53percenter's Blog

Another holiday classic has been slapped with the label “racist” by SJWs for supposedly marginalizing the token black character: “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.”

People on social media have expressed outrage over the fact that the lone black character Franklin in “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” appears seated differently juxtaposed to the white characters during the famous dinner scene where Charlie Brown serves popcorn and toast to his hungry guests instead of turkey and stuffing. From The Hill:

The scene in question has four characters from Charles M. Schulz’s iconic ‘Peanuts’ cartoon — Sally, Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty and dog Snoopy — sitting on one side of a makeshift outdoor table for Thanksgiving dinner, with Marcie at one end of the table and Linus at the head.

The cartoon’s lone black character, Franklin, is on his own side of the table seated on a lawn chair.

Comicbook.com was the first to flag the reactions to the scene on social media.

“Not watching Charlie Brown Thanksgiving anymore, until they sit some people on the same side of the table as Franklin,” said one Twitter user.

“How come Franklin, Charlie Brown’s only black friend, sits alone on the other side of the table? And in a lawn chair,” said another Twitter user. “Am I woke now, why is Franklin in Charlie Brown Thanksgiving sitting all by himself at the table. Man. Things that I did not notice as a child,” said another.

One Twitter user said the scene was reminiscent of the film “Get Out,” a story about rich, white liberals who insert their brains into black people’s bodies: “Let’s talk about Franklin. Dude gets invited to Charlie Brown’s by Peppermint Patty. Then he finds out that it wasn’t a real invite, a dog is cooking the food and he’s gotta sit by himself at dinner. That’s Get Out.”

Of course, all of them have no idea what on earth they are talking about. Fortunately, black journalist Jeremy Helligar cleared up some of the controversy on Friday when he noted that the character Franklin had prime seating in other episodes of the “Peanuts.”

“A relevant aside: During the farewell dinner about one hour and five minutes into 1972’s ‘Snoopy Come Home,’ Franklin was seated on the same side of the table as Charlie Brown, Lucy, and Frieda — in a regular chair,” Helligar said on Medium.

The historical significance of the character Franklin cannot be understated; his creation was reportedly demanded by Charles Schulz following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. when a teacher named Harriet Glickman sent him a letter.

“When asked by the head of the cartoon’s publisher, United Feature Syndicate, if he was sure he wanted to add a black character, Glickman says Schulz replied, ‘Either you run it the way I drew it, or I quit,'” reports The Hill.

The Schulz Museum also celebrated Franklin’s 50th anniversary in July. He has never been treated like a token black character added for cheap lip-service to diversity and has always been a valued member of the “Peanuts” gang.

“A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” is not the only holiday classic the Left has skewered as racist in recent years. In 2016, Salon.com denounced “A Christmas Story” as a racist vehicle of “white nostalgia”:

This is a perfect depiction of the nonwhite “other,” tailored to the conservative and superficial “color-blind” politics of the post-civil rights era

This is an example of the “white racial frame” in action: People of color are present in a way that does not challenge the cultural and personal psychology of white racial innocence. They are present without being objectionable or intrusive in any way; they present no threat to the way whiteness and memory combine to nurture a nostalgia for a “simpler” time that in actuality did not exist.

Fortunately, no ban of “A Christmas Story” ever came about. Hopefully, “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” will enjoy the same fate.

When a holiday outright has the words “thanks” and “giving” in its name, you know that some liberals are going to take offense.

One university is crying racism about the celebration and taking down the holiday with its “Thanks But No Thanks-giving: Decolonizing an American Holiday” event.

The announcement of the University of Oregon’s student-run event called Thanksgiving a “celebration” of “ongoing genocide” and said the alternative event would help people with raising their “critical consciousness and identifying ways to decolonize the holiday.”

The school’s event description reads, “The main messages are that of gratitude, food, and family; however, Thanksgiving is, foundationally speaking, a celebration of the ongoing genocide against native peoples and cultures across the globe.”

It’s too bad these Oregon students weren’t at the first Thanksgiving to help the native Americans “decolonize” their celebrations.

TRENDING: Flashback: Trump Assassination Attempt Foiled by Secret Service, Establishment Media Silent

Campus Reform, which describes itself as a “watchdog to the nation’s higher education system,” sent correspondent Josiah Tejada to ask students whether they believe Thanksgiving is racist or celebrates genocide.

“Honestly, like, I’m not super educated on the topic, but I just know that it has to do with the way the settlers treated the natives who lived here,” one student told him.

“There’s definitely a racist history to Thanksgiving, and that should probably definitely be addressed more in education,” another said.

