#interracial agenda

[imthefailedartist]

Being the Only One

Ain't no black girls Nathan could crush on?

This what be pissing me off about them casting black leads on majority white shows. They be the ONLY black person. It forces this exceptional negro air over everything.

Then the black person be going through stuff and the racial implications be out of this world. It's looking like Nathan is being hate-crimed at home and school and no one is doing anything about it. Then they all other him constantly. If he defends himself it's gonna be, "the scary black man attacked a white kid. We told you he was evil from the start."

I know it's like this because the UK doesn't have the budgets that America has so they aren't going to risk casting more than one black person as the lead on a show because then it's a "Black" show and white people aren't going to tune in. It's the same in America but we get a few "Black" shows to make it not as obnoxious.

I'm tired.

Also, all these white people look alike. I'm tired of the interracial, one of them is white, agenda. Just once could the black person be into someone black. Jesus fucking christ.

I hope he kill the fuck out of his sister. I don't want to see no redemption arc for her bitch ass.

Me as Nathan beats that white boys ass:

Gon head baby, get 'em one time for me.

So, not one person has thought about the racial implications of any of this.

One black child getting the shit kicked out of him by eight white people. Also, making him sleep in a cage. Not one thought in these people's heads.

Great, Nathan has two love interests and not one of them is Black or at the least a non-black POC. Bullshit.

Finally, a show about witches with a black lead, yet no one else is. I'm tie-ert.

[superbdragoncollection-stuff]

I am so tired of this nonsense

Please vote for the love of all that is good in the world.

Woke up this morning to see John Oliver talk about the insane shit in Project 2025. I couldn't even watch it. The project wants to make Trump a dictator, criminalize porn and the LGBT+ community, and tear apart all the current government structures and replace them with bigoted conservatives. They want to cut climate change research, and dissolve the Department of Education. These are the people who talk about wanting a "white state", who openly say that interracial marriage was a mistake, and constantly talk about wanting to kill their political opponents. They want to convert the secular US government into a christian state.

For those who need to hear it, other Americans are not your enemy.

White supremacy is wrong. I don't care what you think anyone who's skin is dark thinks about you, white supremacy is wrong. If you identify with any white supremacist group, you are in the wrong.

The United States is not a christian nation. It never has been. The last people who tried to make it into one were part of the rebellion in the 1860s, and tore the country apart.

The entire base of resistance to compulsory public education is based in racism and the aftermath of the US Civil War. It began in 1870 during reconstruction, and modernized in the 1960s as a way to undermine integration. White people sent their kids to private schools rather than mix with nonwhite kids.

Race and class are inextricably linked in the United States.

The modern GOP was founded in the 1960s as a way to reverse civil rights. Once LGBT+ rights are out of the way, interracial marriage is on the chopping block. A senator said in 2022 he thought it was a mistake and somehow didn't make headlines.

Porn is not evil. Thought crime is not real.

The LGBT+ community's "agenda" is to EXIST without being murdered.

Please vote.

[god-i-hope-so]

You know anon who replied to my post about Buck. I'm a proud biracial person so you certainly won't see me, a BT shipper, be against an interracial couple. I see racism, even when it's subtle, I see when people are vague posting about race being a problem. And I've never seen a BuckTommy fan make a racist post about Eddie being Latino, not even make an allusion to it. Never. I'm not saying there's not a single BT racist fan, you'll find trash anywhere, but here on Tumblr, I have yet to see it.

Eddie is not a problem for BuckTommy shippers, he's not a menace to the ship, he's not in the way of anything. And him being Latino has been used by BoBs themselves since the beginning as an excuse to hate on Tommy, the ship, and us. We don't fucking care about Eddie being Latino, it's a non thing for BT shippers. We're not white supremacists with an agenda. Meanwhile, the moment we dared to like Buck being with Tommy, we were under Buddies/BoBs constant harassment. Because they didn't get their ship canon. And the hate and violence has been insane. The homophobia/queerphobia. The misogyny. The ageism. The racism against actual people in the fandom. And it created tensions we never asked for.

We never asked for anything except maybe to see a queer arc for Buck. We never ask for Buddie to not be canon. We never asked for Tommy to come back. We only hoped they'd give the fans queer Buck. Then we just went with what the show gave us, some liked it, some not. No one except the show runners and the writers knew what would happen and had the power to make it happen. None of us, whatever we ship, will change what people are PAID to do on a TV show.

All the rest? It's your interpretation, just like we all have. It's valid but not canon. Tommy acting like Taylor and being dismissive of Buck's feelings? Your interpretation but it's not canon. I'm currently rewatching the show for the first time and I see so many moments when Eddie is not a good friend to Buck. Not a bad friend, just not a good one. And I don't need theories about him being a supposedly closeted gay to just accept that those characters are written to be realistic, so they're not perfect. Eddie using his friendship with Buck to hit exactly where it hurts and tell him he's exhausting? Oh it was bad, but Eddie was pissed. So you know, it was a realistic and emotional response. It doesn't mean I started a hate campaign against him and his fan. First because it's a fucking TV show, but most of all, it's not important. It's part of the story and that's it. Sit back and enjoy, then join the fandom to make your ship thrive in fanon. No need to hate anything or anyone.

(oh and yes, BuckTommy has many names! Not always practical but it's not like it affects your life, isn't it?)

[imaginespazzi]

i wanna get on the pazzi train so bad but paige moves so weird that i want better for azzi. flirting with someone on live, entertaining tiktoks of people thirsting over you, idk it's just mad weird and it makes me think there's no way they're together and if they are then azzi's putting up with a lot of shit and i don't like that.

Stay off the train 🙏🏾😑

You know I was gonna ignore all this Jada-Paige commotion (beyond how it related to my Kazzi agenda) because I found the whole thing kinda funny (Jada's hella real for her reaction to Paige) and I'm not in the mood to get into discourse these days but then I got like three asks similar to this and so now, I needa rant because y'all piss me off

Genuinely, genuinely do y'all like either of these girls? Because this narrative is so ridiculous and disrespectful to both of them.

Paige, is literally a sweetheart. Like that girl is a golden retriever of a human being and values trust and loyalty so much. Y'all she would not hurt a fly, let alone Azzi of all people. How is her joining someone's live or liking a couple of tiktoks equal to her "moving weird?" And quite frankly if "do you guys have a shake shack in Iowa" and endless basketball schedule talk is what y'all consider flirting, then bestie I'm so sorry but I don't think you've ever had someone flirt with you before. Paige has never given anyone any reason to think that she'd ever step out on anyone and it's so unfair that people make their own assumptions based off of the literal most mundane things.

