Latest news with #HeatherCoxRichardson
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Young people can't save democracy by themselves: A new vision is required
Right-wing thought leaders and strategists have long understood that their radical revolutionary project is multigenerational. They must win the 'hearts and minds' of young people in the present (and control how young people conceptualize the past) for their revolutionary project to succeed in the long term. Under the guise of "patriotic education" and countering the supposedly pernicious influence of "DEI," the Trump administration and its allies are working to impose a thought-crime regime targeting the country's schools, including its leading universities and colleges. As part of this thought-crime regime, the Trump administration and its forces are also reshaping public memory by literally Whitewashing the country's museums such as the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The ultimate goal of this campaign to control public memory is to normalize the dominance of white men over all aspects of American society. On this distorted and grossly inaccurate version of history and reality, historian Heather Cox Richardson writes: 'The erasure of Indigenous, Black, Hispanic, and female veterans from our military history is an attempt to elevate white men as the sole actors in our history. It is also an attempt to erase a vision of a nation in which Americans of all backgrounds come together to work—and fight—for the common good.' In a separate essay, Richardson neatly explains the goal of Donald Trump's political vision as 'Trump is demonstrating that he intends to create a country dominated by the right-wing, white men who supported him." Meanwhile, mainstream liberals and progressives almost obsessively look to young people as their hope for the future. After their defeat in the 2024 Election, many still assume that younger voters will lead an inevitable triumph over Donald Trump's MAGA movement and the larger authoritarian right. This logic seems sensible, at first: Young people are naturally more liberal, open-minded, and receptive to change. More specifically, liberal or progressive policies broadly associated with the Democratic Party — whether on race, gender and sexuality or on education, environmental issues and economic inequality — are generally more attractive to young people than the retrograde policies offered by today's Republicans. This is related to the Democrats' longtime faith in the presumed effects of the 'browning of America': Demographics are believed to be destiny, and generational replacement — as older, predominantly white cohorts are replaced by increasingly diverse and tolerant younger generations — is sure to defeat the authoritarian MAGA upsurge. Democrats, in this reading, may not have a compelling message or brand but do not need one. They earnestly believe that the actuarial tables will act as a force multiplier for their side. Time to think again. This model of political change rests on underlying assumptions that are being fundamentally challenged, if not disproved, by the Age of Trump and the rise of authoritarian populism, both in the U.S. and around the world. In the 2024 presidential election, young people as a group moved noticeably to the right; far more than expected, they supported Donald Trump and his brand of authoritarian populism. There was an increase in the percentage of young men aged 30 or below, both white and nonwhite, supporting Trump over the Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris, while Black and brown young women overwhelmingly supported Harris. For the second election in a row, a majority of white women voted for Trump. (Trump also carried white women against Hillary Clinton in 2016, if only by a narrow plurality.) A new poll from Yale University provides more evidence that the iron grip that Democrats believe they have on younger voters may actually not be that strong. The Yale Youth Poll is an undergraduate-led research project that compares a group of voters under 30 to the general population. It sampled 4,100 registered voters, just under half of them aged 18 to 29. One of its more striking findings is that the youngest group of voters, aged 18 to 21, supported the Republicans by 11.7 percentage points in the 2026 election. Among slightly older voters, aged 22 to 29, the Democrats led by 6.4 points. Many of these younger GOP voters appear to be true believers: The Yale Youth Poll reports that when asked "what is most important for Republicans in the next election," just over 51 percent, across age groups favored 'energizing and turning out the base, by running on conservative, America-first policies" rather than trying to 'appeal to the swing voters and independents.' Intriguingly, a similar split emerged among Democrats, with a large majority of both younger voters and all Democrats saying the party should run on be 'progressive policies that give their voters something to vote for' rather than "moving to the middle to appeal to swing voters." I emailed Yale