Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 26 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

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


Topic Summary

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: Today at 10:36:17 am »

Historical Voter Suppression by the "Whites"

Quote
On April 15, 1865, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln, leaving Confederate sympathizer Andrew Johnson as president. Johnson was a Southerner, a slaveowner, and a Democrat who had been chosen for the vice presidency in the hopes of stopping the South from seceding. As a former senator of the Great State of Tennessee, Johnson repeatedly let his Democrat friends know where he stood on the issue of freedmen: “As for the Negro I am for setting him free but at the same time, I assert that this is a white man’s government,”14 he said in an 1864 speech, reiterating his earlier promises of “a free, intelligent white constituency, instead of a negro aristocracy”15 after the war. When Johnson ascended to the presidency, his first course of action was to stop that slaves-getting-land nonsense.

As second in charge of the new Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, Brigadier General Saxton refused to comply with Johnson’s orders, writing that “the faith of the Government is solemnly pledged to these people who have been faithful to it and we have no right now to dispossess them of their lands.”16

Johnson fired him.

As soon as he became president, Johnson pardoned every Confederate traitor who was willing to swear their allegiance to the United States and gave them back their land. And because Sherman’s order was only legal under the War Powers Act, as commander in chief, Johnson simply rescinded it. On March 7, 1866, the Charleston office of the bureau informed Charleston’s white plantation owners who had been dispossessed of their real estate after becoming official traitors to their country that they could return to their plantations as long as they shared with the former slaves, issuing General Order No. 9:

1. The former owners of land upon the Sea Islands . . . will be permitted to return and occupy their lands, or a portion of them, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified.

2. Neither owners of lands nor freed people will be allowed to make use of threats against each other or the authorities of the United States . . . or to do anything to disturb peace on said Islands; but all disputes will be referred to Major Cornelius for adjudication.

3. Grants of land made to the freed people in good faith, by proper authority, or occupied by them . . . will be held as good and valid, until changed or modified by competent authority. But Major Cornelius may set apart and consolidate them contiguous to each other, on one portion of the plantation . . . in such manner as to give the freed people a part possessing average fertility and other advantages.17

In July 1866, Congress agreed to reauthorize the Freedmen’s Bureau while stipulating that all the confiscated lands would be returned to the original owners. For nearly two years, Black people in South Carolina’s Lowcountry actually owned the land on which they had been enslaved. On James Island, America’s slave capital, most of the land had been redistributed to the former slaves before it was taken away. But now these freedmen were surrounded by angry Confederates whose land had been taken by Black repo men. And in those two years, they had all tasted Black power.


...


Building things is hard. Destroying things is easy. After America began to witness what Black people could do if they were simply left alone, the reshapers of their own destiny became the target of disgruntled ex-Confederates who regarded the sharing of power as a collective affront to the white race. For them, power was a zero-sum game. White America’s continued existence depended on the eradication of Black power, and so the destruction began. On July 30, 1866, angered by newly issued provisions that disenfranchised Black voters, a group of freedmen, including hundreds of Black veterans, gathered on the steps of the Mechanics Institute in New Orleans to protest during the Louisiana state constitutional convention.Expressing their outrage in the Blackest way possible, they paraded to the assembly with a marching band to show their displeasure with the exclusionary laws that would become known as the “Black Codes.” As they marched, a mob of white supremacists, policemen, and ex-Confederates brutally attacked the demonstration, until the marchers sought refuge inside the Mechanics Institute, where, as Ron Chernow explained in Grant,

The whites stomped, kicked, and clubbed the black marchers mercilessly. Policemen smashed the institute’s windows and fired into it indiscriminately until the floor grew slick with blood. They emptied their revolvers on the convention delegates, who desperately sought to escape. Some leaped from windows and were shot dead when they landed. Those lying wounded on the ground were stabbed repeatedly, their skulls bashed in with brickbats. The sadism was so wanton that men who kneeled and prayed for mercy were killed instantly, while dead bodies were stabbed and mutilated.23

“The floor grew slick with blood.”

I have never been able to rinse that phrase from my mind. The carnivorous reaction to Black people existing is a theme that runs throughout American history. As early as 1865, the military commanders and workers with the Freedmen’s Bureau began receiving regular reports of “murders and outrages” committed by whites against freedmen. In the Abbeville district of South Carolina, a “desperate and ruffianly character by the name of Reuben Goldberg . . . deliberately, and without provocation, as plenty can testify, shot a Negro by the name of A. Payton, who always bore a good character in this neighborhood and has always been free.”24 Reformer Benjamin Randolph was allegedly murdered in cold blood by a Klansman. Confederate officer D. Wyatt Aiken, a Klan leader, had called for Randolph’s assassination, according to Freedmen’s Bureau officials.25 Aiken was arrested, released two days later, and never faced trial. When they heard about his crime, South Carolina’s white community elected him to serve five terms in Congress.