And then we get to Azzi. In what world does Azzi fucking Fudd, strong independent gorgeous successful queen, give you the impression that she'd put up with that kind of disrespect if it existed? She might be horrendously down bad enough for that girl that she'd begrudgingly take 3562 photos of her, but stay with her if she was cheating/"moving weird"? Absolutely not. She does not need your protecting or your so-called sympathy, because a) Paige isn't doing anything wrong and b) Azzi is not a fucking doormat who's "putting up with a lot shit".

I'm not going to get into it but there is implicit racism in this narrative. It happens with a lot of ir/fictional interracial couples where people think the white person in the relationship must be cheating or whatever because they can't possibly just be happy with their bipoc partner and that said partner will just put up with it because they don't know their worth.

If you don't think Pazzi are real, that's perfectly fine. I've never been one to say you have to believe in them but please, for the love of god, just use the most obvious reason which is that neither of them have outwardly confirmed a relationship. Please stop villainizing Paige and please stop infantilizing Azzi.

[progressivepower]

PRESIDENT BIDENS ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

✅More People Are Working Than At Any Point in American History

✅Managed inflation to where it is now under control & moving consistently downward

✅Stock markets hitting all time highs & most well managed businesses are now thriving under this economy

✅Delivering on the Most Aggressive Climate and Environmental Justice Agenda in American History

✅Making More in America where wages are increasing across the board

✅Rescued the Economy and Changed the Course of the Pandemic

✅Lowering Costs of Families’ Everyday Expenses

✅Biden's Inflation Reduction Act will save millions of seniors money on some of the costliest prescription drugs on the market. New laws now give

✅Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices.

✅Rebuilding our Infrastructure

✅Historic Expansion of Benefits and Services for Toxic Exposed Veterans

✅The First Meaningful Gun Violence Reduction Legislation in 30 Years

✅Protected Marriage for LGBTQI+ and Interracial Couples

✅Historic Confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Federal Judges of Diverse Backgrounds

✅Rallied the World to Support Ukraine in Response to Putin’s Aggression

✅Strengthened Alliances and Partnerships to Deliver for the American People

✅Successful Counterterrorism Missions Against the Leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS

✅Executive Orders Protecting Reproductive Rights

✅Historic Student Debt Relief for over 4 million Middle- and Working-Class Families so far.

✅Ending our Failed Approach to Marijuana

✅Advancing Equity and Racial Justice, Including Historic Criminal Justice Reform

[election2024-2028]

Project 2025: Basics

What is Project 2025? Who wrote it? And who is it intended to help? And who is this going to hurt?

Let's get into it. First, what is Project 2025, and who wrote it? Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project is a project started by the Heritage Foundation for the transition from Biden to Trump. Of course, that is their assuming that former (and failed) president Trump is going to become president again. I believe most people hope that no such thing will happen. If all goes well, we will have President Kamala Harris come January of 2025. The Heritage Foundation and about 200 other people grouped together to create a book called Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise. Kind of sounds like a weird dystopian novel, doesn't it? But, no, it's worse than a dystopia. This is a real book written by the ultra-conservative group called the Heritage Foundation and a large number of other far-right people, including lawyers for firms that boast about arguing against equity and inclusion laws, economists who believe in getting rich instead of protecting the environment, people with no organization to speak of, well-known conspiracy theorists, and politicians. The Heritage Foundation calls this collection of people "experts", but you can tell from their organizations that they are mainly a group of extremely biased conservatives.

This book is intended as a starting point for Donald Trump if he gets back into the White House. It is "by conservatives, for conservatives." This basically means that this is meant for extremist conservatives or Trump cultists, conservatives who believe:

Gay marriage should be illegal.

Abortion should be completely banned.

We need nuclear families only.

Queer history shouldn't be taught.

Children aren't allowed to be trans.

Interracial marriage should be banned.

Liberals aren't real Americans.

Immigrants shouldn't be allowed into the country without having to jump through extreme hurtles.

Illegal immigrants should be in internment camps*.

Conservatives are the only real Americans.

Trump is the best person to have as president.

Joe Biden is evil and has completely mismanaged the country.

Equity is wrong.

Inclusion is wrong.

DEI is a bad thing.

Gay marriage is sinful.

Racial inequity and racism shouldn't be talked about in school.

Books about queer people should be banned.

Feminism is a bad thing.

The men should be in control of the heterosexual home (which should be the only kind of home).

Families without fathers are severely damaging to the children, no matter the other circumstances.

Guns should be completely legal, no matter the kind of gun or any other details.

Trans people are inherently inappropriate.

Children shouldn't be exposed to LGBTQ people.

Drag is inherently sexual.

Trans women are dangerous.

Gender and sex are the same thing.

Gender and sex are binary.

People can't change their gender.

In other words, this is for homophobic, transphobic, racist, "Christian" misogynistic gunnies who are on the far right.

And who does this hurt? This hurts many people, of all different politics and beliefs. Chances are, it hurts you or someone you care about. This project affects this (non-exhaustive) list of people:

LGBTQ people

Women

Trans men

Trans people in general

People in communities with high risk of violence

BIPOC people

Single parents

Interracial couples

Liberals

People who do drag

Accepting parents of trans children

Fatherless families

Immigrants

Feminists

Who or what else might be harmed by this project?

The environment

Relationships with other countries

Freedom of speech

Schools

Diversity and equity

Remember: This isn't an exhaustive list. This is only part of the people who could be hurt by this project.

I know it is possible that someone may point out to me that Trump has denied being involved with Project 2025. Therefore, I believe it is necessary that I point out that Agenda 47, which Trump is for sure involved with is very close to, if not the same as Project 2025, just with a different name.

*Internment camp basically means a concentration camp. That's what they want. Concentration camps for "illegal" immigrants. This is like what happened to Japanese Americans during World War II. *

Conclusion

Be aware of who you're voting for this election. This blog will contain more details about the 2024 election. Chances are you know at least a few people who are close to you who would be affected by Project 2025 policies if Donald Trump becomes president, and I hope you care enough about them to want to protect them from gun violence, forced pregnancy, forced submission, prison sentences, censorship, and a dead Earth.

I know it's hard to believe that your vote could mean anything when it seems like Trump is going to win. Maybe you think that your vote doesn't count, but I assure you that the only way that you will protect your and your loved ones' rights is to vote. Please vote.

[gingerylangylang1979]

This shit is not new

This is in response to the multiple posts right now about the recent articles that have come out and just general angst about this ship in the media.

This really isn't new. It's not unique to The Bear. It's not unique to Carmy x Sydney. It's not unique to slow burns.

I do think Mulder x Scully is the best example. Why? They are the ship that modernized shipping. The terms shipping, noromo, etc. come from that ship. They pioneered the modern "why can't men and women just be friends", "platonic soulmate", "it would cheapen the show", "the show isn't about romance" arguments.

