Why I, As A Veteran, Cannot In Good Conscience Support The 45th President of the United States of America.

I am a veteran, of the United States Army and the Wisconsin Army National Guard, in fact. Allow me to explain why I and many of my brothers and sister in arms stopped supporting him a long time ago.

I watched as my battle brothers were told that necessary refurbishing of their housing and their families' school was going to be indefinitely delayed so he could push a tiny bit of progress on his pet project. 

I watched as he took 5200 soldiers from their family, deployed them to a desert area within our own borders away from their families, and kept them there through a Christmas holiday that was also a government shutdown that he chose to allow without written guarantee of pay for those soldiers, for something that was never a threat to begin with, even according to his own military experts. 

I watched as a single tweet of his cost the lives of two soldiers, two U.S. civilians, and some of our allies. 

I watched as he cut our military's access to international support first by betraying our allies in Syria, which resulted in the resignation of Gen. Mattis as SecDef, then abandoning them in a conflict that we were supposed to mediate. 

I watched as he abused veterans time and again, calling a soldier that lost her legs in Iraq a traitor, criticizing and questioning Gen. Mattis's character of service, requiring a military family to reunite on camera so he could take the credit for it rather than letting that very personal and intimate moment be shared just by family members, 

I watched as he overlooked veterans, service members, and civilians that did actual work to support us in favor of a propagandist to receive the highest honor he can bestow, 

I watched as he cut funding to veterans' nonprofits during his first year, which resulted in myself having to push through the chronic pain and fatigue that is the legacy of my time in service to handle problems that would have been handled by a non-profit I had already contacted for help.

I watched as he tried to rescind our military occupation contract with Germany without cause or warning, which could have ended disastrously.

I watched as he kicked thousands of serving members of the military out so he could appeal to family traditionalists, over the objections of veterans and service members alike, including his own Secretary of Defense.

I watched as he tried to force the military to violate UCMJ and the constitution and had to be rebuffed not only by two of the best heads of the DoD in recent years (Colin Powell and James Mattis), but his own secretary of defense in order not to use infantry units, not MPs or crowd control but infantry, against civilians. 

I watched as he signed the CARES act into law knowing full well that the dependency requirements cut off thousands of disabled veterans from assistance, and then withheld funding from the Navajo nation for weeks as the tribe that single-handedly saved us during World War II was decimated by a pandemic that he failed to react to in a timely manner, aside from a too-late travel restriction.

I watched as he insulted the highest ranking non-commissioned officer in a branch of the military he created due to his own ignorance of how the military works, maybe because his family has never served. 

I watched as he took the flag that represents the very bodies of those that fall in the line of duty and, against any and all common decency or respect for that flag, molested it on stage to the cheers of his blind supporters. To this day that memory turns my stomach. 

I watched as his administration cut the federal activation of National Guard units a day before it would have qualified them for additional benefits upon discharge, in the middle of a week, with no other reasonable explanation than not wanting to pay for it. 

I watched as his administration sent unidentified and unidentifiable law enforcement officers into a situation that everyone on the ground agrees was settling and chose to incite violence, violate rights, and even go so far as to severely injure a peaceful veteran all because of graffiti, something a hard day's work could fix. That veteran will require surgery to regain use of his hand, and he may not be able to recover fully at all. 

I watched as he allowed his administration to use chemical weapons against his own citizens, required military officers to violate the UCMJ restrictions on attendance at political events, and had a PR event in front of a church without even asking their permission just so he could look strong after he hid in a bunker rather than face protesters as most of his predecessors had. 

I watched as he lied about what he's done for us. He didn't give service members the greatest pay raise in history, he was beat out by Obama's 2010 military pay increase. He did not give the military over a trillion dollars, he gave military contractors, civilian companies, over a trillion dollars. He did not built up the military to better than its ever been, he reduced its readiness so much that the best SecDef possibly since the title became SecDef had to resign in protest. I watched as he supported those flying flags of our defeated enemies, one of which that took over 12,000 soldiers from Wisconsin alone, from my unit. 

I watched as he called multiple veterans and service members traitors, losers, and worse to prop up his belief that he's a better military mind than any other person, despite proof to the contrary. 

