.

* * *

The dominant media is itself a tool of white supremacy: it repeats what the police deliver nearly verbatim and uncritically, even when the police story changes upwards of nine times, as it has thus far in the Brown killing. The media use phrases like "officer-involved shooting" and will switch to passive voice when a black man is shot by a white vigilante or a police officer ("shots were fired"). Journalists claim that "you have to hear both sides" in order to privilege the obfuscating reports of the state over the clear voices and testimony of an entire community, members of which witnessed the police murder a teenager in cold blood. The media are more respectful to white serial killers and mass murderers than to unarmed black victims of murder.

And yet, many of the people who perform this critique day-in, day-out can get jammed up by media perceptions of protesters. They want to correct the media's assertion that protesters were all looters for good reason: the idea of black people looting a store is one of the most racially charged images in the white imaginary. When protesters proclaim that "not all protesters were looters, in fact, most of the looters weren't part of the protest!" or words to that effect, they are trying to fight a horrifically racist history of black people depicted in American culture as robbers and thieves: Precisely the image that the Ferguson police tried to evoke to assassinate Michael Brown's character and justify his killing post facto. It is a completely righteous and understandable position.

However, in trying to correct this media image-in making a strong division between Good Protesters and Bad Rioters, or between ethical non-violence practitioners and supposedly violent looters-the narrative of the criminalization of black youth is reproduced. This time it delineates certain kinds of black youth-those who loot versus those who protest. The effect of this discourse is hardening a permanent category of criminality on black subjects who produce a supposed crime within the context of a protest. It reproduces racist and white supremacist ideologies (including the tactic of divide-and-conquer), deeming some unworthy of our solidarity and protection, marking them, subtly, as legitimate targets of police violence. These days, the police, whose public-facing racism is much more manicured, if no less virulent, argue that "outside agitators" engage in rioting and looting. Meanwhile, police will consistently praise "non-violent" demonstrators, and claim that they want to keep those demonstrators safe.

In working to correct the white-supremacist media narrative we can end up reproducing police tactics of isolating the individuals who attack property at protests. Despite the fact that if it were not for those individuals the media might pay no attention at all. If protesters hadn't looted and burnt down that QuikTrip on the second day of protests, would Ferguson be a point of worldwide attention? It's impossible to know, but all the non-violent protests against police killings across the country that go unreported seem to indicate the answer is no. It was the looting of a Duane Reade after a vigil that brought widespread attention to the murder of Kimani Gray in New York City. The media's own warped procedure instructs that riots and looting are more effective at attracting attention to a cause.

But of course, the goal is not merely the attention of dominant media. Nor is the goal a certain kind of media attention: no matter how peaceful and well-behaved a protest is, the dominant media will always push the police talking points and the white-supremacist agenda. The goal is justice. Here, we have to briefly grapple with the legacy of social justice being won in America: namely that of non-violence and the civil rights movement. And that means correcting a more pervasive and totalizing media and historical narrative about the civil rights movement: that it was non-violent, that it claimed significant wins because it was non-violent, and that it overcame racial injustice altogether.

In the 400 years of barbaric, white supremacist, colonial and genocidal history known as the United States, the civil rights movement stands out as a bright, beautiful, all-too-brief moment of hope and struggle. We still live in the shadow of the leaders, theory, and images that emerged from those years, and any struggle in America that overlooks the work (both philosophical and organizational) produced in those decades does so at its own peril. However, why is it drilled into our heads, from grade school onward, in every single venue, by presidents, professors and police chiefs alike, that the civil rights movement was victorious because it was non-violent? Surely we should be suspicious of any narrative that the entire white establishment agrees is of the utmost importance.

The civil rights movement was not purely non-violent. Some of its bravest, most inspiring activists worked within the framework of disciplined non-violence. Many of its bravest, most inspiring activists did not. It took months of largely non-violent campaigning in Birmingham, Alabama to force JFK to give his speech calling for a civil rights act. But in the month before he did so, the campaign in Birmingham had become decidedly not-non-violent:

I use the rather clunky phrase not-non-violent purposely. For some non-violence ideologues breaking windows, lighting trash on fire or even building barricades in the street is "violent". I once watched a group of black teens chanting "Fuck the Police" get shouted at for "being violent" by a white protester. Though there are more forms of violence than just literal physical blows to a human body, I don't believe a conception of "violence" which encompasses both throwing trash in the street and the murder of Michael Brown is remotely helpful. Frustratingly, in protest situations violence tends to be defined as "whatever the nearest cop or non-violence practitioner says it is." Calling breaking a window "violent" reproduces this useless definition and places the whole argument within the rhetorical structure of non-violence ideology. Not-non-violent, then, becomes the more useful term.

protesters had started fighting back against the police and Eugene "Bull" Conner, throwing rocks, and breaking windows. Robert Kennedy, afraid that the increasingly riotous atmosphere in Birmingham would spread across Alabama and the South, convinced John to deliver the famous speech and begin moving towards civil rights legislation.

