共產檔
MISH - MASH
美國加州大學伯克利分校的一位匿名曆史教授（他自己說自己是有色人種）寫了一封公開信，反對當前BLM運動和正在進行的喬治-弗洛伊德之死的抗議活動對種族不公正的觀點。
其真實性得到了肯塔基州立大學政治學助理教授威爾弗雷德-雷利的證實，他說，他和斯坦福大學經濟學家托馬斯-索維爾一起收到了這封信的副本。
（這兩位學者都是黑人）
麥教授把這封信翻譯出來（原文在最後），不添加任何自己的觀點，給大家做獨立思考。麥教授不研究這個題目，隻希望更多的人看到正反兩麵的信息，而不是頭腦發熱的要鬧革命毀滅一切。
加州大學伯克利分校曆史教授公開信反對BLM、警察暴力（police brutality）和文化正統主義（Cultural Orthodoxy）（麥教授注：其實這封信是copy了回複給伯克利曆史係的一封郵件）
尊敬的X、Y、Z教授
我是你們在加州大學伯克利分校的同事之一。我見過你們兩個人，但與你們並不熟識，所以我以匿名方式與你們聯係，並表示歉意。我擔心公開寫這封郵件可能會導致我丟掉工作，很可能會丟掉我這個領域未來的所有工作。
在伯克利曆史係最近的郵件中提到了我們對多樣性的承諾，但我越來越感到震驚，因為在最近的抗議活動和我們社區對這些活動的反應上，缺乏多樣性的意見。
在郵件提供的延伸鏈接和資源中，我找不到任何一個實質性的反駁或替代性的說法來解釋黑人在學術界的代表性不足或在刑事司法係統中的代表性過高。郵件的文件中提供的解釋，幾乎排除了所有其他的解釋，是單變量的：黑人社區的問題是由白人造成的，或者，當白人不在場時，是由白人至上主義和白人係統性種族主義滲透到美國人的大腦、靈魂和機構中造成的。
許多清醒的聲音，包括來自黑人社區本身的聲音，如托馬斯-索維爾和威爾弗雷德-雷利，都對這個論題提出了許多有說服力的反對意見。這些人不是種族主義者，也不是 "湯姆叔叔"。他們是聰明的學者，他們拒絕接受剝奪黑人代理權，並係統性地將黑人社區的問題外化到外人身上的說法。他們的觀點完全沒有出現在部門和伯克利的公報中。
黑人社區所麵臨的困難完全由白人係統性種族主義、白人至上主義和其他形式的白人歧視等外在因素來解釋的說法，仍然是一個有問題的假說，應該受到曆史學家的有力挑戰。相反，它被當作一個公理和可操作的真理，而沒有認真考慮它的深刻缺陷，或它令人擔憂的黑人完全無能的暗示。這種假說正在改變我們的製度和文化，在嚴密的監控和狹隘的話語之外，沒有任何異議和討論的空間。
一個反敘事存在。如果你有時間，請考慮研究一下我在這封郵件最後附上的一些文件。絕大多數情況下，由BLM和盟友提供的推理主要是軼事（如與Ta-Nehisi Coates的不可否認的動人文章的大部分情況下）或它是透明的動機。作為後一個問題的例子，考慮美國黑人被監禁的比例。這個比例經常被用來描述刑事司法係統是反黑人的。然而，如果我們使用完全相同的方法，我們將不得不得出結論，刑事司法係統甚至比反黑人更反男性。（麥教授解讀：他說的是不能隻看黑人被監禁的比例，如果隻看比例，男性有絕對高的比例比女性被監禁，就會得出一個錯誤的結論：司法係統歧視男性）
我們是否會將刑事司法定性為針對無辜美國人的係統性的反黑人陰謀？我希望你能看到，這種推理是有缺陷的。黑人被監禁的比例並沒有比他們參與暴力犯罪的比例高。這個事實已經在多個國家的多個司法管轄區被多次證明。
然而，我看到我們係的郵件中不加批判地重現了這種說法，這種解釋表達了伯克利曆史係郵件明顯的願望：以承擔 "白人的負擔"，並支持白人有罪的說法。
如果我們聲稱刑事司法係統是白人至上主義的，為什麽亞裔美國人，印度裔美國人和尼日利亞裔美國人被監禁的比例遠遠低於美國白人？這是一種有趣的白人至上主義。即使是猶太裔美國人被監禁的比例也比外邦白人低。我想可以說，一般的白人至上主義者都不讚成猶太人。然而，這些所謂的白人至上主義者監禁外邦人的比例卻遠遠高於猶太人。你們的文獻中沒有提到這些。除了憑空亂說和自相矛盾之外，沒有任何解釋。"這些都是種族主義的狗屁"。"模範少數派的神話是白人至上主義"。"隻有法西斯主義者才會談論黑對黑的犯罪"，無休止。
這些類型的言論並不等於反駁：它們隻是武斷的攻擊性分類，旨在壓製思想和壓製話語。任何嚴肅的曆史學家都會認識到這些是壓製正統的策略，在整個時間和空間的鎮壓政權、學說和宗教中是常見的。它們的目的是粉碎真正的多樣性，並永久地將強有力的思辨文化從我們的曆史係驅逐出去。
越來越多地，我們被要求遵守和同意這個有問題的BLM曆史觀，我們係也裝作大家都認同BLM這一觀點。特別是，少數族群被賦予了一個單一的形象。所有人認同這一形象時就沒事，而不同意見幾乎可以肯定導致我們被開除或惹上大麻煩。
我個人不敢大聲反對BLM的說法，而這種所謂的團結正在由管理層: 終身教授，加州大學行政部門，美國公司和媒體大規模生產。不認同的人麵臨在這個脆弱經濟環境下的巨大的失業危險。我確信，如果我的名字附在這封電子郵件上，我將失去我的工作和所有未來的工作，盡管我相信並能願意承擔我打的每一個字。
絕大多數黑人社區的暴力事件都是由黑人實施的。幾乎沒有為這些看不見的受害者舉行遊行，沒有公開的沉默，沒有來自加州大學的管理者、院長和部門負責人的心聲信。信息很明確：隻有當白人奪走黑人的生命時，黑人的生命才是重要的。黑人的暴力是意料之中的，是無解的，而白人的暴力則需要解釋，需要解決。請捫心自問，看看這種表述到底有多畸形偏激。
不允許討論黑人暴力的非黑人受害者，因為非黑人暴力的受害者比例超過黑人。這一點在灣區尤其令人痛心，在那裏，亞裔被黑人襲擊者傷害的情況已經達到了見怪不怪的程度，以至於舊金山警察局長已經建議亞裔不要再在門上掛好運符，因為這會吸引（絕大多數是黑人）入室者的注意。像喬治-弗洛伊德這樣的家庭入侵者。對於美國這種真實的、活生生的、親身經曆過的暴力現實，沒有遊行，沒有學校負責人含淚的郵件，沒有麥當勞和沃爾瑪的支持。對於曆史係來說，我們的沉默不僅僅是放棄了我們揭示真相的責任：更是對真相的拒絕。
黑人內部暴力是奴隸製和其他不公正的產物，這種說法主要是一種曆史性的說法。因此，要由曆史學家來解釋，為什麽日本人的收容或歐洲猶太人的屠殺沒有分別導致日本人和猶太裔美國人的功能障礙和低社會經濟地位表現的同等比例。自911事件以來，阿拉伯裔美國人一直被惡意妖魔化，最近的華裔美國人也是如此。然而，這兩個群體在幾乎所有社會經濟地位指數上的表現都優於美國白人--尼日利亞裔美國人也是如此，即便他們擁有黑色的皮膚。曆史學家應該指出並討論這些異常現象。然而，在我們係目前的氣氛下，不可能進行真正的討論。解釋是上麵管理層提供給我們的，不同意它的解釋就是種族主義。曆史學家的工作是進一步探索解釋另外正確的方式，這種強加的解釋是對曆史專業的嘲諷。
最令人不安的是，我們的部門似乎已經完全被民主黨全國代表大會，以及更廣泛的民主黨的利益所俘虜。為了解釋我的意思，考慮一下如果你選擇捐贈給Black Lives Matter會發生什麽，伯克利曆史係在其最近的郵件中明確促進了一個組織。所有對BLM官方網站的捐款都會立即重定向到ActBlue慈善機構，該組織主要關注為民主黨候選人的選舉活動提供資金。今天捐贈給BLM是間接捐贈給喬-拜登的2020年競選。鑒於美國黑人對黑人暴力和警察對黑人暴力發生率最嚴重的城市絕大多數都是民主黨人管理的，這就很怪異了。明尼阿波利斯本身50多年來完全掌握在民主黨人手中；那裏的'係統性種族主義'是由曆屆民主黨政府建立的。
民主黨領導人對黑人社區的高高在上和居高臨下的態度，幾乎在拜登關於黑人種族的每一次發言中都得到了體現，這一切都保證了痛苦、怨恨、貧窮以及隨之而來的怨恨政治的永久狀態，這些都在同時消滅美國的政治話語和黑人的生活。然而，捐贈給BLM是資助像弗雷市長這樣的人的選舉活動，而恰恰是他們的城市陷入暴力。這是一個由一個政黨來怪異的綁架一個善意的運動，綁架必要的警察改革，綁架我們的係。更糟糕的是，在學術界幾乎沒有異議的渠道。我拒絕為黨服務，你也應該如此。
參與人類剝削的大公司與BLM的完全聯盟應該是我們的一麵警告旗幟，然而這種致命的證據卻沒有被注意到，故意被忽略，或者反常地被慶祝。支持LM的亞馬遜的傑夫-貝佐斯是代表富有階級的真實的、現代的奴隸主。支持BLM的星巴克，仍然在使用黑奴在其咖啡種植園工作。索尼，使用鈷礦雇傭黑奴（其中許多是兒童） 是支持BLM。
也存在一個巨大的群體，我隻能稱其為'種族騙子'：所有顏色的騙子都會受益於煽動種族衝突的火，以確保自己的行政工作，慈善管理職位，學術工作和進步，或個人政治創業。
鑒於我們曆史係的發展方向似乎與對真理的承諾相去甚遠，我們可以把自己看作是這一品牌的推銷員的培訓機構。這次的活動具有腐蝕性，摧毀了我們國家種族和諧共處的任何希望，並使我們的政治和體製生活殖民化。他們中的許多人的聲音具有諷刺性的隔離主義色彩。
如果馬丁路德金今天在我們的校園裏講話，他很可能會被稱為湯姆叔叔。我們正在培訓那些明確打算摧毀現代曆史上唯一真正成功的種族多元化社會之一的領導人。
最後一點，我們的大學和係已經發表了多份聲明，慶祝和謳歌喬治-弗洛伊德。弗洛伊德是一個多次重刑犯，他曾經用槍指著一個懷孕的黑人婦女。他帶著一幫人闖進她的家，用槍指著她懷孕的肚子。他恐嚇社區裏的婦女。他生下並遺棄了多個孩子，沒有參與他們的撫養和教育，沒有一個人最基本的人格。他是一個吸毒者，有時也是毒販子，是一個詐騙犯，他掠奪他的誠實和勤勞的鄰居。
然而，加州大學的執政官和曆史係的曆史學家們卻在謳歌這個暴力罪犯，把他的名字提升到了虛擬的聖人。一個傷害女性的男人 一個傷害黑人婦女的男人。在曆史係、美國企業、大多數主流媒體以及美國一些最富有、最有特權的輿論塑造精英的通力合作下，他成了文化英雄，被埋在金棺材裏，他的（公認的）家人受到禮物和讚美。美國人正在受到社會壓力，為這個暴力、虐待婦女的厭惡者下跪。一代黑人男子被脅迫認同喬治-弗洛伊德，我們種族和物種中最糟糕的標本。
我為我的係感到羞恥。我想說的是，我為你們兩個感到羞恥，但也許你們同意我的觀點，隻是和我一樣，害怕說出真相後的後果。為了保住自己的飯碗，不得不下跪，人在下跪的時候很難知道什麽叫下跪。
聲明一下，我是有色人種。我的家人都曾被弗洛伊德這樣的人親手害過。我們知道民主黨對我們種族的傲慢掠奪。他們對黑人有羞辱性的假設，認為我們太笨了，不適合做STEM，我們需要特殊的幫助和較低的要求才能在生活中取得進步，這對我們來說是非常熟悉的。我有時會想，如果對付開放的法西斯主義者，他們至少會直截了當地稱我為二等人。
一直存在的低期望值的軟性偏執，以及長期聲稱解決我國人民困境的辦法完全依靠白人的善意，而不是依靠我們自己的辛勤工作，這在心理上是毀滅性的。在美國，沒有任何其他群體被其所謂的盟友以這種方式係統地挫傷士氣。整整一代黑人兒童被教導，隻有通過乞討、哭泣和尖叫，他們才能得到充滿罪惡感的白人的施舍。
沒有什麽比BLM會更肯定地摧毀他們的未來。如果對日裔美國人，或者猶太裔美國人，或者華裔美國人這樣做，那麽唐人街和日本城肯定會和今天巴爾的摩和東聖路易斯最粗糙的地方沒什麽區別。UCB的曆史係現在是一個完整的對黑人種族的破壞性和詆毀性謬論的機構頒布者。
我希望你能體會到我這條消息背後的挫折感。我不支持BLM。我不支持民主黨的申訴議程和民主黨對我們係的綁架。我不支持民主黨與我的種族合作，就像拜登最近在他令人不安的采訪中所做的那樣，聲稱投票給民主黨和支持黑人是同構的。我譴責喬治-弗洛伊德的死亡方式，並與你一起呼籲加強警察問責製和警察改革。然而，我不會假裝喬治-弗洛伊德是一個聖人。作為一個暴力的厭惡女人的人，一個殘暴的人，他的結局可想而知是殘酷的。
克裏奧是古希臘的曆史女神
我的目的也是想保護曆史學的研究。克萊奧不是卑躬屈膝的政客和企業的奴仆。像我們一樣，她是自由的。
UC Berkeley History Professor's Open Letter Against BLM, Police Brutality and Cultural Orthodoxy
Dear profs X, Y, Z
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt.
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.