Another student said Thanksgiving was “racist” because “we’re celebrating taking away land from natives.”

I’m not sure exactly how her Thanksgivings go down, but I for one have never taken part in any “taking away land” Thanksgiving day celebrations.

“It doesn’t have to be not celebrated, but if we can change it to instead of feeding ourselves maybe feeding the natives or donating to natives. Do we really need a giant feast?” she continued.

“The whole concept with, like, taking land and assigning a value to it through cost is, like, it was different through European cultures,” another student told Campus Reform.

One student seemed to have learned about the native Americans’ part in Thanksgiving, saying, “Growing up in school they routinely talked about the contributions that native Americans had toward the first Thanksgiving and the reason why we even celebrate it to begin with, so if you want to make that a bigger portion of it, that makes sense.”

RELATED: Climate Change Enthusiasts Silenced After Near-Historic Predictions Roll In for Thanksgiving

It may be hard for some liberal students, who are known for feeling entitled to everything, to wrap their heads around the concept of gratitude. This may explain their pushback against Thanksgiving.

However, one thing all the students had in common is that they are all living in America. If that’s not something to give thanks for, then I don’t know what is.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he may close the U.S.-Mexico border if the rush of illegal migrants pushes border management out of control.

“If we find that it’s uncontrollable, Josh, if we find that it’s — it gets to a level where we are going to lose control or where people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control,” Trump told a gaggle of reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a transcript prepared by Grabien.com.

“If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country,” he said. “Democrats want open borders.”

Trump’s statement comes two days after a San Francisco judge temporarily shut down his November 9 border reforms at the request of a group of ACLU lawyers. The reform denies illegal migrants the right to ask for a full asylum and the right to live in the United States.

Trump’s threat to close the border also comes amid reports that White House officials may pressure Mexico to accept the temporary return of asylum-seeking migrants pending the courtroom resolution of their pleas for asylum in the United States.

Currently, some Mexican border officials are helping U.S. border officials limit the daily number of caravan migrants who are allowed to ask for asylum at the official ports of entry. That cooperation may be helping border officials reduce the flood of migrants that forces the catch-and-release policies. The catch-and-release policies allow migrants to get jobs from U.S. employers and to repay their debts to the cartels’ migrant-smuggling business:

Mexican police are helping US border officers limit the daily # of caravan asylum requests. This is important b/c it may prevent catch & release which happens when migrants overwhelm border. But Trump also must win court/asylum fight vs. progressives & biz https://t.co/EVsSxj4U34

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) November 17, 2018

Trump continued:

The whole border. I mean, the whole border. And Mexico will not be able to sell their cars into the United States where they make so many cars at great benefit to them — not a great benefit to us, by the way. But at least now we have a good new trade deal with Mexico and with Canada. But we will close the border. And that means that Mexico is not going to be able to sell their cars into the United States until it’s open.

But we’re going to either have a border or we’re not. And when they lose control of the border on the Mexico side, we just close the border.

But business groups would strongly resist any shutdown of all or parts of the border. Some industries and companies would be forced to reduce operations within a few days if their cross-border supply of parts, food, or migrant workers are interrupted.

Trump also suggested that prior presidents opposed border controls and that many Democrats now oppose border controls because they gain politically from opposition to it:

Some of the [prior U.S.] presidents, I guess they didn’t care or they wanted open borders. I don’t think they wanted open borders– because most of them, if you go back to 2006, they all approved essentially a wall, a very powerful fence, which is pretty much the same thing. But in 2006, if you look, [former President Barack] Obama, you look at Hillary Clinton, you look at [Sen. Chuck] Schumer, all of the people that are standing up protesting, they think it’s good for them politically. See, I think it’s bad for them politically. I think the fact that they’re weak on the border is very, very bad for them politically. But you know, I have only been a politician for three years, so maybe they know better than me.

Officials expect to appeal the judge’s order to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An author of a study that examined the effects of the Common Core State Standards on school choice says the Obama-era K-12 school reform is the “worst large-scale educational failure in 40 years.”

Ted Rebarber of AccountabilityWorks, co-author with Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey of the Pioneer Institute study, discussed at a Heritage Foundation event last week how Common Core has not only damaged public-school education, but also has presented obstacles to real school choice.

Rebarber observed the danger when politicians succumb to the allure of standards-based education reforms.

“Standards become the blueprint around which schools organize their teaching, their day-to-day academic operations,” he said. “They’re effectively curriculum central planning by government.”

