American Racial History Reconsidered?
Submitted by Ralph Waldo on Mon, 02/16/2009 - 06:51
The following is a quiz I use to use in college to rethink African American History.
"Re-Rank" the following in the order of importance they made to the progress of African Americans.
1. Abe Lincoln
2. Martin Luther King
3. 365,000 Union Soldiers who died in the Civil War
4. Fredrick Douglas
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Mohamed Ali
7. John Brown
8. Jessie Jackson
»
Average white folk
Were against slavery and killing the Indians. I blame the Illuminist bankers at the top and their little Masonic cronies down at the local level for that, and also for breeding hatred and prejudice among the common folk to manipulate them into participating or just going along with it.
Big picture
Here is an interesting link www.jewishtribalreview.org/08slave.htm
Cows think they are free, this is no bull, the beast must be Fed, with pitchfork instead.
Follow the Water Walker the fishing is great, another reason is I forgot the bait.
Cows think they are free, this is no bull, the beast must be Fed, with pitchfork instead
Lincoln gave credit to
William Garrison for nearly single handedly changing the nation's opinion about slavery. Garrison was an influence for Frederick Douglas to MLK and promoted non-violence through his newsletter The Liberator.
He would be number 1 on my list.
Google Garrison.
The bankers wanted a civil war
They created the damn war. Lincoln happened to be in office when it started.
The bankers wanted the war. F slavery they didn't give a shit about slavery. They wanted to own the United States. They had taken over all of Europe by creating wars and bankrupting governments. US of A was just another step in the plan.
If they achieved the split? THEY WIN
If they got Lincoln to borrow THEIR money? THEY WIN
They didn't get either..but.in 1913..THEY STILL WON.
They give a shit about Lincoln? They shot him. Seward was a Rothschild agent along with the rest of them.
You guys are giving Lincoln WAAY too much credit for ANYTHING then. Events and the people behind them were 10X bigger than Abe.
Best thing that can be said about Lincoln is that he HATED the bankers....the bankers knew this so they shot him.
Oh yea it was a crazy actor guy...yea...right.
Unify
The video Money Masters implies basically the same thing.
Lincoln started printing his own greenbacks - assassinated! The Czar of Russia sent warships to the US as a warning to the bankers to not interfere - also assassinated!
Do you have proof of any of those conspiracy theories?
Because I find the subtle hero worship of Lincoln that lives on in the hearts of Alex Jones followers and conspiracy theorists off-putting. There is no evidence the bankers shot Lincoln or Kennedy; there's no evidence that they shot anyone.
If there is, I'd love to read it. I'm open to seeing the facts if any exist.
Is there even anything to prove the assertion that 'Lincoln hated the bankers'? Did you know the federal Income Tax began under Lincoln?
The only president I know of who 'hated the bankers' and was shot was Andrew Jackson--who survived the shooting.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I'm with you Kevin. As far
I'm with you Kevin. As far as the assassination, I tend to go with the evidence that VP Andrew Johnson, whose friend J.W.Booth visited him the night before the assassination was perhaps more involved than is reported in the history books. Also, Lincoln had stated that he was going to go easy on the South, that didn't set well with the Radical Republicans, particularly Thaddeus Stevens and Edward Stanton.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
One of the main points I use to make in my classes was
that everyone has a mixed heritage, so the idea of a pure race is an absurd idea to begin with.
Another point was that African Americans never acknowledge that European Americans have made many contributions to their well being over the years. But have you ever heard an African American leader even acknowledge much less express gratitude for one of these contributions?
I'm wondering when the decedents of the 365,000 Union Soldiers who died in the Civil war are going to "rise up and demand reparations" from the descendants of the slaves whose ancestors were set free!
It's another equally absurd argument but I can't wait to hear Jessie Jackson take that one on?
Waldo
Your arguments are built on many assumptions -- gigantic assumptions.
#1 You've never heard African Americans give "thanks" because you have not read the right books or been to a Lincoln or Civil War service (usually held in black churches).
#2 Slaves did not rush into "white liberty" -- Prison slavery replaced Chattle Slavery (whites did nothing to stop it) and the lynching of approx 3,000 blacks per year for several decades kind of took the steam out of it.
#3 Free-ing the slaves was not the reasons white northerners went to war -- there was a draft -- there was payment -- there was fear of secession and England gaining a foothold in the south again (England was subsidizing the civil war -- lots of profits were made during that time).
#4 Slavery was a blight on humanity and America -- the U.S was the last super-power to have slavery -- it was considred embarrasing.