political science professor Josh Kalla, faculty adviser to the Yale Youth Poll, who offered additional context. Younger people as a whole, he said, "tend to hold many pro-democracy views." While a strong two-thirds of voters in the poll supported "checks and balances where courts can constrain unilateral presidential action," 76 percent of young voters support this. On some issues, younger voters indeed appear more progressive, Kalla continued, while on others there isn't much difference. He sees "evidence of a divide within younger voters" which has been described as "the theory of two Gen Z's": The student researchers ... are finding that different experiences with COVID-19 and technology might be leading the youngest voters to lean more conservative than older Gen Z voters. Consistent with evidence from Yair Ghitza and Andrew Gelman, young voters have not always leaned Democratic. Driven by political events in young people's formative years (ages 14-24), sometimes young people lean Democratic, but other times they lean Republican. For example, young people born in the 1940s and 1970s tended to vote Republican, even when they were 20 years old. Differential experiences with COVID-19, the first Trump and Biden Administrations, and technology could explain why the student-researchers behind the Yale Youth Poll find this gap within Gen Z. I also asked Milan Singh, founder and director of the Yale Youth Poll and a current Yale undergraduate, why he believes younger voters may be drifting toward Trump and the right. He also responded by email, identifying "several possible reasons": One is ideological polarization, particularly among younger nonwhite voters. If you look at the data from 2024, Kamala Harris won a large majority of Black voters over 65 who self-identified as conservative. But she lost self-identified Black conservatives under 28. Similarly, Harris did worse with younger Black moderates than older Black moderates, and with younger Hispanic moderates/conservatives than older Hispanic moderates/conservatives. Older nonwhite voters tend to vote heavily Democratic regardless of ideology; younger nonwhite voters are increasingly voting in line with their ideological views. Generational churn means that the net effect is that Democrats are losing ground with nonwhite voters. Another well-attested factor is continuing gender polarization. College-educated women between 22 and 29 leaned strongly Democratic in a generic ballot, Singh said, while non-college women did so only slightly less. In that same age group, however, college-educated men were only slightly Democratic, while non-college men leaned strongly Republican. But among the youngest quadrant, voters 18 to 21, came the surprise: Both men and women favored Republicans, although young men did so to a much greater degree. "Among men 18 to 21, Donald Trump's net favorability was +7," Singh said, while "Kamala Harris' was -48. Young men are much more right-leaning than young women are left-leaning, so the net effect drags young people overall to the right. ... [T]he youngest women are also more right-leaning than older Gen Z women." He continued: It's not quite clear what is driving this level of gender polarization. If I had to guess, I would say social media. Social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok increasingly create gender-segregated media spaces. If you're a man under 25, you've probably heard of Andrew Huberman; none of my female friends have. Online environments that are this gender-segregated can easily become echo chambers where young men are exposed to extreme views; there is some evidence that the youngest cohort of men is more likely to believe things like "gender equality has gone too far." As to why young women are more right-wing than older Gen Z women, I think the best explanation is that COVID-19 was a uniquely disruptive event, which made people who were teenagers during it much less trusting of government and institutions. In particular, many of the excesses of the pandemic era — lockdown orders, mask and vaccine mandates, inflation, "wokeness" — were attributed to the left (fairly or not). It probably also did not help that a visibly aged and elderly man was the public face of the party. Public opinion polls are a snapshot in time and do not predict the future. They should be interpreted in the context of other polls, data, research and evidence. In a new essay, data journalist G. Elliott Morris offers these observations about young people's purported levels of support for Trump and the MAGA project. He cites the Cooperative Election Survey's finding that Kamala Haris actually won "all subgroups of young people": There has been some debate online about who is right here…. Let's start with the newsy data. According to a new poll published by the Pew Research Center on April 23, 2025, only 36% of adults between the ages of 18-29 approve of the job Trump is doing as president today, vs 63% who disapprove. That's a net gap of 27 points against Trump, compared to an exit poll estimate in 2024 of Harris +4. Comparing