I watched as he abused his position as Commander in Chief to retaliate against members of the military, of my own branch, for having followed lawful orders. 

I watched as he used McCarthy's tactics to rip this nation apart, and how he's continuing to use them, and more, to keep the violence going so that he can excuse stationing federal officers loyal only to him and not the constitution outside of polling locations. His newly appointed postmaster general has also admitted that he's planning on slowing down delivery, likely in an attempt to reduce the use of absentee ballots. 

He is gutting the rights of citizens that I gave my mind and body for. I was told my sacrifice meant the rights of all Americans would be preserved, not selectively allowed. 

If you've felt the need to say "all veterans support him," I have a simple message for you. Like I've said to many a politician before: stop using veterans as your conversation pieces, we don't exist so you can use us to make a point. We have our own voices, our own beliefs, and we have proven that we are strong enough that we do not need someone else to speak on our behalf. Thank you. 

Is It Too Dangerous To Be A Cop?

Recently someone told me that it is too dangerous to be a police officer right now, what with the protests and calls to reallocate funds through the "Defund the Police" movement. The implication was that the reason some events can't find proper security because police officers are not coming into work due to the increased danger. I decided to take a look at that. 

According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, which counts all law enforcement officers' deaths nationwide, line of duty deaths are going down. In April we experienced a peak of thirty eight officer deaths nationally for that month, followed by twenty six in May, eighteen in June, and sixteen in July as of the twenty-fourth. In contrast, fatalities from officer-involved shootings in the month of May alone number one hundred six, more than the total number of officers that had died up until that point in the year. That is not the total number of individuals shot, but the total number of individuals killed by gunshot, any non-lethal officer-involved shootings are not counted. 

Looking back to last year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial Fund, 135 officers fell in the line of duty in 2019, with only forty-eight of those deaths being ruled to be part of a felony by the FBI. In contrast, one thousand ninety-nine people died due to police harm in the same year. 

Knowing that, it is still expected of every citizen to follow any order given by a law enforcement officer, regardless of its legality, or risk death. If an officer violates a citizen's rights, the proper time to address that concern is in court after the fact. Should a citizen be killed during an interaction with a law enforcement officer, there is still only a one percent change that their death will result in criminal charges. There will be no justice or help from the Law Enforcement Agency for the family, in fact officers are still protected even from civil suits, so the loss must fall entirely at the family's feet. 

Let's compare this to my own background for a moment: I was in the United States Army Infantry, and as an infantryman I was trained to handle aggressive action with proper escalation of force. We were trained not to fire first without extremely good reason, for instance, and if we did overreact and it resulted in any harm whatsoever, we could expect to face court martial. To keep this in proper perspective, we were not being trained to interact mostly with allies or our own citizens, this was the training and standard we here held to for interacting with the enemies of the Untied States of America, as well as any other parties we may come into contact with. 

Which begs the question, why is it that those of us who wield weapons in the name of our nation against our known enemies are held to a higher standard of conduct that those who wield very similar weapons among our own citizens, ostensibly to protect them? 

In my professional opinion, if an officer can't handle aggressive behavior to the point of just having people angrily demand that part of their funding be reallocated, they're not fit to serve the people of the United States as a public servant. They're not even fit to work retail, as most retail workers face that level of aggression and more and are required to politely smile through it. 

Response To Reasons for Lowercasing the Word "White"​ in Your Writing: A Letter to an Author by Kate Babbitt

The following post was written in reply to an article regarding why we should capitalize "Black" but not "white" in regards to race. I'll link that article at the bottom. 

I have to say I respectfully disagree, but please allow me to break down why.

The main argument is that racial designations imply a shared culture and history. In actual usage, however, this is far from the case. The most obvious example, "Black," is used to describe anyone with African ancestry, as well as many other populations groups, including Jamaican. There's little to no shared culture and history between Jamaica and South Africa, and there are so many extreme cultural differences between African populations that to imply they all have the same culture or even significantly shared culture is bordering on cultural erasure. A good example of this phenomenon is explored by Trevor Noah in his special "Son of Patricia," where he notes that you could send all the racists screaming the n-word to Africa and they wouldn't have any significant effect. Black people in Africa rarely share that cultural history with Black people in America in regards to that word. And there are exampled from every other racial designation, in fact that's part of why "Asian" is more and more rarely used by those studying Asian cultures, they're too dissimilar to simply lump together; it's even considered a mild insult to some Asian populations to be referred solely by that designation, and that is even more true of Native-American cultures. Racial designations rarely refer to a homogenous culture or history. 