Syd x Carmy are like Mulder x Scully 2.0 (with a slightly different flavor that I will get to). The X-Files was a huge sleeper hit with a cult following. From the first episode there was speculation about romance and people raging against it. The question was brought up in every interview and denied by the show runner. The intensity kept developing until finally they went canon. And then, only then, did the show runner change tune. Shippers felt they were being persecuted for even mentioning the ship. It was super intense.

I watched the show as a teen. I low key did ship them but wasn't involved in fandom so I wasn't aware of the shenanigans. But I know all of this from first hand accounts.

And here's receipts from media:

So, I know a big element is missing in this comparison. The race element is at play here. I'm not denying that. But I will say, I started with this example just to show it isn't just interracial couples that get this backlash. I could also mention Ted x Rebecca, but I don't think I need to go into them because they are current. Mulder x Scully started this and history is important.

I do think there is a special flavor of dislike for this ship because of race. I've spoken on it. The unwarranted hate for Sydney can't be ignored. The same has happened with Richonne, Ichabbie, etc. No denial here. But if you look at the overall history of shipping what we are seeing specific to media denial, media scrutiny, antis, denial of the ship until the very end, gaslighting, etc. is slow burn and shipping war 101.

There is no agenda from cast and crew to stick it to us. Their agenda is to maintain the element of surprise and tell the story they want to tell. There is no agenda from the media to do anything but get a story that gets clicks. There is no special denial of a romance unique to this one.

This is just how a slow burn plays out.

There are no slow burns that went canon and the show runner said, oh yeah, this is the plan before the end. If there is tell me, and I'll gladly correct. But, that just isn't reality. They will say the same thing every season until it happens, no matter what happens on screen in the meantime. And there is always some lame statement made about why they "suddenly" decided to make it a thing or a lame admission that it was planned. So basically, they lie. The lies may seem cruel but it's not personal. It's not some secret agenda to deny your fave romance and happiness. It's just showbiz.

All of this can feel personal in relation to the extent a fan is personally invested. And I think that's up to each person to decide if their investment is creating too high an expectation and too much drama for regarding fictional characters on a tv show. That's not on media. It's not on the actor, creators, journalists, etc. to determine and protect a fan's level of investment or engagement. Nobody has to read the articles. Nobody has to devote their time to fandom. It's a choice. And part of that, may be understanding that all of the media around a ship isn't going to cater to what you want or see and making decisions on what you see is the healthiest, most enjoyable way to engage or not.

Because feelings have been hurt, arguments have raged, lies have been told in fandom and media and it's not new, it's not personal. It just is what it is.

Mulder x Scully walked so Carmy x Sydney can run.

[meandmybigmouth]

Speakers pull out of prominent activist group’s pro-Christian nationalist conference

Billed as the 15th anniversary celebration for True Texas Project, the conference agenda claims that there is a “war on white America,” and urges attendees to embrace once-fringe ideologies such as Christian nationalism or the Great Replacement Theory, which claims that there is an intentional, often Jewish-driven, effort to destroy white people through immigration, interracial marriage or the LGBTQ+ community.

MAGA CARD CARRIERS ONLY!

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Considering how rapidly the right's "war on woke" is expanding, it was perhaps inevitable: Self-identified "mama bears" on a Texas school board are angry that a classroom had a poster showing people of different races holding hands. Last week, the school board in Conroe, Texas, a small city north of Houston, turned the right-wing mania for censorship into a dark parody of itself. At issue? A poster that seemed to imply that interracial friendship is possible.

According to ABC 13 Eyewitness News in Houston, things started when school trustee Melissa Dungan declared that she had spoken to parents who were upset about "displays of personal ideologies in classrooms." When pressed for an example, according to the news report, "Dungan referred to a first grade student whose parent claimed they were so upset by a poster showing hands of people of different races, that they transferred classrooms."

"I wish I was shocked," Dungan said of the poster. "I am aware these trends have been happening for many years."

Some other members of the school board did, in fact, argue that there was nothing objectionable about such a poster. But Dungan was backed up by another trustee, Misty Odenweller, who insisted that the depiction of uh, race-mixing was in some way a "violation of the law." The two women are part of "Mama Bears Rising," a secretive far-right group fueling the book-banning mania in Conroe and the surrounding area. At least 59 books have been banned due to their efforts.

When another trustee asked Dungan if she personally objected to an illustration of cross-racial friendship, she demurred, simply declaring that she was just trying to avoid "situations like that." Situations like what, exactly? She didn't say.

Dungan's behavior is a perfect illustration of the "anti-woke" tap dance. The person alleging nefarious wokeness never admits to their own bigotry, instead pretending that they're reacting to "woke" people who are "pushing" an agenda, in this case through innocuous poster art.

Of course, the entire premise of the argument is rooted in bigotry, as this example shows. It presumes that the feelings of real or imagined bigots who might take umbrage at such an image are of paramount importance, and that everyone else's freedoms must be curtailed to appease them.

It's tempting to shrug it off as one-off weirdness from Nowheresville, Texas. But while this was an especially ham-fisted example, it's part of a well-funded nationwide effort, led by a group of interlocking far-right groups, aimed at destroying modernity, undermining democracy and imposing authoritarian government against the will of most Americans.

Donald Trump sucks up most of the oxygen in the discussion about rising American fascism, but even without him, this movement is powerful and widespread, and it's using these local culture-war skirmishes battles to seize even more power. And old-fashioned racism, the kind on display in Conroe, is very much at the center of it all.

Last week, the New Republic published a lengthy and terrifying investigative article by Katherine Stewart about the Claremont Institute, once a vaguely respectable conservative think tank and now among the leading right-wing organizations pushing the anti-education and anti-democratic agenda below the surface of the Conroe incident.

One of the many Claremont alumni Stewart profiles is Christopher Rufo, who spearheaded the recent hysteria over "critical race theory" in education. In reality, critical race theory was an approach used in law schools and other graduate-level academic spaces, and had basically nothing to do with public schools.

Rufo's ingenious idea was to turn it into a catch-all scare term that could be used to demonize any and all forms of anti-racist education, even something as previously noncontroversial as a poster depicting interracial friendship.

The far-right, anti-democratic politics of the Claremont Institute are so grotesque that many readers will dismiss them as preposterous, but it's all carefully documented and disturbingly real. As Stewart chronicles, Claremont has promoted the work of Costin Alamariu, who holds a PhD in philosophy from Yale and writes under the name "Bronze Age Pervert." He has declared that the "liberation of women" is an "infection" that requires "the most terrible convulsions and the most thorough purgative measures."

