‘The Point’ of an Honest Discussion of Race


not-for-sale-1In reply to a recent article in which I disclosed some neglected facts concerning race and slavery, a reader inquired as to the point in unveiling them.  Before answering, let’s review some of the tidbits that I shared in the interest of that “honest discussion” of race that the Eric Holders of the world continually charge the rest of us with deferring: 

(1) For centuries, millions of white European Christians were enslaved by Asian and African Muslims;

(2) The first slaves in Colonial America were white;

(3) Blacks were in America prior to slavery;

(4) A significant portion of African blacks who eventually became slaves in America were already Christian;

(5) These black slaves had been converted by the African blacks who sold them into bondage;

(6) During the antebellum period, there existed several thousand slave owners who were black;

(7) The first slave master in America was a black man, Anthony Johnson, an Angolan who had originally been sold into slavery by his fellow Africans to Arabs and who owned black and white servants.

There is still other historical “trivia” that defy the conventional narrative on race and slavery.

The civilized world, justly, expresses outrage over the abduction and enslavement of hundreds of young Nigerian schoolgirls at the hands of the African Islamic terrorist organization, Boko Haram.  But the stone-cold truth of the matter is that this sort of thing has been transpiring in Africa from time immemorial.  For millennia upon millennia, black Africans have seized upon and enslaved other black Africans.  And, as notes famed Islamic scholar, Bernard Lewis, among others, from the dawn of Islam, Muslims have abducted and enslaved non-Muslims—both black and white.

It is estimated that well over 100 million black Africans died over the span of 14 centuries as they were marched across the scalding hot sands of the Sahara Desert by those Arab raiders and traders intent upon reducing them to a life of bondage in foreign lands.

In spite of the tremendous number of blacks transported to the Middle East, the latter consists of relatively few blacks today. Why?  For one, African boys were frequently forced to undergo castration, a practice so barbaric that but a tiny percentage survived it.  Those who did, however, fetched a purchasing price several times that of their peers who were not made into eunuchs.

Another consideration accounting for the miniscule black population in the contemporary Middle East is that African girls were sold as concubines and into sex slavery to Arab masters.  This reflected the Islamic belief—most recently articulated by the leader of Boko Haram but first stated in the Koran and practiced by Muhammad—that girls can and should become wives once they are nine years of age.  Upon begetting their masters’ offspring, many eventually became assimilated into their families.

But, thirdly, the tragic fact is that many slaves were simply worked to death.

What follows are some other fascinating truths that are a “must” for any truly honest discussion of race and slavery:

While whites were by no means unique in practicing slavery, they were indeed unique insofar as they were the first people in all of history to have developed a moral revulsion against this age-old institution.  No one liked being abducted and enslaved by others.  But many of these same unfortunates wouldn’t have hesitated to do the same to others if the opportunity had arisen.  Whites, more specifically, English white Christians, personified and led by the conservative William Wilberforce, succeeded in prevailing upon the British Empire—the most economically and militarily powerful presence on the planet at that time—to abolish slavery, not just in England or even within the Empire, but in every area of the globe over which Britain could hope to exercise any of its influence.

More scandalously, the British met with much resistance from Arabs, Asians, and Africans.  Bernard Lewis relays an exchange between a British Consul General in Morocco and the Sultan of that land that typifies precisely the challenges to its campaign against slavery that the English had to surmount.  When the Sultan was asked what he had done to relegate to the dustbin of history the trade in human flesh, he “replied, in a letter expressing evident astonishment, that ‘the traffic in slaves is a matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the sons of Adam…up to this day.’”  The Sultan added that slavery’s permissibility was “manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than the light of day.”

Incidentally, England’s success was a long time coming, for in some parts of the non-European world, places like India and Saudi Arabia, slavery didn’t become illegal until the 1940s and 1960s, respectively.

My reader who inquired as to the “point” in raising these facts at no time denies any of them.  Thus, he confirms what some of us have long suspected: in their tireless promotion of the conventional orthodoxy on race and slavery in America, neither he nor his ilk has ever been in the least bit interested in history for its own sake.  Rather, there has always been a “point” to their campaign, the advancement of a political agenda involving fictions concerning perpetual black suffering, white oppression, and white guilt.

The facts to which I allude here frustrate that agenda.

And this, by the way, is “the point” of mentioning them.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Judahlevi

    There is no such thing as collective guilt or “white” guilt.

    Only racial demagogues try to convince naive people that because of their skin color, they somehow share the ‘guilt’ of slavery or any other negative event. It is a ridiculous premise for many reasons.

    Unless you actually had slaves (and no one today has had them in America) you bear no responsibility for a trade which ended 150 years ago. You are also not responsible for any actions of any other individual purely because you share the same skin color. It is absurd to think otherwise.

    As sovereign individuals, we are responsible only for our own actions, not another individual. Light-skinned people are not responsible for the actions of other light-skinned people any more than dark-skinned people are responsible for others who may look like them.

    Individualism, as a human relational philosophy, teaches all of this. It is unfortunate it even needs to be taught.

    • cxt

      Excellent point.
      We do not punish children for the crimes of their parents. We do not go to the child of thief or even a killer and lock them for the crimes of their parents.
      To even suggest that we do would be widely viewed as insanity.

      • tadchem

        The all-but-forgotten legal concept of ‘attainder’ refers to the concept of holding an individual accountable for the transgressions of an ancestor. Attainder was specifically proscribed in the US Constitution.

        • kikorikid

          “nor bills of attainder”
          Thanks for this!

          • MorganValerioyse321

            my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $74 an hour on the
            laptop . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $13764
            just working on the laptop for a few hours. Get More Info F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

          • MorganValerioyse321

            my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $74 an hour on the
            laptop . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $13764
            just working on the laptop for a few hours. Get More Info F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

        • Edward E

          ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

          IMMIGRATION = = = = = Just means LESS White people.

          MULTICULTURALISM = Just means LESS White people.

          DIVERSITY = = = = = = Just means LESS White people.

          INTEGRATION = = = = = Just means LESS White people.

          ASSIMILATION = = = = = Just means LESS White people.

          RACE-MIXING = = = = = Just means LESS White people.

          STOP WHITE geNOcide!

          Anti-Racist is a code for Anti-White

          • The Right Fight

            This comment by @disqus_4VsfrUtMRq:disqus is merely part of a guerrilla marketing scheme by the Bob Whitaker group.

            Flagged … as commercial spam.

    • PAthena

      Add to this that there was a great Civil War in the United States. from 1861-1865, to abolish slavery.
      Incidentally, the Vikings captured and sold Irish internationally. (A museum in Sweden has artifacts from Vikings, including silk (from China) and a statue of a Buddha.)The city of Dublin was founded by the Vikings to be the collecting point of the captives.

      • skf1999

        The Civil War was NOT about abolishing slavery. The South declared war on their own nation and seceded. The wat was about preserving the Union.

        • cxt

          skf1999

          Maybe at first–but there are several books about why the INDVIDUAL Union soldier fought—an very large proportion of them specifically mention abolition in their letters home to loved ones.

          The abolition issue played a significant role in keeping the Brits from possibly helping the South. (more than they did)

          The slave states vs the free states and how the “new” states would come into the union was a major driver for the southern urge to secede.

          In any case, by the end of the conflict it became a central issue. However it stated….that is the way it ended.

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            I wonder how many confederate letters were specific in supporting slavery? It would be an interesting clarification and would demonstrate the effectiveness of the propaganda of the day. I’d wager the confederates on average were sold on not being pushed around by Yankees and slavery was not on their minds very often. It’s not like they had open conversations with their adversaries in that war. They were rarely close enough to talk.

        • dean53

          The South simply wanted to exercise the same right that the 13 Colonies exercised when they declared independence from Great Britain. Each state voted to create and join the United States of America as a community of independent and sovereign states, united by a compact. The original signers never imagined that they were creating a political prison from which they could never escape. Seventy years after the Union was formed, the North became the new Loyalists and the South became the oppressed Patriots, fighting for freedom. Too late the South realized they had created a Frankenstein from which there was no escape.

          What’s more important? Preserving a union controlled by a powerful, rich, elite aristocracy that oppresses its hapless citizens, or setting people free to live their own lives, keep the fruits of their own labors and live according to their own values?

          Piss on this tyrannical Union. The “Union” was supposed to enhance its citizens lives; not diminish them.

        • Johnnie

          The Civil War may have physically started over States Rights….but the kindling was slavery and expanding it into the new territories. The War was a symptom of the disease……

        • American Patriot

          You are repeating Communist propaganda once again, uptownsteve. The Civil War was about both preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. Learn from history.

      • kikorikid

        Different times, slavery everywhere.
        I like to read stories of Vikings on
        Crusade to the Middle East. “God wills it!”

    • PAthena

      It was John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, who declared that we are all endowed by our Creator with the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. (He was disagreeing with Thomas Hobbes, who justified slavery as the spoils of war, where the captives saved their lives by becoming slaves.
      In fact, slavery was a universal institution and still exists. Plato and Julius Caesar, for example, were sold into slavery and had to be ransomed out. See also the story of the swineherd in Homer’s Odyssey, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery.

    • kikorikid

      BRAVO!
      You are right! It is not being taught. That
      would undermine the “Group Grievances”
      industry. As Diversity minions discriminate
      against Whites they fail to realize that each act
      is an original act, and that they, as individuals,
      are responsible, not some “perceived” historical
      wrong.

      • Drakken

        When European/Americans wake up and become as race contentious as the other minority groups, this self hating, self loathing and flaying ourselves on the alter of PC/MC, nonsense will stop.

  • dynbrake

    When a person begins with a faulty view or understanding on any subject or problem, that person’s conclusions, and/or solutions are very likely to be incorrect. This is particularly the case with the so-called problem of racism. When you begin with the correct view, God’s view, and you continue in His view, you will find the correct conclusions or solutions.

    God created one man, and by extension, all other men from that one man. What this means is that there are in reality no races other than the human race. In this aspect, all humans are brothers or sisters to each other. Some have a darker skin-color, and some have a lighter skin-color, but all are humans originating from one original man, Adam. Thus, there is no reason to consider or to view any human as different from another as regards “race.” We are all of the same race. This is the great equalizer of men. All men are equal in the sight of God. No one color is superior to any other. God is not “one to show partiality” [cf. Acts 10:34.]

    Indeed, God says, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” [Romans 3:23, NASB.] Since all men have sinned, all men need a savior. As Paul through the Holy Spirit tells Timothy, “It is a trustworthy statement deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” [1st Timothy 1:15, NASB.]

    Recognizing these facts is humbling, and helps us to treat each other with respect.

  • krinks

    I get that rich blacks like Doug Glanville gets stopped by police for mowing his own grass because they don’t think he belongs in this rich neighborhood.
    I get that rich blacks like Chris Carter gets asked to carry bags at baggage claim because he is black he must be a baggage handler.
    The other side of the coin though is whites like me that try to treat all people equally end up attacked by blacks twice for the crime of passing through their neighborhoods. Screw the rich blacks. I have treated them all as criminals and haven’t had a problem since. If a large number if not most criminals look like them that is not my problem.