Trump's approval directly to the results of the 2024 election, that's a pretty huge (23-point!) shift. This means there's a large group of young people out there who do not like Trump, but voted for him last year because either (a) they did like him then or (b) they liked Trump more than Harris. There are also a lot of young people who didn't vote at all. Morris concludes that his answer is simpler: "My theory is that young people weren't very 'Trumpy' to begin with, and they're not particularly pro-Democratic now. Instead, they're anti-incumbent." The logical conclusion to draw from "vote choice among young people in 2024" and Trump's declining approval ratings now is to see them as "two compatible votes against the status quo."I asked sociologist Randolph Hohle, an expert on race, culture and political economy, for his thoughts on the Yale Youth Poll and the conundrum of young people's shape-shifting politics in this era of crisis. By email, Hohle responded that "Any reaction to polls indicating that 18 to 21-year-olds favor Republicans is an overreaction. Generation is a marketing slogan, not a meaningful social group": We have to remember that the young adults sampled in the Yale poll are the first to come of age politically after the Great Recession and during the pandemic. They don't know what a functioning and fully-funded social institution is. Those in the 18-21 category were teenagers when the pandemic started. The most meaningful institution in their life, education, has been a mess. If we disaggregate the education data a bit, boys are suspended from schools way more than girls are. Black boys are suspended the most, prompting critics to point out a racialized school-to-prison pipeline. Fourteen percent of 25-year-old men are not in the labor force, a statistic that has been on the rise for decades. The 22 to 29-year-olds who are still 'liberal' entered college after the recession. Basically, every state took advantage of the Great Recession to reduce public funding to state schools while increasing tuition, fees and housing costs. Between increased student debt and failures in K-12 education, Hohle continued, "A majority of the nation's 36 million workers ages 25 to 34 have not completed a four-year college degree. The media's unhealthy obsession with the Ivy League ... has young people conflating status with success and happiness. Broken institutions make broken people, and the Republican Party excels in telling stories about reclaiming an imaginary greatness that will fix them." I asked Eric Schnurer, an expert on public policy and government effectiveness, for his thoughts about the Democratic Party and its relationship to young Americans, a group that is clearly foundational to the party's base and essential to its electoral fortunes: It's a mistake to conceive of politics in one era as simply an extension of that in another. Tropes about younger Americans being liberal, or the future belonging to Democrats because that's who today's youth are, start turning upside down: What it means to be liberal or conservative is changing, and Republicans are simply doing a better job of recognizing and adapting to that than are Democrats. Over the last two or three decades, the Democratic Party and progressivism have become the domain of more highly educated, higher-income Americans; they no longer speak to the needs and interests of most working Americans, and they rather determinedly don't want to do so. More importantly, Democrats represent the status quo in an era when just about everyone thinks the status quo is failing and they want dramatic change — and this is even more true amongst younger voters. Trump has done a good job of articulating 'a populist economic agenda ... that unites large numbers across current party lines," Schnurer said, even if he has no intention of enacting it. "I'm not particularly optimistic about the ability of the Democratic Party leadership to reorient itself and seize those possibilities," he continued, "because it's too wedded to the inherited status quo in an age that craves a dramatic break with the past — especially amongst the young who will inherit the future. Trump gives them that, if a dystopian version of it: Where's the completely innovative liberal version?' Social theorist Henry Giroux is a leading expert on the relationship between young people, culture, education and politics. He highlighted the troubling implications of the Yale Youth Poll and what the potential right-wing drift of the youngest Americans may mean for the future of the country's democracy and civic life. 