#5 Licoln made many addresses saying slaves could be bought up and freed but many in the norther were against it as it was thought they'd all relocate in the North -- not wanted. Many lynchings post slavery occured in Minnesota, Indiana, and Illionois.
My point is that Slavery was messed up and wrong -- for Europeans and Asians when you are wronged you get massive reparations. If you are black or indians you get welfarism (further destruction) and reservationism.
I can't believe you feel you need a "thank you" -- hahahaha.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Here are a few more examples!
Most of the people in the underground railroad where European Americans, do you ever heard them acknowledged?
Many European Americans funded and participated in the civil rights movement and two out of the three civil rights workers who were killed in Mississippi were European Americans - are they ever acknowledged?
In MLK's "I have a dream" speech he says he hopes America will one day live out it's creed that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal". Do you ever hear the author of this famous line and principle ever acknowledged?
LBJ was the driving and indispensable force behind passing the Civil Rights Act, does he ever get any credit?
So the bottom line is, if the story is to be told, then the whole story needs to be told!
There was also the Fugitive Slave Act.
Which Lincoln supported, by the way.
Everyone read up on this at wikipedia--I get tired of preaching about Yankee hypocrisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Law_of_1850
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Kevin Tuma
Notice how there is not one Constitutionalist in a position of power -- I mean Ron Paul is in the Congress and that's great; but he doesn't get bills passed -- he's an educator.
So, during the time of Abraham Lincoln, NO ONE was going to get very far (politically) by the late 1800's by being a "strict" anti-slavery advocate.
If you think Jefferson, who owned slaves, was a great benefit to this country than why not think that Lincoln operated with-in the very trechorous times the "best" he could -- if he was against all forms of slavery and legislation would he have made it to the office of President?
The North overwhelmingly came out against "freeing" the slaves if it meant that they would migrate (en masse) to the north.
I'm just saying that maybe getting rid of slavery was very tricky -- in the end, it was determined by God / Fate / a Few Good Men that it had gone on long enough and not one more day could it be tolerated.
The Constitution was not written for women, Whites who never owned property, Indians, Asians, Mexicans, or Blacks.
I'm willing to allow that we will never know what was in Lincoln's head -- regardless what D'Lorenzo says.
If the North did not over tax the South -- it would have been easier to end slavery -- but England was fully subsidizing slavery in the south while they build their supply chains in Egypt and India -- the south was still the cheapest. England was in full competition with the North (text-tile wise).
Slavery didn't begin as a "racist" attack and it didn't end owing to racial love.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Sounds like rationalization to me.
I think you are looking for reasons to forgive him for being a charlatan.
What's your opinion of the "colonization" movement, of which Lincoln was an active part? After he became President?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Kev Tuma
Marcus Garvey and many prominent African-Americans thought going back to Africa might be a better alternative than either keeping the institution of slavery going or living through a 30 year blood letting that was sure to follow post-emancipation.
;Thomas Jefferson was a colonizationist -- did you know that?
I think it's arrogant to simply judge a man's motives based on public speeches -- one had to be careful (if he wanted a future in business or politics) about how "hard" he pressed.
Lincoln did not get into office as an abolitionist -- did he? No.
I think there were strategies and sub-strategies that we'll never know from this far forward in history.
DiLorenzo and his pro-general lee and anti-lincoln brigade almost seem necessary to establish a college or institute in the south -- where the issue of the Civil War is never laid to rest.
There are simple facts: #1 Lincoln made as many addresses wanting to either make slaves free by executive order or by purchasing them and setting them free; #2 there were many arguments (public) made against number one -- the northerners did not want blacks emigrating north (period) -- threats against their safety were made evident. #3 Gen Lee and his ilk fought to keep slavery alive (period) -- meaning the rape, sodomy, selling off of babies/family, and brutality (not very Christian).
Libertarianism -- "to live in liberty"
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"Thomas Jefferson was a
"Thomas Jefferson was a colonizationist -- did you know that?"
A logical position for a slaveowner.
Not a logical position for "The Great Emancipator" (Hallowed Be His Name).
Sending the freed slaves back to Africa, or to Caribbean colonies, is not what I call racially enlightened regardless of whether or not some African-Americans signed onto the idea. African-Americans fought for the Confederacy, too; that doesn't make the Confederate position on slavery legitimate, does it?
I can think of only one logical reason for white Northerners, like Lincoln, to want to send the freed slaves back to Africa.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I can't argue with that :)
I'm fine with calling him "the emancipator" and taking "great" out.
What if there were only 30,000 killed -- what then? Would he have been "great?" I thought I read somewhere that he was thinking 30K would be an acceptible outcome.
The South could have gotten top dollar per slave and asked the North to drop all taxation of the southern states while they get their ish together.