  • DaCoachK

    Left-Wing-Kooks within the black community will never believe these facts, as they run the opposite direction from the USA (money). Reparations is the ultimate goal for these people, and they know the USA is the only place with enough emotion-driven fools (liberals) to make a possible go at “A Million Each Black Person” program. A black person is anyone with one drop of black blood.

  • http://erikrush.com Erik Rush

    Bravo!

  • liz

    Great article! A refreshing dose of that rarity, “fair and balanced reporting” – of history, in this case. Amazing how many problematic “issues”, like racism, would miraculously disappear if we all tried that unique and novel approach to learning.

  • fistdeyuma

    I feel Liberals break down into three groups; Stupid, Ignorant and Evil. The Stupid are a lost cause as they will only vote for those who promise them most. The Evil activity support the Liberal goals so trying to change their mind is impossible as well.
    That leaves us with the Ignorant. It is possible to educate them to the facts and the real world. The problem is they are intermixed with the stupid and evil who do everything they can to disrupt that education.
    As Conservatives we need to press and press. Get the message out to the Ignorant. Save them with facts and logic. Ignore the trash who fight you.
    Yes, it is like banging your head against the wall at times. However success can create big rewards. One of the top Conservative of our times was once a Liberal. When asked why he changed to a Conservative he explained, “Empirical Evidence”. Once you get the idea into the ignorant person’s head that he or she has been lied to you need only refer them to books and videos to complete the conversion.
    This is a war. A war that the re-election of Obama proves we have losing. If we are to save the nation then we must redouble out efforts to reach out to those capable of thinking for themselves.

  • kilfincelt

    Mr. Kerwick, please write a book on this subject. I have read several books on the subject but would appreciate having one source with all this information because we all need to understand the truth.

  • Victor Cachat

    Don’t confuse the useful idiots with facts.
    They will just engage in ad hominem attacks or throw straw men at you.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Hmm, No mention of Black abolitionists in Africa, Europe and America.
    No mention of whites enslaving whites over the centuries.
    Of course no mention of Jews enslaving Whites and Blacks then and now.

    Jews like all other groups have their show of good, bad, and ugly. Here what’s going on Israel now. The posters said, among other things, that Christianity is an “accursed” religion that is complicit in the murder of millions of Jews, and that its leaders dream of “annihilating the Jewish state.” It called on the “impure” pope to “get out of our holy land” and “return the stolen vessels of the Temple.”

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180964#.U39ytPldWH4

    • ssohara

      I think the larger point is that all races and peoples have done good and bad things. Let’s not convict an individual for something his parents or ancestors or “people” did. I also think that he wrote this in response to the biased anti-white harangues… that are probably an over-reaction to “whites only” history that didn’t name the important contributions of non-whites, women, etc. That was bad but “hating whitey” is also bad.

      On another note – sometimes black problems are due to racism but a lot of times they are due to personal choices. If you make good choices you can overcome racism. But if you keep making bad choices, even a totally color blind society cannot help you.

      • MrUniteUs1

        If that were true, then the writer would have included the Arabs, Jews, and Europeans involved in the slave trade. You can’t have an honest discussion about slavery and omit these groups. I don’t know anyone that was convicted in this country for what their ancestors did. However the children of African women born in this Virginia were legally condemned to slavery. Guess who made that rule? The excuse used for killing Jews in Germany was that the Jews killed Jesus. Not sure what anti white harangues you are referring. The hating whitey line is used by right wing Jews, to divide the gentiles. Keep in mind we live in a time where interracial businesses and personal relationships are common. What do you think about that Black football player kissing on his white boyfriend. Not exactly a hating whitey moment.

    • PAthena

      Note that Jews celebrate Passover as a festival of freedom when the escaped slavery in Egypt. “Go down, Moses, is a famous Negro spiritual” based on this.
      (Jews also celebrate Shavuot as the day when Moses got the ten commandments.)
      Incidentally, who knows who put the posters up in Jerusalem?

    • kikorikid

      Taqiyya scat!

  • MrUniteUs1

    (2) The first slaves in Colonial America were white;
    Who enslaved them?

    • American1969

      Fellow whites. It’s all about greed and nothing more.

  • MrUniteUs1

    (6) During the antebellum period, there existed several thousand slave owners who were black;
    **
    True the number I’ve read was 4,000. A small number over 250 years of history. Most where in Louisiana, where 1/32 black, as recently as the 1980′s, made you legally Black. In the California the 1/8 Black or Asian, made you legally Black or Asian, and subject to the discriminatory laws of the the time. In the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Plessy was not allowed to ride in the white section of a train. He was 1/8th Black and 7/8ths white. He was considered legally Black. An Octoroon according to the U.S. census. Quadroons 1/4 Black where enslaved prior to the civil war.

  • PAthena

    Slavery still exists, and the British Anti-Slavery society is kept busy. Even in the United States, cases of maids being slaves have recently occurred, one in a family from Saudi Arabia.
    It exists in North Korea, and the Nazis and the Soviet Union had slave labor camps. (See Solzhenityn’ The Gulag Archipelago.)

  • nomoretraitors

    “But many of these same unfortunates wouldn’t have hesitated to do the same to others if the opportunity had arisen”
    That’s what happened in Liberia, when some of the freed slaves in the US were repatriated back to Africa. According to the History Channel, they enslaved the people who were already there (stole their land, anyone?) and that is the root of the recent conflicts there.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Not true. In fact my some of my family members went to Liberia during the 1800′s,. Yes plantations were set up. But no one was chained and forced to work. No one had the children born into a life a slavery. The people that worked on plantations were paid. Liberia played an important during the WWII. Liberian rubber plantations were Germany’s number one source of rubber. Liberia cut them off at President Roosevelt’s request. Hard to fight a war without rubber. We lost thousands to German U boats sinking our ships crossing the Atlantic. Liberia saved thousands of American lives when they allowed the U.S to by pass U boat patrols, and use their country as a staging area for repairs and supplies.

  • nomoretraitors

    There was slavery in America long before blacks (or whites) ever set foot on this land. It was common practice for the native tribes to take enemy captives as slaves, as it has been throughout the world when the planet’s population hit 100

  • truthbetrolled

    Ok, slavery in the U.S. ended 150 years ago. But the end of slavery was followed by Jim Crow and redlining which prevented black people in the U.S. from having the same rights and access to opportunities afforded to whites. From Reconstruction, to the New Deal (it’s fair housing program was basically a model for the practice of redlining), to the segregationist practice in both the North and South. Black in the U.S. were not afforded an even playing field. You can try to make yourselves feel better all you want by comparing and quoting from U.S. history, that still doesn’t change the fact that until civil rights laws were enacted and enforced, Blacks in this country had very few opportunities to improve their living standards. This was imposed on them, it was not the result of “choice” or lack of “initiative, or “cultural differences”. And you probably know that.

    • tagalog

      Jim Crow and redlining: now there’s an interesting joinder of grievances.

    • cxt

      truthbetrolled
      “Followed by Jim Crow and redlining which prevented blacks in the USA from having the same rights and access to opportunities.”
      Lets keep in mind that happened MAINLY in the Democrat South. Not the Republican North.
      The whole nation was not “Jim Crow” coast to coast—it was created and implemented mainly in States that voted Democrat, were run by Democrats and actually carried out by Democrats.
      There were no Gov standing at schoolhouse doors preventing blacks from entering in the North. ….etc.

      • skf1999

        This is total silliness. You righties keep trying to play this semantic game with political parties. The supporters of Jim Crow and segregation were CONSERVATIVES. The abolitionists and activists for equality and freedom were PROGRESSIVES. You also conveniently forget that the North was as segregated as the South. The Levittown housing developments that were erected after WW2 for returning GI’s were off limits to blacks. Homes practically given away for no or little money down. Denied to blacks who served the nation just as whites did.

        • tagalog

          The supporters of Jim Crow and segregation were the philosophical descendants of the “my way or the highway” crowd who would sooner instigate rebellion against the United States than lose their cherished slavery.

          • skf1999

            Right. Confederates…who are now a large part of the modern GOP. Thanks for making my point.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            When was the last Leftard demonstration against CURRENT DAY SLAVERY in Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia.

            Leftards have moral blind spots.

          • American1969

            Nice stretching there. Project much? It’s leftists that insist that minorities can’t do it on their own and need government handouts, not conservatives.

          • tagalog

            I think I understand that “Confederate” crack. It is, of course, a myth.

            But why do you have to have ME make your point for you? Can’t you make it clearly by yourself?

          • Drakken

            So please tell us, where do you live? In a black utopia amongst your own? Or another minority group area. Whether we like it or not, we tend to live amongst our own, no matter he color or stripe. It is not racism, it is realism.

        • liz

          It’s true that the North was just as segregated as the South, and both political parties were guilty, but your mistake is to equate the progressives of that day with the progressives of today.
          The progressives of today are Marxists who are exploiting blacks to further their agenda of expanding government power. They project racism onto conservatives, who are no longer racist, in order to win black loyalty and votes.

          • American Patriot

            But today, Zimbabwe’s black supremacist/Marxist ZANU practices “John Crow” neo-apartheid against white Zimbabweans. For example, a white Zimbabwean cannot own any farmland at all.

    • American Patriot

      America overcame evils and injustices over a half-century ago. Meanwhile, your beloved Robert Mugabe’s Marxist dictatorship practices a form of neo-apartheid I call “John Crow”, where white people are persecuted in practically every field of Zimbabwean society. In Zimbabwe, if you are white, you cannot own farmland or almost any kind of private property. If you are white in Zimbabwe, Mugabe’s ZANU thugs harass you for your skin color, political beliefs and even try to prevent you from voting in sham “elections”. You are a black supremacist, Stokely Carmichael II.

  • tagalog

    Where are the Louis Farrakhans, the Al Sharptons, the Jesse Jacksons when the actions of Boko Haram in threatening to sell black schoolgirls into slavery in Africa call so profoundly for condemnation? Where are these gentlemen when the evident existence of a current Islamic slave trade in the 21st Century cries out for voices to put it to an end?

    Where, oh where, are these voices of liberation? How about Desmond Tutu? The surviving wife of Nelson Mandela?

    • skf1999

      If the US was in bed with Boko Haram as they were with the South African Apartheid regime you might have a point.

      • tagalog

        Who said anything about the United States? I was talking about certain black grievance mongers who are quite critical of the American version of slavery, which ended 150 years ago.

        • skf1999

          You mean the American version of slavery was….okay?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            American slavery ended 150 years ago.

            Muslim slavery goes on TODAY in Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia…

          • tagalog

            No. It would take world-class obtuseness to get that out of my post.

      • Drakken

        Yeah, and the South African whites are really thriving in a black run nation aren’t they? Look at every bloody African nation and tell me they are anywhere near being run as well as any country in the west? Look at Rhodesia, when the whites ran it, it was the bread basket of Africa, now it is a basket case.

