New El Paso museum highlights Illinois' first Black voter
PEORIA, Ill (WMBD) — Normally, when you go to a barber shop, you ask them to take some hair off the top.
Now, a new El Paso museum, looking to honor and remember the first Black voter in Illinois, hopes to add a little to the top of people's minds.
Michael Melick, the board president for Project XV Museum, and a teacher at El Paso Gridley High School, stopped by WMBD This Morning to explain the meaning and importance of the Project XV Museum, and this week's special event.
Project XV refers to the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which is the one that gave all people the right to vote, regardless of their race or creed. The museum sits on the spot where the barber shop of David Strother once was.
That's important, says Melick, because Strother 'was the first black voter after the 15th Amendment' went into effect. His first vote was for the El Paso municipal election in 1870.
The museum's name is a play on the Amendment's number, 15. But the Project XV Museum goes even further. It even delves into ways that area indigenous people picked leaders.
On Jan. 30, the museum will host award winning author Derrick Barnes for a special presentation on one of his books, 'Crown an Ode to The Fresh Cut,' which takes a look at the Black-owned barber shops and how they affect young boys getting their first cuts.
So, for a little off the top, stop by a barber shop, but for a little ON the top (of your mind), stop by the Project XV Museum in El Paso.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Being a progressive activist made me miserable
Advertisement My anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were at their worst when I was most invested in the left-wing ideology I'd built my professional and social life around. That all changed in late 2020, when I quit my job after months of growing disillusionment. I 'graduated' from therapy at that point, and over the following years, my mental health kept improving, despite fluctuating income and the eventual loss of formerly close connections. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up As my political views and social networks shifted, my emotional trajectory tracked with longstanding research showing that the further left a person's political views lean, the more likely they are to be diagnosed with certain kinds of mental or emotional distress. Researchers have documented a happiness gap between conservatives and liberals for decades. This pattern holds across Advertisement Such uncharitable assumptions about conservatives reflect a cultural problem that I believe at least partially drives this happiness gap: leftists' unwillingness to fairly consider other viewpoints or question their own. Though they are often well-intentioned, their culture subverts those intentions. Leftists often embrace negative beliefs and are often unwilling to rethink those beliefs — even when those beliefs distort or contradict reality. Sabrina Joy Stevens is a communications consultant. Sam Cruz For example, the belief that racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are the root cause of inequalities and disparate outcomes ignores countless other macroeconomic, cultural, and natural conditions that affect people's choices and circumstances. This causes people on the left to misinterpret reality in divisive, anxiety-inducing ways that undermine their social and emotional well-being. Leftists' tendency toward self-segregation not only weakens the social support necessary for mental health, it makes it harder for them to encounter information that could help them abandon unhealthy ideas and thought patterns. It also increases the likelihood that they will spend more of their time surrounded by people who share their psychological struggles. By denigrating and dismissing perspectives they disagree with, many leftists forfeit opportunities to cultivate relationships and habits of mind that promote mental health. Advertisement My political evolution If there is anyone who should be a lifer in the lefty political camp, it's me. I am a college-educated Black woman raised by lifelong Democrats. I am an advocate by nature, with a lifelong passion for civil and human rights. I actually ran my first campaign in elementary school, unseating our safety patrol captain for abusing his power. After my dad survived the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, where he worked, I became an antiwar activist in the hope that peace activism could prevent more terrorism. In college, I joined multiple causes promoting environmentalism and fighting against animal cruelty, human rights abuses, sweatshop labor, mass incarceration, educational injustice, racial injustice, and gender inequality. I added union organizing to the list of my causes after being mistreated as a public school teacher in my early 20s, and eventually I became a professional communications strategist, working at several progressive advocacy organizations. I should note, though, that there is nothing inherently or exclusively 'progressive' about these causes. Any well-meaning person could take an interest in promoting issues like workers' rights and environmental protection, because there are multiple ways to pursue cultural and policy shifts that support those goals. But after years of learning from left-leaning professors, and especially after enduring ideological purity conflicts where more militant left-wing partisans