Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: April 26, 2024, 10:28:39 pm »

It's the American Democrats who want to preserve slavery, with democratic and utilitarian ideas

Quote
While other political, economic, and social issues have mattered more or less over the years, white supremacy has been the organizing principle of American politics before America even existed. Of course, your raggedy history book will explain how the nation’s first two political factions, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, was about representation, states’ rights, and taxation, and not humanity or white supremacy. They’ll say the Federalists wanted a strong federal government, a national army, and a central bank that handled the country’s debts, while the Anti-Federalists favored states’ rights, a weaker executive branch, and a government that wasn’t dominated by New England merchants and Northern aristocrats.

But a lot of the beef was about slavery. Even though many Federalists owned slaves, Anti-Federalists were afraid that a strong federal government dominated by Northern aristocrats could essentially ban the institution. They wanted their new nation to treat in the manner suggested by a more beloved group of men known as the Isley Brothers once suggested, “It’s your thing, do what you wanna do.” And so they compromised. Ultimately, the new Constitution of the United States of America actually told the states who to sock it to.

After the Founders signed away two-fifths of Black people’s humanity in exchange for political expediency, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists formed into two parties. The Federalists became the Federalist Party. They were religiously puritanical, pro–big government, and strong in New England. The Anti-Federalists became the Democrat-Republicans, a party that favored an agrarian economy, smaller government, and states retaining more rights.* It is important to note that neither party was overly concerned with the abolition of slavery. Each had anti-slavery factions, but aside from the New England states that had abolished slavery, the
 Democrat-Republican Party dominated early American politics. By the election of 1824, the Federalist Party had collapsed, and the Democrat- Republicans had splintered into factions.

Andrew Jackson actually won the popular vote in 1824 and had more electoral votes, but because none of the candidates (all of whom were Democrat-Republicans) won a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elected New Englander John Quincy Adams as president. After the “corrupt bargain,” Jackson desperately wanted a rematch against John Q. But Johnny was already the Democrat-Republican nominee, so Jackson’s homeboys from Tennessee took their horses down to Old Town Road and nominated him for president under the banner of the Jackson party. When Jackson beat the brakes off John Quincy Adams in the rematch, Jackson’s conservative, pro-slavery supporters created a political organization called the “Democrats.” At their inaugural convention in 1840, the Democratic Party adopted its first official platform, resolving that “all efforts of the abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery . . . have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.”4 The Democrats’ main platform centered around the concept of “nullification”—the idea that states had the right to invalidate laws they deemed unconstitutional. Of course, the only law they wanted to nullify was the one about owning human beings. Democrats thought the federal government should leave those decisions up to the states.*

It is true that the Republican Party was founded on the principles of anti-slavery. Founded in 1854, the GOP’s only real concern was stopping the expansion of owning men.* They were so in favor of ending America’s peculiar institution that members were often called “Black Republicans” as a slur. And trust me, they weren’t talking about Kanye West. Republicans also elected the first woman to Congress, supported Black suffrage, and pushed for civil rights legislation before Martin Luther King was born.5 The Civil War, in effect, was a clash over the evolution of America’s two political parties—one that wanted the right to own men and another that vehemently opposed the possession of human beings by others.

Source :

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 322 - 323
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 25, 2024, 08:54:57 pm »

Confrontative, not Democratic Method which Ending American Slavery

Quote
When the fighting started, Union military leaders were unprepared for the influx of escaped slaves ready to open long-preserved cans of whoop-ass on their pro slavery taskmasters. The debate over the legal status of “contrabands” like Robert Smalls was as contentious as the ongoing debate over the value of Black Lives. In 1861, Frank Baker, James Townsend, and Shepard Mallory stole a skiff near the spot where the White Lion landed with the first enslaved Africans in America. The enslaved men had been leased to the Confederate army to defend batteries in Virginia; instead, they rowed to Union-occupied Fort Monroe and presented themselves to Major General Benjamin Butler. When scouts informed Confederate major John B. Cary about the escape, he requested the return of his leased “property.” Butler refused.* Trained as an attorney, Butler explained to the un-American troop leader that since Virginia considered itself an enemy combatant, the rules of war dictated that the men were now property seized during formal hostilities. Following Butler’s informal declaration, Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861, stripping Confederate volunteers and their co-conspirators of their enslaved property that managed to reach Union-occupied spaces

A few months later, Union major general David Hunter issued General Order No. 11, declaring:

The three States of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, comprising the military department of the South, having deliberately declared themselves no longer under the protection of the United States of America, and having taken up arms against the said United States, it becomes a military necessity to declare them under martial law. This was accordingly done on the 25th day of April, 1862. Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these three States—Georgia, Florida and South Carolina— heretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free.17

According to established military tradition, Butler and Hunter were technically correct, but the implications were enormous. If the runaways were “contraband of war,” then, by extension, the army, not Lincoln, held authority in the Confederate States of America. Butler and Hunter’s acts incensed Lincoln. He had no intention of wading into the fight over slavery, knowing it would exacerbate the resistance of the already incorrigible slaveholding states. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” Lincoln explained to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”18 Lincoln quickly rescinded Hunter’s order, but it was too late. The Confederate States were officially recognized as a separate entity.