While many historians describe Reconstruction as a period of “racial unrest” marked by lynchings and “race riots,” it was undoubtedly a war. There were soldiers who wore uniforms, took oaths, and volunteered their service to organized, armed units. They had a common enemy and a plan to take them out. The network of terror cells that sprang up during Reconstruction went by many names, including the White League, the White Knights, the Knights of the White Camellia, and—the most famous of all—the “Circle of Brothers,” otherwise known as the Ku Klux Klan. It was insurrection, ethnic cleansing, and terrorism with a little bit of guerrilla warfare mixed in for good measure. To enforce their goals, the loose confederation of historically white fraternities all had one common strategy: killing as many Black people as possible and overthrowing the government that had enabled their freedom.

In the 1868 election, Black citizens exercised their new right to vote and overwhelmingly supported Republican candidate Ulysses S. Grant. In Eutaw, Alabama, Black voters catapulted Grant to a two-thousand-vote margin in the county. Days before the 1870 midterm election, fearing the power of Black voters, Klansmen opened fire at a rally of twenty-eight hundred Black people, killing at least four and causing hundreds to stay home on election day. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate won the county by forty-three votes.

Ku Klux Klan members in North Carolina assassinated a state senator, murdered a Black town commissioner, and lynched so many Black voters in 1870 that Governor William Woods Holden declared an insurrection, suspended habeas corpus (the right against unlawful detention), and imposed martial law. But none of the more than a hundred terrorists arrested in what would become known as the “Kirk-Holden War” was ever charged with a crime. Holden, however, was removed from office when Democrats gained control of the state legislature after African American voters were forced to choose between voting and their lives.

Many of the reports of these atrocities came directly from the Freedmen’s Bureau. Even before the war’s official end, bureau officers detailed “outrages,” warning that white people were getting a little out of control. In describing a “freed boy” who was “dragged about three miles with a rope around his neck,” residents of Caldwell Parish in Louisiana were told by the sheriff that if they signed a warrant, they would be “met by 50 armed men and killed.” The bureau report ended by noting that “many colored people have been and are being killed in Parish on a/c of political opinions.”26 In Laurens, South Carolina, “ten or twelve persons” were slaughtered the day after the 1870 state elections. A congressional committee investigating Klan violence heard accounts of whites and Black ballot-casters being “waited upon” by a white supremacist mob.

On Easter Sunday in 1873, the Knights of the White Camellia, Klansmen, and Confederate sympathizers opened fire on Black voters in Colfax, Louisiana, burned the victims’ bodies, and threw the corpses in a nearby river. No one knows how many people were murdered during this incident, but a military report lists eighty-one Black men; another fifteen to twenty bodies were fished out of the Red River, and another eighteen were secretly buried. “The bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era, the Colfax massacre taught many lessons,” writes historian Eric Foner. “Including the lengths to which some opponents of Reconstruction would go to regain their accustomed authority.”27

The white supremacist terrorism was not confined to violence. Almost every single state of the former Confederacy had begun enshrining Black Codes in their state constitutions in attempts to preserve the social and economic order that existed prior to emancipation. In South Carolina, farmworkers were required to work from “sun-rise to sun-set,” and were mandated by law to refer to their supervisors as “master.” The rules undermined the labor contracts instituted by the Freedmen’s Bureau, and went as far as to forbid any person of color from learning a new trade, declaring, “No person of color shall pursue or practice the art, trade or business of an artisan, mechanic or shop-keeper, or any other trade, employment or business on his own account and for his own benefit, or in partnership with a white person, or as agent or servant of any persons, until he shall have obtained a license therefore from the Judge of the District Court.”28 Even worse, nine states passed or updated their vagrancy laws, essentially redefining “vagrancy” as “existing.” In Mississippi, a Black person was breaking the law if he or she was “found unlawfully assembling themselves together either in the day or nighttime.”29 Kentucky filled up its jails by banning “rambling without a job” or “keeping a disorderly house.” Tennessee laws withheld education from Black children by forcing them to work for free as “apprentices” under their former slavemasters.