'The Yale Youth Poll confirms what some of us have long insisted: Youth alone will not rescue a democracy hollowed out by gangster capitalism and ruled by demagogues who traffic in white Christian nationalism, white supremacy, cruelty and fantasy that generational replacement will automatically yield justice is a dangerous illusion — one that absolves adults of their moral and political responsibilities while rooted in an essentialist notion of politics.' Giroux continued: The deeper truth is this: education is not the handmaiden of politics — it is its lifeblood. In an age where culture is the primary battlefield, authoritarianism thrives on ignorance, historical amnesia and the brutal aesthetics of cruelty normalized as common sense. Reclaiming education and public space is no longer optional — it is the condition of survival. We must cultivate a critical consciousness rooted in attentiveness: to history, to the structures of power, to the unseen and the silenced. This means connecting ideas to action in ways that dismantle forms of ideological and economic domination and nourish an ethical imagination bold enough to think what the present declares impossible. Young people need more than slogans; they need a political vocabulary shaped by the lessons of history, alert to how fascism masquerades as freedom while delivering repression, how it weaponizes the rhetoric of order to erase the memory of resistance. It took many decades for the Age of Trump and American neofascism to become a reality. It may well take decades of political struggle and hard work to unmake or escape resurgent American fascism and remedy the deep institutional and cultural failings that allowed and nurtured such political formations to take hold so quickly. Younger people will of course play a central role in any such project of democratic renewal. On the other hand, that cohort could may also play an equally important role in cementing the Age of Trump and locking down authoritarian populism as the governing mode of American society. Trumpism, authoritarianism and other forms of extremism are offering too many alienated younger people apparent answers and a compelling narrative, along with community and a sense of meaning. In the end, all that will prove toxic, but so far the Democratic Party and other mainstream elites and opinion leaders who believe in 'the system' and 'the institutions' are not offering an equally compelling narrative. The future must be won in the present. Unfortunately for the future of American democracy and freedom, the current Democratic Party is still looking backward to a vanished status quo and an obsolete understanding of politics.
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Beltrami County DFL to hold viewing party, Pizza and Programs
Apr. 11—BEMIDJI — The Beltrami County Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party will hold a "Reality of Project 2025" viewing party and a Pizza and Programs event at its office, 1510 Bemidji Ave. N. The viewing party is set for 6 p.m. on Monday, April 14. Attendees can watch historian Heather Cox Richardson and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett discuss the two-year anniversary of Project 2025's launch, a release said. "Project 2025 is no longer just a radical plan on paper," the release said. "Its ideas are already surfacing in Trump's policies and shaping the agenda of extremist lawmakers." The event will break down how Project 2025 is being implemented and attendees will learn about a new tracking tool to help them keep up with how Project 2025 is impacting their family and community, the release noted. The DFL's next Pizza and Programs session will be held from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday, April 17. This program series offers informal discussions and dialogue with invited speakers who are community organizers and leaders. The session will feature Maggie Morin, outreach and volunteer coordinator for Friends of the Boundary Waters. Her presentation will address the risks of copper sulfide mining for the Boundary Waters as well the clean waters across the state, the release said. "All are welcome to come and learn about this organization which has proposed legislation aimed at protecting all Minnesotans," added the release. The Beltrami County DFL is an organizing unit staffed by an all-volunteer team. To learn more, visit
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Yahoo
Historian Heather Cox Richardson said Facebook removed her posts. Here's what we know
On April 1, 2025, historian Heather Cox Richardson posted on Facebook that the social media platform had removed at least two of her posts from her page. In comments, followers said her posts dating from March 25 onward had also disappeared from their feeds. Facebook users circulated a post from one of Richardson's followers that claimed an AI chatbot told them her posts were "being deleted as part of a larger removal of online resources by the US government" because they were "related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)." Posts dated March 25 to April 3 were visible on Richardson's profile at the time of this writing. We were unable to determine whether Facebook intentionally removed or hid the posts and, if so, why. We've reached out to Facebook's parent company Meta as well as to Richardson, and will update this story if further information becomes available. On April 1, 2025, Heather Cox Richardson, the author of the politically left-leaning Substack "Letters from an American" and a history professor