The secondary argument is essentially that by using the capitalized "White," we are somehow agreeing with White Supremacists because they prefer to capitalize the word, or simply that we are appeasing white people. This is predicated on two assumptions, each of which I'd like to address. The first is that "white" is not a racial designation all on its own, because it has only existed in contrast with "Black." The second is that by using the same symbol as a hate group, you are supporting that hate group's ideals. 

"White" is a racial designation, specifically because it came into being in directly contrast with other racial designations, because those other racial designations only exist in contrast with each other and "white." That's how a set of comparing terms works: if there were no cultural concept of "race," we wouldn't need designations. If we all fit within the same designation for that cultural concept, we wouldn't need those designations. Just like we didn't need a term to describe "Newtonian physics" in contrast with "quantum physics" until we understood that quantum physics had to be intellectually separated from Newtonian physics. Without such a term, it returns simply to the default. 

Race is a cultural construct, and as such has a few functions that would help us figure out what is a race under that construct. Primarily, it is one of the many cultural constructs that arose due to humanity's inherent tribal nature; our desire to have a simple version of "us" and "them." However, that doesn't fully define the idea. Racial characteristics in recent generations, say the last two hundred years, have become increasingly broad. "White" refers now to the population group that could reasonably be referred to as "Pan-European," meaning descendants of the majority of medieval Europe. We've developed terms for the descendants of the Middle East, nations and cultures previously referred to as "oriental," descendants of those with an appearance very similar to that of most of the indigenous populations of central and southern Africa, and quite a few others. All of these are designated largely by a shared aesthetic, rather than a shared cultural history, as I've noted above. 

However, in the United States specifically, they are used to denote groupings of the subcultures that formed due to these racial concepts. Any time you refer to "Black culture", you are using this function of race. However, any time you refer to "White America," you are also doing the same thing. In this case, "white" and "Black" exhibit much the same functions. They refer to aesthetic differences between populations, some historical and cultural differences, and specify a grouping of subcultures surrounding their use. 

The difference comes in what "white" has historically been used for. Unlike almost any other racial designation, "white" has changed to match the race shared by the social majority, regardless of what social minorities also share that race. Not too long ago it didn't include Eastern Europeans or the Irish. This, in my opinion, is actually the strongest argument for treating the term differently compared to "Black," because this is the one major difference in history and function between it an any other racial designation, aside from the repeated attempts to remove it from the lexicon as we've done with "Black," trying to replace it over the years to be less oppressive. 

Going back to a point I made up above: treating "white" differently from all other racial designations doesn't take away it's power, it increases it, because it becomes the racial default. This isn't a new concept, nor is it one I came up with, but rather was first noted by John McWhorter, a linguist who specializes in race-related language: 

"To not name ‘White’ as a race is, in fact, an anti-Black act which frames Whiteness as both neutral and the standard … We believe that it is important to call attention to White as a race as a way to understand and give voice to how Whiteness functions in our social and political institutions and our communities. Moreover, the detachment of ‘White’ as a proper noun allows White people to sit out of conversations about race and removes accountability from White people’s and White institutions’ involvement in racism."

To further this concept, I'd like to go back to the work John Oliver's team did regarding medical bias. If you watch that episode of "Last Week Tonight," the concept that women are treated as "men with pesky emotions" and Black people as "white people with problems" comes up repeatedly. That's the problem of treating "white" as the default, we ignore the reality of other people entirely, instead basically trying to turn them into "white plus" rather than individuals. This is what I fear if we do not acknowledge the reality of "white" as a racial designation, we feel free to continue to use it as the default, which isn't accurate. 

Finally, I'd like to address the understated argument for doing this, one made clear by the NYT's and the Columbia Journalism Review's reasoning: writers and editors don't want their character questioned. They don't want to be on the receiving end of someone saying that they support White Supremacy, so they want to avoid anything that appears like they might, regardless of the reality of the action. This argument holds a lot of weight for a lot of people, but let me explain why I believe it shouldn't. 