      • American Patriot

        Oh please. This country was never in bed with the former apartheid regime in South Africa, you Stalinist/Maoist. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was in bed with your beloved Robert Mugabe’s racist, Marxist dictatorship in Zimbabwe. It is interesting how a dictatorial superpower got cozy with a regime who hates people of the superpower’s skin color but is allies with because of shared ideology of Communist totalitarianism. Typical Communist propagandist.

    • cacslewisfan

      Agreed. Where are these courageous champions? Safe and sound in the US race baiting and railing at people who wouldn’t raise a finger against them. It makes me sick.

    • Rick

      I would not expect any of the people you mentioned to raise a
      finger against any black group, regardless of the atrocities that have committed. After all, there’s no money to be made from it, unless they can’t
      figure a way to put the blame on white racism.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Al Sharpton regarding Boko Haram

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeaFv6qmTaU

      • Drakken

        It would be great fun to feed Sharptongue to Boko Haram.

      • tagalog

        Well, at least Sharpton said SOMETHING, even though it’s about as inarticulate a call for an end to modern-day slavery as could be conceived. I liked the “Africa is the most mineral-rich continent, so don’t ignore it” thingie. That was certainly most galvanizing, especially in the face of modern-day Islamic slavery.

        I guess Sharpton is in favor of some modern-day colonialism, in which the rich nations would annex the African countries so as to exploit their mineral wealth and raise the standard of living of the average sub-Saharan African.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Leading from behind is I suppose some times better than hiding in a hole in the ground.

          • tagalog

            Yeah; then, when some country bites on Sharpton’s ploy and exploits all those mineral riches, Sharpton can criticize it for colonial racism against sub-Saharan African blacks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Unless it’s China. But yeah, that is generally how the game works.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You don’t think he was following cues from the White House?

        And his rant seems to be keeping with the neo-Marxist narratives.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Jesse Jackson, who wrote,

      “The kidnappers of the girls, Boko Haram, pose a growing
      threat. Violence in the isolated and impoverished northeast is
      spreading. Boko Haram indicts the government for corruption and
      violence. It promises to enforce Sharia law across the
      territories [Emphasis added]. To date this year, according to United
      Nations figures, Boko Haram has killed more than 1,500 people. It is
      well funded, well organized and deadly. It will take significant
      international assistance and coordination to root it out.”

      • tagalog

        Nothing about a current international Islamic slave trade in that quote, I notice.

    • 95Theses
  • skf1999

    Rightwingers sure are obsessed with race.

    • nomoretraitors

      You’re projecting

    • kikorikid

      Leftist support the Diversity ideological contention
      that, If White, then Racist. A most Racist contention.

      • skf1999

        Wrong. That’s if RIGHTWING, then racist.

        • liz

          No, it’s “if right-wing WHITE, then RACIST. Right-wing BLACK, then Uncle Tom.”
          Only leftists – who consider blacks too stupid to make it in life without government handouts – aren’t racist?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          RIGHTWING Islam?

        • Drakken

          Your another one of those bloody leftist that throw that race card like so much confetti at a parade, it has no meaning anymore.

          • American Patriot

            He is uptownsteve. He is simply using a different nickname, but he is still the race-obsessed buffoon.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Leftards sure are obsessed with race – except when it’s “people of color” doing the hating and killing.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The way that Israel is obsessed with rockets landing randomly on its soil.

  • kikorikid

    Most Excellent essay,EXCELLENT!
    It brings to the fore the “Revisionist”
    History that is being fed everyone.
    Your “Points” are mandatory for any
    “honest” discussion of “Race”. However,
    that will not happen as long as Diversity
    Ideology posits that,”If White, then Racist”.
    Diversity ideology is an ideology of oppression.
    They are doing successful oppression so
    why should they want to undermine themselves.

  • hiernonymous

    One of the things that makes American slavery unique is that it was pursued in a state that had enshrined in its original declaration of its founding principles that all men are created equal, and that liberty is one of their inalienable rights.

    Thus, at the creation of the United States, it was plain that engaging in any form of slavery was the rankest hypocrisy. Over the next half-century, this resulted in a – dare I say? – peculiar distortion of our collective morality that made our institution of slavery different from the other forms you’re describing. The only way to reconcile the aforementioned principle with that of African slavery was to redefine the slave as something other than human – and therefore not in possession of the right to liberty. This transformed slavery – and attitudes toward it – to the point that, by the Civil War, you have the infamous Cornerstone expression of the black’s proper position in society.

    This also, by the way, greatly contributed to the treatment of African-Americans after their liberation. After generations of self-serving rationalizations had allowed many to convince themselves that blacks were less than fully human, suddenly being asked to live side-by-side with them as equals was beyond the capacity of many conservative Southerners (and I mean conservative in its broadest sense). Hence Jim Crow and racial animosity to this day.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Very well stated.

    • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

      “One of the things that makes American slavery unique is that it was pursued in a state that had enshrined in its original declaration of its founding principles that all men are created equal, and that liberty is
      one of their inalienable rights.Thus, at the creation of the United States, it was plain that engaging in any form of slavery was the rankest hypocrisy.”

      Thank you for providing the opportunity for correction of ignorance. The majority of the founding fathers were against incorporating slavery into the creation of the US. There was a terrible and weeks long argument about slavery at the Constitutional convention in the summer of 1789. The deadlock was finally broken when a delegate from Virginia rose and said, “Gentlemen, the issue is not whether there will be slavery. The issue is whether there will be union”…

      The Founders on Slavery

      Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine,Henry, Mason, Morris, Jay, Rush, Abigail Adams, Woolman, Samuel Adams, Livingston, Carroll, Dickinson, Lee, etc. All wrote of there opposition to slavery BEFORE the Constitutional Convention in 1789.

      The First Four Presidents of the United States: wrote of their opposition and disgust with slavery. slavery

      George Washington: “there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” “I never mean … to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees” Washington wrote, “It is demonstratively clear that on this Estate (Mount Vernon) I have more working Negroes by a full [half] than can be employed to any advantage in the farming system.” (But) “To sell the over-plus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion.” “Were it not that I am principled against
      selling Negroes… I would not in twelve months from this date be
      possessed of one as a slave.” —Letter to Morris, April 12, 1786

      John Adams: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in …abhorrence.” —Letter to Evans, June 8, 1819, in Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams

      Thomas Jefferson:

      “The rights of human nature [are] deeply wounded by this infamous practice [of slavery].” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774

      “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever:” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

      “As it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, 1820

      “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” — Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

      James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” —Speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787

      “[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

      Other Founding Fathers of Note:

      Benjamin Franklin: Founding Father, First Ambassador to America’s greatest ally of the time, France and the 1st President of America’s first Antislavery Society.
      “Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature.” —”An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery” (1789), Benjamin Franklin, Writings

      Alexander Hamilton: Hero of the Battle of White Plains, NY & Aide-de-Camp to General Washington – Principal Architect of the Federalist Papers, New York Constitutional Convention Delegate, First US Secretary of the Treasury, Inspector General of the Army under President John Adams and widely considered “one of the greatest administrative genius’ of all time.”

      “The laws of certain states …give an ownership in the service of Negroes as personal property…But being men, by the laws of God and nature, they were capable of acquiring liberty, and when the captor in war …thought fit to give them liberty, the gift was not only valid, but irrevocable.” Papers of Alexander Hamilton

      Gouverneur Morris, Penn. delegate to the Constitutional Convention: proclaimed slavery a “nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed” spreading poverty broadly through society.

      George Mason – VA delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 “this infernal traffic” that produces “the most pernicious effect on manners.” “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant; they bring the judgment of heaven on a country.”

      Abigail Adams: “(he is) a Freeman as much as any of the young Men and merely because his Face is Black, is he to be denied instruction? How is he to be qualified to procure a livelihood? … I have not thought it any disgrace to my self to take him into my parlor and teach him both to read and write.”

      John Jay: First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court
      “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” –John Jay, letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786

      Patrick Henry: Governor of Virginia and Patriot
      “I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil.” — Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773

      Benjamin Rush: Founder of America’s First Anti-slavery Society, Signer of the Declaration of Independence & Father of American Psychiatry
      “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.” “(slavery) is so foreign to the human mind, that the moral faculties, as well as those of the understanding are debased, and rendered torpid by it.” “To the Citizens of the United States.” Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four

      John Woolman: Highly influential preacher and earliest advocate against slavery
      “Many slaves on this continent are oppressed, and their cries have reached the ears of the Most High. Such are the purity and certainty of his judgments, that he cannot be partial in our favor.”

      Samuel Adams Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
      “A slave cannot live in my house, if she comes, she must be free.”

      Thomas Paine: Founding Father & Influential Patriot
      “To Americans: “that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice (of slavery) is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every principle of Justice and Humanity…Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stifle all these, willfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden idol.” “African Slavery in America” March 8, 1775

      William Livingston: Signer of the Declaration of Independence
      “I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

      Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence.
      “[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.” Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton

      John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania.
      “As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they [c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].” The Life and Times of John Dickinson

      Richard Henry Lee: Signer of the Declaration of Independence
      “Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.” The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses from “Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguished Men in America and Europe.”

      Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate.
      “[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally
      Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and
      his American master.” From James Madison’s The Records of the Federal Convention

      James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court
      Justice.
      “Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law…The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.” The Works of James Wilson

      John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence.
      “It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others…and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.” The Works of John Witherspoon

      Richard Allen – founder of the A.M.E. Church in America.
      “Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal.” In an early address: “To the People of Color”

      Useful background information:

      Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for
      ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod
      Washington, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah
      Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in
      1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in
      1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.

      The first federal racial civil rights law in America “An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio,” was passed on August 7, 1789 with the endorsing signature of President George Washington. It prohibited slavery in any new State interested in seeking to enter the Union.

      Consequently, slavery was thus prohibited in all the American territories held at the time; and it was because of this law, signed by President George Washington, that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery.

      It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared: “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” -George Washington

      Readers may be unaware that during the years when Washington was
      alive, the laws in Virginia were designed to discourage and prevent
      the emancipation of slaves. A great financial burden was imposed upon
      any slave owner seeking to emancipate a slave. Thus, the only
      remaining means to dispose of one’s slaves was to sell them, had
      Washington not been opposed to this practice, he could have used that
      means to end his ownership of all slaves. The excess number of slaves, which he held, was economically unprofitable for Mount Vernon and was a life-long burden upon his finances.

      Washington himself acknowledged the profit he could make by reducing the number of his slaves, declaring “[H]alf the workers I keep on this estate would render me greater net profit than I now derive from the whole.”

      Despite the financial benefits he could have reaped and the years of financial burdens he endured, Washington adamantly refused to sell
      any slaves, saying “To sell the over-plus I cannot, because I am
      principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire
      them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in
      families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I
      have an aversion.”

      This stand by Washington was absolutely remarkable for his day…and
      singular. No other founding father acted so nobly in accepting the
      circumstantial conflict between adverse societal laws and personal
      principles. The loophole that finally allowed Washington to circumvent Virginia law was by emancipating his slaves upon his death, a provision he placed within his will to ensure its success.