But General Hunter’s controversial order that would eventually set Lincoln, Congress, and the Union forces on the path toward enlisting free Black recruits and emancipating slaves was not his own idea. Hunter often consulted with a battlefield nurse who had been helping slaves flee to freedom, enlarging Hunter’s crew of renegade soldiers. Hunter had even been paying her, but after the army stopped Hunter from recruiting Black soldiers, she gave up her salary so she wouldn’t be seen as Hunter’s favorite. Instead, she baked pies in the evening to sell to the white soldiers. Reenter Harriet Tubman. The famed conductor of the Underground Railroad was instrumental in Hunter’s success in the South. Tubman’s years of experience facilitating escapes gave Hunter access to a veritable super-soldier. Tubman could map the terrain for other troops, gather intelligence from the enslaved, and lead reconnaissance missions without being detected. Clearly understanding the advantage Black soldiers gave the Union, Hunter continued to antagonize the treasonous Southerners, enlisting their fugitive slaves to fight against them.

Source :

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 156, 157, 158
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 25, 2024, 08:41:03 pm »

American Anti-Discrimination Idealism Cannot Came from Moderatist Approach

Quote
Calhoun was arguably one of the most powerful men in antebellum politics, having served as a congressman, senator, secretary of war, secretary of state, and two terms as vice president. In 1828, Calhoun penned the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which introduced the idea that states could nullify federal laws, including tariffs, treaties, and taxes that unfairly burdened the states that benefited from free labor—the earliest rumbles of the region’s aversion to “big government” policies that interfere with “states’ rights” and “the Southern way of life.” If the South conceded to “big government” and the campaign against the institution of forced labor, then the federal government could theoretically outlaw human trafficking altogether. John Calhoun wouldn’t have it. South Carolina had already effectively nullified a federal judge’s anti-slavery decision and other states took notice.

Eventually, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas passed laws that were identical to the Negro Seaman Act, effectively nullifying a federal judge’s decision. In the Kansas and Missouri Territories, a five-year war between 1854 and 1859 had erupted over the possibility of slavery expanding into new states. At the heart of the conflict was whether Kansas would outlaw slavery when it became a state or ban the institution like its southern neighbor Missouri. As Congress debated the matter, proslavery Border Ruffians went to war against anti-slavery “Free Staters” to voice their opinion on the issue in the most American way possible: killing anyone who disagreed. The white-on-white violence even erupted in Congress.

The “Radical” wing of the newly organized Republican Party was comprised of a few anti-slavery politicians who understood that war was the only way to eradicate such a profitable enterprise. While some white abolitionists opposed race-based servitude, most Republicans simply wanted to preserve the union of settler states they called “America.” Contrary to the dominant white-people-fought-to-end-slavery narrative, few, if any, white men were willing to donate their lives to the cause of a free African American. Just as the Founding Fathers acquiesced to the South and excluded Black people from the “all men are created equal” when initiating the American experiment, most political leaders wanted to figure out a way to avoid a North vs. South showdown, even if it meant denying Black people’s freedom. This centrist sentiment resulted in the election of President Abraham Lincoln, who admitted that his “paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”4

Lincoln calmed fears of disunion by insisting that he had no plans to elevate Black Americans, free or enslaved, to the status of white men. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races,” he said in an 1858 speech. “I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”5

Once again, I need to emphasize this: no one, not the Northern abolitionists, Lincoln, the Union army, the Confederate turncoats, or the slaves themselves, saw the inevitable showdown as a battle to end slavery. “Neither North nor South had before 1861 the slightest intention of going to war,” wrote Du Bois. “The thought was in many respects ridiculous. They were not prepared for War. The national army was small, poorly equipped, and without experience. There was no file from which someone might draw plans of subjugation. When Northern armies entered the South, they became armies of emancipation. It was the last thing they planned to be. The North did not propose to attack property. It did not propose to free slaves. This was to be a white man’s War to preserve the Union, and the Union must be preserved.”6

To explain how the country broke this intractable stalemate, historians often point to Lincoln’s election, the Nullification Crisis, Bleeding Kansas, the Missouri Compromise, or any number of social, political, and economic factors that supposedly set the nation on the path toward the War for White Rights. Rarely mentioned are the Black revolutionaries who escalated the national discord and further radicalized abolitionists and political figures of the period until the incongruity of a democracy that allowed human captivity could no longer be ignored.

...

There are some who cannot wait for change and pledge themselves to the cause of dismantling the status quo with their own hands. When they are white, we refer to them as “patriots” or “freedom fighters.” When they are Black, these unswerving agitators are most frequently painted as “thugs” or criminals. But if the informal nation within a nation known as Black America ever existed, then the preternatural instinct for survival and resistance that resides in the souls of Black folk at that time must be described as a unique form of patriotism. They were more radical than all of the Republicans combined, and they were the driving force of the Southern economy. They were at once powerful and oppressed . . . until they freed themselves and, in doing so, saved America. They could not wait for deliverance, so they undid their own shackles. History is written by the victors, but it is made by the rebellious. This chapter is an ode to the great Black American Revolution: After Jemmy. After Denmark Vesey. After Nat Turner. After Black people, and each of their small-scale uprisings and individual acts of desertion. All of them.