First of all, you can't stop them from questioning you. If you are white, side with a white person, criticize any person of color regardless of the content of that criticism, or fail to meet any of hundreds of standards, many of them mutually exclusive, you will be referred to as a white supremacist or apologist. A great example of this in recent news is Terry Crews. Mr. Crews has been an activist for progressive movements for quite some time, perhaps making his biggest move by refusing to be silent about the treatment of actors and actresses in Hollywood in order to keep one of his most lucrative contracts during the "Me, Too" movement. He has been an outspoken voice for equality, but he is not perfectly tactful, and often brings focus to a problem at what many consider to be the wrong time. Recently he came under fire for cautioning against the fight against police brutality possibly turning into a fight against white people in general. This was poorly timed, and in my opinion, poorly worded, but I believe he was trying to do what he believed was right, and he has never supported any form of White Supremacy. That being said, he's being called a white supremacist and apologist as a result. 

Second, hate groups will use whatever symbol they can get their hands on to make themselves feel more powerful. Before Pepe the Frog, it would take literal decades or a solid war to give a symbol enough history to be irredeemable, like the swastika or the confederate flag. In recent years, due to fear of criticism, many media outlets have decided to stay so incredibly far away from any symbol that any hate group used, most of the hateful use coming from 4chan. The "Okay" sign, Pepe the Frog, Kermit the Frog (for a while), and a number of other symbols have been successfully co-opted by hate groups, simply by using them a great deal, and once their use of them became known at all, all other usage became criticized as supporting those hate groups, not because it was, but because people feared it would be seen that way. I personally believe we should do as we did with "Yankee Doodle," what the African American community did with variants of the n-word, and what the LGBTQ+ community did with "queer," and refuse to let the hate groups define a symbol by giving them all the usage as soon as they touch it. If this is about American writing, let us acknowledge American cultural history and take back what is being used to hurt us. 

So, since you can't stop them from questioning you, and you can't stop them from using whatever symbols and terms they want to, I don't see the fear of being equated to hate groups being a particularly strong argument. 

There is one more implied argument found in this article that I feel we need to address: "white" doesn't *deserve* capitalization. You can see this in the more tame wording of the quotes earlier in the article, but I think the most telling comes from about halfway down: 

"'White' is not capitalized as it is not an ethnicity but a garbage category of skin privilege that is really a designation of status and power, the only purpose of which is to elevate so-called white people over and at the expense of peoples not regarded as white." 

This is not a statement driven by fact, history, or usage. This is a statement driven by anger, well deserved anger, but anger nonetheless. The claim is essentially this: white people have nothing to be proud of for being white, because being white has never cost them anything, so since there is no pride, there is no race. Pride doesn't actually come into play with race. "Black," and its predecessor "Negro," were not originally proud terms. They were derogatory. They now hold more pride, which is a definite improvement, but that was not necessary in their usage. They are and were designations in regards to the cultural concept of race, which is largely aesthetic. And "white" was not used to elevate white people, they were already at the top of an unfair, unjust, unbalanced system. It was just there to note who looked like the people at the top. 

Of course, you're free to disagree with me, and I won't be dictating how anyone capitalizes the term anytime soon. In fact, you may have noticed that outside of multi-word terms, out of deference to the author of the original article, I have avoided capitalizing the word "white" throughout this. In my mind, it is not that difficult when engaging someone on their own turf to meet them on their own terms, at least as far as this goes. Same thing with pronouns or preferred names, really. So capitalize as you will, but I hope you found my explanation as to why I disagree with you enlightening. 

Thanks for reading. God Bless you if you'll let Him, and have an otherwise great day. 

-Draknus

The original article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reasons-lowercasing-word-white-your-writing-letter-author-babbitt/

Why I Feel How I Feel About Our Flag

I've recently been faced with something that comes up every now and then, and I wanted to both examine why it affects me and prepare an answer for people who ask that question. 

As happens during any period of heavy protesting, a number of people have decided to purposely violate the US Flag Code, with the intention being to dishonor, disrespect, or otherwise desecrate the flag so as to insult or piss off other people, usually those that use the flag and/or patriotism to justify bigotry, or extreme forms of nationalism that, frankly, kinda go against the ideals that the flag stands for, things like "liberty and justice for all." 