      After reading all these quotes anyone who still insists that the founders were hypocrites is not interested in historical truth but in the promotion of a dishonest agenda, which any agenda based in historical lies and distortions must of necessity be…

      • cxt

        Excellent read!

      • hiernonymous

        You’ve offered a passionate defense of the personal morals of the Founders. My comment, however, I was that the enslavement of men by a society that professed that all men are created equal is the rankest hypocrisy. Nothing in your litany of expressed opinions actually challenges that.

        “After reading all these quotes anyone who still insists that the founders were hypocrites…”

        Could I trouble you to actually read the post to which you are responding and summarize it accurately, if you must summarize? Here’s what I actually wrote:

        Thus, at the creation of the United States, it was plain that engaging in any form of slavery was the rankest hypocrisy.

        You will note that the many quotations you offered above were individuals agreeing with the sentiment I just expressed. What, exactly, do you find objectionable in my comment? To profess that all men are created equal, and that liberty is one of their fundamental rights, such that governments are instituted among men to secure those rights, is utterly incompatible with owning another person.

        And, by the way, although you were responding to a somewhat different accusation than that which I leveled, one part of your impassioned defense of Mr. Washington leapt out at me. You seem to be suggesting that it would be ignorant to accuse Him of hypocrisy, since it would have caused him great financial hardship under the laws of the Commonwealth to free his slaves. I would respond that we revere the Founders for their willingness to risk all – their very lives – in pursuit of liberty. How, then, can we not also acknowledge that this willingness to risk all did not extend to all? If Mr. Washington’s legend rests in great part for his willingness to risk the noose for the cause of liberty, we must also note his reluctance to risk penury in that same cause. When you wrote “the only remaining means to dispose of one’s slaves was to sell them” presupposes that the financial burdens attendant to freeing them outweighed the moral imperative to do so. His stance may well have been remarkable for a man of his position, but that does not mean that it was not still hypocritical. At the end of the day, you are making excuses for his failure to live up to his own professed ideals.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “My comment, however, was that the enslavement of men by a society that professed that all men are created equal is the rankest hypocrisy.”

          But you always seem to forget that we’re arguably the least hypocritical nation on the planet. It’s just that we talk about our imperfections more than others do. Which is what helps us improve. But that won’t work well if we don’t strive for a balanced approach.

    • Judahlevi

      There is nothing “unique” about American slavery.

      Slavery qua slavery is dehumanization.

      It is historically inaccurate to think that only dark-skinned individuals were recognized as slaves. People of all skin colors throughout history have been slaves.

      • hiernonymous

        That’s pretty much my point. In most societies that practiced slavery, one was a slave through circumstance, not by virtue of the color of his skin. Slavery was necessarily cruel, but I would challenge you to find many examples of a slave system analogous to antebellum America’s in which the institution of slavery was justified on the basis of an ascribed racial incapacity for independence.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “That’s pretty much my point. In most societies that practiced slavery, one was a slave through circumstance, not by virtue of the color of his skin. Slavery was necessarily cruel, but I would challenge you to find many examples of a slave system analogous to antebellum America’s in which the institution of slavery was justified on the basis of an ascribed racial incapacity for independence.”

          But the cause of their slavery was that these “blacks” were made slaves in Africa and then sold for export. The international slave trade became more productive and “blacks” starting showing up as ready made slaves. Do you suppose that had some kind of effect on the locals when that is all they knew about black skin? They had no other experiences to draw from.

          If we had brought slaves from Africa with white skin and hair palms, hairy palms would be viewed as a sign of low intelligence and so forth. It’s not that “whites” went looking for those “hated blacks.”

          It’s all very unfortunate and we should do what we can to remedy the root problems. But the root problem is not that “whites” are any more inherently racist than “blacks” are inherently lower in intelligence.

          It’s perpetuating racism to fight racism with a collectivist worldview. We need to be undoing racism, not trying to equalize all forces against each other. You don’t bring peace to warring people by continuing to bring more weapons to the side you think is losing.

    • cxt

      heirnonymous
      So essentially your main beef is that a brand new nation, still reeling from a WAR failed to live up to its highest ideals.
      Name me a nation or person that does. ;)
      When your standard is perfection EVERYONE fails.
      And of course should the issue of slavery have been pushed from the get-go–as many wanted to do. The South would likely have never signed on to the nation–the USA as a country would have been stillborn AND the South STILL would have kept their slaves.
      And your playing word games with the Irish—were the Irish in the USA treated as badly as “slaves” no. Were they “discriminated” against in a similar fashion yes. I point to signs openly posted as “No Irish need apply” and the book How The Irish Became White……..heck even Blazing Saddles poked fun at the way the Irish were treated.
      (And in terms of historical bad acts–how about the Brits letting 3 MILLION or so Irish starve to death)
      And AGAIN–”Jim Crow” etc. was largely a SOUTHERN practice—speaking of it as if “Jim Crow” was a coast-to-coast cultural practice is sloppy.
      It should also be pointed out that

      • hiernonymous

        “So essentially your main beef is that a brand new nation, still reeling from a WAR failed to live up to its highest ideals.”

        Why, no. Essentially, my main beef is with people trying to excuse or minimize the significance of the African slave trade by insinuating that it was no different from what anyone else was doing. I’m pointing out that there were, in fact, significant differences from other slave trades that made it particularly bad.

        “I point to signs openly posted as “No Irish need apply” ”

        You may point all you wish, but you’d be doing so in historical ignorance. “NINA” signs were not holdovers from transportation or indentured servitude or white slavery, they were a 19th-century backlash against mass immigration resulting from the potato famine and the huge influx of Irish and German immigrants. The Germans were largely arriving through southern ports and traveling up the Mississippi to the midwest; the Irish were largely arriving via British ports to the northeast. “NINA” signs appeared in the latter cities. That’s a pretty good example, not of lingering racism rooted in slavery, but of our tendency to mistreat the most recent wave of immigrants. 40-50 years later, the Irish were as American as apple pie, and it was the Italians and South Europeans that were generating the backlash.

        “And AGAIN–”Jim Crow” etc. was largely a SOUTHERN practice—speaking of
        it as if “Jim Crow” was a coast-to-coast cultural practice is sloppy.”

        It’s your reading of my post that’s sloppy; I didn’t offer a geographical specification, I noticed that those who had been raised on a diet of racial inferiority had trouble accepting former slaves as fully human neighbors. Where do you think that such attitudes prevailed? On the other hand, what is it about the history of racism in the country that makes you think that the rest of the country was fully immune, either?

        “It should also be pointed out that Jim Crow was largely Democrat
        practice. Taking place mainly in Democratic States, with Democratic
        leaders with people that largely vote Democrat.

        Not the Republican North,”

        That should only be pointed out if one is also points out that the Democrats of the time were the party of the white Southern conservatives, and that the Republicans were acting on behalf of the ‘liberals’ of the day. In other words, your comment is historically accurate as far as it goes, as long as one is historically literate enough to not fall into the trap of concluding that today’s Democratic and Republican Parties are simply continuations of the parties that initiated those policies. Today’s Democrats and Republicans bear as much resemblance to the Democrats and Republicans of 1865 or 1920 as they do to the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists. Much as the Democratic-Republicans split into the Democratic and the National Republican Parties, the Democratic Party of the Jim Crow era included hardline southern conservatives and the emergent Progressive wing centered in the North and Midwest. The Republicans, too, had a Progressive element in the early 20th century. African-American voters, for the most part, shifted allegiance from the Republican to the Democratic Party in two great waves, beginning in the FDR administration in response to FDR’s responses to the Great Depression, and subsequently in the late ’50s and ’60s as a result of Civil Rights legislation. At the same time, Southern conservatives drifted from the Democratic to the Republican party. The first early indication of this was the emergence of the Conservative Caucus in Congress, which was a cross-party caucus in which conservatives from the Republican and Democratic parties made common cause against the progressives in both parties. The departure of white Southern conservatives accelerated in the ’60s after Barry Goldwater caused (or served as a symptom of, depending on your perspective) a distinct Republican shift toward the Right, which was followed by a shift in evangelical alliances, with conservative church groups largely making commonm cause with the Republican Party. By the end of the century, the South, which had once voted solidly Democratic, now voted solidly Republican. This did not happen because the south stopped being largely white and conservative; it happened because white conservatives no longer adhered to the Democratic Party. Put another way, the liberal successors to the party’s Progressive wing had won the Democratic civil war.

        So, in both the case of white slaves and in noting the parties responsible for Jim Crow, being aware of history is a good thing. Trying to use the selective presentation of facts from history in order to try to make misleading implications is less good.

        • Judahlevi

          And your presentation of “facts” from history is just as selective, if not more so, than any other poster.

          Anyone who tries to say Republican party history (Lincoln, et al) is morally equivalent to the Democrat party’s Jim Crow south is not only being selective but extremely misleading.

          The fact is the Republican party’s official history does not include the KKK and Jim Crow – only the Democrat party has that in their history. They own it – get over it.

        • cxt

          heir
          Nope—now your revising your first post in post-hoc fashion.
          “excuse or minimize” appear no-where in your lead paragraph—while the USA failure to uphold its ideals is the sole focus of your intro. So it can be ignored as the post hoc rationalization that it is. ;)
          On the second point—NEW point that is. ;)
          There is no evidence whatsoever that “slavery” in the early days of the USA was any more nasty than slavery anywhere/anywhen else.
          As slavery was a WORLDWIDE activity, practiced since the dawn of what is often termed “humanity” many THOUSANDS of year’s find it improbable that the in the short history of the US it was worse than anyone else in history.
          But since you made the statement that it was you have the burden of proof—so prove it was worse than say what was going in Brazil or Haiti in the same time period.
          You mis-cast my Irish post—which dealt specifically with DISCRIMINATION not slavery. But thank you for making my point.
          Your extensive exposition on the changing nature of the political thought is smoke-screen and thin one at that.
          The Democrats are the literal “pro-slavery” party—and if—AS YOU repeatedly imply—that bad acts attach a sort or “karma” to all future peoples–then the Democrats must carry MOST of the weight for the evils of slavery and Jim Crow etc…….can’t have it both ways. ;)
          “Trying to use the selective presentation of facts from history in order to make misleading implications is less good”
          I agree–which is exactly why I called YOU out on it. ;)

          • hiernonymous

            “Nope—now your revising your first post in post-hoc fashion.”

            No, I responded to a question you asked. My post highlighted ways in which the American slave trade was unique. Your question was about my “main beef,” which would go to the reasons I thought my post was necessary in the first place.

            “So it can be ignored as the post hoc rationalization that it is. ;)”

            First, you may ignore whatever you wish; your attention is your own to engage or not as you like. You may not ignore it and read my post intelligently, however. Second, does the emoticon indicate that you were just kidding, and you understood you were misusing your terminology all along? Can’t say that it adds any clarity to your post.

            “There is no evidence whatsoever that “slavery” in the early days of the
            USA was any more nasty than slavery anywhere/anywhen else.”