Lincoln would have gone for that.
Slaves might have been given 40 acres and a mule if they headed west -- probably the safest bet.
But the South didn't just want sucession, they wanted to keep that abominable institution going.
Sometimes a "fever" is necessary to cleanse the body of impurities.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Well, Lincoln was far from
Well, Lincoln was far from either the "great emancipator" or "emancipator" for that matter. His "emancipation proclamation" didn't release a single slave in the very States in which he had the power to release them, those under Union control.
The South, by the way, had far more Abolistionists than did the North, and a long history of manumission, releasing for more of its slave population than the North every did, in fact the only thing the Northern slave owners did when slavery was about to be outlawed in the Northern States was to sell them all off, thus reaping a profit on their "property". The slave trade was also a Northern industry, "slaver ships" continued to trade in human flesh at least until 1858 and there is evidence it continued through the war.
By the 1840s, the slave economy in the South had already began to wane, it was becoming evident that due to the Industrial Revolution that it would soon become unprofitable to maintain. By the time of the war many in the South knew that slavery was a dying institution, but the question was how to end it without causing either a major social and economic disruption or to cause the freed slave population massive suffering.
Jeff Davis stated that no matter who won the war, slavery would end. The slave owner population in the South was an extreme minority, perhaps 3% of what was considered large slave owners and another 3% small owners with less than three slaves in their possession.
"But the South didn't just want sucession, they wanted to keep that abominable institution going."
Your above statement does not follow the logic of what was actually occurring at the time. Lincoln attempted to make a deal with the South that if it did not seceded that he would, by supporting a Constitutional Amendment, assure the protection of slavery forever. Now, if the issue for either the North or the South were keeping the institution of slavery then the South would have been a foolish not to accept Lincoln's deal. It would have been a simple solution if slavery was actually the issue behind the secession of the South, but it was not. Had the South accepted, it could have kept slavery and remained in the Union without the certainty of devastation of war.
If slavery had been the reason for Lincoln going to war then he would have never offered such a deal, but it was not the reason. The only reason that Lincoln didn't want the South to secede was the extremely profitable tariff imposed on the South that benefited the North, along with the products that were shipped on Northern trade ships.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
No I am not looking for a thank you because I didn't do
anything to be thanked for! I'm just saying that if the history is going to be told the WHOLE story needs to be told and we would all arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of the various cultures that make up this country.
For instance, I use to ask my students, who typically thought only in terms of black and white, to go home and ask their relatives how many cultural heritages they had in their family. Everyone came back knowing at least 2 and some as many a 6 different bloodlines were running through their veins. So the lights came on and they realized this whole argument of "black vs white" was nothing but an illusion to begin with.
However, for the sake of argument, if you use the primary color analogy of red, black and white - there are many contributions by each race that would benefit all if they were more widely understood and appreciated. Here are three.
1. Most people don't know it, but most of the initial settlers to this country would not have survived if it hadn't been for the kindness of native Americans. They not only helped them survive the first critical year, they showed them great kindness in teaching them how to hunt, fish, grow crops and survive in this new world. But is this commonly acknowledged?
2. Most European American don't consider that cheap slave labor actually served as a HUGE economic subsidy to the emerging American economy. Have you ever stood in the Mississippi Delta, looked at that flat land as far as the eye can see, and thought about the labor it took to clear that land - by hand? This huge labor subsidy eventually facilitated the industrial revolution which is really what led to the winning of WWII. So in essence, without out that huge subsidy the US could have lost the big one. But is this commonly acknowledged?
3. Most African American do not recognize the contributions that European American made in creating a country that brought forth the constitution. The historical document that allowed for individual rights which directly facilitated the rise of a group of immigrants from slavery to equality. Is this commonly acknowledged? Certainly their were many European American that fought for the cause of African Americans in both the civil war and civil rights movements, as well as the abolitionist movement and underground railroad - but are these commonly appreciated?
So really there needs to be more understanding about all the cultures. A better appreciation of the various reciprocations and contributions would be good for all!
So as the great poet Rodney King said - "Can't we all just get along"? My contention is - that if we knew a little more about American history it would be a lot easier!
Why is white guilt so common
Why is white guilt so common between american descents of german, irish, polish... immigrants who arrived in 19th century? Those immigrants didn´t practice slavery. In fact they experienced discrimination themselves because of religion, customs and language
Hmmmm?
Slavery is 100% Taxation of ones Wages (as a minor definition)
If one pays 50% Taxation one is half-slave -- but he's getting "services" so maybe not exactly half.
