DailyKenn.com/blog | Home | Blog | About | Facebook | Memes
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? - Galatians 4:16

   Trending ► [ Why racism is wrong! ]


Black history they don't want you to know

by DailyKenn.com | Occasionally updated and edited



 Share on Facebook and Twitter


How many Americans know that the first slave owner in America was a black tobacco farmer? How many Americans are aware that thousands of free blacks in the South were, themselves, slave owners? How many know there were 440,000 free American Negros in 1860, more than half of whom chose to live in the South?

Answer: Very few.

Embedded in the minds of Americans is a grand distortion of black history.

Our perception depends largely on activists in Hollywood and revisionists in academia. Add those who parrot Hollywood and academia and you have a broad swath of ignorance prevailing in America.

DailyKenn.com is here to set the record straight; at least in part.

Did you know the following about black history in America?


• The first slave owner in American history was black.

Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August, 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time.

John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became what historians have long considered to be America's first slave. His enslavement resulted from a legal dispute between Johnson and Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court  upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found:

The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.

Five years later, in 1670, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting blacks and Indians the right to own slaves of their own race, but prohibiting them from owning White slaves. [Source]


(In July, 2012, supporters of Barack Obama considered it politically advantageous to advance the notion that John Punch was the first slave of African descent in the American colonies. Obama is suspected of being a descendant of Punch through Obama's maternal lineage.)

Click here to see documentation of the predatory left revising history regarding America's first slave owner ]


• Free blacks commonly owned black slaves in the antebellum South.

Black historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (L)
at the infamous 2009 "Beer Summit"
with Barack Obama and
Sgt. James Crowley
Henry Louis Gates of the White House 'Beer Summit' fame said, "This is the dirtiest secret in African American history. A surprisingly high percentage of free Negros in the South owned slaves themselves." [Source]

There were thousands of black slave owners in the South.

"In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South who owned 12,740 black slaves, with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston."

Historians John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger wrote:

"A large majority of profit-oriented free black slaveholders resided in the Lower South. For the most part, they were persons of mixed racial origin, often women who cohabited or were mistresses of white men, or mulatto men ... . Provided land and slaves by whites, they owned farms and plantations, worked their hands in the rice, cotton, and sugar fields, and like their white contemporaries were troubled with runaways."
Historian Ira Berlin wrote:

"In slave societies, nearly everyone – free and slave – aspired to enter the slave holding class, and upon occasion some former slaves rose into slaveholders’ ranks. Their acceptance was grudging, as they carried the stigma of bondage in their lineage and, in the case of American slavery, color in their skin."

To write extensively about blacks who owned slaves in the antebellum South would require a library of full volumes. Black slave owners: free Black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 By Larry Koger is one such volume. 


Koger tells of Richard Holloway, Sr., a black carpenter who purchased his African cousins as slave labor. Cato was the name of one of his slaves. Cato remained in Holloway's possession throughout the 1830s and '40s, according to Koger, until he was sold to his son, Richard Holloway, Jr., in 1845. Cato died in 1851 and the younger Holloway replaced him with the purchase of a 16 -year-old black male.

Koger says there were ten black slave owners in Charleston City, SC in 1830.

In 1860 the largest slave owner in South Carolina was William Ellison, a black plantation owner.

Again, to account for all black-owned slave in the South would require a volume of books.

[Source] [Source] [Source]

The ratio of free blacks owning black slaves in 1830 was 25 to 1, expressed as 25:1. 
In other words there was about one black-owned black slave for every 25 free blacks living in the United States in 1830.

In 1830 there were about 319,599 free blacks living in the United States. That same year there were 12,740 slaves owned by blacks

The ratio of free blacks owning slaves, then, is 319,599:12,740. That is reduced to 25:1.

The ratio for whites was about 6:1. Whites were about four times more likely to own slaves than blacks. Though the proportionate number of whites owning slaves was greater than blacks owning slaves, the fact that any blacks owned slaves, let alone a 25:1 ratio, is problematic to revisionists.

Widespread black-on-black slavery is, quite frankly, an embarrassment to revisionists and multiculturalists. They prefer a false narrative in which a culture of whip-snapping white plantation owners damned their hordes of slaves to long hours of picking cotton in the hot Dixie sun.

Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915, by Loren Schweninger is available, in part, on Google books [source].


• In 1860 about half of all free Negros chose to live in the South.