Most often, whites used a combination of violence and technicalities to reclaim political and social status. In the 1866 election, when Georgia’s Black voters elected three Black state senators and thirty state representatives, deemed the “Original 33,” white supremacists flocked to the Peach State to expel the lawmakers under the new Black Codes. When the legislators challenged the laws in White v. Clements, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled, “After the most careful examination of this question, I am clearly of the opinion, that there is no existing law of this State which confers the right upon the colored citizens thereof to hold office, and consequently, that the defendant has no legal right to hold and exercise the duties of the office which he claims under her authority.” For its violence and discrimination against Black people, Georgia was placed under military rule again in 1869.

Perhaps the most interesting part about the white supremacist tactics is that, in the long run, they still were unable to defeat the Black majority without cheating. Heading into the 1876 elections, in counties across South Carolina, white supremacist mobs threatened Black voters to vote for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wade Hampton over Republican governor Daniel Chamberlain. In September 1876, a paramilitary group of five hundred white supremacists murdered about one hundred Black people in Aiken County, after threatening them that “their only safety from death or whipping lies in signing an agreement pledging to vote the democratic ticket at the coming election.”30 The Republican votes there somehow disappeared, but the Democratic votes quadrupled. In Edgefield, the vote total exceeded the voting-age population by more than two thousand.31 The elections board threw out the suspicious counties’ vote totals, which were upheld by a federal court. The Republican presidential candidate won South Carolina, as did the Republican governor.

Events in Louisiana and Florida had played out similarly as they had in South Carolina, with voter intimidation and suspicious vote totals throughout the state. In 1877, fifteen white men—five U.S. senators, five representatives, and five Supreme Court justices*—gathered in a Washington, D.C., room and decided to give the disputed electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate supported by Black voters, essentially making him the president. In exchange, the whites-only room also agreed to a plan that included three notable provisions:

REMOVAL OF TROOPS FROM THE CONFEDERATE STATES: In many places
in the South, especially Louisiana and South Carolina, the military
presence was the only thing protecting Black freedmen from white
supremacist violence.

FUNDS TO INDUSTRIALIZE THE SOUTH AND RESTORE ITS ECONOMY:
While this never really happened, it was clearly a nod to the white
supremacists who couldn’t compete with the Black laborers.

THE RIGHT TO HANDLE BLACK PEOPLE AS THEY WISHED: The federal
government agreed to essentially disregard the Constitution’s equal
protection clause.

The “right to handle Black people as they wish” became known as Jim Crow. Across the country—not just in the South—states passed segregation laws and disenfranchised Black people en masse. The Compromise of 1877 was the definition of white supremacy: Black voters had given Hayes the presidency, and in exchange, he and his white co-conspirators chose white supremacy over equality.

But there were some things they could not undo. By 1900, 42.8 percent of Charleston County’s Black residents owned land and produced most of the cotton.32 Historically Black colleges thrived, civic organizations flourished, and the religious institutions remained. The foundation created during this period of Black construction would form the framework for every movement for Black liberation going forward. What Black people created in the light of freedom could only be undone by trickery and evil. But that is not the lesson of Reconstruction.

Every single stereotype that remains about Black America was disproven after the Civil War. We were smarter. We worked harder. We were not the violent ones.

The criminal enterprise called America is nothing but a self-perpetuating white supremacy machine. The only parts that are good and decent are the ones we shined with our spit. Everyone who calls themselves a citizen is a by-product of our determination to free ourselves. Due process exists because of us. The Founders only said, “All men are created equal”; we, the ones who made this country, prove it.

Still, that is also not the lesson of Reconstruction.

Source :

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 29, 2023, 02:26:53 am »

Quote
More generally, World War II did mark some important achievements in America’s struggle for racial equality. For example, Franklin D.  Roosevelt became the first president in American history to denounce lynching as a crime. During the 1940 presidential campaign Roosevelt’s  Republican opponent Wendell Willkie ran on a civil rights platform,  pledging to integrate the armed forces and the federal government if elected. After Black labor leader A. Philip Randolph threatened a massive march on Washington to protest segregation in the defense industry, in June 1941 Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 banning racial discrimination in war plants and creating the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) to enforce it.174 Although the FEPC had little power, the prospect of a federal agency actually devoted to fighting racial discrimination had great symbolic weight and did help Blacks and other minorities gain access to jobs in the burgeoning war industry.