A frequent contributor to Claremont's online journal, who writes under the name "Raw Egg Nationalist," argues that "men and women shouldn't work together in the same spaces" and describes the Black Lives Matter protesters of 2020 as "hideously ugly, malformed people." Claremont-associated blogger Curtis Yarvin argues (in Stewart's words) that "America needs a king, a dictator with total military power." Claremont's most famous associate is board member and former law professor John Eastman, now known as "Co-Conspirator 2" in the indictment against Donald Trump for attempting to overthrow the U.S. government.

Because of their tight link to the book-banning efforts, the relatively new but suspiciously wealthy group Moms for Liberty has received massive media attention in the past couple of years. Even so, the group's radical ideology has not really been covered in most mainstream news coverage, which tends to portray the Moms as a bunch of overzealous church ladies. As Flux editor Matthew Sheffield, Media Matters vice president Julie Millican and researcher Olivia Little explained in a recent "Theory of Change" podcast, however, underneath the facade of "Christian moms" is some startling far-right radicalism.

For instance, while it was widely reported that a Moms for Liberty pamphlet from one branch was caught quoting Adolf Hitler, the group was able to spin that as a misunderstanding and a mistake. But at their summit a few days later, speaker Tiffany Justice yelled, "I stand with that mom" — the one who quoted Hitler — while the audience whooped its approval.

Moms for Liberty has heavily promoted trainings for conservative activists on how to take over school boards, which ought to make clear how we should understand stories like this one, which just sound like a racist tantrum in a Texas suburb. These aren't random or isolated events — they're part of a large, well-organized and well-financed attack on public education across the country.

Mama Bears Rising, the group that fueled the Conroe school board takeover, in unsurprisingly discreet about its connections to the larger national movement for censorship. But screenshots of online communications by local anti-censorship activists suggests that it's no coincidence that the books targeted for censorship in Conroe are the same ones that show up on book-ban lists across the country. Mama Bears Rising is drawing on the same playbook that's being disseminated nationwide through a well-funded network of Christian nationalist activists.

These days, it's almost never just one nutty lady at a school board meeting. It's about a movement with a committed ideology, that has deep connections to Donald Trump's campaign to end democracy.

[pineapplecrushface]

what confuses me the most about all the facebook comments that are like "never watching again! can't believe the woke agenda got buck!" is how many of them said they wanted buck to stay the womanizer they know and love. the hhhwhat?

1. what???

2. buck hasn't been a womanizer since the first season. this man is looking to be a full ass PTA mom

3. this is proof that there are people out there who actually like the womanizing dog character trope. truly thought that was a demographic made up by the same people who insist viewers need and want husband characters who are like "nagging wives, amirite?"

anyway don't look at 911 facebook posts unless you're like me and find great joy reading hundreds of comments written by barely coherent boomers* yelling at clouds about how there are too many gays and interracial couples now and they're going to call the network about it. go look at other sites instead, the rest of the internet is celebrating like normal** people.

*actual or spiritual

**actual or spiritual

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Julian Adorney

Published: Mar 9, 2024

Many self-described “anti-racists” paint themselves as noble standard-bearers carrying on the legacy of the civil rights movement. Ibram X. Kendi, writing for The Atlantic, refers to “an anti-racist [Martin Luther] King [Jr.]” and says that attempts to dissociate King from contemporary anti-racists amounts to a “second assassination” of King–this time of his legacy rather than his body. In a post for Martin Luther King Day 2023, Penn Medicine’s CPUP Anti-Racism Committee portray themselves as carrying on King’s legacy. A CNN Explainer discussing Critical Race Theory suggested that, “the idea behind it [Critical Race Theory] goes back much further, to the work of civil rights activists such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Fannie Lou Hamer and Pauli Murray.”

There’s some substance to this assertion. In certain speeches and passages, MLK in particular can sound a lot like a modern-day “anti-racist.” As John Wood Jr. notes in Quillette, King endorsed something resembling the “implicit bias” discussed by writers such as Robin DiAngelo. He talked about systemic racism and the “white power structure.” In a passage in Stride Toward Freedom that parallels Kendi’s famous declaration that all gaps in achievement between racial groups are caused by racism, King writes that “They [segregationist commentators] are never honest enough to admit that the academic and cultural lags in the Negro community are themselves the result of segregation and discrimination.”

Furthermore, King strongly supported affirmative action in 1965 as a necessary corrective to centuries of segregation.

Of course, King was writing in the 1950s and 1960s. It’s an open question whether his analysis of black-white relations still holds 70 years later. Indeed, a frequent critique of modern-day “anti-racists” is that too many of them still pretend we’re stuck in the 1960s. If King were still alive, would he think and write differently about the “white power structure” than he did in 1963?

But a deeper rift exists between civil rights leaders like King and the ideals espoused by too many of today’s “anti-racists.” In at least three key areas, the ideals of many so-called “anti-racists” (who author Coleman Hughes perhaps more accurately refers to as “neo-racists” in his book The End of Race Politics) today are completely at odds with those of the civil rights movement.

Regarding racial integration, for instance, many “anti-racists” are pushing for a world that’s radically different from the visions of civil rights activists like King and Murray. At the heart of these men’s visions was racial integration. Murray, a queer black civil rights activist, proclaimed in 1945 that, “I intend to destroy segregation by positive and embracing methods.” “When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me,” he said, “I shall draw a larger circle to include them. When they speak out for the privileges of a puny group, I shall shout for the rights of all mankind.”

Speaking at the Youth March for Integrated Schools in 1959, King intoned, “As I stand here and look out upon the thousands of Negro faces, and the thousands of white faces, intermingled like the waters of a river, I see only one face—the face of the future.”

In contrast, some of the most prominent “anti-racist” voices actively promote a segregationist agenda. A Washington Post article asks, “Can black and white women be true friends?” The author, a black woman, answers that question in the negative. Why? “Generally speaking,” she writes, “it’s not that I dislike white women. Generally speaking, it’s that I do not trust them. Generally speaking, most black women don’t.” An article in Vice even cautions white people against entering into an interracial marriage. “If you’re trying to start a mixed raced family,” the author warns, you should “sit down and deeply interrogate your intentions.”

Why do leading “anti-racists” actively discourage racial integration, using rhetoric that eerily echoes the KKK rather than MLK? Some believe the perceptions of black and white people are so divergent that genuine interracial communication is nearly impossible. In her New York Times bestseller So You Want to Talk About Race, Ijeoma Oluo describes the difference in perspective between white and black Americans as “not just a gap in experience and viewpoint,” but as “a chasm you could drop entire solar systems into.” Others seem to perceive members of different races as belonging to truly separate species. In their book Is Everyone Really Equal?, Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Sensoy argue that members of minority groups are characterized by the following traits: “feels inappropriate, awkward, doesn’t trust perception,” “find it difficult to speak up,” are “timid,” and “lack initiative.” By contrast, members of majority groups (e.g., white people) are characterized thusly: “presumptuous, does not listen, interrupts, raises voice, bullies, threatens violence, becomes violent.”