The 1860 census reveals there were 440,000 free blacks living in America. About half of those resided in the South, even though they were free to move to the North. [Source]


• Blacks owning black slaves was even common in the pre-war North.

Black-on-black slavery was not unique to Southern states.

Koger informs us that in 1830 New York City recorded eight black slave holders who owned a total of 17 black slaves. The total number of slaves owned by blacks in 1830 was more than 10,000 according to the federal census of 1830; and that includes only four states: Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia. In addition there were "black master in every state where slavery existed," Koger says.

There is no record, to my knowledge, of a slave ship disembarking in a Southern port. All blacks slaves from Africa were delivered to ports in the North and transported to the South.


• Without black African slave owners there would have been no slavery in America.

Henry Louis Gates of the White House 'Beer Summit' fame enraged his base in 2010 by strongly opposing reparations to blacks. According to Gates the slave trade was almost wholly the result of black slave owners selling their human wares to Europeans.

He wrote:

"While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others."

"The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred." [Emphasis added]

The notion of White European raiding parties descending on unsuspecting African villages is a gross distortion of reality. Not only does the historical record argue against White raiding parties, but such parties would have been costly and inefficient compared to purchasing Africans already held in slavery. White slave traders would not endure the risk related to such incursions. Furthermore, Africans already held as slaves would be less willing to resist, particularly among those whose African owners were brutal and abusive enemies.

[Source: Ending the Slavery Blame-Game, Henry Louis Gates, The New York Times April 22, 2010]

Gates noted on another occasion that the importance of David Livingstone's disappearance into black Africa was significant because White people never ventured beyond the coasts. The prospect of disease and other unanticipated dangers compelled them not to embark on slave-hunting expeditions.



According to the report of Joseph Cinque's testimony in court, New York Journal of Commerce (10th January, 1840), the leader of the famed Amistad slave ship rebellion was originally taken captive by Africans, not Europeans.

It is widely rumored that Cinque, himself, became a slave trader after his return to Africa. [source]


 • Beating black slaves in the South was extremely uncommon.

In 1838 Harriet Martineau visited New Orleans where she heard tales of a particularly abusive slave owner. Here interest focused on Delphine LaLaurie who resided in a mansion at 1140 Royal Street. "Martineau reported that public rumors about LaLaurie's mistreatment of her slaves were sufficiently widespread that a local lawyer was dispatched to Royal Street to remind LaLaurie of the laws relevant to the upkeep of slaves." The attorney found no evidence of wrong doing.

Nonetheless, LaLaurie was forced to forfeit nine slaves after a subsequent investigation found her guilty of slave abuse.

It was later rumored that one of LaLaurie slaves intentionally set fire to the mansion to draw attention to ongoing abuse. Bystanders forced entry to squelch the fire and discovered "seven slaves, more or less horribly mutilated ... suspended by the neck, with their limbs apparently stretched and torn from one extremity to the other."

Tales of the abuse quickly spread throughout New Orleans. An angry mob of White residents descended on the mansion and "demolished and destroyed everything upon which they could lay their hands."

LaLaurie fled the mob violence, escaping to Mobile, Alabama and then to Paris.

What we learn from the historical LaLaurie episode is that:

1. Laws protecting slaves from abuse were enforced.
2. White residents did not tolerate owners who abused their slaves.
[Sources: Wikipedia | NOLA | cogitz ]


• The legacy of runaway slaves is overstated

When discussing the Underground Railroad, Black historian Henry Louis Gates affirms that there were not millions of black slaves who escaped to the North. Over multiple generations he suspects there were fewer than 50,000 runaway slaves, including those who left for a night out and then returned home.

For generations there were thousands of black slaves who lived on properties adjacent to free states. Few bothered to hop the farm fence or cross the river to freedom. The Ohio River, for example, was a shallow river prior to the extensive construction of damns. The Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources notes that the river was shallow enough during hot summer months to be be traversed by wading across [source]. It was never a dangerous impediment to slaves serious about escaping to the North.

There were no border fences built to retain hordes of runaway slaves. They simply weren't needed.


Runaway slaves who managed to find freedom in the North were immediately challenged with prospects of employment. White Northerners, including many abolitionists who vigorously opposed slavery, were adverse to runaway slaves -- or any free blacks -- living among them; let alone employing them. Perhaps most notable was an association of Quakers and other Christians popularly called The American Colonization Society. The group was dedicated to a two-fold plan for American blacks: First, free them from slavery and, second, repatriate them to Africa through colonization.