In the study, the authors observed that since Common Core was implemented in 45 states and Washington, DC, students have demonstrated sharp drops in academic performance. Additionally, those students who were already performing poorly– many of them minority students – declined even further.

Yet, in the name of accountability, when private school choice programs receive taxpayer-funded vouchers, they are often forced to adopt the curriculum on which the state standardized test is based. In most cases, that curriculum is aligned with Common Core.

According to the study, about two thirds of the nation’s tuition grant (“voucher”) programs mandate that schools administer a single curriculum-based test, usually a Common Core-aligned test, in order to receive the public funds.

An example is Central Christian Academy in Indiana, a state that has touted its extensive “school voucher” program. In 2017, the Christian school was presented with a “D” rating from the state because of students’ scores on the state-mandated test – which they must take because the school is receiving public funds. The poor rating was accompanied by a threat of a loss of voucher funding, a prospect that could have led to the closing of the school since vouchers help many families afford this private school option.

Ultimately, Chalkbeat observed that Indiana made some changes to how it evaluates schools and Central Christian’s students had to become more test-focused in order to remain open.

Nevertheless, the education news outlet noted that, in Indiana, private schools also “now live or die by test scores, too,” just as public schools, because of vouchers.

“That money comes with strings attached, and low test scores have cost 16 schools the right to accept new vouchers,” the report observed. “At least three have closed.”

Ironically, private schools that accept vouchers are forced to do things the “Common Core way,” even though dramatic declines in U.S. student performance on national and international assessments have occurred since the Core was implemented.

“Common Core blunts the innovation, dynamism and competition that is the heart of the school choice movement,” McCluskey noted.

The Core was sold not only as a set of standards that was “rigorous” and designed to encourage higher levels of achievement, but also as a program that would shrink the achievement gap between middle-class students and those from the lower socioeconomic levels.

In April of 2016, only about 37 percent of U.S. 12th graders were shown to be prepared for math and reading at the college level, according to the 2015 NAEP – also known as the Nation’s Report Card.

Additionally, results released by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showed that on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the U.S. has declined in performance from fifth in international ranking in 2011 to 13th in 2016 out of 58 international education systems.

The PIRLS revealed achievement for the top-performing 20 percent of students became flat over time, while the lowest 20 percent declined further.

“We seem to be declining as other education systems record larger gains on the assessment,” said Peggy G. Carr, acting commissioner for the federal NCES, according to the Washington Post. “This is a trend we’ve seen on other international assessments in which the U.S. participates.”

Accountability to the government has also become a major factor in terms of the content of what is taught and the services provided in religious schools that accept school vouchers.

NWItimes.com provides another example from Indiana.

Jennifer McCormick, the Republican state superintendent of public schools, has decided private schools that accept state voucher funds should not discriminate against LGBT children in admissions and other services – regardless of the school’s faith beliefs.

McCormick’s justification for her decision is based upon the Common Core “workforce development” model of education that views children as prospective laborers who can fulfill big business’s needs for inexpensive, local workers.

“If our goal as a state is to develop a well-educated workforce, and one that we want businesses to come here because we’re inclusive, we are accepting. I think part of that goes to our actions,” McCormick said. “And when we still have schools that receive taxpayer dollars that can exclude students — that’s a problem.”

According to the report, McCormick said private schools that accept vouchers would need to have their admissions policies controlled by the state.

The Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade broadcast two members of the same sex kissing on national television Thursday, making it the first time the parade featured a same-sex kiss in its 94-year history.

The annual parade — which features life-size balloons, floats, and sneak previews of Broadway performances— has been a tradition for many in New York City and for the millions of Americans who’ve watched the parade on television since 1924.

But this year’s parade took a different tone when actresses Caitlin Kinnunen and Isabelle McCalla locked lips during the live NBC broadcast during a performance of a musical number from the recently released Broadway musical The Prom.

So proud. So thankful. pic.twitter.com/DGTYNsJhxB

— Josh Lamon (@JoshLamon) November 22, 2018

A video of the performance showed Kinnunen and McCalla holding hands and singing before the two leaned in for a kiss at the very end of the song.

The Prom began its Broadway run this month, telling the story of a lesbian in small-town Indiana who cannot take her girlfriend to her high school prom, and the queer actors that come into Los Angeles to support the couple.

The musical’s producers said the show is a story of “acceptance, tolerance, and love.”

“Broadway’s The Prom is grateful to Macy’s and NBC for their acceptance and inclusivity of a community and a story that is about acceptance, tolerance and love,” the musical’s producers Bill Damaschke, Dori Berinstein, and Jack Lane told Entertainment Weekly in a joint statement.