Previously, we’d talked about the American Revolution as the largest Black uprising, but perhaps the greatest insurrection in America was ultimately the slow, steady trickle of men and women who used the Underground Railroad to secure their freedom. While history portrays the network of safe houses, abolitionists, and conspirators as clandestine and secretive, the real Underground Railroad used every available means, public and private, to transform slaves to free men. Sometimes they secreted slaves to Canada, while other times the buck contingent chose the path of knucking. The tactics of the Black abolitionists frequently escalated to the point where white abolitionists disavowed their more radical Black counterparts.

Take, for example, the case of Shadrach Minkins. When white abolitionist lawyers failed to successfully represent escapee Minkins, the first person in New England seized under the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, Boston’s Black leaders came up with a different plan. A gang of “outraged black men” burst into the courtroom, faces disguised, and wrestled Minkins away from federal marshals. Hiding him in a basement, the outlaws eventually helped the fugitive escape to Canada.7 Nine “African American activists”8—including Robert Morris, the second Black man admitted to the Massachusetts bar—were indicted and tried for treason, but were ultimately acquitted on all counts. This type of action was the Underground Railroad, too.

Others, after Jemmy, Nat Turner, and Denmark Vesey, tried to jump-start nationwide revolts where Black captives took up arms and went Stono on the slaveholders. John Brown’s brazen attack on the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, on October 16, 1859, is often cited as the Civil War’s first unofficial battle. Brown, a white abolitionist, alongside a crew of around twenty insurgents, attempted to initiate an uprising, but they were quickly snuffed out by a company of U.S. Marines. These freedom fighters were later tried, and Brown was hanged along with his co-conspirators

Brown was perceived as a tragic but delusional white man by those who were too blind to see that a reckoning was coming. Many Southerners took the incident as proof their captive property was not interested in taking up arms to fight. “By the confession of Brown it appears that the slaves were not parties to the plot, which, however, was concocted with the expectation that they would rise by thousands, and join in it as soon as the first blow was struck; in which hope the conspirators were signally disappointed,” read an editorial in the Kentucky Commonwealth. “For one, we do not believe that many even of the most radical Abolitionists were encouraged in it.”9

...

Continued revolts, escapes, and acts of rebellion didn’t just bring the country closer to civil war—these incidents helped secure victory for the Union, although that was never the main goal of the enslaved. Again, the slaves were on the side of freedom. Just as the throwdown between the Patriots and the Loyalists provided an excuse for Africans to liberate themselves during the Revolutionary War, the political and economic arguments between the Southern slavemasters and the Union preservationists were immaterial to the Black bondsmen held captive below the Mason- Dixon. For them, armed conflict provided the perfect opportunity for emancipation, by any means necessary.

Given a choice between being part of America and owning slaves, the South chose treason and secession, sending the nation into what still stands as the bloodiest war in the history of this country. This war was won through the efforts of the escaped slaves, whose mere absence would eventually cause the economic collapse of the Southern empire. Yet when their War for Unending Enslavement began, the South considered their human property an advantage. While there is no evidence of Black soldiers fighting on behalf of the Confederacy, enslaved men and women were used as cooks, laborers, and personal attendants in the military. In many respects, it was these very Black people they forced into labor who best undermined the Confederate States’ military efforts.

Source :

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 150, 151, 152, 153, 155

Sentences given in red color and bold show that moderate and democratic methods cannot enforce anti-discrimination idealism towards people, whereas sentences given in blue color and bold show that authoritative and confrontative method can enforce anti-discrimination idealism towards people.
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 25, 2024, 05:38:04 pm »

Quote
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the bonds of servitude which have failed to define their existence, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of history requires that they should declare the causes which impelled them to their actions.

Only we held these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are— no, that we are—endowed by their creator of all things with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are the only ones who ever believed that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their authority from the consent of the governed. We do not consent.

Whenever any form of government becomes untenable of these ends, it has been the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it has always been the right and the duty of the people to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such was the simmering long-suffering of African people in America. Their existence on this continent is a story of enslavement, oppression, and the most prolonged, undemocratic, heartless treatment of men, women, and children in the history of the human species. In every stage of those oppressions, the subjugated people collectively petitioned for redress in the most humble of terms. Their repeated petitions were answered only by repeated injury. Thus, a country whose national character is marked by every act that may define tyranny is unfit to rule a people. Nor were the oppressed wanting in attention from White America. The enslavers and their advocates were warned, from time to time, of attempts to extend the already unwarrantable jurisdiction over the permanently indentured population. They were reminded of the circumstances of their forcibly enslaved, who appealed to their native justice and magnanimity. The bondsmen conjured them by the ties of their freed kinsmen, their radical allies, and their common humanity to disavow the institution. Yet they too were deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. And so, this immature infant nation being impervious to reason, logic, compassion, and self-realization, there came no other choice. The men for whom this country had withheld liberty and justice since the day it was founded had to save America from itself. They wanted that smoke.