The organization's proper name was The Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color of America. It is ironic that one of the earliest uses of the popular phrase, 'people of color,' was incorporated in the name of an organization dedicated to expelling blacks from American soil. [source]


• Slaves were allowed to own, earn and save money

Black slaves frequently purchased their own freedom. Seldom asked is, "Where did they get the money?"

Historians ignore the fact that black slaves had the freedom to earn money and save it as private property. 

The May 3, 1861 edition of the Vindicator and reprinted from the Richmond Dispatch reported that a black slave wished to donate his savings to help equip black Confederate volunteers. 
"In our neighboring city of Petersburg, two hundred free negroes offered for any work that might be assigned to them, either to fight under white officers, dig ditches, or any thing that could show their desire to serve Old Virginia. In the same city, a negro hackman came to his master, and with tears in his eyes, insisted that he should accept all his savings, $100, to help equip the volunteers. The free negroes of Chesterfield have made a similar proposition. Such is the spirit among bond and free, throughout the whole of the State. Those who calculate on a different state of things, will soon discover their mistake."
$100 in 1860 would be worth almost $2,500 in 2012. 


• Blacks, including slaves, were allowed to own property in the antebellum South

The 'rent-a-slave' concept may grate against our contemporary moral sensitivities, but owners of black slaves often found it economically reasonable to earn extra income by renting idle slaves. We also may find it surreal to learn that slaves often rented themselves. This allowed them to live autonomous lives to varying degrees, depending on the rental agreement arranged with their owners. [source]

Mary Ann Wyatt is a quintessential example of  a self-rented slave. She was a Virginian slave who rented herself (and her five children) for $45 per year for ten years. During this time Wyatt established an oyster retail business. Each week she would travel sixteen miles to the Rappahannock River and buy two baskets of oysters which she sold on the town square to local residents in King and Queen County. Wyatt earned enough profit to purchase properties including a rental house. [ibid]

Southern states enacted laws to regulate the activities of self-rented or otherwise autonomous slaves. This was due to concern that autonomous slaves would outbid freemen, including whites, for freelance work, such as construction. There was also concern that autonomous slaves would resell untraceable stolen property. This prompted free Southerners to press for limitations on what autonomous slaves were allowed to sell. Many whites favored the concept of autonomous slaves, believing it encouraged personal responsibility among blacks. 


• Some blacks became wealthy in the antebellum South

Hidden from familiar history by revisionists are blacks who became wealthy in the antebellum South. The notion of rich black people in the South simply doesn't fit the nonsensical revisionist narrative that all blacks lived in brutal conditions on white-owned plantations.

One of the first women in America to effectively become a self-made millionairess was Eulalie d' Mandeville. Mandeville was a free-born black woman in New Orleans. By the mid-1840s she had amassed a fortune valued at about $4.2 million in today's (2013) dollars. Mandeville purchased dry goods abroad, warehoused them, and resold them through a network of retailers. Revisionists don't want us to know that the success of this brilliant black woman was dependent, in part, on the utilization of slave labor. That would undermine the precedent for reparations and other absurdities. Nor do they want us to know that Southern white retailers had no qualms about creating business ties with black people.  [source]

As mentioned earlier, the largest slave owner in South Carolina was William Ellison, a black plantation owner who had, himself, been a slave. 


• Black crime and gang attacks were common in the 19th century

In 1828 19-year-old Abraham Lincoln and a friend were "attacked by seven Negroes with intent to kill and rob them. They were hurt some in the melee, but succeeded in driving the Negroes from the boat, and then 'cut cable' 'weighed anchor' and left." [Source]

19th century newspaper editors, unencumbered with the burden of political correctness, were often candid in their description of black crime and lifestyles. Commenting in the Franklin County, Virginia Valley Spirit an editor wrote, 
"Observe their actions and listen to their conversation. What disgusting obscenity! What horrid implications! Their licentious and blasphemous orgies would put to the blush the imps of pandemonium. Drinking whisky and inhaling tobacco smoke you would hardly suppose would keep soul and body together; yet you perceive no indications here that would lead you to suppose they subsist on anything else. You seem impatient to get out of the atmosphere of this room; mount that ladder and take a look in the room above. One look will be sufficient. Here huddled promiscuously together, on beds--no, not on beds; there is an idea of ease and comfort attached to a bed, that would never enter your mind on looking at these heaps of filthy rags--are men, women and children; arms, heads and legs, in a state of nudity, protrude through the tattered covering in wild confusion. Poverty, drunkenness, sickness and crime, are here in all their most miserable and appalling aspects. But, come, we have twenty rooms of this description to visit in this building, and we cannot devote any more time to this set. What! twenty rooms filled with beings of this kind?" 
The article was published in the March 30, 1859 edition. [Source]


• Blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy

Black Confederate troops were featured are the cover of Harper's Weekly in 1863 and numerous photographs of blacks in Confederate uniforms are accessible on the Internet.