While supporters of gay rights cheered for the on-screen kiss, some parents expressed concern that the kiss was not age-appropriate for younger viewers watching a parade meant for families.

So watching the @Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade with the fam and they just had 2 girls kiss at the end of one of the dance/singing acts. #Unbelievable why do these networks feel the need to make sure they show their support for the gay community. Not something kids need to see.

— adventuresofbobbleheadtrump (@adventuresofbo1) November 22, 2018

#macysthanksgivingdayparade Just had 2 girls kissing. Could have had a warning so parents could be aware!!!! Poor choice #NBC

— Theresa McMillin (@mctwinsmom) November 22, 2018

Thank you @NBC for making me have to explain to my 5 year old why two girls are kissing during the #macysthanksgivingdayparade

— Jason Puckett (@SarasotaJay) November 22, 2018

The Prom is currently playing at the Longacre Theatre in New York City.

More nations are joining the exodus from the United Nations’ (UN) controversial compact on mass migration, with legal experts now standing up to raise concerns about the drafting of the document and what legal implications signing it might have for countries party to the pact.

President Donald Trump was the first to pull out of the UN pact on migration in December 2017, a move which prompted howls of disapproval from both the mainstream media and globalist leaders.

Yet several nations from all over the world have outright withdrawn from the compact since initially ratifying it in July, or have signalled their intent to do so, as states gain confidence in opposing fashionable but dangerous deals that are not in their own interests.

Law Professor: UN Migrant Pact May be ‘Non-Binding’ But Will Create Legal ‘Framework’ https://t.co/W278zVfRNO

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 22, 2018

In comments that cut across the grain of the usual business and practice of the United Nations, President Trump said at the body’s New York headquarters in September: “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.

“Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.”

Australia, Israel, and Poland are among the latest to pull out, all citing national interest reasons.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morris remarked Wednesday that the agreement is “inconsistent” with his nation’s best interest, and that the document “fails to adequately distinguish between people who enter Australia illegally and those who come to Australia the right way”, noting the frequent observation that the paper does not differentiate between legal and illegal migration.

Poland Pulls Out: UN Migration Pact ‘Will Make Migrant Crisis Worse’ https://t.co/O3uZaCnafa

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 21, 2018

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also alluded to the document’s ambiguity on illegal migrants, saying Tuesday that: “We are committed to guarding our borders against illegal migrants. This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do,” reports the Jerusalem Post.

Switzerland is now postponing a decision on signing the deal, and the nation’s parliament will debate the issue in the coming weeks.

These announcements followed by several days other similar messages from European nations Poland and Austria, who in turn stated their opposition to the document which both emphasises the “inevitable, necessary, and desirable” nature of massive movements of people, and calls on signatories to “prevent” campaigning against mass migration in “the context of electoral campaigns”.

After Teasing Move, Czech Republic Confirms it Will Withdraw from UN Migrant Pact https://t.co/jA7oTEVvDY

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 14, 2018

Poland’s Interior Minister Joachim Brudzinski said in October that: “the draft of the agreement does not contain adequately strong guarantees of [nations’] sovereign right to decide who comes into their territory and [nor does it] distinguish legal and illegal migration”.

“We want Poles to be safe in their country.”

Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Croatia (whose President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović is pictured with President Trump above) have also signalled alarm pulled out.

Less Than Third of Austrians Oppose Government Move to Opt Out of UN Migrant Pact https://t.co/hbnWrblzGI

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 13, 2018

The plan has been repeatedly defended in the mainstream media and in the halls of government with claims that the articles set out in the document are not legally binding, however expert legal opinion suggests that while the document is drafted as “non-binding”, it is written in a way that creates a legal framework.

This, Belgian law professor Pierre d’Argent argues, will act like other UN compacts that have proceeded it will be used by lawyers to interpret the meaning of laws.

He said: “…lawyers use this pact as a reference tool to try to guide them… This has already occurred in international or national jurisdictions to refer to instruments that are not legally binding.”

German law professor Matthias Herdegen came to a similar conclusion, as Breitbart London reported. Remarking that the UN compact occupied a “legal grey area”, it “gives the impression of [state] liability” and would raise the expectations of potential migrants in the third world, having the impact of potentially rising migration levels even if no laws actually changed.

Australia Leaves UN Migration Pact — Won’t Risk ‘Hard-Won’ Border Control Success https://t.co/qOpvX2Zjeo

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 21, 2018

Oliver JJ Lane is the editor of Breitbart London — Follow him on Twitter and Facebook