This would have been impossible without the previous months of courageous and tireless non-violent activism. But it is also the emergent threat of rioting that forced JFK's hand. Both Malcolm X and MLK had armed bodyguards. Throughout the civil rights era, massive non-violent civil disobedience campaigns were matched with massive riots. The most famous of these was the Watts rebellion of 1965 but they occurred in dozens of cities across the country. To argue that the movement achieved what it did in spite of rather than as a result of the mixture of not-non-violent and non-violent action is spurious at best. And, lest we forget, Martin Luther King Jr., the man who embodied the respectable non-violent voice that the white power structure claims they would listen to today, was murdered by that same white power structure anyway.

Though the Civil Rights movement won many battles, it lost the war. Mass incarceration, the fact that black wealth and black-white inequality are at the same place they were at the start of the civil rights movement, that many US cities are more segregated now than they were in the sixties: no matter what "colorblind" liberals would say, racial justice has not been won, white supremacy has not been overturned, racism is not over. In fact, anti-black racism remains the foundational organizing principle of this country. That is because this country is built on the right to property, and there is no property, no wealth in the USA without the exploitation, appropriation, murder, and enslavement of black people.

As Raven Rakia puts it, "In America, property is racial. It always has been." Indeed, the idea of blackness was invented simultaneously with American conceptions of property: via slavery. In the early days of colonial America, chattel slavery was much less common than indentured servitude-though the difference between the two was not always significant-and there were Irish, French, German and English immigrants among these populations. But while there had always been and continued to be some black freedmen, over the course of the 17th century light-skinned European people stopped being indentured servants and slaves. This is partially because production exploded in the colonies much faster than a working population could form to do the work-either from reproduction or voluntary immigration-and so the cost of hired labor went through the roof. Even a very poor and desperate European became much more expensive than an African bought from the increasingly rationalized transatlantic slave trade.

The distinction between white and black was thus eventually forged as a way of distinguishing between who could be enslaved and who could not. The earliest working definition of blackness may well have been "those who could be property". Someone who organized a mob to violently free slaves, then, would surely be considered a looter (had the word come into common usage by then, John Brown and Nat Turner would have been slandered with it). This is not to draw some absurd ethical equivalence between freeing a slave and grabbing a flat screen in a riot. The point, rather, is that for most of America's history, one of the most righteous anti-white supremacist tactics available was looting. The specter of slaves freeing themselves could be seen as American history's first image of black looters.

On Twitter, a tongue-in-cheek political hashtag sprang up, #suspectedlooters, which was filled with images of colonial Europeans, slave owners, cowboys and white cultural appropriators. Similarly, many have pointed out that, had Africa not been looted, there wouldn't even be any black people in America. These are powerful correctives to arguments around looting, and the rhetorical point-that when people of color loot a store, they are taking back a miniscule proportion of what has been historically stolen from them, from their ancestral history and language to the basic safety of their children on the street today-is absolutely essential. But purely for the purposes of this argument-because I agree wholeheartedly with the political project of these campaigns-I want to claim that what white settlers and slave traders did wasn't mere looting.

It was genocide, theft, and barbarism of the lowest order. But part of how slavery and colonialism functioned was to introduce new territories and categories to the purview of ownership, of property. Not only did they steal the land from native peoples, but they also produced a system under which the land itself could be stolen, owned by legal fiat through force of arms. Not only did they take away Africans' lives, history, culture, and freedom, but they also transformed people into property and labor-power into a saleable commodity. Chattel slavery is the most barbaric and violent form of work coercion-but as the last 150 years has shown, you can dominate an entire people through law, violence, and wages pretty well.

