2
The San Diego Monitor
Interesting Facts about the Underground Railroad Its most famous conductor was Harriet Tubman. The Underground Railroad (UR) was not underground nor was it a railroad. It was called “underground” because of its secretive nature and “railroad” because it was an emerging form of transportation. The UR was an informal network and had many routes. Most routes went to northern states and after 1850, to Canada. Others went south to Mexico or the Caribbean. Historians estimate that about 100,000 slaves escaped using the UR network. Most actions by people who helped slaves escape were spontaneous actions of generosity. They were women, men, children, white and black. A lot of them were Quakers and Methodists.
Railroad language was adopted as secret codes use by agents, station masters, conductors, operators, stockholders and all of those involved in saving slaves. Coded song were used by slaves. Levi Coffin was known as the “President of the Underground Railroad” and his home as the “Grand Station of the Underground Railroad”. The history of the UR goes back to the 1780s and became known as such in the 1830s. It reached its height in the 1850s and ended in 1863 when President Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation. The most famous supporters of the UR are: Harriet Tubman, Levi Coffin, William Still, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Garrett, William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Samuel Green, Gerrit Smith, Lucrecia Coffin Mott among others. UR stations had secret hideouts such as passages, basements, cellars and hidden compartments in cupboards where slaves were safely hidden. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made it more difficult for slaves to escape. The law allowed for slaves to be returned to their masters even though they were in a free state. The final destination became Canada. Under the Fugitive Slave Act any person who was caught helping a slave escape or offering shelter could be send to jail for 6 months or subjected to a $1,000 fine.
3
The San Diego Monitor
HARRIET The decision to cast Cynthia Erivo as Harriet Tubman in the Harriet biopic is continuing to spark controversy. Many people are upset that the producers cast a British Actress instead of an African American actress to portray one of America's greatest heroes. The backlash has even brought up old tweets from Erivo mocking a "ghetto American accent," which has several critics threatening a boycott of the upcoming highly anticipated biopic. On the other side of the argument, Harriet is generating Academy Awards buzz due to Erivo's performance. The Harriet trailer was released earlier in July and some people can't get past the fact that Cynthia Erivo is a British Actress. This isn't a new thing for the movie. The controversy first arose back in September 2018 when it was first announced Erivo was cast in the role and it has risen back up with the recent trailer reveal. "We will not allow the hype of a prestige film to compromise our sacred ancestor Harriet's legacy," says one critic on social media, which also includes the hashtag, "Harriet Deserves Better." The same person had this to say.
"So once again, Harriet Tubman's life is an expression of so much that makes African-American descendants of chattel slavery a unique people with a unique lineage, culture & history... How can you portray her when you dismiss and disrespect that unique lineage, culture and history?"
The "Harriet Deserves Better" hashtag has started trending on social media as more people chime in about the Harriet casting in the biopic. A similar situation popped up when British actor Daniel Kaluuya was cast in Get Out, Jordan Peele's horror movie about racism in America. However, people seem to more upset with Cynthia Erivo's casting in Harriet. One critic explains. "Yea, I ain't watching this either. We are tired of our American roles going to people who don't have the same lineage of the characters they are portraying. It's like a dog playing the role of a cat." Cynthia Erivo's past tweets mocking American culture is another reason critics want to boycott Harriet, with many quoting the aforementioned "ghetto American accent" tweet. Whatever the case may be, there are more people who are completely fine with the situation and see some Academy Awards in the future for Harriet and star Erivo. Making the movie in the first place is a controversial decision because it's going to be hard to get it right and satisfy everybody. Cynthia Erivo has already won Emmy, Grammy, and Tony awards for her work on Broadway's The Color Purple. This means she's only an Oscar away from joining the rare EGOT club and it's starting to look like Harriet might bring her the last award she needs. With that being said, the controversy of her casting is still causing controversy online. You can check out the trailer below, thanks to the Focus Features YouTube channel, along with some critical tweets.
4
The San Diego Monitor
What do They Want To KNOW? What Everyone Needs to Know About 2020 Census Questions
By law, the U.S. government is required to count the number of people living in the United States every 10 years. Getting an accurate count is important because census numbers impact daily life in the United States in many ways. For example, census data are often used to determine how much federal funding is allocated for important projects and services that benefit local communities. The census also plays a vital role in our nation’s system of government by determining how many representatives will be sent to Congress from each state. Because getting an accurate count is so important, the process is designed to be fast, easy, and safe. On average, it takes no more than 10 minutes to answer the questions on the census. How Are Census Data Collected?