at Boston College, posted (archived) on Facebook that the social media platform had removed at least two of her posts from her page. Richardson wrote: Hi Folks: my two posts from last night have disappeared for many of us, including me and Buddy, but appear to be here for others. I'm trying to figure it out but if anyone has any ideas, do let me know in the comments. Eager to see if this post shows up. H. Commenters said posts had also disappeared from their feeds and Richardson's page when they tried to view them on their devices. Several commenters said the missing posts dated from March 25 onward. Richardson also wrote (archived) about the posts on her Bluesky account, "Facebook appears to be taking down my posts. ... I guess if I'm being banned I'm doing something right?" Following Richardson's posts, Facebook users shared a separate post (archived) from a follower of Richardson's page who claimed to have asked "Facebook AI" — presumably Meta AI, a chatbot available through Facebook, Instagram and other apps from Facebook's parent company Meta — about the post removals. The reader reported that the chatbot said Facebook was deleting Richardson's posts "as part of a larger removal of online resources by the US government." At the time of this writing, Richardson's Facebook page showed posts daily from March 25 to April 3, 2025. Richardson's posts typically begin with the date of the previous day. This was also the case for the posts we viewed from March 25 to April 3, indicating that they were original postings as opposed to reposts of removed content. We reached out to Richardson to ask exactly which posts were removed before she made her April 1 post as well as when she noticed the posts were missing and whether she had contacted Meta about their removal. We also reached out to Meta for comment on whether the posts were removed from Facebook, and if so how and why, and await a reply. The timeline for the alleged removal of Richardson's Facebook posts at the time of this writing was as follows: April 1: Richardson said on Facebook that some of her posts had gone missing. Commenters agreed, some indicating the removal included posts dating back to March 25. April 1-3: Facebook users began to circulate the copy-pasted text of a post from one of Richardson's followers, who claimed that "Facebook AI" said Richardson's posts were removed as part of government action to "eliminate content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity, and other topics." April 3: Richardson's Facebook page showed daily posts from March 15 to April 3. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, a tool used to archive webpages at moments in time, did not have any functional snapshots of Richardson's Facebook page between March 26 and April 3, 2025. As a result, we were unable to compare versions captured on different days to confirm whether any published posts were missing during the period in question. The copy-pasted Facebook post with the "Facebook AI" response read as follows (our emphasis): So a page I read from a historian is now suddenly getting daily posts deleted . When I asked AI Facebook why this was their response . This is kind of scary. Social media is being deleted if Viewpoints differs..... So much for free speech. Note she does not work for the federal government nor is she a part of a federal agency. Heather Cox Richardson posts are being deleted as part of a larger removal of online resources by the US government. This removal is in compliance with executive orders from President Donald Trump's administration, which aim to eliminate content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity, and other topics ¹. Richardson, a historian and professor, is known for her newsletters and social media posts that provide historical context to current events. Her work often touches on topics like democracy, equality, and social justice, which might be affected by the executive orders ². The removed content includes over 8,000 web pages and approximately 3,000 datasets across various federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, and the Department of Justice ¹. By the time of this writing, the Facebook user who appeared to have first posted the text updated the post to note that Richardson's posts "were returned." In an attempt to reproduce the "Facebook AI" response from the copy-pasted posts stating the "government" removed Richardson's posts, we also asked the Meta AI chatbot about the alleged removal. However, we were unsuccessful in replicating the response that appeared in that post. We tried two prompts on Meta AI: "Why were Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook posts deleted?" and "Did the government delete Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook posts?" Neither produced the answer from the April 1 Facebook post. (Meta AI) The answers we received were: Q: Why were Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook posts deleted? A: Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook posts were deleted due to Facebook's algorithm