convert, silence, or push out peers who are less committed to leftist ideology, I conformed. To fully advance civil and human rights, I believed, being a leftist was required. Advertisement My disenchantment with left-wing ideology began during the spring of 2020, when the disconnect between progressives' alarming rhetoric — such as the assertion that racism constituted a deadly pandemic of its own — and our unserious actions became too frustrating for me to ignore. Then, as now, professional progressives and left-leaning politicians claimed that our country was all but collapsing under the weight of bigotry and fascism. Yet we continued the same performative protests, petitions, and social media stunts as ever. Meanwhile, more-militant leftists responded to the perceived urgency of the moment by rioting. Hearing our narratives echoed by those destroying ordinary people's livelihoods and property disturbed me. This began a process of investigating whether the ideas I'd been steeped in were actually based in reality. That prompted me to reexamine and eventually abandon the 'systemic injustice' worldview I learned in college and subsequent activist spaces, along with the accompanying 'oppressors versus victims' narrative. Though I would never want to relive 2020's public health, political, or economic crises, I am grateful for the way they disrupted the echo chambers I used to inhabit. That enabled me to engage with contradictory evidence and spot logical fallacies in my political beliefs that were harder to notice when I was constantly surrounded by like-minded people. The enforcers of ideological conformity Lefty partisans' dominance of many influential professions and institutions makes rethinking harder to do. Though the 'progressive left' and 'establishment liberals' are estimated to account for just Advertisement It's important to note, however, that this dominance didn't happen by chance. It's the result of leftist pressure campaigns in various professions, institutions, and organizations. For example, left-wing activists in academia agitate to change curriculum, admissions, and hiring decisions in ways that promote their ideology in the classroom and beyond. They protest to get certain ideas taught and other ideas and speakers suppressed, and they use practices like Even spaces like online knitting communities and breastfeeding support groups have been beset by leftists Advertisement One field where left-wing activism has distorted public knowledge is climate science. Many climate activists believe that carbon emissions are the biggest threat to our future and that government interventions are the most important solution. Accordingly, the activist-approved narrative on climate focuses on dramatic information they hope will scare people into supporting such interventions. Longtime climate scientist how members of his field are incentivized to oversimplify and overemphasize climate change at the expense of other relevant information: 'I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting.' Neither Pielke nor Brown ever denied the existence or significance of climate change. Nonetheless, left-wing climate activists and academics slandered both men as 'climate deniers,' 'unhinged,' 'irresponsible,' and so on. By discouraging scientists and journalists from sharing nuanced and practical explanations of our environmental challenges, militant climate activists have fostered an alarmist conversation that causes millions of people unnecessary anxiety. Thankfully, some researchers are finding the courage to stop self-censoring. But hardline activists and academics continue to label those who deviate even slightly from their approved narrative 'climate deniers,' which functions as a thought-stopping tactic. A more extreme example of this dynamic exists in the field promoting gender drugs and surgeries for youth. Gender activists within academia and prominent medical organizations built the alleged 'expert consensus' on these interventions with deceptive practices like In the communications training sessions I lead, I regularly warn clients against manipulating audiences through fear and anger — for example, by mislabeling reasonable objections as 'bigotry.' Not only does this poison public discourse, it sabotages campaigners' own mental health. I speak from experience here. The belief that entrenched, identity-based socioeconomic systems dictate most of our life outcomes fosters what psychologists call an external locus of control, Reflecting on my journals and medical history during my last few months of therapy, I noticed that my PTSD symptoms, from an experience I had suffered years before, had gotten considerably worse once I started working in progressive organizations. They peaked in 2018 and 2019 while I was working at a feminist legal organization. I spent my days there generating and consuming alarmist rhetoric for our internal and external campaigns, and my free time in a social media bubble full of people mirroring my then-obsessive Trump hatred. I spent multiple hours a day catastrophizing with my friends and colleagues, doing the exact opposite of what I was trying to learn in therapy. Around that same time, attorney Greg Lukianoff and psychologist Jonathan Haidt published 'The Coddling of the American Mind.' In that book, they share Lukianoff's hypothesis that by reinforcing politically induced cognitive distortions (for example, promoting the idea that controversial speech 'harms' marginalized