Source :

White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall 2021 Princeton University Press page 252

Anti-discrimination means anti-liberal and oppose democratic system
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 28, 2023, 01:48:07 am »

The History of Jim Crow Law

Quote
Finally, freedom for the former slaves meant the right to vote. Immediately after the end of the war Blacks began organizing to demand suffrage for all men regardless of race. For them, voting, like land ownership, was important both as a practical guarantee and as a symbol of their newly free status. This desire for the political franchise was supported by the Radical branch of the Republican party, which for a decade after  Appomattox largely controlled the national government. In 1866 the  Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,  which made all former slaves US citizens, and a year later followed it with the Reconstruction Act, requiring Southern states to ratify the amendment and allow Blacks to vote as a condition of their readmission  to the Union. The result was a political revolution in the South, as the former slaves streamed to the polls in overwhelming numbers, with their white allies electing a series of progressive state governments across the region. This expansion of the franchise reached its zenith in  1870 when the Fifteenth Amendment, granting the right to vote to men of all races, became the law of the land.123

Most white Southerners viewed these changes with horror and moved to limit the impact of emancipation as much as possible. In 1865  and 1866 several Southern states passed Black codes that forced freedmen to provide proof of employment, usually by signing contracts to  work on plantations. They became one way of “getting things back as near to slavery as possible.”124 More ominously, Southern whites initated a campaign of violence and terror against local Republicans, both  Black and white. At the end of 1865 Confederate veterans in Tennessee founded the Ku Klux Klan, which over the next few years murdered hundreds of Blacks and their white supporters. The Klan targeted in particular Republican politicians in a violent attempt to disenfranchise the Black population and maintain white supremacy. This reign of terror continued until 1872, when President Grant suppressed it with federal troops.125

The suppression of the Klan showed that the key to Black freedom lay in the North; only as long as the Radical Republicans held power would they enforce the right of Southern Blacks to vote. By the early  1870s the signs were not encouraging. As we have seen, Black suffrage was not popular in the North before the war, and even after 1865 proposals to enfranchise African Americans were voted down in most Northern states. By the early 1870s many Northern whites were more interested in reconciliation with the South than with protecting Black rights there. The Democratic Party scored a major election victory in 1874,  winning control of the House of Representatives, signaling that the reformist approach to the former Confederacy had lost much of its steam. White Southerners soon drew their own conclusions from these signals, and in 1875 renewed their violent campaign against Reconstruction. In Mississippi, armed vigilantes murdered Republican politicians and terrorized their supporters from voting, enabling the Democrats to win the state by a landslide. The same happened in South Carolina in  1876, by which time Democrats and their terrorist allies had overthrown  all the Reconstruction state governments in the South. Unlike in 1872,  the federal government refused to intervene. Instead, in 1877 the new presidential administration of Rutherford B. Hayes agreed, in exchange for Southern support in the disputed election of the previous year, to withdraw all federal troops from the South and recognize the legitimacy  of its Democratic state governments. The so-called Bargain or Compromise of 1877 effectively ended the Reconstruction of the South, and with it hopes for Black freedom.126

The next two decades witnessed the rebirth of white supremacy in the South. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century Southern states passed a series of laws to keep their Black populations separate  and inferior. Collectively known as Jim Crow, these measures rigidly  segregated Blacks in all major spheres of life, from hospitals, schools,  and public parks down to telephone booths and drinking fountains.  Facilities available for Blacks were invariably inferior in quality, highlighting their exclusion from the mainstream of Southern life. Jim Crow was not just a Southern phenomenon, however; public racial segregation existed throughout the North and West, and the Supreme Court’s  1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision upholding the doctrine of “separate but equal” made it in effect national policy.127

The main thrust and goal of the post-Reconstruction reaction, however, was the disenfranchisement of the Black population. Starting in  174 Chapter 4 earnest in 1890, Southern states began enacting a variety of measures to keep African Americans from voting. These included residency requirements, literacy tests, and poll taxes requiring people to pay a fee for the right to vote. As a result of these and other restrictions and of the racist terror that continued to threaten those Blacks who attempted to exercise their franchise, Black electoral participation dropped precipitously  in the South. By 1910 only four percent of all Black men in Georgia had registered to vote, whereas for the South in general less than ten percent of eligible African Americans routinely came out for elections. The right to vote had once again become the white to vote, and the effective elimination of the Black franchise and Black political power illustrated the racialized nature of democracy. Since the overwhelming majority of  African Americans lived in the South, their disenfranchisement essentially limited voting to whites in general. The Civil War and Reconstruction thus ended in a ringing reaffirmation of white supremacy and white freedom.128