Recently an Instagram video circulated of a Ferguson protester discussing the looting and burning of the QuikTrip convenience store. He retorts the all too common accusation thrown at rioters: "People wanna say we destroying our own neighborhoods. We don't own nothing out here!" This is the crux of the matter, and could be said of most majority black neighborhoods in America, which have much higher concentrations of chain stores and fast food restaurants than non-black neighborhoods. The average per capita income in Ferguson, MO is less than $21,000, and that number almost certainly gets lower if you remove the 35% white population of Ferguson from the equation. How could the average Ferguson resident really say it's "our QuikTrip"? Indeed, although you might hang out in it, how can a chain convenience store or corporate restaurant earnestly be part of anyone's neighborhood? The same white liberals who inveigh against corporations for destroying local communities are aghast when rioters take their critique to its actual material conclusion.

The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power. Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free.

On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, "opportunistically," and in excess. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable? Or, as Hannah Black put it on Twitter: "Cops exist so people can't loot ie have nice things for free so idk why it's so confusing that people loot when they protest against cops" [sic]. Only if you believe that having nice things for free is amoral, if you believe, in short, that the current (white-supremacist, settler-colonialist) regime of property is just, can you believe that looting is amoral in itself.

White people deploy the idea of looting in a way that implies people of color are greedy and lazy, but it is just the opposite: looting is a hard-won and dangerous act with potentially terrible consequences, and looters are only stealing from the rich owners' profit margins. Those owners, meanwhile, especially if they own a chain like QuikTrip, steal forty hours every week from thousands of employees who in return get the privilege of not dying for another seven days.

And the further assumption that the looter isn't sharing her loot is just as racist and ideological. We know that poor communities and communities of color practice more mutual aid and support than do wealthy white communities-partially because they have to. The person looting might be someone who has to hustle everyday to get by, someone who, by grabbing something of value, can afford to spend the rest of the week "non-violently" protesting. They might be feeding their family, or older people in their community who barely survive on Social Security and can't work (or loot) themselves. They might just be expropriating what they would otherwise buy-liquor, for example-but it still represents a material way that riots and protests help the community: by providing a way for people to solve some of the immediate problems of poverty and by creating a space for people to freely reproduce their lives rather than doing so through wage labor.

Modern American police forces evolved out of fugitive slave patrols, working to literally keep property from escaping its owners. The history of the police in America is the history of black people being violently prevented from threatening white people's property rights. When, in the midst of an anti-police protest movement, people loot, they aren't acting non-politically, they aren't distracting from the issue of police violence and domination, nor are they fanning the flames of an always-already racist media discourse. Instead, they are getting straight to the heart of the problem of the police, property, and white supremacy.

Solidarity with all Ferguson rebels! Justice for Mike Brown!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For most of America's history, one of the most righteous anti-white supremacist tactics available was looting.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM is a movement that helps to stop racism and police brutality against black lives. 

# data[].attributes.body
A pillaging spree

# data[].attributes.body
As of July 25, 2020, at least 29 people have died during the BLM protests, with 25 due to gunshot wounds.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM is a movement in america to stop police brutality and to promote equality for black people not their superiority.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM stands for Black Lives Matter and is a movement that is against racism and brutality and discrimination against African Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
blm is an act of support towards people who are suffering from mistreatment due to people being racist to black people

# data[].attributes.body
a movement to stop racism and discrimination against black people

# data[].attributes.body
It all started on the day of the murder. George Floyd, a black man was killed by a local Policeman. This "incident" caused tremors, attracting the attention of numerous people across the globe as they protest for the lives of Black people. (sorry if i offended someone)

Now, protests rage on in the streets of America as millions of people take to the streets, protesting and mourning the death of George Floyd.

BLM stands for Black Lives Matter, a "slogan" that the protesters use frequently. Now, with no side asking for peace, downright war will break out, and America will be torn in two.

(wow why did i write a story and sorry if i offended someone)

# data[].attributes.body
BLM stands for black lives matter. The BLM movement started when an innocent black citizen died, due to an officer choking over his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM (stands for Black Lives Matter) is a movement which want to acknowledge and stop the racism and oppression targeting black people. The recent BLM protests were in response to the unjust death of George Floyd, but BLM has been ongoing for many years.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM is a movement which wants to stop police brutality and racism against African Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM protests have covered 60 countries and every continent except for antarctica

# data[].attributes.body
BLM is a movement that wants to stop systemic racism and police brutality especially against African Americans. The movement began in 2013 following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting of African American teenager Trayvon Martin a year and a half earlier.

# data[].attributes.body
Black Lives matter is a movement that is in oppose to violence and prejudice against the black communities.

# data[].attributes.body
BLM gained global attention this year after the protests in response to the killing of George Floyd.

# data[].attributes.body
Black lives were oppressed for over 400 years and treated unfairly just because of their skintone.  Their skin is only because of how close to the equator they are.  Some people say stuff like all lives matter, they do, but right now it is more important to focus on the group that is in 'danger' right now.

Many deaths caused by police brutality were put into light.  The attacks are focused mainly on the African American group but the officers are yet to be punished.

Many of the BLM protests are not violent, however the police used plastic bullets, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
the blm movement in america is advocating against police brutality, and racial discrimination against people of colour.

# data[].attributes.body
It's a movement about racially motivated violence towards black people.

# data[].attributes.body
Starter-
I would like to achieve better grades for a lot of subjects.
I am worried about my time management.
I am confident I will be able to attend all my classes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would like to participate more in class by talking and asking/answering more questions.
2. I am worried about my horse who is injured
3. I am confident that I will do better in school this year.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would like to try harder to endure doing stuff that I don't have interest in because when I don't I usually get swayed and never end up finishing my work.

2. I'm worried about my friends because I kinda always am.

3. I am confident that I'll try my hardest in school this year.

# data[].attributes.body
I hope I get a higher end-year CTL than last year.

I'm worried about life in general.

I'm confident that we will all perish one day.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Things that I would like to achieve this year is immortality, infinite wisdom and power over life and death.

2. I am worried about my attitude towards learning and other people as my parents say that i have really bad "people skills".

3. I am confident that I will die painfully and be doomed to a life of suffering, pain and regret.

# data[].attributes.body
i would like to get higher grades

im worried about my focus because its really easy for me to get distracted

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would like to get better grades this year and participate more during class.
2. I am worried about corona.
3. I am confident that I can finish all the task given to me!

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to be more productive this year.

I am worried about the pandemic situation

I am confident that I will be able to manage my time well

# data[].attributes.body
One thing I would like to achieve is to be more productive with my time.

I am worried about the current pandemic situation worsening.

I am confident about finishing up all the set tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would like to be more balanced and be more active
2. Im worried about corona and its impact on us
3. I am confident that I will try my best in school

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would like to achieve better grades and CTL during this academic year

2.  I am currently worried about the covid 19 pandemic

3. I am confident that I will do my utmost to not procrastinate

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to improve on my confidence throughout the school year. I would also like to participate more in class discussions.

I am worried about the current covid 19 condition in Hong Kong.

I am confident about not getting distracted by other factors in class.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to not die from covid.

I'm worried about dying from covid.

I'm confident that I'm probably going to die from covid.

covid is everywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
One thing I would like to achieve this year...
is to improve on my time management skills and get more work done in a limited amount of time.

I am worried about…
my ability to organise things online between classes.

I am confident about…
my ability to stay on task during Google Meets.

# data[].attributes.body
One thing I would like to achieve this year is to get good grades.

I am worried about my Chinese class and CTL.

I am confident about attending all my classes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would like to achieve some sort of improvement in my Chinese.

2. I am worried about my dog who won't stop fighting with my other dog. Blood stains the floor monthly.

3.  I am confident in the fact I will probably to my utter best in school. Hopefully.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to achieve better grades in math and science.
I am worried about the coronavirus situation right now.
I am confident that i can still get decent grades in e learning.

# data[].attributes.body
1. This year, I would like to focus on how I spend my free time to achieve balance.

2. I am worried about balancing walking my dog and school, especially since my brother is now in secondary and can't walk him as much.

3. I'm confident about my organisation skills.

# data[].attributes.headline
I would like to have less tabs on my computer. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I would like to have less tabs on my computer. 

# data[].attributes.body
I am worried about... my puppy because he just had an operation at the vet.

I am confident about this TKAMB unit because I have taught it about 4 times at this school and various times at other schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Join Padlet

Write one thing you would like to achieve this year.

Write one thing you are worried about.

Write one thing you are confident about.

# data[].attributes.headline
3- Opinion statement - What are your views about this?

# data[].attributes.subject
3- Opinion statement - What are your views about this?

# data[].attributes.headline
2- Choose and present an image or link that helps to explain something about BLM?

# data[].attributes.subject
2- Choose and present an image or link that helps to explain something about BLM?

# data[].attributes.headline
1- Knowledge statement- What do you know about BLM?

# data[].attributes.subject
1- Knowledge statement- What do you know about BLM?