            It’s not clear what you mean by “nasty,” so it’s hard to judge how well you can support your claim. In my previous post, I draw attention to a point of uniqueness – to wit, the justification of African-American slavery in the U.S. on the grounds that African-Americans were not fully human. If you are challenging the accuracy of that observation, I already made note of one of the most famous pieces of evidence for it in my previous post.

            “…and if—AS YOU repeatedly imply—that bad acts attach a sort or “karma” to all future peoples-…”

            You need to amplify on this. What, exactly, do you suppose that I’ve implied, and how do you suppose I’ve implied it? I don’t recall making an argument about attaching “karma” to all future peoples, but it might be interesting to see what words I’ve posted that led you to that conclusion.

            “…can’t have it both ways. ;)”

            First, it’s still not clear what ‘both ways’ you suppose that I’m trying to have something. You need to be more explicit. Second, there’s that emoticon again. Are you trying to indicate that your post is not to be read seriously?

            “Trying to use the selective presentation of facts from history in order to make misleading implications is less good”

            I agree–which is exactly why I called YOU out on it. ;)

            Except that you don’t seem to have done any calling out. What facts do you believe I’ve presented “selectively?” What misleading implication is made thereby?

          • cxt

            heir

            The emoticon/s indicates 2 things:

            1-Nice try but I got you.
            Meaning I appreciate the effort but you lose the point. Were this a debate round that point would flow my way.

            2-Alternativelty—no reason this can’t be fun.

            Going backwards–last items first.

            Your ENTIRE initial post—and most of the follow-up….. is a “selective presentation of history”
            If you don’t see that I really can’t help you.

            If you don’t understand how your trying to argue things both ways—again, can’t help you.

            If you don’t understand how you “imply” things, again, I can’t help you.

            If you don’t understand the meaning of “nasty” I can’t help you. The more so in context with the discussion.

            As mentioned the burden of proof is on the person making the claim—and you have yet to present evidence that slavery in the USA (as horrific as it was) was in any way, shape or form worse than slavery practiced elsewhere.
            A point you have now dropped by the way. ;)

            (BTW the idea that a slave was somehow less than human seems quite widespread both geographically and historically to me. As I recall the Bablyonians (sp) even established a different set of fines for injury done to a freeman or a slave……even killing a save was LESS of crime than killing a freeman……..because slaves were seen a “less than” human…..and that is just one example)

            Happy to keep talking—just not sure that its doing any good.

          • hiernonymous

            “Meaning I appreciate the effort but you lose the point. Were this a debate round that point would flow my way.”

            If this were a debate round, it would be an independent judge, not you, making that call. I’ve noted before that, more often than not, individuals who have to announce that they’re won a point, haven’t. If the purpose of the emoticon is thus to serve as a visual indicator that you are patting yourself on the back, well, okay, knock yourself out.

            Competitive debate also tends to be a little long on superficial sourcing and rhetorical gamesmanship, and short on thoughtful examination of the underlying logic. In short, it’s about scoring points, not getting to the underlying truth of the matter, and while it’s a fun competition, it’s a pretty poor model for this sort of conversation.

            “Your ENTIRE initial post—and most of the follow-up….. is a “selective presentation of history”
            If you don’t see that I really can’t help you.”

            Two comments: First, any presentation of history is technically selective, but you presumably meant ‘selective’ in a manner that implies that a reasonable person trying to address that topic with that level of granularity would have included material that I purposely left out in order to skew the argument. It’s up to you to argue just what that reasonable person would have included, and why it is unreasonably “selective” of me to have left it out. Second, the “I can’t help you” construction is a cop-out. If you can’t articulate what you meant, you can’t.

            “If you don’t understand the meaning of “nasty” I can’t help you. The more so in context with the discussion.”

            Not so fast. I suggested that the racial aspect of our system led to the widespread viewpoint that African-Americans were less than human, and that this in turn led to a hardening of racial attitudes that made reconciliation and acceptance very difficult after the end of slavery. This strikes me as ‘nasty,’ but since you don’t seem to, you’re working with a different concept. Again, “I can’t help you” simply translates to “I’m either too lazy to make my meaning explicit, or I’m not really sure what I meant.”

            “As mentioned the burden of proof is on the person making the claim—and
            you have yet to present evidence that slavery in the USA (as horrific as
            it was) was in any way, shape or form worse than slavery practiced
            elsewhere.
            A point you have now dropped by the way. ;)”

            Let’s start with the last point first. As I’ve already noted, introducing the lingo of competitive high school debate isn’t particularly helpful or appropriate; it’s a stylized competition that’s fun but not all that useful for actually conducting meaningful debate. Would I be correct in inferring that you’re a young fellow who is either still in school or graduated fairly recently, and who was on the debate team?

            You’re also using the lingo inappropriately – to the extent that you are attempting to use competitive debate concepts, you’ve missed a step. In your eagerness to “flow” the debate, you failed to read for comprehension. My original post noted that there was a feature of American slavery that was unique, and I then noted the painful implications that uniqueness had on our society. You diverted the discussion to a demand that I explain how the slaves were treated worse than slaves in other slaveholding societies. In so doing, you made a conceptual and a debating mistake. It was a conceptual mistake, in that you responded to an argument that society was harmed by jumping over to a discussion of how the slaves were treated, indicating that you either did not understand the former point, or chose to ignore it, and you narrowed your own argument accordingly, but inappropriately. You made a debating mistake by then claiming that I had “dropped” a point of the flow by failing to follow you onto your sidetrack.

            In fact, you had introduced a new argument, and since you seem to want to (inappropriately) introduce competitive debating procedure into this conversation, I’ll note that you are not allowed to introduce new arguments into the rebuttals. Such new arguments are not flowed, as you should well know, and, in fact, my own response would be wasted time, since no response is actually called for. (Perhaps you’re starting to see why trying to use competitive debate techniques and terminology in this format is not terribly helpful? My distaaste for college-level debate grew out of the fact that most debates became metaconversations about technique rather than meaningful evaluations of policy options.) My argument is that what makes our form of slavery particularly bad is not simply in the abuse of the slaves, but in the way it warped the slaveowners, and in the way it made our society unprepared for any eventual reconciliation, leading to further decades of repression, animosity, and even violence.

            Your Babylonian example misses the point. Slaves have been treated as chattel before, and thus not equal before the law. Slavery was a status. Any man could be made a slave, and if he became a slave, he was subject to a slave’s inferior status. What is unusual about the American system is that, by our own ideals, rather than believing that any man could be a slave, we believed that NO man could be a slave. Therefore, in order to justify enslaving someone, he had to be redefined as less than human. This is not simply a question of status – you’re quite right, no slave in history has probably been equal before the law. In the American system, though, an African-American was believed to be less than human independently of his status as a slave. That is to say, a black man was believed to be inferior by nature and therefore his only proper disposition was as a slave. We had defined a branch of the human race as fit only for servitude. A black man in America had to prove that he was free; the default assumption was that he was a slave.

            One trusts that you cans see the difference. At the risk of oversimplifying, under traditional slavery, “slave, therefore unequal,” whereas in America, it became “unequal, therefore slave.”

          • cxt

            Heir

            Maybe–but then again I’d put my debate background up against just about anyone—-you might find someone just as good but quite literally there are few demonstrably better.
            As an example—”competitive debating is a little long on superficial sourcing”
            Nope—it thrives on ACCURATE information and PRECISE reads of topics—-which is why its so easy to poke holes in your points—-they are neither accurate nor precise—which you would know if you spent more time in “stress testing” them in debate instead of making “pronouncements” in the staff room.

            Oh, and its far less “patting myself on the back” and FAR MORE “mocking you.” ;)

            Its not that can’t “articulate” it….its just that if you really can’t see what, you, yourself, are doing then there is little I can do for you…….I simply don’t have the time, inclination or interest in teaching you all the stuff you really don’t know………and I’d run a red pen out of ink just correcting all your logical errors and fallacious reasoning.

            As an example–”The widespread viewpoint that African-Americans were less than human.”

            A-Not in MOST of the North–even in the period in question.
            I have no doubt that the Democrats of the South viewed them so. But not the Republican North.
            So how “widespread”
            Did you know Al Gores dad voted in favor of segregated schools etc.

            B-Not in my neck of the woods even today

            C-As mentioned–over and over and over–the perception of slaves as “less than human” was wide spread globally and historically—–mores the pity.

            Ah, no–you stated that there was something unique about slavery in the USA–I simply don’t believe you and asked you for proofs–which you have failed to provide.
            The dropped points were in reference to making claims without proofs.

            Let me given you an example that might help you with several points.
            Look back to my Babylon point—injury to a slave is penalized less harshly than injure to a freeman. The only difference is their status—slave vs free. So clearly that system saw slaves a “LESS THAN” a free man.
            So:

            A-The South’s perception was NOT in any fashion unique.

            B-Such perceptions have been around for 1000′s of years.

            That one example alone renders your claim deeply flawed or at least highly questionable.

            Lets try another one:

            “Unequal because he is a slave……..slave because he is unequal.”
            (my paraphrase)

            SOUNDS great–rolls right off the lips.

            (btw…would this be where I should point out that just above one of YOUR complaints about debate was…and I quote “rhetorical gamesmanship” ;) )

            Problem is that:

            A-It is unprovable—again, you have to compare the statement to 25,000 years of the global slave trade.

            B-That might well have been the period Southern POV–so what? They were evil bas&*^ and their race theories are crap….which nobody disagrees with.

            C-Most black were captured and sold into slavery by other blacks—whom clearly felt that they were “inhuman” enough to be raided, captured and SOLD.
            How do you explain that????
            The more so since you can’t go back in time and read their minds–that is EXACTLY what they might have thought.

            D-Its a distinction without a difference–slavery was a horrific practice—-that slaves were seen a less than human is obvious. They are a POSSESSION.. a thing……
            If I abuse YOU–maybe its because I don’t like gingers or maybe its because I had a bad childhood—does not change the abuse you suffer at my hands. My MOTIVATION is largely irrelevant to my ACTS.

            And since you can’t read my mind you really don’t/won’t/can’t know for a fact what really motivates me—and VASTLY less what motivated someone that long ago.

            E-What about the several 1000 + black slave OWNERS?
            Did they see their own people as “less than human?” Did they see themselves as “less than human?”

            And if they DIDN’T then why could not have others??????

            F-Again its not “in America”–its “In one section of the nation–bitterly opposed elsewhere. ;)

            G-Its not like we have a lot of history where people said:

            ” Well Mike–you and I are full equals as human beings–the only real difference is that you are a slave and I am free—but I fully recognize your personhood and understand that other than circumstance there is no difference between us.”

            And NOT having such history gainsays your point/s.

            Look man, I, unlike most folks, have been willing to knock these lengthy, episodic, minute-focused, posts around with you.
            Not sure how much more time I have to devote to this.

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, and its far less “patting myself on the back” and FAR MORE “mocking you.” ;)

            Well, it’s doing the former in an attempt to accomplish the latter. As your first paragraph attests, you’re certainly putting a great deal of energy into posturing.