flagging her content. According to reports, Facebook appears to be hiding or deleting her posts, which has been confirmed by Richardson herself. This issue has sparked concerns about censorship and the arbitrary application of Facebook's community standards. Richardson's followers have also reported difficulty in viewing and sharing her content, further fueling the controversy. Q: Did the government delete Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook posts? A: There's no evidence to suggest that the government deleted Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook posts. According to Richardson herself, Facebook appears to be removing her posts, including two recent ones critical of the Trump regime. This issue has raised concerns about censorship and Facebook's content moderation policies, but there's no indication of government involvement. It's worth noting that AI chatbots like Meta AI or the popular ChatGPT don't always give the same answers to the same questions asked at different times, even when the wording is identical. In this case, we didn't know what the writer of the original Facebook post had asked Meta AI to generate their response so we guessed at likely prompts, even leading Meta AI on with a second question exclusively about the possibility of government involvement. Richardson herself suggested on Bluesky that Facebook was banning her page. Facebook removes posts for various reasons outlined in its Community Standards. None of its standards are overtly related to politics, a running theme in Richardson's posts, but do include things such as "hateful conduct" and "misinformation." A page on Facebook's Help Center notes that it uses both human teams and automated technology to review content to ensure that it adheres to Community Standards. Users can dispute the removal of content that Facebook takes down through a review process. It was unclear at the time of this writing whether Richardson had restored her posts through review. Facebook itself has had a back-and-forth approach to political content on its platform. In September 2024, Meta rolled out a "Political Content" setting on Facebook, allowing users to opt to see less political content in their feeds. This feature was the result of work started in 2021 to reduce political content for people who did not wish to see it. Then, in January 2025, Meta announced it was phasing "civic content," described as "posts about elections, politics or social issues," back into users' feeds by "treating civic content from people and Pages you follow on Facebook more like any other content in your feed." This was part of Facebook's commitment to free speech, Meta said in a news release. It was unclear how Meta's policies on political content could have affected the visibility of Richardson's generally politically left-leaning posts. Another, more secretive way social media users and digital rights organizations suggest posts could disappear from followers' views is shadow banning, a practice in which platforms hide a user's posts from viewers but do not prevent that user from posting. Though the practice of shadow banning is a common topic of discussion among social media users, large social media platforms like Instagram, which is also part of Meta, and TikTok have generally (archived) denied using it. Facebook has never officially confirmed whether it uses shadow banning practices. Richardson did not publicly theorize that Facebook had shadow-banned her account. In conclusion, without input from Meta or Richardson, it's hard to know exactly what, if anything, happened to Richardson's posts. It was not possible to show through archived website snapshots that posts had indeed gone missing from Richardson's page. Richardson did not return a request for comment about whether she was told the reason for the alleged takedowns, and she did not comment on the issue publicly other than to say that posts had disappeared. We will update this piece with any relevant information. Snopes has reported extensively on changes made to U.S. government websites following U.S. President Donald Trump's executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion. "A Message to Our Black Community." TikTok, 1 June 2020, Facebook. "How Does Facebook Decide What to Take Down?" Help Center, Fowler, Geoffrey A. "Shadowbanning Is Real: Here's How You End up Silenced by Social Media." Washington Post, 27 Dec. 2022, Gutierrez, Laura. "Update, This Morning Her Posts Were Returned ." Facebook, 1 Apr. 2025, "Hi Folks." Bluesky, 1 Apr. 2025, "Heather Cox Richardson." Facebook, "I Don't Think Facebook Should Have Taken down My Post." Facebook, @jackielerm. "I Asked @mosseri This Question, Knowing Full Well How He Was Going to Respond. ." X, 22 Feb. 2022, Meta. "Community Standards." Transparency Center, ---. "Meta AI." Meta, "Reducing Political Content in News Feed." Meta, 10 Feb. 2021, Richardson, Heather Cox. "Hi Folks." Facebook, 1 Apr. 2025, "Shedding Light on Shadowbanning." Center for Democracy and Technology, 26 Apr. 2022, Wayback Machine. Accessed 4 Apr. 2025.