On January 29, 1901, congressman George Henry White of North  Carolina gave his final speech in the US House of Representatives. The last of the Black politicians elected during Reconstruction, Representative White had lost his battle for reelection thanks to the disenfranchisement of most of his African American constituents. In the speech that  marked the end of Black freedom in America, congressman White  declared:

Now, Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks I want to submit  a brief recipe for the solution of the so-called American negro problem. He asks no special favors, but simply demands that he be given  the same chance for existence, for earning a livelihood, for raising himself in the scales of manhood and womanhood that are accorded  to kindred nationalities. . . . This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the negroes’ temporary farewell to the American Congress; but let me say,  Phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again. These parting  words are in behalf of an outraged, heart-broken, bruised, and bleeding, but God fearing people, faithful, industrious, loyal people—rising people, full of potential force.129 Empire, Racial Citizenship, and Liberal Democracy 175 The implementation of Jim Crow throughout the South by the dawn  of the twentieth century underscored the durability of slavery and  the racial nature of liberty in America as a whole. The defeat of the greatest challenge to white freedom in the nation’s history would play  a key role in shaping the character of American democracy in the modern era.

Source :

White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall 2021 Princeton University Press page 187, 188, 189, 190

Conclusion :

Anti-Discrimination means individual quality, not democracy and individual rights. Liberalism did not end discrimination
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 14, 2023, 05:07:58 pm »

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/us-army-overturns-convictions-110-black-soldiers-charged-1917-houston-riot/YVERN7LQ2BGNDAEGDJR6D2X5IE/

Quote
HOUSTON — The U.S. Army is overturning the convictions of 110 Black soldiers -- 19 of whom were executed -- after they were found guilty of murder, mutiny and assault after a riot during the summer of 1917.
...
The records of the soldiers who were assigned to protect Camp Logan outside of Houston will now reflect that they served honorably.

Who convicted them in the first place?

Quote
Within 12 hours of Maj. Gen. John Ruckman’s sentencing in 1917, 13 soldiers were hanged, the Chronicle reported. By September 1918, six more soldiers were executed.

In addition, 63 soldiers were sentenced to life in prison in federal courts.

Two white officers who faced court martial were released, according to the TSHA.

So will Ruckman's descendants be prohibited from reproducing? If not, and if they are not voluntarily refraining from reproducing, then they are valid targets. Otherwise, justice has not been done.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 10, 2023, 07:18:27 pm »

New vocabulary to start using:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/ex-confederates-spread-racist-attitudes-far-wide-civil-war-rcna90419

Quote
How ex-Confederates spread racist attitudes far and wide after the Civil War

The "Confederate Diaspora" has contributed to systemic racism in almost every area of life, and it continues shape “racial inequities in labor, housing, and policing," researchers wrote.

This is a brilliant term for describing our anti-American enemies on US soil. I am ashamed that I never thought of it myself, despite previously agreeing with the concept:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/trump-a-fascist/msg13620/#msg13620

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/re-uniting-americans/msg15461/#msg15461 )

Continuing:

Quote
A new study outlines how white people’s migration during and after the Civil War, from the Confederate South to the West, bolstered white supremacy and institutional racism in non-slave states, helping create the vast racial disparities that exist today nationwide.

Five researchers from separate colleges collaborated on the study, called “Confederate Diaspora,” to compile and study census data that tracked the migration to the West of white Americans, including 60,000 former plantation owners. The former Southerners took on local positions of authority, like police officers, clergy and politicians, giving them influence to create a post-Civil War culture that continued to oppress Black people even after slavery had ended.
...
The former Confederates “continued to transmit norms to their children and non-Southern neighbors,” the researchers wrote, “shaping racial inequities in labor, housing, and policing.”

Researcher Patrick Testa, an assistant professor of economics at Tulane University in New Orleans, said the impact of the Confederates on other parts of the country was deep and long-lasting.

In the three decades following the Civil War, white Southerners were more likely than other white people to take on work in governance, he said, and former slaveholders were even more likely to assume those positions, he said.

“What we show ultimately is that these migrants,” Testa said, “through these governance channels and channels of public-facing authority, helped lay the groundwork for these types of symbols and racial norms and a broad-base Confederate nostalgia to really take off at a national level by the early 20th century.”

One of those “norms” was the institution of the Ku Klux Klan and the racial terror it inflicted in many parts of the country. In the report, the researchers identify “overrepresentation of first-and second-generation migrants in the KKK,” adding that the second generation of the KKK established in 1915 helped to “rejuvenate and mainstream Confederate culture.”

Those born in the South were 11% more likely to belong to the KKK
in the Denver metropolitan area, for example, a major hub of Klan activity in the 1920s beyond the South, the report said.