When these “anti-racists” caution against racial intermingling on the grounds that white people and black people are fundamentally different and/or cannot understand each others’ perspective, they can no longer claim to be champions of the vision for civil rights shared by leaders like King and Murray.

The second big area of difference between many modern-day “anti-racists” and the civil rights activists of the 1950s and 1960s is that the foundational ideal of the latter was brotherly love. King emphasized to his followers that, “Love must be our regulating ideal.” While leading the Montgomery bus boycotts, he urged every speaker and minister within the movement to hew close to this ideal. In his book, Stride Toward Freedom, King recounts an instance when one minister “lash[ed] out against the whites in distinctly untheological terms” and referred to extreme members of the white community as “dirty crackers.” King reports that the offending minister “was politely but firmly informed that his insulting phrases were out of place.”

Why was King so determined that the civil rights movement avoid descending into hatred and bitterness towards their oppressors? One reason was his strong Christian ideals. He quoted Jesus to his followers: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you.” But King also understood tribal psychology and knew that lasting change could not be achieved through mutual hatred. In Stride Toward Freedom, he noted that, “To meet hate with retaliatory hate would do nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe.” “Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man,” he continued, “but to win his friendship and understanding.”

But retaliatory hate is the modus operandi of too many “anti-racists” today. Saira Rao and Regina Jackson dedicate their New York Times bestseller White Women: Everything You Already Know About Your Own Racism And How to Do Better to “all Black, Indigenous, brown, and non-white girls, women, and non-binary identifying folks who are sick and tired of white women’s bullshit.” Authors like DiAngelo and Sensoy are comfortable dismissing all white people as “bullies” who “threaten violence” and “becomes [sic] violent.” In 2021, Yale University’s Child Study Center hosted a psychiatrist who delivered a lecture titled, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” where white people were likened to “a demented violent predator who thinks they are a saint or a superhero,” and the speaker openly fantasized about murdering white people.

In 2023, professors Michael Bernstein and April Bleske-Rechek published the results of a study wherein participants were shown three quotes from Hitler about Jews, but replaced the term “Jews” with “Whites.” Participants were then asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements. The quotes are as follows:

“...the language of the [White] people, who speak to conceal, or at least veil, their thoughts. Their real purpose is often not in the writing itself, but sleeping snugly between the lines.”

“For reasons which will immediately be apparent, [Whites] have never possessed a culture of their own and the basis for their knowledge has always been furnished by the civilizations of others.”

“To achieve their goal, [Whites] proceed as follows: they creep up on the workers in order to win their confidence, pretending to have compassion.”

Fully 50 percent of liberals sampled agreed with at least one of the three statements.

King cautioned against “retaliatory hate,” understanding that bitterness and rage would not undo the sins of oppression. More fundamentally, he embraced the foundational Christian belief that all humans are made in the image of God, and thus have equal and intrinsic value. The prevailing message of too many on the far-left is the opposite: retaliatory hatred is to be lauded, because some races are just better than others.

The third foundational area where many self-proclaimed “anti-racists” diverge from the civil rights movement's ideals is their approach to class. In Stride Toward Freedom, King describes the mass meetings of the Montgomery bus boycott like this:

The mass meetings also cut across class lines. The vast majority present were working people; yet there was always an appreciable number of professionals in the audience. Physicians, teachers, and lawyers sat or stood beside domestic workers and unskilled laborers. The PhDs and the no "Ds" were bound together in a common venture. The so-called "big Negroes" who owned cars and had never ridden the buses came to know the maids and the laborers who rode the buses every day. Men and women who had been separated from each other by false standards of class were now singing and praying together in a common struggle for freedom and human dignity.

In contrast, the “anti-racist” movement in recent years has largely catered to and been driven by elites. For instance, a 2023 New York Times article titled “The Failure of Progressive Movements” explored why movements like Black Lives Matter have struggled to enact real change. One explanation was that, as liberal writer Fredrik DeBoer says, “today, left-activist spaces are dominated by the college-educated, many of whom grew up in affluence and have never worked a day at a physically or emotionally demanding job.” As a result, progressive movements often prioritize “the immaterial and symbolic” over “the material and the concrete.” They obsess over pronoun usage, microaggressions directed at minorities at top universities, and whether Tracy Chapman was as successful as Luke Combs. Think what you will about all that, but this obsession with elite life is a far cry from “Workers of the world, unite.” Maybe that’s why a recent Gallup poll found Democrats bleeding support from people who never went to college, but retaining strong support among those with a postgraduate degree.

Of course, not all “anti-racists” think this way. I know and admire many on the far-left who courageously advocate for integration and a society where skin color impacts life outcomes as little as hair color. But too many “anti-racists” endorse a broken ideology at odds with the foundational ideals of the civil rights movement. This ideology–endorsed by editors at top publications, by Ivy League universities, by New York Times bestselling authors–signifies a rot that needs to be exposed and then expunged.

King dreamed of a future characterized by racial integration and brotherly love, where no person is valued more or less highly due to the color of their skin. We should recommit ourselves to that vision before it’s too late.

-

About the Author

Julian Adorney is the founder of Heal the West, a Substack movement dedicated to preserving and protecting Western civilization. You can find him on X at @Julian_Liberty

[starwolf369]

Day 1: Gay.

I don't really think this needs an explanation, as this is what straight people (yes, Conservatives too) call the LGBTQ+ community (damn "gay agenda", stop pushing your straight agenda then).

Still, if you're unaware or need a refresher, gay used to mean happy or carefree - it was even in the Flintstones theme (🎵We'll have a good time, a yabba-doo time, we'll have a gay old time!🎵) - but nowadays, by which I mean the late 1800s, gay began to refer to men loving men. (Note: after doing some research, I learned that the German word for gay (schwul) is derived from the word for hot (schwül)).

Alongside lesbian and transgender, gay is one of the most represented identities in the LGBTQ+ community. (In this section, any that are up to speculation have an asterisk). Some notable representations I found are:

Dorian Gray and Basil Hallward (The Picture of Dorian Gray - Oscar Wilde) - Dorian is more uncertain, meeting with male prostitutes and proposing to a woman (could be bi?), while Basil is more suppressive of his homosexuality.

Abu'l Nuquod* (Assassin's Creed) - Heavily implied

Leonardo da Vinci* (Assassin's Creed II) - Heavily implied interest in Ezio

Cameron and Mitchell (Modern Family) - a married couple raising a child together

George (MASH) - a one-off episode which depicted a gay soldier who's secret gets out at a military hospital, which has Frank (a major at the hospital) wanting to evict him from the army and Cpt. Hawkeye trying to prevent that.