—“The Unanimous Declaration of ‘These Hands’ by the Black Folks of America”

Source :

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 148
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: March 21, 2024, 06:18:40 pm »

Quote
SUPPLEMENT

THE UNENSLAVING OF JEMMY

At daybreak on Sunday, September 9, 1739, twenty or so Africans gathered at the Stono River, about twenty miles from Charleston. At least nineteen were Angolan, and their acknowledged leader was a man named Jemmy. Despite being thousands of miles from the West African region where he was born, Jemmy had a warped familiarity with the environment: the climate, soil, and topography of South Carolina were similar to his homeland, as were the people. At the time, only fifteen thousand of the state’s forty-five thousand citizens were white, so even in America, Jemmy was surrounded by Black faces.1 His status as a warrior, a fearless leader, and a fellow African convinced his co-conspirators that they could overcome all the wrath and retribution that all the white gods could summon. They held the power.

Before his capture, Jemmy could not have fathomed such an inhumane institution as the enslavement system that lay beyond the horizon of the African coast. Even though there was slavery in Africa, America’s version was intergenerational, unending, and, by definition, reduced humans to a form of animate chattel. Although he was now a bondservant who was likely literate in at least three languages, including English, Portuguese, and his native tongue, some historians believe Jemmy probably served as a Kongol or Angolan warrior who was captured and sold during an incursion with a neighboring kingdom. He was likely trained in combat, strategy, and the tactics of war. Jemmy was a leader. He was a man. He was a human being. Above all, Jemmy was not a slave.

Plus, Jemmy knew things. Jemmy knew that a recent malaria outbreak had decimated Charleston. His linguistic flexibility allowed him to communicate without fear of the uneducated white men who knew nothing of rice or cattle. This ability to speak Portuguese meant he probably understood the Spanish agents sneaking through plantations, spreading rumors that enslaved people would be free if they could make it to the free Black community of Fort Mose in Spanish Florida. Jemmy the Rebel knew that the healthy white Charlestonians would be in church on Sunday for the annual Feast of the Nativity of Mary. He knew that South Carolina had just passed a law that required every free white man to carry a firearm. He also knew the law wouldn’t go into effect for two more weeks. He knew a just God would eventually give him freedom. He knew the white men never would.

But Jemmy could not wait for God or white men. He didn’t just want to be free himself. Jemmy wanted everyone to be free. And Jemmy had a plan. Jemmy’s crew met before daybreak on September 9, 1739, and knew exactly where they were going. After crossing the Stono Bridge, they broke into a hardware store and armory that sold guns and munitions. They executed the two shopkeepers, decapitated them, confiscated the firearms, and kept things moving. The group proceeded to the plantation owned by the Godfrey family, killing the owner and his two children. When they arrived at Wallace’s Tavern before dawn, they didn’t murder the innkeeper, because, according to Jemmy’s co-conspirators, Wallace was “a good man and kind to his slaves.”2

He would be the only white man spared.

By daybreak, the makeshift army had traveled only three miles of the 150 to Fort Mose, and yet the group had doubled in size. Some of their newly emancipated cohorts had joined voluntarily, while others were conscripted into teaming up with the rebels to keep the news from spreading. By eleven o’clock, somewhere between sixty and one hundred Africans were on the prowl, flying a banner, playing drums, dancing, and chanting, “Liberty.” People who were lucky enough to escape the group’s wrath reported that the rebels were drunk, unaware that war dancing was a form of communication in the West African military tradition that had survived by embedding itself in the Gullah-Geechee culture.

By late afternoon, after traveling ten miles, the troops paused in an open field before crossing the Edisto River, likely calculating that word of their previous handiwork would cause other enslaved Africans to join their ranks during the night. They weren’t worried about being caught. They had killed every white man who laid eyes on them, except for one who spotted them just before noon. They had chased him, but he was on horseback and escaped. Unfortunately, the “one guy” who got away was William Bull, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina.

When an impromptu white militia summoned by Bull found the selffreed slaves, a battle broke out.* Twenty whites were killed, and at least thirty of the Black militia died, while others were captured, imprisoned, and interrogated. The murdered insurgents were decapitated and their heads affixed to posts entering the city—a practice that would become an American tradition.

The incident inspired fear across South Carolina. For months, wives and daughters of slaveowners were moved out of the state. The state assembly raised a special patrol along the Stono River and offered rewards to natives if they captured escaped Africans, but their efforts were largely unsuccessful. One of the initial twenty leaders remained at large for at least twenty years.

The Stono Rebellion changed the face of slavery in the slave capital of the world and, by proxy, in America as a whole. As a result of it, whites temporarily paused the slave trade for a decade, blaming the violence on the fact that these rebels were born in Africa. In its wake, white entrepreneurs formed a new industry by creating American-born slaves. Masters encouraged reproduction among the slaves they already owned, while slave traders traveled the country buying human beings from estate sales, auctions, and indebted enslavers. When the transatlantic slave trade eventually reopened, they avoided the Congo-Angola region because, the geniuses concluded, it wasn’t the brutal idea of perpetual, intergenerational human bondage that had caused Jemmy and his friends to lash out. Apparently, it was geography.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of Jemmy’s war were the draconian measures the legislature put forth to replace South Carolina’s 1696 slave code. The post-Stono legislation forbade slaves from growing their own food, earning money, learning to write, or gathering in groups of three or more. It prohibited Black males from traveling together in groups of seven or more without the presence of a white man. It also gave owners the right to kill any enslaved person who was rebellious, and went as far as to regulate which colors and fabrics an enslaved Black person could wear. It was a legal code of complete and total oppression. Because white people were the minority, South Carolina’s white population used cruelty as a tool to suppress their worst fears.