            Its not that can’t “articulate” it….its just that if you really can’t
            see what, you, yourself, are doing then there is little I can do for
            you…….I simply don’t have the time, inclination or interest in
            teaching you all the stuff you really don’t know………and I’d run a
            red pen out of ink just correcting all your logical errors and
            fallacious reasoning.

            Again, posturing. If you can articulate such errors, feel free. If you can’t, don’t expect credit for having done so by posting this sort of nonsense.

            Unequal because he is a slave……..slave because he is unequal.”
            (my paraphrase)

            SOUNDS great–rolls right off the lips.

            (btw…would
            this be where I should point out that just above one of YOUR complaints
            about debate was…and I quote “rhetorical gamesmanship” ;) )

            It might be, if you could show that capturing the key difference in our outlooks in a single line is somehow “gamesmanship.”

            Let’s look at your extensive rebuttal to this bit of empty gamesmanship:

            As an example–”The widespread viewpoint that African-Americans were less than human.”

            A-Not in MOST of the North–even in the period in question.
            I have no doubt that the Democrats of the South viewed them so. But not the Republican North.
            So how “widespread”
            Did you know Al Gores dad voted in favor of segregated schools etc.

            Well, let’s see, you’ve made an assertion about the view of African-Americans that isn’t sourced or supported, which is okay for starters in this sort of conversation, but doesn’t meet the standard you set for yourself above. Let’s stipulate that it’s accurate. If the viewpoint of African-Americans as less than human is prevalent only in the slave states – which includes some northern states – then it’s prevalent in 15 states, or just under half the Union. That’s plainly “widespread.”

            One trusts that your “Al Gores dad” line was not typical of your self-proclaimed debating acumen.

            A-It is unprovable—again, you have to compare the statement to 25,000 years of the global slave trade.”

            Actually, it’s not so hard to infer. For starters, one can look at the sourcing of slaves – who can become a slave, how, why? Roman slaves were largely those taken in conquest or the descendants of those taken in conquest. It’s a very common pattern – what to do with defeated populations – and slavery is a very common answer. There’s no underlying sense of racial superiority/inferiority implicit in the institution.

            B-That might well have been the period Southern POV–so what? They were
            evil bas&*^ and their race theories are crap….which nobody disagrees with.

            So what, indeed? The Southerns managed to retain slavery in the U.S. as a whole. The non-slave states were Constitutionally bound to respect the property rights of slaveowners, to return fugitive slaves, and to otherwise support the institution. Complicity in slavery was not confined to the slaveholding states – and the slaveholding states were not confined to the South.

            C-Most black were captured and sold into slavery by other blacks—whom
            clearly felt that they were “inhuman” enough to be raided, captured and
            SOLD.
            How do you explain that????

            Easy – they expected to make a profit. The argument that the slave trade in the U.S. was unique in certain respects does not depend on demonstrating that it was unique in every respect. My argument is that the act of reconciling slavery with the professed belief that all men are both created equal and entitled to liberty as a fundamental right created a unique racial perspective in the U.S. There’s no particular reason that those who sold the slaves in the first place would even enter into that dynamic. They certainly weren’t signatory to the Declaration of Independence, and probably felt no particular need to justify their actions to anyone.

            D-Its a distinction without a difference–slavery was a horrific
            practice—-that slaves were seen a less than human is obvious. They are
            a POSSESSION.. a thing……
            If I abuse YOU–maybe its because I
            don’t like gingers or maybe its because I had a bad childhood—does not
            change the abuse you suffer at my hands. My MOTIVATION is largely
            irrelevant to my ACTS.

            Except that I’ve already identified the difference. It warps the morality of the slaveholder – and, by extension, those who support the slaveholder while professing those Enlightenment ideals. More specifically, I noted a difference from the start – that integration of the former slave population became harder, given the racial attitudes that had become so widespread. The KKK is a reasonable example, and the Jim Crow laws.

            E-What about the several 1000 + black slave OWNERS?
            Did they see their own people as “less than human?” Did they see themselves as “less than human?”

            What about them? You write as if it were ludicrous on the face of it that they would see either themselves or their slaves as less than human, yet history is replete with examples of individuals from oppressed populations that adopted the viewpoint of the oppressor. Much like Jews who cooperated during the Holocaust, one suspects that there were a variety of motivations in play, running the gamut from simple self-preservation to full identification with the oppressor. As a more specific answer, there were some identifiable types of black slaveowners. One class involved free blacks who lived in slave states who purchased their family members. Post-1800 laws in states such as SC either prohibited the manumission of slaves or required that the manumitted slaves leave the state, so many free blacks technically held their families as slaves to prevent them being enslaved elsewhere. Another class involved children of white slaveowners and black slaves; these were sometimes recognized by their fathers, freed, and given land and slaves themselves. This emerging tier of light-skinned blacks certainly held a separate social status, and there’s no reason to think that they would be immune to the prevailing views of their society. And, of course, there were free blacks who saw owning slaves as a way to economic prosperity; one can only note that as blacks in a society that oppressed blacks, it’s not inconceivable that some would rather identify with, and become, in effect, the oppressors rather than remain the oppressed.

            F-Again its not “in America”–its “In one section of the nation–bitterly opposed elsewhere. ;)

            Bitterly opposed by a small minority elsewhere. It would be more accurate to say that most in the free states disapproved of slavery, and opposed its spread to new territories and states, but the number of outright abolitionists calling for the end of slavery was much smaller. And, of course, that ‘one section’ of the nation comprised nearly half of the states; it’s hard to see what other phenomenon could be found in so many states and not be considered “widespread.”

            G-Its not like we have a lot of history where people said:


            Well Mike–you and I are full equals as human beings–the only real
            difference is that you are a slave and I am free—but I fully recognize
            your personhood and understand that other than circumstance there is no
            difference between us.”

            And NOT having such history gainsays your point/s.

            As I noted earlier, one can infer just such relationships by the nature of who is held as a slave. When slaves are taken in conquest, regardless of the national, ethnic, or racial characteristics of the slaves taken, it can be reasonably inferred that being a slave was a matter of circumstance. We know that, in examining ancient Roman art, one cannot identify a slave based on his apparent race or nationality, but rather on contextual clues such as his clothing. The Roman view was that one lost his ethnicity and nationality upon being enslaved.

            Contrast this with Alexander Stephens’ articulation of the basis for American slavery, in which he proclaims “…the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

            If you can find a similar justification for slavery in another society, maybe we’ll have a basis to talk further.

            Not sure how much more time I have to devote to this.

            And?

          • cxt

            heir

            I honestly don’t know where to go—you seem OCD’d over minutia while missing the larger issues/point of your OWN posts.
            Just one example–you keep using the term “inferred” and referring to clothing used in ancient Roma as if it were evidence.
            In the first place an “inference” is both subjective and could easily go BOTH directions—as in one could “infer” the opposite.
            In the 2nd place clothing is a question of status–not how the owner felt/thought/treated his slaves–a rich man would dress his slaves better than a poor man. But such clothing tells us nothing about if he FELT/THOUGHT a slave was “less of a human” to use your term.

            AGAIN, the distinction without a difference comes into play.
            One rich roman often had his well dressed slaves thrown into a eel pond to be eaten ALIVE for dropping dinner ware.
            Now he might have felt that is slaves were “human” but that did not stay his hand. So his FEELINGS are essentially irrelevant to the point of his ACTIONS.

            Parsing and quibbling over claimed and unprovable internal motivations are largely irrelevant.
            Think of it this way—somebody smashes your head in because they want to steal your I-Pod instead of they smashed your head in because they think gingers are “unhuman” makes very little difference the dude with the crushed skull.

            AGAIN, you keep stating as a fact that the South had a very different perception of slavery than did the say the Roman or the Mongols or the Islamic nations.
            But you have yet to PROVE it. Burden of proof is on you. Simply repeating a statement does not make it fact.
            More to the point you might, MIGHT be able to prove that “some” people thought so—no possible you can prove that the very was commonplace. NOR can you prove that nobody else globally or historically felt the same……and it is your burden to make.

            You just don’t understand—and I can’t make you but I’ll try.
            “If you can find a similar justification for slavery in another society”

            A-Not my burden–its YOURS, I didn’t make the initial claim YOU did. I’m just rebutting YOUR claim.
            YOU have prove it was it was unique.

            B-I don’t think you have established such an assertion is true–in fact I have shown you considerable “justification” for it being IN-accurate.

            “50% of the states…….widespread”

            A-That would mean even by YOUR terms that “50%” did not support it—and a “50%” on most tests would be failure.

            B-Gross number of States is a smoke-screen–POPULATION is the key. And the population of the North was at least twice that of the South–so AGAIN “widespread” seems a very forced term. ;)

            C-You fail to count the anti-slavery Southerners—which further reduces the “widespread” term. Even when you count in the pro-slavery Northerners it still reduces the over numbers.

            D-You fail to establish how many people felt that way even in the South.
            Surely you not saying that millions of people of widely separate backgrounds, ethnic cultures, etc were IDENTICAL in ALL their thoughts and feelings…..are you?
            What were they clones? ;) Mind melded Vulcans? ;)

            E-If free black felt and acted differently than so could OTHER slave owners.

            “Easy they expected to make a profit”

            I would suggest that viewing other humans being as something to be hunted, captured, ripped from their families, trekked across the landscape then sold to other people for “PROFIT” is a pretty fair indication of ones feelings toward their “humanity.”
            Or that would be an likely/reasonable/obvious “inference”–since I know you like that word. ;)

            “Managed to maintain slavery as a whole”

            Clearly NOT as slavery was mainly confined to the South and “slave states”–so the “as a whole” statement is demonstrably false.
            Besides AGAIN, had the free states pushed the issue the South would have never joined the Union to start with–which would have stopped the USA from even being born and the South STILL would have kept their slaves.

            “You have made a statement that isn’t sourced or supported”

            A-I have made many of them–and so have YOU. But in my case they are rebuttals and don’t require them. Please remember that the burden of proof is on YOU.
            NOT my job to prove that your wrong–although you are.

            B-You didn’t source most of YOURS either—so why should I hold to higher standard than you?

            C-I “inferred” just like you. ;)
            So if you NOW no longer wish to use that as a standard then please remove all YOURS and I will remove mine.
            “If you can articulate such errors”
            Ah…….your “errors” are exactly what I have been pointing out….at length….for days….. and page after pager, after page after page………

            “Al Gores dad…..not typical of the self proclaimed debating skill”
            See this is what I mean–in CONTEXT that clearly was reference (and jab) to the historical and continuing racial animus toward blacks of the part of Democrats/Lefties not the Republican North.
            That you either don’t get that or are willingly blind to it is precisely why I think I can’t help you.

            (And since YOU brought up the KKK–its was the Democrats that had a literal Grand Dragon of the KKK serving in Washington for many decades)

            BTW its not “posturing” when you can actually do it. ;)

            Look—this is fun but taking too much time—this is the last I’ll post on this topic with you.

            Happy to discuss other things at other times.

          • hiernonymous

            I honestly don’t know where to go

            Plainly.