The first military conscription (draft) in American history was enacted on April 16, 1862 by the Confederacy to boost the army's shortage of manpower. Even though Negros were not drafted except as noncombatants until March 1865, many volunteered. Blacks voluntarily formed a regiment in North Carolina, for example. 



Harper's Weekly January 10, 1863
Picture Title: Rebel Negro Pickets
as Seen Through a Field Glass
The May 10, 1862 edition of Harper's Weekly is one of numerous historical records. It provides this  account: "The correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted negroes, armed with sabres, at Manassas, and that some five hundred Union prisoners taken at Bull Run were escorted to their filthy prison by a regiment of black men.”

83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty.

Frederick Douglas famously noted, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the… rebels.” [Source]


Douglas was frustrated that black Confederate soldiers were treated with more dignity than their black counterparts serving in the Union army. Specifically, Douglas seemed concerned that black Confederate soldiers were allowed to carry fire arms as combatants while black Union soldiers were consigned to menial, non-combatant tasks. 

More: blackconfederatesoldiers.com ►


• The last Confederate general to surrender was a Cherokee Indian
In 1903 Cherokee Confederate veterans
gathered for a reunion.

The revisionist imagery of a White Southern army is further dismissed by Brigadier General Stand Watie, a Cherokee Indian and principle chief of the Cherokee nation. After the Cherokee Nation voted to support the Confederacy, Watie was placed in command of the First Indian Brigade of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi that included Cherokee, Seminole, and Osage infantry. Some find it ironic that the Watie, a Cherokee Indian, was the last Confederate general to surrender to the North. [Source


• America's first black military officers served for the Confederacy

In 1861 about 1,500 free blacks in New Orleans answered Gov. Thomas Overton Moore's call to serve the Confederate army. The new enlistees were garnered at a meeting called by ten prominent black residents. About 2,000 blacks attended the meeting on April 22, located at the Catholic Institute. The new regiment was formed  May 2.

Considering there were about 10,000 free blacks of both genders and all ages living in the Louisiana in 1861, the large number of black enlistees speaks to the loyalty of blacks to the Confederacy. It can be estimated that as many as half of all free black males between the ages of 15 and 50 enlisted. 

The governor appointed three white officers to oversee the regiment. They were accompanied by three black officers appointed from the regiment. These became the first black military officers in American history. 

The regiment saw no action and, as was common in the Confederacy, the soldiers necessarily procured  their own firearms and uniforms. It is apparent that free blacks living in the South were permitted to own and carry firearms. 

Historians claim that about ten percent of the regiment defected to the North after the regiment was disbanded.


• The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederacy

It is commonly known, but seldom acknowledged, that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves living in most of the Confederacy. From the Union's perspective, therefore, slavery was legal in parts of the North but not in most of the South. The concept of a slavery-free Union fighting a slave-legal South is an inversion of reality from the North's perspective. The Union considered the South legally free while the North was not. 

The Union slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were not affected by the proclamation. Slavery remained legal in Tennessee, that state being under Union control at the time the proclamation was enacted. New Orleans and thirteen Louisiana parishes were likewise exempted. 

The Emancipation Proclamation actually freed about 20,000 slaves when it went into effect on January 1, 1863. Those were slaves living in certain Confederate regions controlled by the North. 

From the Union's perspective 500,000 slaves in Union States and 300,000 slaves in exempted Southern areas were legally unaffected by the Emancipation Proclamation at the time it was enacted.


• Mutiny by black soldiers occurred in the U.S. military.

The two most notorious black mutinies were in Houston (1917) and Townsville, Australia (1942).

The latter mutiny was marred by black soldiers turning machine guns on their commanding officers. Australian troops were summoned to quash the rebellion. When serving in the U.S. Congress, Lyndon Johnson was sent to Townsville to investigate the uprising. The Townsville mutiny remained censored from American history until early 2012 when papers of the late president were reviewed.