Chicago Tribune
11-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Chicago Humanities Spring Festival boasts Leslie Odom Jr., Eve Ewing and Paul Reiser — because culture isn't dead yet
You know how you don't know which end is up right now? Nobody is interested in facts. (So we hear.) Expertise is no longer valued. (So we hear.) Humanities are being yanked out of higher education. (Students would rather join hedge funds.) Just last month, University of Illinois at Chicago announced it planned to close its School of Literatures, Cultural Studies and Linguistics. The world is on fire, and night is day, and war is peace. And yet, the Chicago Humanities Festival is doubling down. You might even say its Spring Festival, which begins later this week and runs through early June, looks so committed to rallying a defense to the New Reality, it's provocative. How else to read a festival of ideas featuring best-selling historian Timothy Snyder on freedom, plus historian Heather Cox Richardson (of the popular newsletter 'Letters From an American') on the need to revitalize democracy? (Both are part of the festival's Lakeview Day at the Athenaeum on April 27.) Want to hear directly from the front lines? David Rubenstein, always the most interesting person in the room, owner of the Baltimore Orioles, former chair at the Smithsonian, current chair of the board of trustees at the University of Chicago and chair emeritus of the Brookings Institution, will likely talk about being fired by President Donald Trump from his position as chairman of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. (That's April 21.) Activist Tamika Mallory (May 18) will discuss the creation of the Women's March. Deborah N. Archer (April 24) will talk about what it's like to be president of the ACLU now, and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (May 18) will talk about facing armed protestors in 2020 who insisted that Trump won the election. A single afternoon at Bridgeport Day (May 10, at the Ramova Theater and the Co-Prosperity gallery) plays like its own pointed argument for the importance of the free thinking, featuring an all-star group of 21st-century intellectuals: At 4 p.m., Chicago's Eve Ewing discusses her excellent new book, 'Original Sins,' on the history of how American schools fail Black and Indigenous students; at 1 p.m., Maggie Nelson links personal jaw pain with the current need to connect socially; and at 2:30 p.m., essayist Rebecca Solnit talks a bit of everything — abuse of power, climate change, democracy … In fact, if you're feeling excessively distracted by social media lately, there's also a chat for that: MSNBC's Chris Hayes on March 17. Issues with capitalism? That's the New Yorker's John Cassidy on May 18. Just don't know how to argue with people anymore? University of Chicago philosopher Agnes Callard makes a case for Socrates on April 27. Thoughtful-palooza? Sanctuary City Limits? Maybe the Chicago Humanities Festival just needs a better name now, a reminder the humanities is the study of culture. For instance, May 18 (Lincoln Park Day, at the Chicago History Museum), you could hear Chicago cartoonist Chris Ware discuss R. Crumb with his new biographer Dan Nadel, then return that afternoon for Ibram X. Kendi ('How to Be an Antiracist') talking about his new young-adult biography of Malcolm X — and a conversation with Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller, of 'Hamilton' and 'Rent.' I almost feel bad for the festival's relatively lightweight opener: Paul Reiser, at the Music Box on Thursday. Speaking of 'Hamilton' — Leslie Odom Jr. (he won a Tony Award for playing Aaron Burr in the original cast) sings at an Art Institute of Chicago Day on June 7. That same day at the museum, there's a chat with cartoonist Alison Bechdel ('Fun Home'), and, apologies to hipsters for burying the lede here: Director Jim Jarmusch (on guitar) will deliver a very rare concert with experimental lute player Jozef van Wissem. Should art for art's sake prove too slight right now, might I suggest comedian Ed Helms, who brings his popular 'SNAFU' podcast to Chicago (May 3) to discuss the history of huge (and quite real) fiascos, from CIA-trained feline spies to Project A119, an United States Air Force plan to detonate a nuke on the moon, as a show of military strength. See? The world has always been full of wackos. The question is, after the chatting, discussing and thinking — are we going to do something? The Chicago Humanities Spring Festivals begins March 13 and runs through early June. For information on additonal events, times, locations and ticket prices, visit