Marty and Darryl (Barney Miller) - Marty was one of the first reoccurring gay characters on TV (Barney Miller was aired in '75) and when his boyfriend Darryl was introduced, they were one of the first gay couples on TV.

I will also include a section on webcomics that I find interesting with gay characters. For example, today we have:

Boyfriends (come on, why wouldn't I include this?)

Heartstopper (again, why wouldn't I include this? (Charlie is best boy and I admit that I'm biased because I'm also a drummer.)

Crystal City Killers (this, I consider to be alternative Heartstopper, mainly because the 4 of the main 5 are in the titular band, but the main relationship is between CCK's frontman Dennis and their new art designer Harvey.)

High Class Homos (the male lead (August) is a gay prince who marries his lesbian best friend to get their parents off their back.)

Soft Love (this is a more wholesome one, with two gay relationships. 1. Liam and Aron (Aron is non-binary, but I believe they are AMAB, but still.) 2. Ox and Red (this is also an interracial couple as Red is black with vitiligo. Ox is also the brother of another main character, who we will get to at another point.)

Daybreak (Black gay couples are rarely depicted in mainstream, so it's nice that comics like Daybreak can include gay relationships between people of colour, in this case Marcus and Cog (he/they, id you're confused by why that's his name.)

Drewitt Adventures (this is one of my favourite webcomics right now, and I want to talk about this before I go nuts. The main couple is between Lumiere Drewitt (a dark magic user, they/them) and Aether Tolkien (the Lord of the Tolkien District, he/him.) In the lore of the series, in the future (relative future, the comic takea place in the 15th century), the two adopt a child named Ember.)

Woo... one down... how many more to go?!

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

I WANT SYDNEY ADAMU

Storer is playing a Shonda Rhymes game here.

Can't stop yawning since I noticed. It's so fucking cliché. Honestly, I expected better from him.

2 women disputing the man's love/attention is as stereotyped as the opposite, which is what Grant/Goldwyn and Ballard/Foley did, very well btw, many years ago on Scandal where the interracial ship was the actual center of the main plot from the very get-go.

And a bunch of other shows also went there. It's a classic.

BORING.

In 2024 there were at least 1000 more and better ways to keep slow-burning the 2 lead characters if he didn't wanna serve that dish yet. Also, why? "Clearly" Claire's character was not unanimously well received by the audience, so why fight it and push us? In fact, Claire's character was soooo not well received by most part of the audience that even some non-Sydcarmy truthers don't ship Carmy with her either. So WTAF?!? I figured out Storer's agenda but not his motives, though. WHY!? Why go through all this trouble and damage control for a character that we just don't want? She has her stands, sure, but they are certainly not the majority, so why doesn´t Storer see this, accept it, and move on? Why bring out the press guns to try and build and impose a narrative of how great Claire is and how well Carmy and her fit, or how she could be great for him because she will surely teach him how to open his fucking heart and yatta, yatta, yatta... why bombard us with all those editorials we are seeing in the media and will mostly keep on seeing moving forward till S3 premiers at least, that are obviously signed off by him personally... WHY?!?! It's like when kids don't wanna eat their veggies so the parents try to disguise them in other foods so they do eat them and they get used to them and that's how they train their palates. Right? Storer is training us to educate our palates into liking Claire with all those articles and Claire propaganda, he's really putting some effort here. WHY?!!?

I wanna like whatever character I feel like liking, Christopher, I don't wanna be fucking induced into accepting one of your choosing, I already chose. I WANT SYDNEY ADAMU.

Hear me out! I'm not alone here, as a matter of fact, I'm part of the fucking majority.

I WANT SYDNEY ADAMU. And more importantly, Carmy wants her too.

Please and thank you!

[isnt-it-pretty]

Thank you for spreading the Tighnari-caring-for-Cyno agenda I am so so tired of every ship with 2 (or more) characters of different skin tones having the darker one turned into the "big strong but goofy himbo protector one" and the lighter into the "small weak uwu but smart damsel one". And most people don't even notice the racist undertones they just think it's a common fanfic trope and totally acceptable and it drives me up the walls because if you try and bring it up you're "overthinking" and "It's just fic"... I get that but it's almost every fic in almost every interracial ship in almost every fandom I've ever been in and...I'm tired

I don't think that liking the dynamic is inherently racist (which I know you aren't stating it is! I just want people to know I'm not calling them racist over a ship), but it is telling when every similar ship has the same dynamic. It definitely isn't malicious, but, you know, internalized biases. It's something worth exploring because we all have them; I'm certainly not immune to them. The fact Cyno is often depicted as less intelligent than Tighnari is definitely something people should question, though, because racism and colourism play a massive role in perceived intelligence. I made a post on it that people can read here if they haven't already. That said, I'm also white, so I can't exactly speak to racial biases the way a BIPOC can, and I always welcome their voices and opinions on the topic.

As for my agenda of Tighnari taking care of Cyno, I'm really passionate about it (probably too passionate). We see how much pressure Cyno is constantly under. He even says that he has to weigh every choice he makes carefully because of the consequences. When Nilou asks if he's happy, he dodges the question and says it doesn't matter. Tighnari says he looks lonely.

I think people like that need somebody to take care of them. They need somebody to put a hand on their shoulder and tell them to stop running themselves into the ground, because Cyno will go until he breaks (looking at his story quest, where he takes down 300 people in four days after losing somebody very important to him and just doesn't talk about it.) He deserves to be loved, and he deserves to be vulnerable and hurt. He is allowed and should show weakness sometimes. He should be held and wrapped in blankets, or bathed, or comforted, or whatever, instead of always being the strong, comforting presence. It's okay to be that, but he deserves some vulnerability, too.

It's why all my fics focus on Hurt!Cyno, and why my other secret agenda is that a lot of people love him. I refuse to write a BIPOC who everybody is threatened by and dislikes. I strongly headcanon that he's adored by the matra and has close friends like Tighnari and Kaveh. The other forest watchers may be wary of him, but they ultimately like him and welcome him to Gandharva Ville.

I want to balance the scales a little instead of always having Cyno comfort Tighnari. I want it to be the other way around, because it's okay to be vulnerable. I also love every fic where Cyno is injured or sick and goes to Tighnari because Tighnari is his safe person, and I endlessly wish there was more of them.

(I just want to reiterate that writing Tighnari as vulnerable/hurt, and Cyno as protective doesn't make anybody a bad person, or racist, or homophobic, or whatever, but it might be worth trying out dynamics different from the mainstream! You might find that you enjoy them.)

