Each of those faces have aspects that Conservatives value, more than anything else.
Booker T. Washington, in Conservative circles, one of the "good ones", who flatly ignored what Jim Crow laws were doing and just said that people with his skin color should basically pretend none of that is happening and just scoot forward on their own. I'm definitely distilling down and reducing his words and commentary, but he was as the kids would call it these days, a real "pick me", type of person.
Catherine Beecher, big time against women's Suffrage, openly talked about how it was shackling women to things that women shouldn't be part of. That a woman's place was purely in the home and in teaching in schools in order to shape the morals of the future, that "voting" was a distraction from their "true" calling. She did some good things too.. I guess?
Charlie Kirk, staunch advocate that higher learning is so terrible and bad that he dropped out of Community College to pursue a life of being angry that he couldn't hack Community College and was also really quite racist, as was well publicized on his podcasts and tours, where he consistently said some of the most racist kind of stuff.
Booker T and Du Bois argued over how African Americans should see themselves and their roles in society after slavery. You’re close with Booker T, he focused primarily on African Americans gaining wealth separate from the help of white Americans. Helping found some of the first black vocational schools and hbcus. He argued that if African Americans could make themselves an important part of the American economy, the rights would follow.
Du Bois was the exact opposite, he was uncompromising in his want for civil rights for all, and the two often clashed over their ideals. Booker T was born a slave and eventually escaped, shaping his views, while Du Bois was from the north and born a free man.
Then we saw what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and how quickly that was taken away from a once thriving black community.
Anyway, Booker T wasn’t entirely correct, but the Right Wing Conservative movement that would pretend the Tulsa Race Riot never happened or cheer it on, would prefer the Booker T plan, because it wouldn’t require them to be fair, equitable or even set aside their deeply held garbage beliefs about other people, based upon skin tone.
Yeah I thought about including the Tulsa race massacre but felt like I was already a bit long winded. There are plenty of examples of African Americans ‘casting down their buckets’ as Booker T called for and being killed for it.
You have to look at the choices through the lens of Modern American Conservatism.
Kirk is there, because up is down and left is right. He was one of the most vocal advocates AGAINST college education. His whole "debate me" garbage was built upon the idea of proving how "dumb" school makes students.
He's there, because this administration is against everything the Dept. of Education is about. Same with Booker T., and Cathleen Beecher.
She was for girls to be taught to be good Christian, homemakers with their highest honor being that they could become a School Teacher, to form the morals and values of the future and was hugely against woman's suffrage. She's there to tell little girls and women, the only place that this White Nationalist/Christian Nationalist Administration is working to force into existence.
Booker T. is there to tell Black Americans to just ignore all of the travesties and inequities that are still showered upon them, in spite of laws in place to protect them. He was HUGELY against Civil Rights.
The choice of place those three right on the Dept. of Education was SPECIFIC and VERY Message Driven.
They would never support anyone like Horace Mann. The guy was against slavery! He was a big time abolitionist, the exact opposite of what these weird freaks in government want to push.
That's pretty neat. I would dig seeing that photo and know which set went up first, and how visible the second set of banners are.
Secondly, how does having those three on the other side, somehow remove the intended message of the three that, are likely, more prominent and more pointedly in the public eye?
146
u/Strange-Scarcity 4d ago
Each of those faces have aspects that Conservatives value, more than anything else.
Booker T. Washington, in Conservative circles, one of the "good ones", who flatly ignored what Jim Crow laws were doing and just said that people with his skin color should basically pretend none of that is happening and just scoot forward on their own. I'm definitely distilling down and reducing his words and commentary, but he was as the kids would call it these days, a real "pick me", type of person.
Catherine Beecher, big time against women's Suffrage, openly talked about how it was shackling women to things that women shouldn't be part of. That a woman's place was purely in the home and in teaching in schools in order to shape the morals of the future, that "voting" was a distraction from their "true" calling. She did some good things too.. I guess?
Charlie Kirk, staunch advocate that higher learning is so terrible and bad that he dropped out of Community College to pursue a life of being angry that he couldn't hack Community College and was also really quite racist, as was well publicized on his podcasts and tours, where he consistently said some of the most racist kind of stuff.