But when I see it, it hurts. It really, really hurts. As an example, someone I respect on a video sharing site came to the conclusion that, due to some recent decision by the administration of the nation, he could no longer in good conscience fly the flag he had flown outside his home, not until things changed. I respect that, personally. I think if you feel like you can't support the flag, you shouldn't fly one. But then he ended the video not simply with taking the flag down, but purposely throwing it on the ground. That's his right. Actions toward one's personally owned flag are generally protected speech, and I will stand by that judgment. I may not like what someone does with their rights, but if they're not causing significant harm, well, I did sign up to fight for their rights what seems lifetimes ago, so I'll accept it at least. 

But when it hit the ground, it felt like a physical blow to me. It was like someone had punched me in the gut, while dumping me. What I'm saying is that it hurt, badly. I know that wasn't his intention, to hurt me, so I had to ask, why do I feel so horrible? Why do I feel this way at all? 

I figured it out backwards, but I'll explain it forwards, so let's start with some background information. 

This explanation relies on a concept from anthropology and psychology called "socialization." This is the usually gradual process in which we, as human beings, develop our sense of self. Note: not self-awareness, that's a separate concept. For the purposes of using nice simple terms, we can call our sense of self our cultural and psychological identity. It's developed using the influence of the culture around us as well as psychological influences, everything from your parents to school to friends to job, etc.  

It's during this time that you will develop your foundational beliefs, and you will come to identify with certain things. I can go into foundational beliefs at another time, they're a concept all on their own that I probably should cover, but for now, we're looking at the concept of identifying with something, or developing a particular identity. You'll see this show up a lot in recent gender studies: your gender identity is how you see yourself in relation to the gender norms you perceive around you. Don't get on my case about what gender is or anything like that, just accept that identity is a thing. It's the pieces of who you believe you are. 

So, normally your identity, your sense of self and how it relates to the world around you, is developed and changed gradually, over years and years. That's socialization, as I mentioned before. However, there are times in which it becomes advantageous or even necessary to rapidly change that identity. Don't try to do it yourself, if you're remotely successful you'll just push yourself into a psychological break. No, the process to do that is known as re-socialization. 

Where as socialization is slow and relatively smooth (I did mention trauma plays a part earlier, right?), re-socialization is generally much faster, and is very, very harsh. One of the most effective and oddly safest forms of re-socialization can be found in United States Military Initial Entry Training. Depending on the branch it's called a few different things, for me, because I was in the Army, it was called Basic Training. There's a lot more science and care put into this process than most people realize. Drill Sergeants are essentially experts at not only training you, but rebuilding who you are. 

To do this, they can't just expose you to the kind of person they want you to be and wait for nature to take it's course, no, they gotta get this done in a few months max. The process essentially functions by ripping out parts of who you are, your identity, and replacing them with the identity of "soldier," "service member," "patriot," and so on. It's not an exact science, but it's generally effective. By using their current techniques they're generally effective in removing tendencies towards various forms of discrimination, as well as the tendency to be individualistic. Instead of being just on your own, you learn to identify as part of something bigger than yourself. For an infantryman, that goes as follows: 

I am a Soldier, I am part of a battle buddy pair, I am part of a fire team, I am part of a squad, I am part of a platoon, I am part of a company, I am part of a battalion, I am part of a brigade, I am part of a division, I am part of the Army, I am part of the military, I am an American. 

All of those self-identifications are pushed into you, while stuff like "I'm a rebellious douche-nozzle" tends to be removed. 

Now coming back to my particular experience and why it affects me today. I was socialized in a family led by a veteran and a navy kid. We were always pretty patriotic. As a result, I already felt I was part of this county, I saw myself in America. Going through Basic, I learned to see myself in the Army, but I also had something from my childhood reinforced. See, the Flag of the United States does not stand for its government, or its people, or its own existence. It stands for "the republic," meaning everything the United States is, was, and should be. So even when I saw a kid, I saw myself a little in that flag. 