Hopefully, this response makes sense! I'm a little scattered today, so I can never tell. Thank you so much for the ask; I really appreciate it, and I'm glad you find my headcanons refreshing ❤❤❤

[historyhermann]

The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder Season 2 Review

The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder is a coming-of-age animated sitcom and adventure by Bruce W. Smith and Ralph Farquhar, two well-known producers. It is a revival and soft reboot of The Proud Family, a classic Disney series by Smith which aired in the early 2000s. This review will have spoilers.

Reprinted from Pop Culture Maniacs and Wayback Machine. This was the twenty-third article I wrote for Pop Culture Maniacs. This post was originally published on February 13, 2023.

This animated series centers on Penny Proud (voiced by Kyla Pratt), a 16-year-old Black girl in the town of Smithville. She attempts to navigates her home life, filled the antics off her father, Oscar (voiced by Tommy Davidson), who owns a failing snack business, her mother, Trudy (voiced by Paula Jai Parker), a well-off veterinarian, her grandmother, Suga Mama (voiced by Jo Marie Payton), and her two siblings, Bebe and Cece. At high school, she has four friends-of-sorts: Michael Collins, Dijonay Jones, Zoey Howser, and LaCienega Boulevardez. They are voiced by EJ Johnson, Karen Malina White, Soleil Moon Frye, and Alisa Reyes respectfully. All the while, two new kids, Maya and KG, raised by two dads (Barry and Randall), try to adapt to their new life in Smithville.

The show's first season broke ground for featuring openly gay characters, unlike in the original series, such as Michael, who is also gender non-conforming. His voice actor even considered gender transition. This character is joined by an interracial couple: Barry and Randall Leibowitz-Jenkins, who voiced by two gay actors (Zachary Quinto and Billy Porter). They are the adopted fathers of Maya and Francis "KG", voiced by Keke Palmer and "A Boogie" Dubose. Palmer previously voiced Izzy Hawthorne in Lightyear, a lesbian character who has a wife named Alisha. She has also stated that she does not want her sexuality to be defined by labels and that people should be fluid when giving themselves labels.

The series has been swept in the culture wars, with claims it is promoting the "gay agenda" or is "anti-White". In reality, there are various White characters, including Zoey and Barry, and often promotes themes of racial togetherness, rather than division. Additionally, Michael is the only protagonist in the series who is part of the LGBTQ community. Barry, Randall, and Makeup Boy (voiced by Bretman Rock), with the latter beginning to date Michael later in the second season, are only recurring characters. In fact, Penny and Dijonay both have boyfriends, Darrius St. Vil (voiced by Chance the Rapper) and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Brown (voiced by Asante Blackk), by the end of the season. Furthermore, Zoey is sweet on Myron (voiced by Marcus T. Paulk), and Maya romantically connects with one of the Chang Triplets, Billy.

Like the original The Proud Family, the series is not neutral when it comes to politics. It often focuses on racial injustice, whether noting past bans on interracial marriage, reparations, prejudice of Black people toward White people, anti-Black racism, sexism, or White skin privilege. This is interwoven with an emphasis on the importance of Black history, friendship, family, indigenous rights, harmonious neighbors, paying people fairly, respecting people for who they are, going beyond the color of their skin, and the folly of celebrity worship. Many books are name-dropped throughout the series, like Africans and Native Americans, as are the names of intellectuals such as Michelle Alexander, Robin DiAngelo, Elizabeth Acevedo, Leslie T. Chang, Saeed Jones, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. Many of these names are displayed during the English class taught by Kwame (voiced by Leslie Odom, Jr.).

Similar to season one, the second season of The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder provides more background about the characters, whether about Suga Mama's short-lived romance with an indigenous cowboy named Quanah (voiced by Wes Studi), and how Barry and Randall met, or the history of the Soul Vibrations band composed of Oscar and his brothers, and Giselle. As Penny says, in one episode, "you can't know yourself unless you know where you come from". This interconnected with the meaningful, and well-done, episode in which Bebe is diagnosed with autism, with the Proud family trying to figure out what to do with him, and coming to accept him, even if he requires more attention from them.

Other episodes focus on family conflict and fissures between friends, and neighbors, all of which are resolved before the end of each episode. This includes an episode when everyone is enamored with LaCienega's uncanny athletic ability (because of her big feet) and realize they have gone into a frenzy, another about Oscar, Felix, Puff, and Suga Mama fighting one another in an absurd parody of TV court shows, and one in which animals protest the awful Proud Snacks created by Oscar Proud. One of my favorite episodes in Season 2 featured a Princess Ball, with references to other Disney princesses: Penny dressed up as Princess Tiana, Dijonay as Cinderella, LaCienega as Princess Elena, Michael as Pocahontas, Maya as Beyonce, and Zoey as Princess Merida.

There are many notable characters in The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder like the Principal Hightower (voiced by Patricia Belcher), who insults and demans the students, reporter Vanessa Vue (voiced by Brenda Song) or incredibly wealthy Wizard Kelly (voiced by Aries Spears) who is shown as too tall to fit on the screen. However, in this season, Maya comes into her own, especially in the season two finale. In the episode, the ghost of Emily (voiced by Storm Reid), a Black girl enslaved by the town's founder, Christian A. Smith, guides her, revealing her diary which proves that Smith is a slaveowner, contradicting the common town myth.

In an interesting depiction of wealth-as-power, Wizard Kelly orders the police, clad in riot gear, to stop Maya, and her friends, who are protesting a ceremony dedicating Smith, with chants and placards. As a result, all of them, and their parents, are thrown in the city jail, despite the efforts of Barry to protect his children. His detective badge shown to mean nothing, as the police, who are serving as Kelly's goons, step over it with their boots.

Although Maya is just as determined as Wednesday Addams, in Wednesday, she does nothing equivalent to her. The latter, with the help of Thing, lights the statue of Joseph Crackstone, the Pilgrim founder of Jericho, on fire, causing it to melt. In fact, Kwame counsels his students to not pull down Smith's statue. This makes it ironic, then, that some reactionary media and personalities are all up-in-arms about the series, acting like it either "ruins" the original, or is "causing" division. Where were these people when Wednesday came out? They could have said some of the same things about that series, but they did not.

In many ways, the Season Two finale of The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder sets the series apart from methods of police control over the citizenry depicted in Velma or the incompetent police force shown in The Simpsons. That is because this series emphasizes how some can control and distort history to their benefit, covering up what they don't want others to see. There is no acceptance of the town myth which Lisa Simpson conceded to in The Simpsons. Instead, the town's name is changed to Emilyville and a new statue is erected. In a possible indication of the long-standing nature of the existing economic system, Kelly becomes the mayor of the town, and faces no consequences for cracking down on Maya, her friends, family, or other town residents.