“The harmful legacies of slavery persist beyond those that experience being slaves, but across generations and across places,” Testa said.

Along with census data, the group of researchers analyzed KKK membership records of second-generation Confederate migrants who were born outside of the South but maintained slavery-era norms. “This suggests,” Testa said, the passing down of racial animus from generation to generation may have been “an important vehicle for sustaining diaspora influence long after the initial Confederate migrants had passed.”

As the California Reparations Task Force is set to hand over its recommendations to the state’s Legislature next week, this new study crystalizes how states that did not legally allow slavery, like California, still contributed mightily to oppressing Black people.
...
in the later part of the 19th century it became the home of numerous former Southerners and it was populated by so many Confederate-aligned citizens that it supported John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election. Breckinridge advocated for the expansion of slavery and supported the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, which required the return of an enslaved person to a plantation even if he was found in a “free state.”

Because many parts of California favored Breckinridge, it became a popular destination for Southerners at the time. “Outside of the South, California is maybe the most intense in terms of a cultural index that indicates how it accepted racism,” Testa said.

Studying the spread of former Confederates was important, Testa said, because it provides clear data on how the ills of slavery and the Confederate ideology spread across America.

“For the purposes of understanding the multifarious roots of racial division in American society, which continues to be persistent long after, it’s important,” Testa said.
Posted by: Whites
« on: September 06, 2023, 05:01:47 pm »

Why White Americans look like this
Quote
Are these the true faces of White Americans? In this video, we'll delve into genetic data, challenging traditional stereotypes and exploring the complex tapestry of heritage that forms White American identity. From surprising African echoes to diverse European roots, we'll question what 'whiteness' truly signifies. Join us as we decode DNA and reveal the rich and often surprising ancestry of White America. This is much more than a journey through our genes; it's a quest to understand our shared history and identity!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk13iit8Ldg

Related:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/facial-turanism/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/turanian-diffusion/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/gentilism/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/sexual-dimorphism-preferences/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/face-shapes-and-preferences/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/facial-aryanism/
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 30, 2023, 02:42:13 pm »

It's OK for resorts to be "white":

https://www.yahoo.com/news/denying-humanity-santa-monica-decimated-140010804.html

Quote
In 1922, Black businessmen Charles S Darden and Norman O Houston had secured an agreement to purchase the land Shutters now stands on. They were planning to develop a “first-class resort”, complete with a bathhouse, dance hall and amusement center, one they hoped would become a national tourist destination for Black Americans.

It didn’t take long for Santa Monica’s white residents to rally in opposition. The Protective League, a citizens’ group with “a membership of 1,000 Caucasians” that aimed to “eliminate all objectionable features” from the California beach town, lobbied officials to deny the men construction permits and ensure the site was zoned for residential use only. The officials complied.

Three years later, the site became a beach club for white residents.

That is literally how easy it was to practice "white" supremacy. See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/

Continuing:

Quote
Many people are unaware that Santa Monica, the coastal enclave now known for its beaches, star residents and hot real estate, was once home to a thriving Black community. The city was at the heart of the dreams of Black entrepreneurs, who had migrated west with their families hoping to flee prejudice and find fortune.

“Everybody saw Santa Monica as the new place of leisure in the early 20th century, and Black folks got in where they could afford to buy land,” said Dr Alison Rose Jefferson, a historian and third-generation Los Angeles resident who has long documented African American history in the Golden state.

Over time, racist policies stripped away the community’s access to the coast, forcing many families out. Today the city is predominantly white and the history of the Black experience in the city was hidden for many people.
...
“Black folks were trying to just be, and recreation was part of that. We needed relaxation and ways to reinvigorate ourselves just like white folks. This was denying our humanity.”

That's the problem. We can't just be so long as "whites" still are. We first have to ensure "whites" have ceased to be.

Quote
As white residents and merchants found ways to block Black residents from clubs and beach areas (in violation of unenforced civil rights laws), a Black beach began to emerge in one area near the church. The Bay Street Beach, which white residents pejoratively referred to as “the Inkwell”
...
In the 1950s, governments across the US began decimating Black neighborhoods through “eminent domain”, seizing private land for public projects. The construction of freeways and other public facilities and infrastructure tore through Black historical enclaves in cities such as Miami, Nashville, Montgomery, New Orleans, Kansas City and Oakland.