In the military, they teach you the harsh realities of what you are signing up to do. One of those is simply this: if you die in uniform, your family may not receive a body, but they most definitely will receive a flag. When my father died, my mother was presented with his flag, the flag that had been there to represent the grateful nation, his service, and his life. That flag will never fly again. It will serve as a replacement for my father's physical form. And one day when I die, whoever I leave behind will probably receive one for me. 

See, quite unintentionally, I learned to see myself in the flag almost literally. The American Flag is as much a part of how I see myself as my faith, my height, even my name. I identify with that flag on a deep psychological and emotional level, and I am not the only one. Oh, no I am not talking about the people who, in violation of the flag code wear garments made to look like they were made of the flag, and wave the flag, and have "support the troops!" signs in their yard or whatever. Some of them may identify with the flag, but that's not who I'm talking about. 

I know that there are people like me who love this country, who want it to become the best country in the world, and live up to its promises like "liberty and justice for all." We don't use the flag to justify bad shit. In some ways, we see it as a promise that it is our duty to help fulfill. Because we're part of it. If America is not living up to its name, we're part of that. If America is grieving, we're part of that. If America is in crisis, we are part of that. And we are part of that flag. One day, that is all that will be left of us here. 

So when I see the flag purposely disrespected, dishonored, desecrated, it hurts. It falls like a blow to my heart, because even though I can understand that to the person doing it, it means something else, that's my family, my father, myself. I have no control over this, and I definitely didn't choose it, but it is part of who I am as a person, and since the only person it hurts is me, I don't see a reason to change it. 

I wrote this all out because someone asked me for an explanation as to why I would ask that original person to please, since it can't be flown any more, give it the basic respect of turning it in to be disposed of properly by either a military unit or a veterans organization. So the above is all the background on that explanation, but the final answer is shorter and simpler. 

If a person can, through little or no effort, do something that saves others from emotional pain, they should. It doesn't take much. If you know someone who has different preferred pronouns than you would normally use for them, it doesn't take much effort to use their preferred pronouns, and it saves them pain. If you know people who don't like you to use certain words around them, don't use them around them. If you might have the urge to use a racial slur in anger or jest, don't. It doesn't take much effort, and it saves other people pain. Whether you understand why that pain is there, or believe they are being reasonable or not, that pain is real, and a tiny bit of effort on your part leaves that much less pain in the world. 

You know what else is pretty easy to do? Follow the flag code. Believe it or not it does not require you to do anything unless you choose to own a flag. So if you don't like the flag, leave it alone. If you do like the flag, and you decide to get one, treat it with respect. If you did like the flag, but do so no longer, have it properly disposed of, and no, that does not mean just set it on fire, there is ceremony to go with it. Most military units and veterans organizations will do so for free if you don't want to do it yourself, just hand it off to them. The Flag Code does not require you to stand for the national anthem, or fly a flag of your own, or do anything to or for a flag that you are not otherwise responsible for, either by owning it or as part of your job. So, it doesn't take much effort to follow, believe me. And from that little bit of effort, you save people like me some pain. 

That being said, the Flag Code is a law in name only. Violating the flag code is protected speech, for the most part. It is your right to disrespect, dishonor, and desecrate the flag if you so choose. I took an oath to protect the constitution, I served knowing I was fighting for constitutional rights, and although seeing it happen hurts me and I don't like it, I will support your right to do it until the day I day. I do not condemn those who choose to act in this manner, because their speech is their business to control, not mine. So let me make this clear: do not attack someone for doing those things and say it's because of what I have shared with you here. That's not how this works. 

Here's how it works: if you have an opportunity to desecrate the flag or show it respect, you have to make the choice knowing that what you do has consequences beyond just you. Just like so many other choices, you are now better informed. My only request is simple: if you don't like the flag, please leave it alone. If you choose to have a flag, treat it properly. If you choose to rid yourself of a flag, please do so honorably. That is a request, not a demand. You may live your life as you see fit, but at least for me, I know that I have done what I can to help people understand why it means so much, and hurts so much, when I see that happen. 

Thanks for reading. God Bless You if you'll let Him, and have an otherwise great day. 

I Decided To Research Some History Tweets Making The Facebook Rounds

There's been a post featuring a bunch of screenshots of tweets making its way around Facebook, and when I saw it, I wanted to look into it. It was... educating. Painfully so. 

Warning: What is discussed here is gruesome.