Moses and Jesus were both Zero Slavery advocates -- They were both anti-Money Changers (usery and the like) -- as an extension they would have been against taxation as well.
So, it seems the South was in-line with Jesus / Moses regarding monetary (or more so than Lincoln at any rate -- since, Lincoln's plan lead to centralized banking) and taxation (the north was heavily taxing the south) -- And the North (Lincoln - Abolitionists - Quakers etc) were in-line with Jesus and Moses regarding slavery.
I guess one question might be -- Since both Lincoln and Gen Lee claimed "divine providence or righteous alignment" -- who was more so in-line -- North or South.
A person can evade taxes and during that day and age could barter as much as half or more of his income -- if he was against taxes and bankers. If you had large estates this became increasingly difficult.
A black person could not evade the rape, sodomy, selling off of children and relatives, zero travel rights, and other vulgarities of slavery -- let alone the mental slavery from several hundred years absent of warrior training and accademia.
Seems to me that Slavery was worse -- on all accounts.
Jesus and Moses were the end-the-fed (now) types -- Jesus didn't flip the money changers tables and chase them out of the Temple "later on" -- it was immediate. Moses was the same - men-of-action.
Seems to me Lincoln was "more right" then was the south.
Slavery was an abomination and had to end immediately
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
We are slaves
Make no mistake about that. Just a different method of slavery. Force is still force, whether it's 10% or 100%. The only difference from back then and now is, the slaves of today are allowed to keep some of their labor to live, thus relieving the burden of the owners to provide everything for them. So called free people generate more revenue if they believe they are free. More revenue ripe for the taking. Slaves have no rights only priviliges. See, the plantation just got a lot larger. Give the illusion of freedom while building apon the communist/slave foundation. Brilliant huh. The owners can still take everything you have, and I mean everything. You are a debt slave, numbered from birth, identity/name stolen and capitalized and made into a corporation for the method of extortion and put in their system of commerce. You become commerce. They give you a fiat currency in which you can only pass the debt on to future generation via their labor. You can't pay anything off with fiat currency. It has no real value. It is a debt insterment. So now they own your labor. That's about all that's left of this country, one big slave labor force. You don't really own anything, they can't take from you. Even the bankruptcy laws of the past allowed you to keep your savings and some personal items. Not any more. If you have savings or anything of worth they will take it.
I agree
Obviously with yor sentiment.
However, as a Creole (a man of color and African ancestry) I'd rather be alive today; without the rape, sodomy, and selling of my children.
What I want now is 100% of my wages or in the case of a Minarchist transitionary society 93% of my wages returned to me; rather than keeping only 7%, with low quality service substitutes, as we do now.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I agree
With you. I would rather be alive today as person of color then back then. The state steals our children through the marraige license now. The mormons are a prime example of this. The state can come in and take your children anytime the see fit. They put your child in foster care, where often atrocities are allowed to happen to them. The state fetches high prices from the federal government for them. Giving motive to a supposedly good cause. Making it even more difficult to retrive them from the system when monetary gain is present. Most parents don't have the funds to fight the beast, so they lose their most precious resources, thier children. They don't call it slavery anymore although it is human trafficking. They polish it up, and say it was for the childs own good.
'Emancipator' Lincoln in his own words...
"“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”
- Abraham Lincoln, August 22, 1862, letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
The 365,000 who died to destroy the Confederacy?
What relevance do those poor souls have to African-American racial history? They died on the whims of racist tyrant Abraham Lincoln.
Those soldiers were victims...not 'liberators'.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
BTW - there is some serious and enternaining
discussion at the bottom of this thread!
Question - Can you get a degree from the Daily Paul?
Better than a degree
You can educate yourself, with so many resourcefilled people..
So why isn't the Buffalo Soldier part of the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Soldier
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
yes..
even the ability to educate yourself by dealing with forums by disinfo slingers here to hide the truth on various subjects.
The Daily Paul will fine tune you..
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
this sounds like
you are defining all african americans as black. So I would gather when the term "african american" is used in a collective term in regards to this issue, it is leaving out the fact of white african americans. But again that is probably even more of a minority here in this country. Kind of confusing like the collective term "hispanic", what does that actually encompass. What countries get to have their people lumped into that catagory. Racism seems so manufactered. I wonder when it really came into play in history. Religious beliefs seem to have always been around to define a culture or group of people. Would be interesting to hear some different thoughts on this.
chinkadaro
I went to college with a white african american
She would do everything she possibly could that was geared toward "african americans" and I saw her YELLING "I AM African!" on more than one occassion, It used to be great watching her make people admit that certain policies were just rascist and had nothing to do with heritage.
Explore Orthodox Christianity