THE 1619 PROJECT

Reflection on essay by Linda Villarosa

In her editorial “Myths About the Physical Racial Differences Were Used to Justify Slavery and are Still

Believed by Doctors Today,” Linda Villarosa articulates her barney that the conviction of African Americans

being resistant to hurt, which emanated from bondage, is still practiced currently in the American healthcare

structure. She states in the time of captivity, racialism motivated all the perceptions that were generated regarding

blacks, which resulted to white slave owners and doctors to perform outrageously callous experimentations on

slaves. Its mentioned that contemporary white doctors incline to the conviction that black individual someway are

not much vulnerable to pain like the white folks since they possess a thicker skin. She trusts that the sever amid the

past myths and actual reality will bar doctors from doing an excellent job in the case of blacks, with many of the

black children and women not receiving enough treatment or the elderly being properly taken care of, like the

whites.

I intensely concur with the author’s point of argument in her essay. It’s evident that possessing a system

which was effected in the era of extreme racial discrimination against African-Americans will bear problems.

Those experiments that Hamilton conducted were exploited to additionally elucidate that black were completely

diverse species compared to Caucasian. Medical experiments and prescriptions do have to be founded on the

research of an individual that consciously vexed to enlighten how African Americans are not alike. His exploration

mentions that blacks were required to be lashed to remove Drapetomania, a disease he said prompted slaves to

defy and escape from their owners. This is an extreme form of racial discrimination on the African Americans. My

conviction is that medical experiments have to be evaluated exclusively on the patient's health context, and the

degree of their bodily and/or mental injuries. It is scary to imagine that another human being is undergoing

unprecedented pain for an illness while another is treated pain free. Additionally, it is distressing to see a substantial

percentage of doctors that are staunch to this notion. I also think that there’s need for awareness for some doctors
regarding this myth. While reading through, one can be able to spot several circumstances where black women

were neglected particularly in labor and is a section of the healthcare structure that requires transformation. It trust

there will be a lasting solution to this the authorities that care on humanity.
 Reflection on Essay by Jamelle Bouie

Maybe the duplicitous article is written by Jamelle Bouie who contends that the 2011 debt ceiling crisis

and the exploitation of filibuster by Sen. Mitch McConnell can be sourced back straight to the political ideology of

John C. Calhoun and the antebellum south secessionists. He goes on to writes that Barack Obama fashioned an

essential modification in the Republican Party that pledged itself to complete opposition and not only stalling

Obama but casting him as basically illegal and un-American. He mentions that he was selected by majority of the

public vote although the majority wasn’t enough. This was a similar r case where the confederates also felt the

same and that’s why the south seceded after Lincoln’s victory in 1860. Additionally, Calhoun formed the basis for

the secession several years prior to his dogma of the synchronized majority. Thus when McConnell obstructed

Obama’s judicial candidates, or when Republican state administrations transformed state campaign finance

decrees, or when Republicans (and only Republicans) participate in violent gerrymandering, they’re apparently

acting as the successors and victors of Calhoun’s bigoted, secessionist political philosophy.

That’s essentially Bouie’s argument in his essay titled, “America holds onto an undemocratic assumption

from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others.” The author himself doesn’t belief in his

ideology yielding in his closing paragraph that he hasn’t actually made an argument by mentioning that; “You

could make the case that none of this has anything to do with slavery and slaveholder ideology. You could argue

that it has nothing to do with race at all, that it’s simply an aggressive effort to secure conservative victories.”

Although it is difficult to comprehend why one would attribute conventional political intentions when one can

distort history to sustain a racism and ‘slaveholder philosophy’ accusation? Reflect Bouie’s handling of Calhoun, a

character the left frantically wishes to associate with Republicans although whose heritage is currently thriving.

The author either ignored or is unaware of the manner in which Calhoun’s radical thought harshly diverges from

that of the American Forefathers. The political theorist Harry V. Jaffa has elucidated in some aspect how

Calhoun’s rule of the coexisting majority—that specific minority factions like slave states, had the liberty to veto or
invalidate verdicts of the popular—was intended to undercut the logical basis for American constitutionalism and

switch it with a philosophy founded on the faddish knowledge of Darwinism and race concept.