Nearly every state’s laws governing the enslaved were based, in part, on the Negro Act of 1740, proving that the uniquely American version of human subjugation was never just a thoughtless experiment. It was ingrained in the fabric of America. It was intentional: a color-coded, neverending, legally protected, constitutionally enshrined system of human trafficking that extorted labor, intellectual property, and talent in the most brutal way imaginable. It was born out of fear and white supremacy. And yet with all the enlightened philosophies, whips, and muskets this country could muster . . .

It still could not make a slave.

Source :

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 67 - 70

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 28, 2023, 01:31:57 am »

Quote
Ultimately the South was caught in an untenable situation: it could not at the same time suppress over one-third of its population and fight a war against a larger, stronger power. As W.E.B. DuBois put it in Black Reconstruction in America:

It was not the Abolitionist alone who freed the slaves. The Abolitionists never had a real majority of the people of the United States back  of them. Freedom for the slave was the logical result of a crazy attempt to wage war in the midst of four million Black slaves, and trying the while sublimely to ignore the interests of the slaves in the outcome of the fighting. Yet, these slaves had enormous power in  their hands. Simply by stopping work, they could threaten the Confederacy with starvation. By walking into the Federal camps, they  showed to doubting Northerners the easy possibility of using them as workers, and as servants, as farmers, and as spies, and finally, as fighting soldiers. And not only using them thus, but by the same gesture, depriving their enemies of their use in just these fields. It was the fugitive slave who made the slaveholders face the alternative of surrendering to the North, or to the Negroes.114

To an important extent, therefore, the Black slaves of the South used the  trauma of civil war to free themselves.

Source :

White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall 2021 Princeton University Press page 183, 184
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: October 22, 2023, 11:08:46 am »

The correct way to see Western Civilization :

Quote
The whites have always been an unjust, jealous, unmerciful, avaricious and blood-thirsty set of beings, always seeking after power and authority.-We view them all over the confederacy of Greece, where they were first known to be anything, (in consequence of education) we see them there, cutting each other's throats-trying to subject each other to wretchedness and misery-to effect which, they used all kinds of deceitful, unfair, and unmerciful means. We view them next in Rome, where the spirit of tyranny and deceit raged still higher. We view them in Gaul, Spain, and Britain.-In fine, we view them all over Europe, together with what were scattered about in Asia and Africa, as heathens, and we see them acting more like devils than accountable men.

It is not a little remarkable, that in the nineteenth century a remnant of this same barbarous people should boast of their national superiority of intellect, and of wisdom and religion; who, in the seventeenth century, crossed the Atlantic and practised the same crime their barbarous ancestry had done in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: bringing with them the same boasted spirit of enterprise; and not unlike their fathers, staining their route with blood, as they have rolled along, as a cloud of locusts, toward the West. The late unholy war with the Indians, and the wicked crusade against the peace of Mexico, are striking illustrations of the nobleness of this race of people, and the powers of their mind.- David Walker (September 28, 1796 – August 6, 1830), American abolitionist, writer, and anti-slavery activist.

...

...by the dint of war, and the destruction of the vanquished, since the founding of London, A. D. 49. Their whole career presents a motley mixture of barbarism and civilization, of fraud and philanthropy, of patriotism and avarice, of religion and bloodshed . . . . And instead of their advanced state in science being attributable to a superior development of intellectual faculties, . . . it is solely owing to . . .their innate thirst for blood and plunder..:2. - Hosea Easton, (1798–1837), American Congregationalist and Methodist minister, abolitionist activist, and author.

Source :

The History of White People by Neil Irvin Painter page 88, 89, 90

About David Walker :

Quote
David Walker (September 28, 1796 – August 6, 1830)[a] was an American abolitionist, writer, and anti-slavery activist. Though his father was enslaved, his mother was free; therefore, he was free as well (partus sequitur ventrem). In 1829, while living in Boston, Massachusetts, with the assistance of the African Grand Lodge (later named Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Jurisdiction of Massachusetts), he published An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World,[4] a call for black unity and a fight against slavery.

Source :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walker_(abolitionist)

About Hosea Easton :

Quote
Hosea Easton (1798–1837) was an American Congregationalist and Methodist minister, abolitionist activist, and author. He was one of the leaders of the convention movement in New England.[1]

Source :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosea_Easton

The sad thing about their struggle's history :

Quote
Despite their pungency, neither Walker's Appeal nor Easton's Treatise on the Intellectual Character ever truly penetrated the public consciousness at home or in Europe during the nineteenth century. The visibility of Walker's Appeal grew in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, but never approached the reputation of the champion of foreign analysts.

Source :

The History of White People by Neil Irvin Painter page 90

That's the reason for the need of United States to be controlled autocratically by the leftist, to ensure the leftism ideas control the society.

109 years later

Quote
As for the fact, however, that one nation in Africa is alleged have lost its freedom – that too is but an error; for it is not a question of one nation in Africa having lost its freedom – on the contrary practically all the previous inhabitants of this continent have been made subject to the sovereignty of other nations by bloody force, thereby losing their freedom. Moroccans, Berbers, Arabs, Negroes, &c., have all fallen victim to a foreign might, the swords of which, however, were not inscribed ‘Made in Germany’, but ‘Made by the Democracies’.” –  Hitler’s Reply to Roosevelt, Reichstag 28 April 1939.

Source :  13. David Brockschmidt, "History Lessons from the Memory Hole - Let them eat their own words," http://adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n248.htm

Quote
A negro with his taboos is far superior to a human who firmly believes in Transubstantiation. - Adolf Hitler, December 13, 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler - Table Talk page 146

Quote
December 16, 1941 : Führer on Japan : It is astonishing that we, with the help of Japan, are destroying the positions of the white race in East Asia while England together with the Bolshevist are attacking Europe. The white race means the Dutch in the East Indies, the British in Burma, Malaya and Singapore, the US in the Philippines and the French in Indochina.

Hitler's remarks about Japan were put forward December 16, one week after Japan began its offensive against Southeast Asia. This is related to Hitler's statement on the radio which was later also broadcast by Japanese radio and the Japanese press that they are now carrying out a holy war against the white race with one billion Asian people. ..."

Source: Hitler's Footsteps in Indonesia, by Hoorst H. Geerken page 210

Quote
The dirt was visible on the blacks only when the missionaries, in order to teach them decorum, obliged them to wear clothes. In its natural state, the negro is very clean. For a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of view, they themselves are the dirtiest pigs. They have water horrors. Adolf Hitler, February 19, 1942

Source: Adolf Hitler - Table Talk pages 319 - 320

Quote
We were ready to throw our forces into the scales for the preservation of the British Empire; and all that, mark you, at a time when, to tell the truth, I feel much more sympathetically inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant islanders. Later on, the Germans will be pleased that they did not make any contribution to the survival of an out-dated state of affairs for which the world of the future would have found it hard to forgive them. We can with safety make one prophecy: whatever the outcome of this war, the British Empire is at an end. It has been mortally wounded. The future of the British people is to die of hunger and tuberculosis in their cursed island. - Adolf Hitler, 4th February 1945

Source : Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann Documents) Page 7

Quote
Spain, France and England had all weakened, weakened and exhausted themselves in this futile colonial enterprise. The continent from which Spain and England gave birth, which they created piece by piece, has today acquired a completely independent way of life and completely selfish views. Even so, they were just an artificial world, without a soul, culture, or civilization of their own; and judging from that point of view, they were nothing more than dirt.  - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945

Source :

Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann Documents) Page 13

Quote
The United States and Australia afford good examples. Success, certainly - but only on the material side. They are artificial edifices, bodies without age, of which it is it is impossible to say whether they are still in a state of infancy or whether they have already been touched by senility. In those continents which were inhabited, failure has been even more marked. In them, the white races have impose their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945

Source :

Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann Documents) Page 13


Posted by: Terrorists
« on: October 15, 2023, 12:46:30 am »

Journalist Rips Palestinian ‘Terrorism’ Narrative to Shreds
Quote
Breakthrough News journalist, Eugene Puryear, rips this narrative apart, explaining the long history of oppressed and colonized people being demonized and called terrorists and savage to justify the continued occupation of those people. No different than the Native resistance to American colonization, slave rebellions in the Americas, the Haitian Revolution, Palestinians are resisting Israeli colonialism, not out of bloodlust as the media has portrayed it, but because of decades of land thefts, massacres, second-class citizenship and the denial of the right to return that has persisted for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFjyKDUSMDo

Only 6 minutes in to this video at time of post, but Puryear nails it!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 03, 2022, 01:33:53 am »

Our enemy Coulter thinks she can challenge us with questions:

https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-it-s-hate-white-history-month

Quote
1. Why did slavery end so much sooner in white Christian countries?

2. Are countries run by Muslims, Buddhists or voodoo doctors more or less likely to recognize human rights than Christian nations?

3. Why would your teachers refuse to tell you about slavery among the “Indigenous” peoples?

4. A Smithsonian magazine article about the Trail of Tears is titled, “How Native American Slaveholders Complicate the Trail of Tears Narrative.” What’s the “narrative”?

5. In your other readings, have you found that the sins of whites and Christians are comically exaggerated, while those of nonwhites and non-Christians are buried in a lead casket and dropped in the middle of the sea?

Challenge accepted.

1. Because whereas the rest of the world enslaved without regard to ethnic background, "whites" enslaved "non-whites" but not "whites". Thus, in absence of an ingroup-outgroup double-standard, slaves elsewhere had less motivation to rebel than did slaves in "white"-ruled countries.

2. Less likely (proudly so!), because "human rights" are a Western concept consequential to the uniquely Western belief that non-humans have no souls. In contrast, Mohammed taught that non-humans can be better Muslims than humans, Siddhartha taught that all sentient beings can achieve Buddhahood, and animists at least believe non-humans have souls. However, Jesus also preached against anthropocentrism, therefore there is nothing Christian about "human rights". It is in fact Judaism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

Quote
In the 1985 CBC series "A Planet For the Taking", Dr. David Suzuki explored the Old Testament roots of anthropocentrism and how it shaped human views of non-human animals. Some Christian proponents of anthropocentrism base their belief on the Bible, such as the verse 1:26 in the Book of Genesis:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

3. I am not refusing to do this (see 1.).

4. The narrative is that the Trail of Tears was racist. That there existed Native American slave holders (bad people) among those put on the Trail of Tears does not contradict the narrative, because "white" slave holders (also bad people) were not put on the Trail of Tears.

5. It is impossible to exaggerate the evil of "whites" even if we wanted to:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 25, 2020, 01:15:04 am »

Another story of our heroism written by our enemies:

https://www.amren.com/features/2020/10/american-slave-insurrections/

Quote
Records about antebellum slave insurrections are scarce. Whites generally suppressed reports of servile insurrection because they didn’t want to encourage other slaves, so many of the rebellions we know about were the ones too large to censor. Slaves tried to revolt hundreds of times in the antebellum period. The first settlement within the present-day United States had a slave revolt. San Miguel de Gualdape — established by Spaniards in what is now Georgia in 1526 — failed in just a few months, due to shipwreck, hunger, cold, disease, hostile Indians, and a slave rebellion.[ii]
...
Blacks often tried to kill their masters,[v] and the preferred methods were arson and poison. Arson was so common that it raised insurance premiums. Entire towns could be lost to the torch.[vi] In the 1790s, prominent citizens of Charleston, South Carolina, organized a committee to ensure that brick or stone be used in building new buildings instead of wood, making them harder to burn. Servile arson also encouraged construction of fire-escapes, which became common in 19th-century Virginia.[vii]

Newspaper reports from the time show poisoning was also common. In 1751, South Carolina ordered the death penalty for slaves who tried to poison whites, and the guilty would not receive benefit of clergy. The preamble to this legislation explained that it was necessary because the crime was attempted so often.
...
Fugitives slaves, or maroons, also harassed whites. They formed loose bands and communities, and preyed on whites, plundering plantations and robbing travelers. Maroons “plagued every slave society in which mountains, swamps, or other terrain provided a hinterland into which slaves could flee.”

Occasionally, maroons made alliances with American Indians; the Florida Seminole Wars are the best example.[xi] In 1823, maroons in Norfolk County, Virginia, killed several whites
...
Insurrections could involve any number from a dozen to several thousand slaves. On most occasions, authorities discovered conspiracies and smashed them. When this failed, insurrections had one main purpose: to slaughter as many whites as possible. The most murderous insurrection killed nearly 60 whites.[xiv] Here are some of the most significant revolts.

In 1712, a band of around two dozen slaves and Indians in New York City got hold of guns, swords, knives, and axes. Early one Sunday morning, one of the insurrectionists set fire to his master’s plantation while others hid in the dark as local whites arrived to douse the blaze. Blacks ambushed and killed at least nine.[xv]
...
African-born slaves also led the 1739 insurrection near the Stono River in South Carolina.[xviii] The only eyewitness account of that event, the bloodiest insurrection in South Carolina, was that of Lieutenant-Governor Lawrence Bull. Returning to Charles Town from Granville County on horseback, Bull happened upon a band of 80 or so blacks, carrying guns and flags and chanting, “Liberty!” Bull rode off and notified the militia.

The black leader was an illiterate slave named Jemmy (also known as Cato). The rebels decapitated their first two white victims, and displayed the heads on a staircase. The blacks then sacked several plantations, plundered liquor stores, and killed whites.[xix] By the time the insurrection was put down, slaves had razed a dozen plantations and killed and at least 25 white men, women, and children.[xx]
...
In 1738, two different bands of slaves in the region escaped their plantations to head for what they hoped would be freedom in Spanish Florida. One of them, passing through Georgia, murdered several whites.[xxi]
...
Gabriel Prosser marked the turn of the nineteenth century with a vast plot in Henrico County, Virginia. He was literate, willful, stood six feet two or three inches tall, and was considered by both blacks and whites as “a fellow of great courage and intellect above his rank in life.”[xxiii] In the spring of 1800, slaves in Virginia quietly made crude swords and bayonets, and hundreds of bullets. About one thousand — some mounted — armed with clubs, scythes, homemade swords and bayonets and a few guns, gathered six miles outside of Richmond. However, a downpour delayed their invasion of the city. Word got out about the insurrection, and Governor James Monroe of Virginia posted artillery and called up 650 militiamen. Before the slaves could attack, authorities arrested any they could identify.

Governor Monroe interviewed Prosser, noting that “from what he said to me, he seemed to have made up his mind to die, and to have resolved to say but little on the subject of the conspiracy.” John Randolph, who saw several of the blacks in custody, wrote: “[The slaves] have exhibited a spirit, which, if it becomes general, must deluge the Southern country in blood. They manifested a sense of their rights, and contempt of danger, and a thirst for revenge which portend the most unhappy consequences.”

Mississippi Territorial Governor W.C.C. Claiborne suggested that 50,000 slaves may have been in on the plot; others estimated their numbers at between two and 10 thousand. Governor Monroe believed that the plot had reached Virginia’s entire slave population.[xxiv] The blacks had decided to spare all Frenchmen, Methodists, and Quakers whom they considered sympathetic to emancipation. They would kill all others, but show mercy to whites who agreed to emancipation — by only cutting off an arm.[xxv]

In 1811, there was a large insurrection in Louisiana. It began when the ringleader, together with two dozen subordinates, hacked his master’s son to death as he slept.
...
As many as 500 slaves, led by a free mulatto from Saint-Domingue and armed with axes, clubs, knives, and a few firearms, marched on New Orleans. They sacked plantations, intent on “killing every white they could get their hands on.” Local planters and militiamen took action, but the slaves were not fully subdued until Governor Claiborne called out the full militia.
...
In 1822, in Charleston, South Carolina, Denmark Vesey led what Thomas Higginson, Unitarian minister and member of the Secret Six (the group of wealthy Northern abolitionists who financed John Brown’s attack at Harper’s Ferry), called “the most elaborate insurrectionary plot ever formed by American slaves.” Vesey’s conspiracy involved thousands of slaves who planned to exterminate every white in Charleston, seize bank reserves, and sail to Haiti.[xxix] One of the black leaders reportedly remarked that the men “would know what to do with the white women.”[xxx] Their plan was ambitious, with simultaneous attacks from five directions and a sixth force on horseback to patrol the streets.[xxxi]

Slaves within the city were set to start fires and set explosions with stolen black powder. When whites ran out of their homes to put the fires out, the blacks were to slaughter them. In the chaos, columns of slaves would fall upon the city from every direction, seizing the state and federal arsenals.
...
The plot failed and the authorities sentenced Vesey to death. On the day of his execution, federal soldiers were called to help the militia suppress another insurrection.[xxxiii] The fact that Vesey was a free black, rather than a slave, “sent shockwaves throughout Charleston’s white community, the members of which had always considered the free blacks living in their midst to be a nonthreatening, although unwelcome, presence.”[xxxiv] Though Vesey and his subordinates had maintained lists of their co-conspirators, only one list and part of another were recovered. One witness testified that nearly 7,000 slaves had been involved, while another implicated 9,000.

In 1831, Nat Turner led the deadliest slave revolt in American history, in Southampton County, Virginia. Thomas Gray, the lawyer for several of the slaves involved in the revolt and the man who published Turner’s confession, wrote that the insurrection “was not instigated by motives of revenge or sudden anger, but the results of long deliberation, and a settled purpose of mind.” Gray continued: “It will thus appear, that whilst everything upon the surface of society wore a calm and peaceful aspect; whilst not one note of preparation was heard to warn . . . of woe and death, a gloomy fanatic was revolving in the recesses of his own dark, bewildered, and overwrought mind, schemes of indiscriminate massacre to the whites.”[xxxv] Virginia had a white majority, so any rebellion was sure to be suicide.[xxxvi]
...
The slaves fanned out across the countryside and marched house to house, killing every white they found. The slaughter continued well into the next day; as the death toll mounted, so too did Nat Turner’s band. By the end, he had about 60 slaves, “all mounted and armed with guns, axes, swords and clubs.” At one home, the family tried to barricade the door. Turner later explained:

    Vain hope! Will, with one stroke of his axe, opened it, and we entered and found Mrs. Turner and Mrs. Newsome in the middle of a room, almost frightened to death. Will immediately killed Mrs. Turner, with one blow of his axe. I took Mrs. Newsome by the hand, and . . . struck her several blows over the head, but not being able to kill her, as the sword was dull. Will, turning around . . . dispatched her also.[xxxix]

When Turner arrived at the Whitehead family’s home, he said he was:

    [Ready] to commence the work of death, but they whom I left, had not been idle; all the family were already murdered, but Mrs. Whitehead and her daughter Margaret. As I came ‘round to the door, I saw Will pulling Mrs. Whitehead out of the house, and at the step he nearly severed her head from her body, with his broad axe. Miss Margaret. . . had concealed herself. . . on my approach, she fled, but was soon overtaken, and after repeated blows with a sword, I killed her by a blow on the head, with a fence rail.
...
One slave insurrection succeeded: a mutiny aboard the slave transport Creole in 1841. One black and one white were killed in the mutiny, after which the blacks forced the white navigator to sail to the British Bahamas. Most of the blacks escaped to freedom.[xliv]
...
As for weapons, large numbers of slaves had access to axes. Slaves who worked in the sugar fields carried knives large enough to decapitate a man with one blow, and every slave who worked in the tobacco fields carried a blade. Many slaves knew how to use firearms despite legal restrictions.
...
Fears of servile revolt were so serious that they affected Confederate troop movements.[lxiv] Throughout the war, there were steady reports of conspiracies and individual acts of sabotage, arson, and murder. Maroons dramatically increased their depredations. In several cases, white deserters and escaped Yankee prisoners formed biracial groups of bandits who preyed on lightly-defended Southerners while the Confederate Army was away fighting.[lxv]
...
“[H]orrified as Southern whites were by the uprising, some Northerners . . . could hardly suppress their satisfaction at what they took to be a justified rebellion against the horrendous institution of slavery.”[lxxi]
...