            To keep this short:

            1. “In the first place an “inference” is both subjective and could easily go BOTH directions—as in one could “infer” the opposite.” This suggests that you do not understand what an inference is. An inference is a deduction based on reason and evidence, not simply the expression of an opinion. We infer, from past observations, that the sun will rise every morning. One might choose to infer the opposite, but that inference would not have equal validity.

            2. You’ve managed to miss the point of the example of clothing in Rome. Let me see if I can make this simpler and more explicit for you:
            a. In American slavery, the underlying logic of slavery was racial in nature. If one were black, one was eligible to be a slave – and, in fact, presumed to be such unless one could prove otherwise. This racial basis was part of a worldview that saw the races as superior/inferior, and that saw the natural position of the black man as that of slave. That’s not conjecture, by the way, it’s explicitly stated – most notably, as I’ve shown you, by the VP of the Confederacy in 1861.
            b. I contrast this with the Roman example, in which no particular race, ethnicity, or nationality is associated with slavery; rather, slavery was most often the consequence of being on the losing end of a military conflict with Rome. The archaeologist’s reliance on clothing, rather than racial features, to infer the free/slave status of individuals depicted in Roman art is evidence that the Roman system did not follow the racially based and motivated system found in the American South. It’s evidence, not that Roman slaves were treated well, but that they were not enslaved on the basis of racial assumptions of inferiority and superiority.

            The problem with your “distinction without a difference” is that you continue to refuse to grasp that the harms I’m citing extend beyond the physical treatment of the slaves, but of the effect of the slavery on the society as a whole and on the slaveowners in particular. A Roman slaveowner had no reason to question the morality of holding slaves; it seemed perfectly normal to him. The American slaveholder, however, had been reared to regard it as a given that all men had an absolute right to liberty – and yet his economic system relied on slavery.

            When a Roman slave was freed, it was not an affront to his society. There was no reason for a Roman citizen to resent doing business with a former slave. If a man were fortunate enough to buy or otherwise obtain his freedom, good for him. In the American system, a freed slave was an affront. This embedded racial attitude led to Jim Crow and to the KKK, whose activities, you might note, were not limited to the southern states. That certainly suggests that the attitudes regarding racial superiority/inferiority were not as successfully confined to the South as you assume.

            3. Although you don’t seem to have yet grasped the actual argument I’m making – which has to do with the effects of the American form of slavery on society as a whole, not simply on the day-to-day conditions endured by the slaves – let’s look at your contention that questions of motive are irrelevant.

            Think of it this way—somebody smashes your head in because they want
            to steal your I-Pod instead of they smashed your head in because they
            think gingers are “unhuman” makes very little difference the dude with
            the crushed skull.

            But it makes a great deal of difference to the surviving gingers, who would very much like to know if protecting themselves is as easy as making sure their iPods are locked up, or whether they are the targets of irrational hatreds they can’t avoid. Their future courses of action will be very different, depending on what they can infer about those motivations. And, more to the point, it says a great deal about a society if there is widespread acceptance of violence toward gingers because of their natural inferiority.

            4.

            You didn’t source most of YOURS either—so why should I hold to higher standard than you?

            My standards are mine; they don’t shift from conversation to conversation. At any rate, I was quite explicit in pointing out that it was your own standards you weren’t meeting; if you’re good with that, I have no objections. The standard you offered was inappropriate, but since you offered it, I thought you’d want to meet it yourself.

            5. Concerning the comparative attitudes of different societies toward slavery – you don’t seem to be following the argument. Whether it be the Romans, the Mongols, or the Egyptians, we can use what we know of the sourcing and identity of slaves to make a sufficient deduction for purposes of our argument. Each of those societies took slaves from multiple sources; in none of those societies was there a racial or ethnic class that could reliably be assumed to be the slave class. This alone is sufficient to distinguish slavery as practiced in those societies from that of the United States. In the case of the Muslims, the sunna holds explicitly that all men are equal before Allah (unfortunately for their slaves, they did not espouse the inalienable right of all men to liberty), and Muslims are quick to point out that the first Muezzin was an African. Muslims engaged in a very extensive slave trade; those in Africa took largely African slaves, those elsewhere took others. In contrast, the Americans explicitly justified their slave-owning in terms of the natural inferiority of African-Americans.

            6. Reference the “Al Gores [sic] dad…” line: the context of the point you were making was that you were asserting that the sentiments in question did not extend to the “Republican North.” Citing a prominent northerner who did not share those sentiments might have served to illustrate your point or provide it a little punch; but since we both agree that those sentiments existed in the south, citing an example of such wasn’t a “jab,” it was an irrelevancy. The point you actually appear to be trying to make is an excursion into “Democrat vs Republican,” which is also a trip into an irrelevancy. Either way, the line was a poor fit to the context.

            7.

            “Managed to maintain slavery as a whole”

            Clearly NOT as slavery was mainly confined to the South and “slave states”–so the “as a whole” statement is demonstrably false.
            Besides
            AGAIN, had the free states pushed the issue the South would have never
            joined the Union to start with–which would have stopped the USA from
            even being born and the South STILL would have kept their slaves.

            Note that you said clavery was “mainly” confined to the South. You haven’t forgotten Dred Scott, I see, or the slaves enumerated in the 1840 census in New York. More to the point, the United States as a whole permitted slavery; the ‘free’ states were still legally obligated to return fugitive slaves to their owners.

            Concerning your argument about the founding, you’re actually making my case. The northern states had objectives, and they were willing to tolerate the existence of slavery in order to achieve those goals. As you’ve written it, it’s a given that the successful establishment of a single state – the U.S. A. – is a higher moral or ethical consideration than that of holding men as slaves. Perhaps so, but the northern states cannot then escape the consequences of their collusion and pretend that they did not accept continued slavery as the price of their political goals.

            8. “And since YOU brought up the KKK–its was the Democrats that had a
            literal Grand Dragon of the KKK serving in Washington for many decades…”

            That’s correct. And?

            9. “BTW its not “posturing” when you can actually do it. ;)”

            You shouldn’t lead with your chin like that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah, no–you stated that there was something unique about slavery in the USA–I simply don’t believe you and asked you for proofs–which you have failed to provide.
            The dropped points were in reference to making claims without proofs.”

            http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

            Basically we’re hypocrite oppressors because we’re rich, white and we claim to be the best > but < we tolerated slavery. And according to "collective wisdom" we haven't properly made amends. Since "blacks" still don't feel "welcomed" and many are not well integrated, it's ipso facto evidence that we're still white supremacist racists.

            It's not that he's wrong, he's just steering you in the direction you (and I) need to go to repent for holding back "progress." FWIW I think he's sincere but totally immersed in that thinking.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “That’s a pretty good example, not of lingering racism rooted in slavery, but of our tendency to mistreat the most recent wave of immigrants. 40-50 years later, the Irish were as American as apple pie, and it was the Italians and South Europeans that were generating the backlash.”

          And the fact that some “blacks” don’t feel welcome is evidence of what?

          Racism is about “othering.” The more distinct your appearance, the more quickly you’ll be identified as “other” or “not one of us.” However, that does not necessarily mean that you won’t ever be welcomed to integrate even if you have 4 ears and hairy palms.

          Unfortunately people do think in terms of groups rather than individuals when meeting new people. Therefore if the guys with hairy palms are thought to be poor, or constantly behaving as entitled people, they might feel some resistance to that.

          No doubt that “others” have a hard time and that “black” others have the hardest time. But simply using this “white supremacy” thing to explain poor integration is just a bit too easy.

          Of course slavery is the most obvious thing anyone can point to. But is it the best explanation for some populations that fail to integrate? Maybe as a starting point. But if that’s the entire focus, I can’t take anyone seriously as wanting to actually solve the problems people face today.

          Most slaves in America today are not black. And few blacks are actually living with any direct consequences of slavery. They’re living with the consequences of the complex politics in America and they’re being used by a lot of nefarious characters and movements that don’t want to solve the problems. They want to exploit history and perceptions.

    • emptorpreempted

      Thanks. An intelligent response to a very inadequate article.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Thus, at the creation of the United States, it was plain that engaging in any form of slavery was the rankest hypocrisy. Over the next half-century, this resulted in a – dare I say? – peculiar distortion of our collective morality that made our institution of slavery different from the other forms you’re describing. The only way to reconcile the aforementioned principle with that of African slavery was to redefine the slave as something other than human – and therefore not in possession of the right to liberty. This transformed slavery – and attitudes toward it – to the point that, by the Civil War, you have the infamous Cornerstone expression of the black’s proper position in society.”

      It’s not that they were “less than human” but “less than citizens.”

      However, I think that the founders knew it was wrong but also believed it would be Utopian thinking to immediately try to right all of those wrongs at one swoop. A nation is not like a Chia pet where you water the constitution for a few days and then go to it. We had to grow in to our ideals. We didn’t have the stature at the time.

      But really the point is that today in this generation we have people still manufacturing victim narratives out of nothing. Rather, they manufacture victim narratives that originate in the “climate” that is influenced quite a bit by agitators with a stake in the continuing claims.

      We SHOULD absolutely take responsibility for actual victims of racism when the victims have evidence. We should NOT allow neo-Marxist interpretations of racial history and current events to turn our nation in to something that no patriotic American really wants.

      Grievances should be heard, and we should come up with some pragmatic plan that has performance measures and specific end goals. This Affirmative Action approach and using disparate outcomes statistics as ipso facto evidence of “systemic racism” is really very stupid and counter productive. It only enables mendacious socialists.

      Who wants the liars to win? I know that I don’t.

  • cacslewisfan

    Thanks for a great article. I have two questions: 1) Is there any connection to the old stories of “gypsies” stealing children and Muslim slave traders roaming around Europe? 2) Have you read Benjamin Franklin’s letter to the editor of Federal Gazette on slavery? He gives an extensive quote from a Muslim arguing to keep slavery (apparently there was a group called Erika that was abolitionist). It is a huge window into Muslim attitudes toward slavery and their economy. I would love to know more about this.

  • wally

    Nine years of age at marriage this is so wrong, it should be at least 11.

  • http://www.quidblog.com/ PeterP

    This article disturbed me very much with it’s truth. I am suing Frontpage for lack of Trigger Warning.

  • American1969

    Revisionist history has been taught to most of us for years. For instance, I’ve rarely—-if ever—-heard about blacks owning slaves. How often do you hear about that? How often has anyone really been taught about Anthony Johnson? How much discussion has there ever really been about the Muslim slave trade, or that it’s still practiced today?
    Where are all of the Race Hustlers and celebutards that scream about slavery from 150 years ago, but are silent about actual slavery that is still being practiced in Africa down to this day? Instead, they complain about something that no one alive today had to endure, and no one alive today is responsible for.
    It’s time to tell these people to shut up and put their focus on real slavery instead of perceived grievances so that they can enrich themselves at the community’s expense.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Hmm no names to support your claim. Nevertheless, this article seems to have some emotional effect on you. Why? Which emotions do you feel?