Here are the screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/lzElGaP

I'm skeptical of twitter facts in general, so I did my homework. TLDR: most of these are directly true, some are partially true, and only a couple actually false, or rather, mislabeled. Most of what is described happened, most of what didn't happen as noted happened in another way, and the few things that are false are mostly false due to the wrong context. 

Skinned black people for leather: True (did not expect that one, to be honest, but yeah, lots of evidence to support it.)

Slashed pregnant women's bellies open... : True, though the only readily available record for it was considered, even at the time, to be an outlier. However, if it happened once, it probably happened more than once. For that case in particular, look up Mary Turner, but you won't like it. 

Forcing incest for slave breeding: True. Slave breeding programs were actually mentioned when I was in school, though obviously not in depth. Any form of forced sex can reasonably considered rape, so the characterization in the tweet is pretty accurate as well. 

Used slave teeth for dentures: True. Even the reply that George Washington's "Wooden Teeth" were harvested from slaves is true, the frame for them was wooden but the teeth were mostly real, human teeth, and his own plantation's records support the theory that they were taken from slaves. 

Created boxing by forcing slaves to fight: Partially true. Most commonly it wasn't anything like modern boxing, that actually goes back to the ancient Olympic games, if not farther. However, events called "Negro Battle Royales" (Pardon the language) were fairly common, some using soft weapons, some using bare knuckles. They were done for profit, and they were done for an audience. Very rarely, the winners might receive a prize. Forced fights between slaves is something common in any society with slavery, so it's not unreasonable to assume that if there are slaves, there are brutal fighting matches. 

Slave breeding farms: True. Can't really add to that, it's just definitely true. And horrifying. 

Tuskegee Experiment: It's full academic name was the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male." It's something covered in any class on medical ethics, and is horrifying. Short version: they injected otherwise healthy African American men with Syphilis, and watched them all die of it, to gather data. They did not tell the men that they were part of a study, much less what they were being injected with. The "participants" were lied to and murdered, bar none. 

James Marion Sims: This is the father of modern gynecology and he did not believe that Black women felt no pain, but he did believe Black people did not experience pain as White people did, which is bad enough on his own, but gets way worse when you find out that he would perform painful vaginal procedures and only give anesthetic to White women, forcing Black women to feel all the pain. 

Bronx Zoo: The Bronx Zoo was not a human zoo in that it did not have humans from the start and it did not feature only humans. It was meant to be a zoo where animals, rather than being in cages like in a circus, would be in a place more like their natural environment, using the land in the Bronx park to their advantage. HOWEVER, they did feature an "exhibit" that was a young man named "Ota Benga," labeling him as a Pygmy. He was a human in a zoo exhibit. In that way, for years, the Bronx Zoo was a human zoo. They even put him in with apes and monkeys, treating him as if he was a literally stupid animal. However, at that time, in 1906, there was an immediate reaction, including protests from ministers, against this. Still, it was allowed, so the fact that there were good people who publicly hated it doesn't mean there were any good people in power, and obviously not enough good people to change the minds of the operators of the zoo. 

Tied pregnant women to trees to have cats attack them: I couldn't find anything on this specifically, as stated before, there are records of very similar things happening. The treatment of pregnant slaves was just bad. Even when they were treated nicely, it was often due to concern about investment not in people. 

Hit the n****** baby game: Yeah, that was real. Old carnival games were pretty horrifying. 

Picnic: here's where the detail is false, but the overall horror is real. Picnic comes from the French word pique-nique, whose earliest usage in print is in the 1692 edition of Tony Willis, Origines de la Langue Française, which mentions pique-nique as being of recent origin. The term was used to describe a group of people dining in a restaurant who brought their own wine. That being said, lynches were treated as public events, like celebrations in many cases. The callous disregard for the fact that a person was murdered should be horrifying enough even without needing to state false etymology. 

Buck Breaking: This one was really difficult. There are two different narratives about this alleged practice, but neither has any sources or experts behind them. When historians were asked publicly, the consensus appears to be that it is a modern myth. That being said, sexual exploitation of slaves of both sexes by owners of both sexes was common, so it's not like by saying they didn't do this one really obviously bad thing doesn't mean they didn't do other really obviously bad things. 

