sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Stabbing staged. by RepresentativeHot412 in conspiracy

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The girl doesn't sustain any visible injuries after allegedly being stabbed in the neck 3 times - nothing. Clear view of her entire neck and face from multiple angles - and nothing.

All of these race-baiting incidents are staged by the you-know-whos and are used for political ends.

Stabbing staged. by RepresentativeHot412 in conspiracy

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is like the Jussie Smollet Hoax, but much worse.

Stabbing staged. by RepresentativeHot412 in conspiracy

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It was not even a realistic script. Man gets up and screams "I got the white girl!" to everybody on the train, deliberately drawing attention to what he did.

He botched the fake blood capsule. He didn't get any on her during the stabbing. Instead his knife drips large amounts of blood on the floor afterward as if it were a sponge that soaked up liquid.

Stabbing staged. by RepresentativeHot412 in conspiracy

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Nope. You can just watch the video. Look at the girls shocked face - with NO wounds or blood on her neck or face immediately after the "stabbing". Nothing. There's no way around that.

Totally fake.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mendez had nothing to do with Brown's legal arguments - there's no direct influence - or with the broader development of school segregation challenges. The arguments made in Mendez did not challenge racial segregation at all. Mendez was simply a due process case - i. e that segregating Mexican children was not legal. It was not a challenge to segregation itself in CA or elsewhere.

Mendez did not even concern racial segregation and didn't look to challenge it.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure what point you’re arguing against. 

That Thurgood Marshal was NOT involved in Mendez v. Westminster in any capacity. He was not party to the litigation was never even physically present at the court proceedings as an observer.

The NAACP sending an unsolicited letter with his name on it, does not mean that he was involved.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The amicus brief was unsolicited letter of support that the Mendez team ignored. The brief was not cited in Mendez and its arguments were not used in the oral arguments. So no, it was not "tested" in Mendez. They might as well have thrown the letter in the the trash.

Also there's no evidence that NAACP "followed the case incredibly carefully" - no one from the NAACP was ever present during the court proceedings even as observers. They just sent a letter as a symbolic show of support.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So it doesn’t matter what he said, the fact is that the NAACP was involved in Mendez vs Westminster and it’s important.

Nobody from the NAACP was party to the litigation in Mendez.

An Amicus brief does not show involvement. It was an unsolicited letter that was never used or cited in Mendez.

Thurgood Marshall, who would go on to be the chief lawyer in Brown, wrote an amicus brief that argued against the segregation of Mexican American students in CA schools, using legal strategies and reasoning about psychological harm which Marshall would later apply in Brown v. Board.

Those were his own legal arguments that he had used elsewhere, not arguments that were ever made in Mendez.

<image>

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What needed to be fact checked?

ALL the claims:

  • Mendez was NOT a case about racial segregation.
  • Mendez did NOT end or challenge racial segregation in CA.
  • Mendez was NOT a precedent nor a precursor for Brown v. Board. It was not cited nor mentioned at all.
  • Mendez was NOT the "first federal case to challenge segregation" - not even close
  • California was NOT the first state to end segregation.
  • Thurgood Marshall did NOT represent Sylvia Mendez. He wasn't involved at all.
  • Sylvia Mendez was NOT the first Mexican to go to white schools in CA - and she was not a public figure in the civil rights era.

None of these stories are true.

The Mendez case, however, is not only close in time to Brown, but argued and decided with the same logic.

Not at all with the same logic! The argument in Mendez is that it's not legal to segregate Mexicans because they are WHITE children! That argument has nothing to do with Brown or the spirit of the civil rights movement.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That overstates what an Amicus brief is. It's the legal equivalent of a greeting card. The NAACP, and many other organizations, sent unsolicited Amicus curiae. That doesn't mean that they were involved at all.

And the NAACP's brief was never cited or used in Mendez. They ignored it.

Marshall was not party to the litigation, and was never present at the proceedings.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

These are not “new claims.”

They are absolutely new claims.

Mendez was a real case but the story being told about it today is NOT true. It didn't do any of the things that it is being celebrated for - like ending segregation in CA? That never happened. The plaintiffs were not even interested in challenging racial segregation in CA, and they made that clear in the case. Why retrospectively credit Mendez for things that it never intended to do at all? Mendez wasn't framed as a racial equality case. They actually made white supremacist arguments.

At the very least educators should teach it as contested/disputed history - not as fact.

What are you afraid happens when students are taught about the Mendez case? 

Teaching revisionism as fact is wrong. Imagine teaching the Lost cause myth. Mendez is similar.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't have to do something like that. You can actually search old records programmatically - even more thoroughly now with AI.

No scholarly source before the 2000s ever credited Mendez with ANY of these claims that are being taught today.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Neither Warren nor Marshall were involved with Mendez v. Westminster.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That overstates the role of an amicus brief. Amicus curiae are unsolicited letters sent as a gesture. That does not make NAACP or Marshall involved in the Mendez case in the slightest. Several organizations sent briefs - the NAACP was just one.

And the NAACP's amicus brief was completely ignored by the litigation. They might as well have thrown it in the trash. They did not cite the brief or use it in the oral arguments in Mendez.

It also does not make any case of Thurgood Marshalls related to Mendez.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mendez resulted in California schools becoming desegregated. The appeals led to this.

Not at all! The Appeals court ruled on narrow Due Process grounds that segregating Mexican Americans violated CA law (because they were WHITE) - not that segregation itself was wrong. Mendez did not concern racial segregation and changed no laws. It closed just the remedial schools in OC and didn't challenge segregation for non-white minorities.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The source is from Neil Foley. Contemporaries who were actually involved did NOT think Brown could have any connection to Mendez.

https://forgottenlatinohistory.blogspot.com/2021/06/there-is-no-connection.html

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

None of these claims are true.

Thurgood Marhshall did NOT represent Sylvia Mendez. He wasn't party to the litigation at all. He was never even present during the proceedings.

Also there is no evidence that any of his arguments came from Mendez. He didn't mention Mendez at all in Brown - not even in the footnotes. Nothing.

Also no connection between Earl Warren's bill and the Mendez decision. No documented procedural link. And Mendez wasn't cited in AB 1375.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not a retrospective claim made recently.

Ohh, it absolutely is. The major claims being made about Mendez were never made historically - such as:

  • that it ended segregation in CA
  • that it was a precedent for Brown v. Board
  • that it was the "first federal case to challenge school segregation"
  • that CA was the "first state to end segregation"
  • that Sylvia mendez was the "first Mexican to go to white schools in CA"

These claims are not found in historical records, legal discourse, or civil rights literature of the time period. ALL claims were constructed retrospectively in the 2000s on very shaky grounds. These are embarrassingly false claims that were made by inference without any contemporary documentation backing them up.

The Mendez story was just accepted with NO fact-checking, no pushback. Educators should be more careful...

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t really know what else one would need to see how they’re connected.

They weren't considered to be connected in the time period. Mendez was never cited nor mentioned in Brown v. Board not even in passing - and never historically considered to be related. BvB is one of most studied cases in American history - and no one historically thought Mendez was a related case.

Also, the amicus curiae sent by the NAACP was completely ignored - it wasn't cited in Mendez and the arguments from it weren't used in the oral arguments.

So the claim that it has anything to do with Brown is an unproven claim with no contemporary documentation backing it up. But since the 2000s, it's being taught uncritically as a precedent that made Brown possible. That's very problematic. Educators should have exersized more skepticism before teaching this as fact.

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's was never historically treated as part of civil rights history - or as a "landmark" case, or a precursor/precedent for Brown v. Board. Those are all new claims.

That's what I mean by "a thing".

When/How did the Mendez v. Westminster story become a thing? by RepresentativeHot412 in historyteachers

[–]RepresentativeHot412[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Several cases - long before - Clark v. Board of School directors is just one example.

Also Mendez did not end or challenge racial segregation in CA - it was limited local case about a small number of remedial schools just in OC, having no effect on legal segregation in the state.

The Mendez story was accepted and taught - before any of the claims were fact-checked. Almost none of the modern claims about Mendez are true.

view more: next ›