During the first census in 1790, census takers visited nearly every U.S. home to gather data. In 2020, households will have the option of responding online, by mail, or by phone. The Census Bureau expects many households to complete the questionnaire online, using instructions received in the mail. These instructions will also include information about how to respond by phone. Some households will receive a printed questionnaire which they can mail, postage-free, back to the
Be Counted! SDMNEWS’S Motivation Information
Census Bureau. A small percentage of households, primarily located in remote areas of the country, will be visited by a census taker who will help collect the necessary information to complete the form. Who Receives the Census Questionnaire and How Is It Filled Out? Most housing units in the United States that receive mail at their physical location will receive a letter by mail with instructions on how to complete the census questionnaire. Housing units include houses, apartments, cabins, mobile homes—pretty much any place where people live in the United States. In areas where the majority of housing units do not have mail delivered to their physical location, census workers will leave questionnaire packages at every identified housing unit. The census process also includes special provisions to count people who are homeless and those in other types of living quarters, such as college dorms, military barracks, ships, prisons, nursing homes, and homeless shelters. The person in the housing unit who fills out the census questionnaire or talks to the census taker is known as Person 1. Typically, Person 1 is the owner/co-owner or renter/corenter of the housing unit. READ MORE sdmonitornews.com
5
The San Diego Monitor
SDMNEWS Must Read 2020 CA Census Guide Table of Contents Section 1: General Information (PDF) •
Initiative and Referendum Qualification Requirements
•
Candidate Qualifications and Information
Section 2: Nomination Requirements (PDF) •
Presidential Candidates
•
United States Representative in Congress, and Member of the State Legislature Candidates
•
Nomination Documents – Nomination Papers and Declaration of Candidacy
•
Signatures In Lieu of Filing Fee
•
Signatures In Lieu of Filing Fee and/or Nomination Papers
•
Ballot Designations
•
In General
•
Campaign Filings and Responsibilities
•
Candidate Intention Statement
•
Campaign Contribution Account
•
Exceptions
•
Additional Filing Information
Section 3: Candidate Filing Information (PDF) •
Required Filing Fees, Nomination Signatures
•
Write-In Candidates for the Office of President
•
Write-In Candidates for Voter-Nominated Offices
In-Lieu
Signatures,
Section 4: Candidate Checklist (PDF) •
President of the United States
•
United States Representative in Congress
For download please go to www.sdmonitornews.com
and
6
The San Diego Monitor
The U.S. Supreme Court Decided to Ignore Black Hair Discrimination representative job at CMS after being selected from a pool of Black women may continue to be discriminated against even though having traditionally Black hairstyles has no bearing on a person’s fitness for a particular job. Though we have made states like California ban hair discrimination, the highest court in the land ignored it. Black hair discrimination in the workplace is real, and the U.S. Supreme Court just rejected an opportunity to address it. The Court refused to consider a lawsuit against Catastrophe Management Systems (CMS) alleging that Chastity Jones, a Black woman, suffered racial discrimination when CMS rescinded a job offer because Jones wouldn’t cut off her dreadlocks. The facts of the case, as outlined in court documents, are these: In 2010, Jones interviewed for a customer service
online applicants. She arrived for the interview wearing her hair in short dreadlocks. After Jones was offered the job, the company’s HR manager, Jeannie Wilson, told Jones that CMS could not hire her “with the dreadlocks.” When Jones asked her why, Wilson told her, “They tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about,” the lawsuit says. Jones declined to change her hair. At the time, CMS interpreted its hairstyle policy—which said that an employee’s “hairstyle should reflect a business/professional image” and that “[n]o excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable”—as banning dreadlocks. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jones, alleging that CMS had subjected her to racial discrimination in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. NEXT PAGE
7
The San Diego Monitor
The EEOC argued that race doesn’t have a biological definition and is a social construct, and that race is not defined or limited by immutable characteristics. Instead, the EEOC alleged that race can also encompass “cultural characteristics related to race or ethnicity,” including “grooming practices”; and that even though some nonBlack people’s hair texture can lock, “dreadlocks are nonetheless a racial characteristic, just as skin color is a racial characteristic.” U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Butler Jr. disagreed in 2014 and dismissed the lawsuit. The EEOC appealed. In 2016, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling dismissing the case, stating that the EEOC “did not state a plausible claim that CMS intentionally discriminated against Ms. Jones because of her race.” The EEOC asked for a rehearing en banc, which the 11th Circuit denied in December 2017. In its denial, the 11th Circuit agreed with the three-judge panel: “[D]ismissing the complaint was the correct legal call.
Under our precedent, banning dreadlocks in the workplace under a race-neutral grooming policy—without more—does not constitute intentional race-based discrimination.” After losing the appeal, the EEOC decided not to take the case to the Supreme Court. It is unclear why: Perhaps the EEOC thought it had no chance of success, or perhaps personnel changes at the EEOC made the agency under Trump more hostile to Jones’ claims than it was under Obama. And because of a procedural quirk in the way the lawsuit was brought—the EEOC was the plaintiff and not Jones herself—Jones could not herself appeal to the Supreme Court. So that Jones could continue to vindicate her civil rights claims, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF) filed a motion with the Court earlier this year asking that Jones be allowed to intervene and appeal the case to the Supreme Court. (A motion to intervene asks a court to allow a nonparty to the lawsuit to join the lawsuit without permission of the original plaintiff or the defendants.)
WWW.SDMONITORNEWS.COM