Federal N****** hunting license: Not an actual license, and not that old. They may have shown up elsewhere, but we do know that they were reportedly sold at an annual party thrown by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) called “The Good Ol’ Boys Roundup” in 1995. That was not the only horrifyingly racist thing that happened at that event either. Look it up if you really want to know how horrible people were only 25 years ago, this is especially useful for people who, like I did not too long ago, struggle with the idea that racism is alive and well in the USA and didn't die with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

The Delectable Negro: it's a real book. It's well reviewed by academics, so it's probably accurate. I don't know what all is in it, but I promise you it will not save your faith in humanity. 

Lynching a federal crime in 2019: It's true. 120 years prior congress first considered anti-lynching laws. 120 years. And they finally passed something about it last year. 

Now, let's cover the overarching narrative, and why it matters: "They" did this to people, because of the color of their skin. Who are "They"? They are Americans, mostly slave owners (which apparently made up about 25% of the Southern White population), and the governments of those cities, counties, states, and our federal government. They were the norm, not the exception. They were also not unique to the USA, but it is the USA that we're talking about here. They ran our country even after slavery outside of criminals was abolished. They were participating in and had partial control over government events as recently as 1995, if not more recently. They are alive and well, though thankfully in much lower numbers than before. 

Why does this matter to "Us"? Well, for one, we are part of the legacy of "They." There are a lot of policies and practices that still exist that "they" made and/or influenced. There is work to be done to clean up "Their" mess as best as is possible, and "They" are not going to do it. We must. This narrative should not end simply with "Wow, people did bad stuff in the past." It should remind you first that people can and still do horrible things, second that those people and those things happened in our homes, our cities, our states, our nation, and third that we can still do better. It's important to remember that the USA has made the massive progress that it has, from federal law considering Black people to be livestock to the majority of our nation supporting efforts to ensure that Black people have an equal chance before the law compared to everyone else, in under 250 years. We're not done yet, and don't just sit there and pat yourself on the back, but we made progress, good progress, enough so that we can still push to keep that progress going. The problem isn't yet fixed, but neither has it not gotten better. The efforts of American heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have had an effect. The sacrifices of thousands of Americans in protesting, in facing police violence, in pushing for equality in all ways, have not been completely in vain. They handed us the torch, we just need to keep running with it, keep pushing forward, and one day we will, hopefully, be handing it off to future generations much closer to the finish line than we received it. 

I do not want to engender hatred for the USA by admitting the horrible things that happened on our watch, that our people did. I want those of us who love the USA to see this, to acknowledge that work has been done and must keep being done, and to make the USA the best country in the world, which means learning from our own history, our own horrors, and fixing what is left of them. Not forgetting them, or removing them from history, but putting them where they belong: in the past, and in a museum. In the future it should be shocking when students first learn about the horrors from our past because such things could "never" happen in a nation like the one we will continue to build. Let's work towards building that nation, shall we? 

Sources: 

Human Leather: https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2013/april.htm 

Mary Turner: http://www.maryturner.org/ 

George Washington's Teeth: https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/health/washingtons-teeth/george-washington-and-slave-teeth/ 

Slave battle royale: https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2014/may.htm 

Bronx Zoo: https://blogs.shu.edu/nyc-history/2017/11/07/bronx-zoo/ 

Bronx Zoo human exhibit: https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/newkirk-bronx-zoo-man-cage/index.html 

Bronx Zoo human exhibit: https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/features/human-zoos-a-shocking-history-of-shame-and-exploitation 

Racist carnival game: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/racist-carnival-game/ 

Picnic etymology: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/picnic-origin/ 

Picnic etymology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic#Etymology 

Buck Breaking probably false: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vicrb/buck_breaking_of_slaves/d5ytf6w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x 

Racist hunting license: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/missouri-licenses/ 

Breeding farms: https://medium.com/the-aambc-journal/americas-breeding-farms-what-history-books-never-told-you-6704e8b152a4 

Tuskegee study: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm 

J. Marion Sims Belief on Pain: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/19/fact-check-j-marion-sims-did-medical-experiments-black-female-slaves/3202541001/ 

Congress passes law on lynching: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-makes-lynching-federal-crime-65-years-after-emmett-till-n1143626