      • American1969

        Just the usual suspects: Sharpton, Jackson, etc. The Race Hustlers.
        I guess what bothers me the most is the idea that people would rather sell an agenda than teach facts and truth.

        • MrUniteUs1

          So you missed Sharpton and Jackson denouncing Boko Haram.

          • American1969

            As long as they put as much energy into screaming about Boko Haram as much as they do past transgressions here, I’m good with it.
            I have to say, though, that I’ve not seen a whole lot of energy and effort into screaming about the Knockout Game. Sharpton mentioned it once, but where are the rallies in the communities to denounce this behavior?

        • American Patriot

          What about Farrakhan and Wright? Aren’t they race hustlers too?

          • American1969

            That’s what the “etc.” was for, but yes—-they’re included as well.

      • objectivefactsmatter
  • MrUniteUs1

    Jewish college student attacked 13 in Santa Barbara Friday night. He killed 7 including a Jewish female student. Ironically his father was an assistant director for the movie the Hunger games, a movie about young people killing each other. My prayers go out to the family and friends of those that lost loved ones.

    Now just as this author failed to mention Jewish involvement in the slave trade.
    Don’t expect the media to mention that the Santa Barbara killer was Jewish. He shot 14 people Friday and killed 7 including himself and a Jewish coed.

    • http://DeHavelle.com Keith DeHavelle

      You focus on the idea that Rodger was Jewish. What role, in your mind, did this play in the fellow’s decision to stab, shoot, and run over the students he resented?

      When a man yells “Allahu Ahkbar!” as he guns down shoppers at a mall, we can get some inkling that his Islamic faith was an element of the crime. But Elliot Rodger was a sad, pampered, pathetic man-boy who was raised in a Western liberal culture of elitist privilege that ignores religion, and in fact even finds religion (except Islam, of course) fairly distasteful.

      So if this sad, murdering wimp was Jewish, how to you think that motivated him to do what he did?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • MrUniteUs1

        Part of an honest discussion about race. Had he been Black that would have been mentioned a thousand times, all Blacks would have been blamed, especially President Obama. It would be all over Fox and their would be articles on this website. But the fact the he was Jewish will not be mentioned by the media.. Likewise in the articlea above we see numerous mentions of Black involvement in the slave trade, but Zero example of Jewish involvement in the slave trade.

        • cxt

          Mr……

          None of that is true—not a shred. Nobody decent and half-way intelligent would be spouting such nonsense as blaming all blacks….or whatever for what one killer has done.

          If someone had done so they would be an idiot.

          Fox News would not be saying “every” black either.

          AGAIN–the article only had so much room–and the point was not to catalog each and every crime of the slave trade.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Part of an honest discussion about race. Had he been Black that would have been mentioned a thousand times, all Blacks would have been blamed, especially President Obama.”

          Wait, what?

          The black president would not have been blamed for what some random black criminal does. However, the president is blamed for what the president does.

          When he reaches out to the Occupy Wall Street movement and encourages people to follow their gut instincts about envy, he is blamed for that demagoguery, but not blamed for crapping on a police car. See how it works?

          He’s POTUS. He’s judged as a leader. That’s not collectivism. That’s trying to hold leaders accountable for the kind of job they do.

          “But the fact the he was Jewish will not be mentioned by the media…”

          Do you have some theory about a connection between Judaism and crime? Based on objective analysis?

          Please bring it if you have it.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Limbaugh would disagree. He’s blamed the President.
            Remember the Virginia Tech shooter. The media repeatedly said he was Asian.
            No theory about Asians and crime, required.
            Many Jews don’t even practice Judaism but still identify themselves as Jewish. Yet the media will not identify Jews that commit crimes. Why not? You can say Black or White, but you can’t say Jewish. Since you mentioned Judaism. Do you believe it’s criminal to allow Rabbis to suck blood from a circumcised penis with there mouth Babies have contracted herpes and died as a result.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Limbaugh would disagree. He’s blamed the President.
            Remember the Virginia Tech shooter. The media repeatedly said he was Asian. The media repeatedly said he was Asian. No theory about Asians and crime, required. ”

            You need to provide more details. If the president is to be blamed, it’s for fanning flames of resentment.

            There are theories about race. Reporting the facts objectively helps to develop those theories and eventually refute the bad ones.

            “Many Jews don’t even practice Judaism but still identify themselves as Jewish.”

            Many blacks don’t even practice blackaism but still identify themselves as black. Many gays don’t even practice gayaism but still identify themselves as gay.

            “Yet the media will not identify Jews that commit crimes. Why not? You can say Black or White, but you can’t say Jewish.”

            It’s not that you can’t say Jewish. They’re considered to be assimilated in the larger Judeo Christian culture and assumed to be part of the establishment.

            I suppose given the level of mendacious propaganda we’ve seen over the decades and centuries and given that we know how that can end up, it’s not unreasonable to “withhold” Jewish political identity when it’s not seen as relevant to the story given that virtually every broadly disseminated theory about them is false on some level.

            “Since you mentioned Judaism. Do you believe it’s criminal to allow Rabbis to suck blood from a circumcised penis with there mouth Babies have contracted herpes and died as a result.”

            I think we have to debate the legitimacy of any tradition or practice if there are risks that come from practicing it.

    • cxt

      Mr Unite Us

      Freakish “pen name” Btw. When clearly “uniting” is the last thing on your mind.

      His ethnic background/religion has nothing whatsoever to do with his rampage.
      He is a killer that happens to be Jewish–if indeed he is. He killed nobody BECAUSE he was Jewish.
      Unlike the Islamic fascists, he didn’t kill ANYONE in the name of his ethnic group or his religion.
      He killed because he was a seriously troubled young man whom posted his intent to kill those that had “wronged” him on the net prior to the rampage.

      The author didn’t “fail to mention” anything—-it was beyond the scope of his article.

      • MrUniteUs1

        Now Cxt imagine living in a country where every time a Jewish person committed a crime. It was stated the criminal was Jewish regardless of reason. Then there were numerous articles written lumping law abiding Jews with Jewish criminals. Black Americans don’t have to imagine.

        • cxt

          Mr…….

          Going to call you “Mr.” from now on as you clearly have no interest in “uniting” anything.

          So….2 wrongs make a right then? ;)

          Since “some people”……”Some where” are idiots it makes it “ok: to act as they do?

          Can’t speak for everyone—but I certainly don’t view the world in that fashion……..and assuming that most here do is equally insulting.

          • MrUniteUs1

            You arguing against yourself, and nothing I have written.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Black Americans don’t have to imagine.”

          It’s unfortunate when the world is imperfect. We could simply hide unpleasant information from people as a way of ushering in our hoped for socialist Utopia. That’s sounds good.

          The criminals should be identified either by name or by description to assist in catching them. If they cite their religion or other ideological motive, gang affiliation, that should also be reported.

          And readers need to learn to think for themselves. including rejecting collectivism. Obviously a black man does not represent all other blacks. A Jewish man might if he’s following some text or tradition in Judaism. We should know about those things.

          We need reporters with integrity. But the problem is that we taught a lot of idiots how to read a bit and gave them voting rights after working on their self-esteem and indoctrination for a few years at some very poor schools.

          • MrUniteUs1

            After the arrest.
            Black crime is racialized
            White crime is indivdualized
            Jewish crime is not mentioned.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Black crime” has become politicized at times. “A reaction to the systemic oppression.”

            I don’t know who started that, but I reject collectivism. The left sure screams about “victims” while ensuring that the streams of “class victims” continue.

            What is “white crime?” Crime from being superior? Oh wait, what’s the word I’m looking for…RACIST!!! That’s not even a crime but that has become politicized. And then there are “hate crimes” allegations that are NOT applied objectively, in favor of nonwhites.

            Therefore if you want to be colorblind, you have to be consistent about it.

            I guess “Jewish crime” is “the one percent” and “rich bankers” and so forth.

            Those are the crimes falsely attributed to group membership. It’s asymmetrical, but all stupid nonetheless.

          • http://DeHavelle.com Keith DeHavelle

            This is not true in the United States.
            The media goes out of its way to avoid mentioning a black perpetrator’s race, unless photos are part of the deal. Even so, the text generally avoids the topic, so text searches would still not pick it up.

            Consider the knock-out game; it is not easy to discover from news articles reporting the crimes that they are almost exclusively perpetrated by blacks. On the rare occasion that a copycat white is the perpetrator, the news media trumpets this as proof that it’s nothing to do with race.

            Consider the media going out of its way, for days (until it got ridiculous and photos were being shown) to avoid mention the races of the three killers of the famous Australian sports figure.

            Also remember that Zimmerman was initially reported as “white,” and this got reluctantly changed to “white Hispanic” when they could add that he had been “in trouble with the law.” Leftist media never mentioned that Zimmerman had a long history of befriending and defending (at risk to himself) blacks, nor was Martin’s brutish history ever part of the story. The media protected him, using obsolete and Photoshopped pictures of the pair to denigrate the “white” and play up the black as the innocent victim.

            Jewish crime, as in something connected to and motivated by the perpetrator’s Judaism, seem rare indeed. What examples do you have in recent America?

            And, of course, Islam is protected to a very great extent. In a five-page article about the terrorist who attacked a Salt Lake City mall a few years ago (yelling “Allahu Akbar!”), there was no explicit mention in this laudatory piece that the perpetrator was Muslim. You could infer it by eventually reading that his family was, and that he attended a mosque. But the mosque’s protestation of innocence was featured, and no mention of the mosque’s previous involvement with radicalizing others.

            The US government has a mandate to not even say the word “jihadist” anymore. So, indeed, there is a protected group, but it is not the Jews.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          • MrUniteUs1

            So how did you find about the knock out game. Who told you there Black people involved. Who did you blame, those involved or Black people in general.
            Did you hear Sharpton denounce those involved.
            Did you hear about the Hasidic Jews that beat the hell out of gay Black student around the same time.

  • Atikva

    Race, again, I am so sick with this mantra! As far as I am concerned, the matter was closed in the 60s, and I resent Mr. Obama’s clique who revived it ad nauseam in order to get elected. I don’t want to “discuss race” , for God’s sake what’s there to discuss? We just are the way we are, each and every one of us a unique individual, period. Let’s stop the nonsense.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Psst President Obama didn’t right the article, and this his not his website. You should your concerns to the author and the owner of this website.

      • Atikva

        There would have been no article, not on this website, not anywhere, if it were not for Mr. Obama’s thirst for power.

        • MrUniteUs1

          He had the audacity to run for President.
          lol

          The reality is this particular website started posting race baiting articles years before Mr. Obama became President Obama.

          • Atikva

            Prove it.

          • MrUniteUs1
          • Atikva

            Only one, and going back 15 years ago? Come on Mr.Divide us, you fall very short from making your point.

          • MrUniteUs1

            I proved my point. You blamed President Obama So I cited an race
            baiting article published on this website years before he appeared the
            national scene.
            I’ll spend time locating more for you, over the years you desire, for a nominal fee..

          • Atikva

            You have got some nerve and your effrontery made me laugh, I’ll say that for you. Go play elsewhere, you wasted your time here.