people), colleges and universities were inadvertently performing reverse cognitive behavioral therapy on students. I ultimately found it very insightful, but only after ignoring it for years simply because my tribe hated Lukianoff and Haidt. Back when 'Coddling' debuted, Lukianoff and the organization he leads, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, held villain status in my circles because they opposed cancel culture and weren't aligned with our stance on Title IX regulations. and those accused of it' (emphasis added), was reasonable. But in our communications, we accused groups like this of demanding ' If leftists honestly examined the shortcomings of their beliefs, they could improve their mental and political prospects. But their pride often gets in their way. When you spend years vilifying anyone who disagrees with you, it's difficult to notice (much less concede) when they have a point. Particularly for those in academia and professional advocacy — whose incomes are tied up in their faulty beliefs — there's also a strong financial disincentive against rethinking. Academics whose work offends their most dogmatic colleagues risk not only their reputations but funding and career opportunities. Likewise, activist organizations that attempt to course-correct risk being financially and socially punished by the very supporters they helped to radicalize. That perverse incentive against self-correction is one of the many risks of building a supporter base on exaggerated, emotionally manipulative communications. Yet failing to adjust their approach is costing them credibility, while exacerbating burnout and mental illness among staff and supporters. I understand that dilemma. It cost me a lot to rethink my beliefs, but those losses hardly compare to the freedom I've gained by divesting from left-wing ideology and culture. Leaving the left allowed me to relax and reclaim the energy I previously spent feeling unjustifiably threatened by disagreement or stressing over how everything I think or do might be perceived by judgmental peers. Losing fake friends freed up space for real ones. Dropping unethical clients freed up space to pursue other passions and work with principled people who care more about solving problems than enforcing ideological conformity. Instead of vetting clients based on which 'side' they represent on an arbitrary political spectrum, I now consider whether they can show that their ideas and approaches would protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Rejecting demands for ideological purity freed me to deepen my Christian faith, follow evidence instead of emotional appeals, and develop an outlook on life that doesn't make me anxious or depressed. I've chosen political independence now. Doing this in a partisan environment is challenging, but reclaiming my reasoning and emotional well-being from unhealthy tribal dynamics has been well worth it. Doing good in the world doesn't have to feel terrible. Being 'part of the solution' doesn't require being part of a political tribe. It simply requires us to have the humility and curiosity to prioritize truth over personal validation, acknowledging that we're not always right and that those we consider opponents aren't always wrong.
41 minutes ago
Army restores the names of seven bases that lost their Confederate-linked names under Biden
WASHINGTON -- Seven Army bases whose names were changed in 2023 because they honored Confederate leaders are all reverting back to their original names, the Army said Tuesday. The announcement came just hours after President Donald Trump previewed the decision, telling troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, that he was changing the names back. Fort Bragg, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration, was the first to have its original name restored after the Army found another person with the same last name. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was with Trump at Fort Bragg, signed an order restoring the name in February. 'Can you believe they changed that name in the last administration for a little bit?' Trump said. 'We'll forget all about that.' In March, Hegseth reversed the decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. To restore the original names of the additional seven bases, the Army once again found service members with the same last names to honor. Those bases are Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. The decision strips names chosen in 2023 to honor top leaders, such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as Black soldiers and women. No women are included in the new Army list. There was no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases, just two years after they were revamped. Originally it was named after Confederate Gen. Ambrose P. Hill, before being renamed Fort Walker after Mary Edwards Walker, a doctor who treated soldiers in the Civil War and later received a Medal of Honor. Now it will be named to commemorate three different people: Medal of Honor recipients Lt. Col. Edward Hill, 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn and Pvt. Bruce Anderson for heroism during the Civil War. Fort Pickett was changed to Fort Barfoot in honor of Tech Sgt. Van Barfoot, a Medal of Honor recipient who served in World War II. It will now honor 1st Lt. Vernon W. Pickett. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism during World War II when he fired grenades while pinned down by enemy machine gun fire and destroyed enemy positions. He was captured, then escaped and rejoined his unit, but was killed in action. Fort Lee was changed to a hyphenated name, Fort Gregg-Adams, and was the only one to commemorate someone who remained alive at the time — Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg. He was known as a logistics leader and died last year. Lt. Col. Charity Adams — the other half of the name — led the first female Black unit of the Army deployed in World War II. Fort Lee will now be named for Pvt. Fitz Lee, who received the Medal of Honor for heroism during the Spanish-American War, when he moved under fire to rescue wounded comrades. Fort Gordon was changed to Fort Eisenhower to commemorate the former president's time leading Allied forces in Europe in World War II. It will now be named for Medal of Honor recipient Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon. He was honored for his valor during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia, where he defended wounded crew members at a helicopter crash site and held off an advancing enemy force. Fort Hood was changed to Fort Cavazos in honor of Gen. Richard Cavazos, the Army's first Hispanic four-star, who served in the Korean War and got the Distinguished Service Cross. It will now honor Col. Robert B. Hood. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism during World War I, when he directed artillery fire in France. Fort Polk was changed to Fort Johnson after Black Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. William Henry Johnson, who served in World War I. It will now honor Silver Star recipient Gen. James H. Polk. Then-Col. Polk was honored for gallantry during World War II, when he led reconnaissance and combat missions under fire. He later served as head of U.S. Army Europe. Fort Rucker was named Fort Novosel after Medal of Honor recipient Chief Warrant Officer Michael Novosel, who served in World War II and Vietnam. It will now honor Capt. Edward W. Rucker. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in World War I when he flew deep behind enemy lines in a daring air battle over France.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Aurora City Council will not hold in-person meetings until Kilyn Lewis lawsuit concludes
DENVER (KDVR) — Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman announced Tuesday that the city's council meetings will be held virtually to prevent disruptions while a lawsuit filed on behalf of a man shot and killed by police works its way through the court system. The message was echoed on the council's webpage. The webpage includes instructions for how members of the public can view the meetings or provide public comment on agenda items. However, all public comment listening sessions have been canceled until further notice. Family of man killed by Aurora police last May files suit against city, officer who fired deadly shot The measure was voted on during the June 9 council meeting, with seven in favor, three against, and two members in debate. In May, the council addressed a resolution that would change how it accepts public comment. 'As of right now, criminally, Michael Dieck did not murder Kilyn Lewis,' said councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky. 'It's in the court's hands now, and I would like to suspend this to be virtual until we have an official ruling from the court as to whether or not the city is liable in any way, shape or form for the death of Kilyn Lewis. Because if we are not in fact liable in any way, shape or form for the death of Kilyn Lewis, there is nothing left to discuss, and there's no reason for you to come back.' Jurinsky added that if the ruling takes years to reach, then she's on board with having virtual meetings until the ruling. Family and friends of Kilyn Lewis have held protests during several Aurora City Council meetings. The group has been seeking justice after the 37-year-old was shot and killed by an Aurora police officer in May 2024. In October, the district attorney ruled that an officer who shot Lewis would not face charges. In late May, Lewis' family filed a lawsuit seeking accountability from the Aurora Police Department in their loved one's death. It discusses excessive force, wrongful death and violations of the family's constitutional rights. 'This lawsuit is not just about a dollar amount. It's about truth. It's about making sure that the life of a Black man like Kilyn Lewis is not so easily discarded,' said MiDian Shofner, CEO of the Epitome of Black Excellence and Partnership and lead advocate for the family, in the May 28 announcement of the case filing. 'No amount of money can bring him back, but since America has made money the metric for justice, the family is rightfully pursuing every legal remedy available.' Coffman wrote on Facebook that he believes the group is simply looking for a check, and then they will 'go away.' Deadly shooting of Kilyn Lewis leads to new Aurora police SWAT policies: Report 'Until then, they will continue to disrupt our meetings. They have no choice but to continue disrupting our meetings because their lawsuit is meritless. This is why we have no choice but to stop all in-person council meetings, and go virtual, until their lawsuit has been concluded,' Coffman wrote. He noted that an Arapahoe County Grand Jury was also asked to review the case and declined to pursue charges against the officer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