In Santa Monica, the Interstate 10 freeway displaced an estimated 600 predominantly Black families. One house destroyed had belonged to Nick Gabaldón, the first documented Black and Mexican American surfer in Santa Monica, and “a symbol for all African Americans striving for self-fulfillment and to take advantage of everything the California Dream had to offer”, Jefferson said. Families were dispersed to areas they could afford – far from the beach.

In 1957, three decades after Darden and Houston’s resort proposal was blocked, entrepreneur Silas White had his own plans for a beach club. The Ebony Beach Club would be a membership-based recreation and entertainment venue in a long-vacant building, down the street from the historic church. The project had the support of Nat King Cole, but two months before it was set to open, the city voted to seize the land to build a parking lot for a new “civic auditorium”, a project that ultimately razed the Black neighborhood known as Belmar Triangle. In some instances, the city burned down homes considered “blighted” and then publicized photos of the torched structures to further justify the taking of land in the area, Jefferson said.

See?
Posted by: HikariDude
« on: June 16, 2023, 07:01:38 pm »

I saw a clip from Cry Freedom that I thought coincided with this topic. If one needs a reference on why they should not use 'white' and 'black', it is this quote:

Posted by: 2ThaSun
« on: June 11, 2023, 01:23:31 pm »

RACE – THE POWER OF AN ILLUSION How the Racial Wealth Gap Was Created
Quote
These scenes are excerpted from California Newsreel’s acclaimed three-part documentary series, Race-The Power of an Illusion. To learn more and watch the entire series, please visit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvY3Ok6YpbU
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: May 29, 2023, 10:55:42 pm »

Quote
So is that good or bad?

Still bad, because the "white Germans"'s coming during that time also not made the United States rapidly change its colonialist worldview, US only being good when the "blacks" take advantage from the Cold War situation and made a mass protests to enforce anti-racial discrimination rule during the 1960s without democratic approval from the majority of "white race". The world-class prestige.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/alice-cooper-vs-homophobia/msg19720/#msg19720
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: May 29, 2023, 03:38:29 pm »

So is that good or bad?
Posted by: 2ThaSun
« on: May 29, 2023, 02:18:40 pm »

German Immigrants: not WHITE and not WANTED
Quote
In the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed concerns about German immigrants in the Thirteen Colonies, highlighting their potential impact on English culture and language. Franklin believed that Pennsylvania, founded by the English, should not become a "colony of aliens" who would resist assimilation into English customs. His writings reflected a desire to preserve English dominance and cultural identity in the colonies. While Franklin's views were influenced by the context of the time, they shed light on the complexities of early American attitudes toward newcomers and the challenges of cultural assimilation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw1YXaAU1iA

Note:

Quote
German is widely considered among the easier languages for native English speakers to pick up. That's because these languages are true linguistic siblings—originating from the exact same mother tongue. In fact, eighty of the hundred most used words in English are of Germanic origin.
https://www.rosettastone.eu/is-english-a-germanic-language/

Quote
Is English originally from German?

English is a West Germanic language that originated from Ingvaeonic languages brought to Britain in the mid-5th to 7th centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from what is now northwest Germany, southern Denmark and the Netherlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English

Quote
The Germanic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language family spoken natively by a population of about 515 million people[nb 1] mainly in Europe, North America, Oceania and Southern Africa. The most widely spoken Germanic language, English, is also the world's most widely spoken language with an estimated 2 billion speakers. All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages

 ::) ;D
Posted by: 2ThaSun
« on: May 27, 2023, 01:46:08 pm »

How Irish Americans became White: finding your roots
Quote
Irish-Catholic immigrants have a long and complex history in America, dating back to colonial times. Charles Carroll, an Irish immigrant, came to America in 1706, and his grandson, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, signed his name to the Declaration of Independence. However, it was not until the 19th century that large waves of Irish immigrants arrived in America. The "No Irish Need Apply" signs were evidence of discrimination and prejudice faced by Irish immigrants in the United States, and Ignatiev's argues that the Irish had to work to become "white" in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVure-y4RpA
Posted by: guest98
« on: May 25, 2023, 02:48:58 pm »

The Common-wealth needs to be totally destroyed, as far as i can tell they are the main propagators and maintainers of the deadly parasite that is colonial whiteness. Them and the French and Spanish.   
Posted by: 2ThaSun
« on: May 20, 2023, 11:30:31 am »

Stanford’s White Supremacists
Quote
Removing the symbols of the university's history with eugenics won't be enough.
Quote
Long before the Varsity Blues scandal of 2019 drew attention to ways economic elites use educational institutions to launder privilege and literal cash, Gilded Age university presidents were shaping their institutions in response to the diversifying population of the United States, and the threat this diversity posed to the social dominance of a majority-white elite. Confident in the natural superiority of the white race, their principal concern was the degeneration of the national genetic stock as a result of demographic turnover. More than a century before white supremacists rallied against the “great replacement” and “white genocide” in Charlottesville, progressive education reformers were sounding the alarm about “race suicide.”