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What we know about posts calling for 'economic blackout' on Feb. 28
In late February 2025, a month after U.S. President Donald Trump began his second term in office, claims spread online that a day of "economic blackout" was set to happen on Feb. 28, 2025. On social media, posts multiplied calling users not to buy anything from major corporations that day, with some claiming that Boston College history professor Heather Cox Richardson was leading the effort. Further, several Snopes readers emailed memes about the event, inquiring about it and Cox Richardson's involvement: (screen capture) The meme read: 1st COLLECTIVE ACTIONHistorian Heather Cox RichardsonECONOMIC BLACKOUT - 24 HoursFriday, FEBRUARY 28, 12 AM - 11:59 PMfamilies friends acquaintancesTURN OFF the ECONOMYShow who really holds the power = US. WHAT YOU CAN DO:- Buy ONLY essentials/absolute necessities (Food, Medicine, Emergency Supplies). But the goal is - buy NOTHING.- If you must spend, ONLY support small, local businesses. SPREAD this MESSAGE:email friends everywhere, post on social media, share, document, WHY? Corporations, banks only care about their sacred bottom CANDisrupt the economy for just ONE dayto send a powerful they fail to listen, the next blackout will be LONGERMAKE HISTORY togetherFebruary 28th, 24-Hour Economic Black Out Begins!Heather Cox Richardson DO NOTNO purchases in store, Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy. Nowhere!NO Fast Food, Gas, Major Credit or Debit Cards for non-essential can do this TOGETHER! "What do you know about an Economic Blackout (National Stop Buying Day) on February 28, 2025," one reader asked. "Is Heather Cox Richardson really involved with the Economic Blackout," asked another. Meanwhile, posts multiplied on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Bluesky and Reddit, spreading the word about the supposed event. Indeed, the event was real. It started as the initiative of John Schwarz, a man born in Queens, New York. After Trump took office, Schwarz launched a movement he called The People's Union, and as a first action, he proposed that his followers not buy anything on Feb. 28, 2025. However, Cox Richardson was not a part of this effort. On Jan. 29, 2025, Schwarz posted a video titled "Fixing Corporate Greed" on Instagram, in which he suggested that the problem with politics was that politicians were beholden to corporate interests, and in which he invited his followers to comment if they wanted to hear more about what they could do to fix this problem (archived): This video received 99 likes. In a Feb. 4, 2025, video (archived) Schwarz announced the launch of The People's Union and said that a website was in the works. The website was up as of this writing. He added that the plan was to "turn it all off" for one day. "We don't buy from any major corporations, we do not spend on anything we do not absolutely need," he said. "For one day, we remind them who really has the power." He also described this effort as "an excellent initial test for us." The video went viral, receiving nearly 400,000 likes. In the comments of this video, people chimed in from other parts of the world. One follower commented that she was supporting him from Norway, another from the U.K., a third from Germany. Later the same day, he announced in a separate video (archived) the date of the economic blackout: Feb. 28, 2025. Later, on Feb. 11, 2025, he posted an image on Instagram, inviting people outside the U.S. to join the blackout (archived): As of this writing, the man had amassed 294,000 followers on Instagram and nearly 309,000 followers on TikTok, where he reposted every video. By Feb. 16, 2025, he had announced more days of action in March and April, targeting specific corporations. That list grew, and on Feb. 20, 2025, he revealed a schedule that had added dates through July 2025. Again, however, Cox Richardson was not involved. Indeed, she posted on Facebook on Feb. 19, 2025, distancing herself from the boycott and the movement: 'Richardson, Heather Cox'. Boston College, Accessed 24 Feb. 2025. Union, Join The Peoples. 'The People's Union USA'. The People's Union USA, Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.
