In San Francisco, Virus is Contained but Schools Are Still Closed

[Rob Wick]

David,

Quote:And, you also must know that many of this nation’s eminent historians and Lincoln scholars expressed their opinions beforehand that the 1619 Project should not have been published as is and specifically identified correctable problems with the text; they stated their opinion as a unanimous group.

The words "as is" and "their opinion" proves my point and lessens yours. My comment was that no historian said the series should not have been published AT ALL! While you may believe that (an opinion that I find distasteful having been a journalist myself) none of these sainted historians ever said that. Their main complaint was their belief that several factual inaccuracies existed and that the Times was not taking them seriously enough. It should be noted that even Sean Wilentz wrote "The letter has provoked considerable reaction, some of it from historians affirming our concerns about the 1619 Project’s inaccuracies, some from historians questioning our motives in pointing out those inaccuracies, and some from the Times itself. (emphasis added). So not all historians are marching in lock step with your preferred narrative.

Quote:I don’t want the Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project Commentary to disappear from public consciousness. I want the public to know exactly the reasons that it will be disappearing from accepted history because it is an untruthful history.

And you can keep tilting at that windmill for as long as you choose. I wish you luck.

Quote:And, many members of the public who had not been part of the Board’s decision-making process rose up in objection to the Board’s proposed action and forced the Board to reconsider its decision. If these members of the public had waited for an election to express their opposition, the murals would have been destroyed – a fait accompli.

I never suggested they wait for an election to object to the board's decision. I said they were well within their rights once they found out what the board was going to do, to protest. If their protests were not accepted or acted upon, THEN they would have the option of voting them out of office.

Quote:The evidence justifying this action has been researched by a committee of the Board and thereafter the evidence was evaluated by the full Board. The decision to make the change has been made already by the Board. The Board will vote for final approval of its decision in December, as I recall the situation.

Then you and those like you who find this decision wrong will be free to either turn them out of office or even run for the office yourself and attempt to rename the school. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Quote:[No, this is not the textbook “definition of democracy.” President Abraham Lincoln defined democracy in his Gettysburg Address as that “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” There is no doubt that some of our elected or appointed government officials can get completely out of hand. And, even after an extremely important recent election in this democracy, at least one formerly-elected government official now refuses to be “turned out of office.” He probably hasn’t read your textbook on democracy. Maybe you should mail a copy to him. Good Luck!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but your point makes absolutely no sense to me. However, Lincoln's own definition of democracy was this: "“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

I've already spent far more time on this discussion than it's worth. Therefore, I'm finished with this.

Best
Rob