The Leland Stanford Junior University, founded in 1885 by one of the nineteenth century’s most notorious robber barons, offers a special view into the symbiotic mechanisms that connect elite economic interests, liberal progressivism, and academic racecraft. When former California governor and soon-to-be United States Senator Leland Stanford and his wife Jane Lathrop Stanford established a university in memory of their only child, they did so with the belief that their incredible wealth could supply the university with the endowment it needed to entice the nation’s finest faculty and make Stanford a competitive rival to its tony counterparts in the East. Unlike those universities, established by churches and weighted down by tradition, Stanford was founded as a non-denominational and coeducational institution that aimed to be a leader in the sciences, as well as the newly recognized disciplines in the emerging social sciences: psychology and sociology.

To assist them, the Stanfords recruited David Starr Jordan, then the president of Indiana University, to helm their new institution. A fish biologist by training, Jordan was a highly respected man of science who bonded with the Stanfords over their shared admiration for Louis Agassiz, a Swiss naturalist and race pseudoscientist who had once been the Stanfords’ houseguest. At the time of his appointment to lead the nascent university, Jordan was already well on his way to becoming a leading figure in the American eugenics movement: his study of Darwinian biology had predisposed him to accept social Darwinist historical interpretations of the decline of past empires. These were the motivating theories behind his leadership at Stanford, where his devotion to social Darwinism would become his lasting legacy.

While serving as president of Stanford, in 1902, Jordan published a pacifist–nativist tract titled “Blood of a Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit.” This book-length essay was expanded from an article that Jordan had published the previous year in Popular Science Monthly. Although not as flagrantly racist as many contemporary nativist and eugenics tracts, the essay was Jordan’s contribution to the paranoid narrative of national genetic decadence that fueled the rise of social Darwinism from the academy to the halls of power in Washington, DC. His book gave a significant institutional platform to a variant of the “great replacement” narrative later repeated by Madison Grant and today peddled by the likes of Richard Spencer. But academic tracts were not Jordan’s most enduring and damaging accomplishment.

During the foundational years of his presidency, Jordan personally undertook efforts in faculty recruitment that made Stanford a hotbed of social Darwinist and eugenicist ideology. Realizing that the nascent social sciences presented opportunities to position Stanford University, and himself, at the cutting edge of social discourse, he concentrated his recruitment efforts in those fields. One of Jordan’s early appointees was Ellwood Patterson Cubberley, whom Jordan named dean of the Stanford School of Education in 1898. Cubberley was a staunch believer in the heritability of intelligence, and promulgated the view, still influential today, that educational testing could identify students with the greatest natural endowments, so that they might be offered the finest educational opportunities and groomed for careers in leadership. Cubberley also originated the notion that schools should be run like businesses, and that both students and teachers should be tested regularly to optimize results—a market-oriented educational philosophy that today undergirds the charter school movement.

Cubberley’s outlook, already hideously fatalistic for an educator, was considerably worsened by his bigotry. According to “Eugenics on the Farm,” a terrific series of articles published by Stanford student-journalist Ben Maldonado to document various strands of the long and ugly history of eugenics on campus, Cubberley’s book Changing Conceptions of Education describes Southern and Eastern European immigrants as “illiterate, docile, [and] lacking in self-reliance.” It comes as no surprise, then, that Cubberley stridently opposed immigration from those regions, on the grounds it “served to dilute tremendously our national stock.”

In 1910, Cubberley recruited Lewis Terman to the Stanford faculty. Terman was a disciple the Alfred Binet, a French psychologist who pioneered the concept of intelligence testing. While at Stanford, Terman carried Binet’s work forward, ultimately resulting in the publication of the Stanford-Binet intelligence test. Like his mentor Elwood Cubberley, Terman was an unwavering utilitarian who believed that widely applied intelligence testing could ensure that children be placed into separate educational tracks and prepared for careers suited to their level of intelligence. Terman and his students used the culturally biased Stanford-Binet test to demonstrate the “natural” intellectual limitations of Mexican and African-American test subjects...
Entire article: https://www.guernicamag.com/stanfords-white-supremacists/

Leland Stanford: