New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones spoke about the foundations of her Pulitzer Prize-winning initiative, The 1619 Project, and the current movement for racial justice as part of the second installment of Notre Dame’s “Building an Anti-Racist Vocabulary” series Friday. Hannah-Jones, a 1998 Notre Dame alumna, also discussed her time at the University during the lecture held remotely over Zoom. Dory Mitros Durham, associate director of the Klau Center for Civil and Human Rights, moderated the event.To kick off the lecture, Durham asked Hannah-Jones about the start of the 1619 Project and how the year came to be so important to her and her work. Hannah-Jones thought back to an elective Black studies course she took in high school, and the effect it had on her.“[I] was angered by how much we had not been taught,” Hannah-Jones said. “In that one semester, I learned more about the history of Black Americans and Black people in the world than I learned in my entire K-12 education up until that point. And I understood, even then, that that erasure was intentional.”One of her teachers gave her a book entitled, “Before the Mayflower,” which discusses the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in 1619 to America. From that moment in high school, Hannah-Jones said, she became obsessed with that date and the lack of awareness in the United States toward its implications on society today. The 1619 Project is an initiative by The New York Times Magazine that examines the lasting consequences of slavery in America. The project was released in 2019, the 400th anniversary of the advent of chattel slavery in America.“Nothing about our country has been left untouched by the legacy of slavery, even though we don’t know it,” Hannah-Jones said about the aim of the project. “I really wanted us to do a project that would show that slavery is not in the past, that we are still living with that legacy.”Hannah-Jones continued by briefly tracing the ties of democracy, capitalism, the healthcare debate and the nation’s highway system to the institution of slavery and Black Americans’ resistance to subjugation. “[Black Americans are seen as] a problem to our democracy…I’m trying to really use history and the truth of history to turn that narrative on its head,” she said. “Through Black resistance: resistance to their enslavement, resistance to discrimination, resistance to racial apartheid, resistance to a country that was not a democracy that increased democracy abroad, that we ought to force [our founding ideals] to apply to all people; and that really has been the legacy of Black Americans.”Durham also asked Hannah-Jones to respond to the backlash that she received in regards to the 1619 Project. Hannah-Jones said that while she expected a negative response from the right-wing, she was surprised by the active effort of some historians to discredit her work. Nearing the end of her lecture, Hannah-Jones discussed the current resurgence in the Black Lives Matter movement that the country and posed the audience with a set of questions. “Will this moment just feel different or will it actually be different?” Hannah-Jones asked. “I think where my lack of hope comes from is that in our 401 year being on this land, why should we still have to be marking progress towards equality?”To conclude the lecture, Hannah-Jones offered words of advice to Notre Dame students on how to create a more accepting society for everyone. She said her first semester at Notre Dame was a challenging one, and encouraged students to be there for their peers.“What’s so important is not presuming, not letting your own assumptions about people’s backgrounds and what people are capable of,” Hannah-Jones offered. “If you really want to be a resource you have to be able to listen and have to be able to ask the questions.”Tags: Black lives matter, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Racism, slavery
Greensburg, IN—Starting January 29, DCMH will be enforcing Visitor Restrictions due to a high level of concern for the health of patients and staff.Visitor GuidelinesNo visitors under the age of 18 are allowed in the hospital unless they are a patient or parent of a patient (exceptions need to be cleared with the nursing supervisor or charge nurse).Any visitors with fever, cough, or diarrhea should stay home.Anyone coming into the hospital with flu or cold symptoms will be required to wear a mask.Visitors and patients should cover their cough (cough or sneeze into your sleeve).Visitors will be required to wear personal protective equipment such as gown, gloves, and a mask if visiting a patient in isolation.Hand HygieneVisitors and patients should wash their hands frequently with soap and water or use hand sanitizer.Hand sanitizer is the preferred method unless otherwise indicated (look for a sign near the patient’s door).Hand hygiene should be done before and after patient contact.Flu prevention stationsVisitors and patients should take notice of the flu prevention stations that have been placed throughout the hospital. The stations include personal protective equipment, such as hand sanitizer and face masks, to help keep you safe. In the rare circumstances a visitor with influenza-like illness is permitted into the hospital, they will be asked to follow these rules: Wear a mask at all times while in the hospital, go directly to the patient’s room, and leave the hospital when the visit is complete.
Press Association His conviction appears to be unwavering. In a new post on his Twitter feed, the 34-year-old has written ‘Rien a ajouter’, which when translated reads ‘Nothing to add’. Pertinently, Anelka includes a link to a video clip on Le Figaro that shows an interview with Roger Cukierman, president of Crif, the council representing French Jewish institutions. In the short 40-second segment, Cukierman claims Anelka’s gesture was not anti-Semitic and that he should not be heavily punished. The FA have the power to sentence him to a minimum five-match ban. Cukierman said: “It seems a bit severe to me because it seems to me that this gesture only has an anti-Semitic connotation if the gesture is made in front of a synagogue or a memorial to the Holocaust. “When it’s made in a place which is not specifically Jewish it seems to me that it’s a slightly anarchic gesture of revolt against the establishment, which doesn’t deserve severe sanctions.” Other pressure groups, however, have called for Anelka to be handed more than a five-game suspension due to his lack of an apology. Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told Press Association Sport: “I know under the rules that on a first-time offence there is a minimum five-game suspension. “But I think what he did was sufficiently serious to justify a longer suspension than five matches. Nicolas Anelka has offered a cryptic insight into how he might plead after the Football Association charged him over his controversial ‘quenelle’ salute. “He has not indicated one bit of remorse or regret or apologised for his actions. “He has simply said he wouldn’t do it again and that is not good enough.” The quenelle has been described as an inverted Nazi salute and was created by French comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, who has been prosecuted for anti-Semitism. Anelka is a friend of Dieudonne’s and the player has insisted his salute was a gesture of support and aimed at the French establishment. Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, which advises the Jewish community on security and anti-Semitism, said the FA should take action against Anelka. He said: “Anelka has introduced a very ugly phenomenon into British football. “Anelka’s action risks the ‘quenelle’ being taken up by actual anti-Semites and used against British Jews: as it has been in France and elsewhere. “The FA should throw the book at him.” West Brom striker Anelka has until 6pm on Thursday to respond to the charge he made an improper gesture, and that it was an aggravated breach in that it included “a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief”. Anelka has long maintained the gesture he made after scoring in West Brom’s 3-3 draw at West Ham on December 28 was not anti-Semitic, as condemned by many, but instead anti-establishment.