This series features many guest stars like Jane Lynch, Gabrielle Union, Al Roker, Ceelo Green, and Andre Jamal Kinney, along with other lesser-known ones like Forrest Goodluck, and sports stars Laurie Hernandez, Gabby Douglas, and Dominque Dawes. Of the guest characters, I liked Dr. Lord (voiced by Holly Robinson Peete) best as she gives Penny a chance to talk about her experiences as the oldest child in the family, in which she is given additional responsibilities.

All of the episodes of the second season of The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder all aired on February 1st, unlike the previous season, which aired over a two month time period. There's strong animation and backgrounds which make the show stand out, as does the voice acting and music selection, which fit with stories and characters. It is unfortunate this 10-episode season isn't spread out across two months, because it would be easier to watch the series and take in all that happens. Even so, this season is much less glitzy than season 1 and that is to the show's benefit.

Furthermore, I appreciate that the series did an episode based on the little-remembered, or regarded, but wild, The Proud Family Movie, which seemed like an episode from Milo Murphy's Law, especially when they are fighting the Pistachions. In some ways, the episode reminded me of the annual Treehouse of Horror episodes of The Simpsons.

It is hard to know where The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder goes from here. If it follows the recent pattern of Disney series, such as Amphibia and The Owl House, it will have at least one more season. If that was the case, it would have one more season than the original series. However, it would need another 32 episodes to match the original, which aired from 2001 to 2005. This revival is different because the episodes range from 27 to 30 minutes, similar to the first season.

This series comes at the time that Disney is producing and airing series with diverse casts, like The Ghost and Molly McGee. In fact, this year, Iwájú, Kiff, Marvel’s Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, Primos, and Hailey's On It! are set to air. Disney has also contracted to produce series such as Cookies & Milk, Moana, and Tiana. On the other hand, Disney series with similar casts such as Mira, Royal Detective and Amphibia ended last year, while The Owl House is set to end this spring.

The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder is more unique, incorporating perspectives of Black creators, unlike Hamster & Gretel, Phineas and Ferb, Kim Possible, and Star Wars: The Bad Batch, which likely have mostly White writers rooms and have casts largely composed of White characters. As production coordinator, Breana Navickas, recently wrote, the show's writer's room is Black, and much of the staff is Black and "a mix of asian folks, latine folks, white folks". This shows in this season even more strongly than in the first season, with the series establishing itself more, and putting the original into the dustbin.

This series is not alone. Craig of the Creek, Victor and Valentino, Carmen Sandiego, Arcane, and Glitch Techs are all recent series with diverse stories and characters. As such, The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder, comes at an opportune time, when some executives are cutting back resources dedicated toward animated series, or squeezing workers in tough working conditions.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the second season even more than the first, and hope that Disney orders another season sometime this year, considering the amount of people watching it. There are so many more stories to tell with these characters. This could include Penny getting new, and non-toxic friends. Even so, I doubt this will happen because the plot of the series depends too much on their existence to bring in new friends, just as Futurama would fall apart without the antics of the Planet Express crew keeping its current members. In addition, considering the issues with colorism in the original The Proud Family, and somewhat replicated in the first season, it was good to see that the Gross Sisters (Nubia, Olei, and Gina), all by Raquel Lee, only had a small part in this season. The fact that Maya had a bigger part in the season, instead of the Gross Sisters, is a welcome development.

One of the series' downfalls is repeating elements of narrative set-up in the original series. Although I still believe the series could be stronger if it focused on older versions of the cast, the second season made the characters, at their current age, workable. It didn't fall into simple tropes used in Kim Possible and Totally Spies!, both animated series centered in school environments.

Seasons 1 and 2 of The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder is currently airing on Disney+. While you are at it, you can watch The Proud Family and The Proud Family Movie on Disney+ too!

© 2023 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.

[dwellordream]

“Women streamed into public office in the 1920s, the largest single increase in women’s officeholding to date, leveling off only after 1930. The Democrats and Republicans began to mandate equal representation of men and women on party committees. Altogether, these achievements covering peace, politics, labor, health care, and the home seemed to indicate a wide acceptance of women’s significance in the public arena.

Yet by 1924 popular magazines were running articles (written by men) with such titles as “Is Women’s Suffrage a Failure?” and “Women’s Ineffective Use of the Vote.” There were signs, even early on, that not all was going according to plan. The only woman in Congress in 1921, Alice Robertson, was an anti-suffragist. Women vastly increased their numbers in office, but the meaning of that increase must be set in a wider context. In 1924, there were 84 women legislators in 30 states. Five years later there were 200, an increase of almost 250 percent. But while there were 200 women in office, there were 10,000 men.

…To some triumphant suffragists the next logical step was an equal rights amendment, which would sweep away all remaining forms of discrimination at once. Activist Alice Paul spearheaded the drive for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). She presided over the National Women’s Party (NWP) when in November 1923, the 75th anniversary of the first women’s rights convention, at Seneca Falls, New York, it announced the text of the ERA: “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.” A month later the amendment was introduced into Congress.

To Paul, it was logical that the ERA should succeed suffrage as the focus of NWP. Like suffrage, the ERA was only part of the feminist agenda, but it would give women power, which they could then use as they pleased. Instead of becoming the new mass women’s movement, however, the NWP dwindled. It emerged from the suffrage fight in 1920 with 35,000 members. By the end of the decade, it had sunk to 1,000.

…But the divisions among women were not all caused by the women themselves. For one thing, the raids and prosecutions of the Red Scare had a chilling effect on women’s groups. Facing possible jail terms or deportation simply for associating with radical women, some women turned a cold shoulder to former friends. In an era in which organizing at all was suspect, women in the 1920s could either organize together for equality and rights and be labeled “red” and fired, or they could try to go it alone.

It was not then surprising that women in their 20s and 30s who wanted to succeed in the public world of business or politics believed the most important thing to leave behind was “sex-consciousness,” their sense of themselves as women who shared interests with other women. They abandoned any organized quest for general social reform and opted instead for individualism. “Breaking into the human race,” as they put it, and individual success in the world as it was became their goals.

…Despite antagonism toward feminist groups, the 1920s found activist women not so much absent as scattered. No longer were they the “woman movement,” as they had been in the 19th century; now they were women. They still organized, but in a multitude of smaller groups that often opposed each other. Every woman seemed to belong to at least one group, and often to several. There were church groups, parents’ associations, self-improvement clubs, and civic leagues. Many women returned to the causes that had most concerned them before the peak of the suffrage movement.

Some threw all their efforts into the peace movement. Others returned to issues such as social reform, hours and wages for women, clean city streets and water, adequate schooling and playgrounds, and safe factory conditions, for example. In the South, new interracial efforts against lynching occupied some women. In the Southwest, Hispanic women worked for bilingual education.”

- Sarah Jane Deutsch, “The Nature of ‘Liberation’: Inventing a Public Woman.” in From Ballots to Breadlines: American Women, 1920-1940