[Source] [Source] [Source]


• About one-third of lynching victims were white.

There were 4,743 victims of lynching between 1882 and 1968.  Of those 1,297 were white and 3,446 were black.

Lynchings occurred in 44 states. There were more whites than blacks lynched in 25 of those 44 states.

The Department of Justice informs us that each year there are an estimated 8,000 to 9,000 black-on-black homicides. Using 8,500 as a mean, there are as many black-on-black homicides every five months as there were blacks lynched during the 86-year lynching era. [source




• Rosa Parks was not arrested for violating Jim Crow rules

Rosa Parks was arrested and fined for defying the authority of a bus driver, not for violating a Jim Crow rule.  


Montgomery, Alabama's Jim Crow rule designated the first ten seats on each bus as 'whites only.' Parks was seated in the eleventh row. She was ordered to move by the driver who was acting on his own legal authority unrelated to Montgomery's prevailing Jim Crow rules that allowed black passengers to remain seated when no other seats were available.

Drivers were endowed with authority similar to that currently held by commercial airline personnel. 




More black history they don't want you to know... 

•  What Oprah and the media won't tell you about Emmett Till

• Benjamin Banneker's bogus letter to Thomas Jefferson

• The Brownsville Raid of 1906: 137 blacks soldiers dishonorably discharged


• Who was Eulalie Mandeville and why have you never heard of her?

• Who was Delphine LaLaurie and why have you never heard of her?



Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) credit is noted in an obvious manner to DailyKenn.com and (2) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at DailyKenn.com are seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism. 

38 comments:

  1. DOESNT SURPRISE ME

    ReplyDelete
  2. How many people know they are literal debt slaves to the big banks?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How many people know that in another year or two they will be wishing to God they had traded in some of their "dollars" and financial assets and purchased some silver bullion? HARD MONEY. REAL MONEY.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article!

    Linking for the world to see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It was only the slaves who suffered...their children are the winners of the lottery. Consider those "children" (decedents)
    living in America today who otherwise would have been living in Africa only wishing to come to America, the land of opportunity. Why do we hear so much complaining? God Bless America.

    ReplyDelete
  6. UN FREAKIN BELIEVEABLE....this is what I talk to my kids about all the time and their teachers....TEACH REAL HISTORY NOT JUST EVIL WHITEY HISTORY....africans DO NOT need to be here ,all this is just a push for power and domination and I am getting sick of it...they have africa,well go back and live in harmony where you belong.........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are u serious. Just a little info White people are NOT indigenous to "America". Oh yeah and judging on your comment you might not know what that means. Indigenous means native or original. Your ancestors probably came from Ireland or Poland. Why don't you go back. And furthermore, Africans arrived at and were well aware of "the Americas" before Columbus was even born. How do you think the native s who he found here were so dark skinned .HUH genius. Go read a book.

      Delete
    2. You obviously do not keep up on science or archaeology.White people were here before the Ice Age ended.Look up Solutreans, this is why many Native American tribes have European DNA the Asian people came here from the west and they eventually met.The Solutreans were here first that makes them indigenous.They probably came from the coast of what is now France, is that White enough for you?

      Delete
  7. It's missing a very important part ... Ol' Abe Lincoln was also going to send all blacks back to Africa ... Then he was killed so it went out the window!

    ReplyDelete
  8. And....what's the point of this exercise in revisionism? Will one of you posters pass me your tin foil hat so I can tune in to whatever bizarre frequency you're on and try to understand what it is to go through life so fearful, ignorant, and hateful of others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOW WHAT A LIBERAL loser.....whaaaa I don't want any one to read this I won't be able to get my free ride on Obama's gravy train whaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaa....

      Delete
    2. Please point out, with supporting documentation ( as the author has provided ) the specific items which lead you to make such an accusation.

      Facts are nasty little buggers that refuse to die or be hidden away, no matter how badly the media and their majority wish for it to be so.

      Delete
  9. Hey Anon at; AnonymousJune 9, 2012 4:51 PM

    And....what's the point of this exercise in revisionism?

    This article is not about revisionism but set in fact. You are a brainwashed liberal, deal with reality and see the footnotes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that "what is the point of this exercise" is a fair question - sans calling you "revisionist".

      There are clearly some themes here. The use of the term "they" in the title. Besides the inherent, sweeping generalization, it appears that you see a conspiracy - which appears to be defined in another statement when you write that "liberals write history books".

      I see that you have a disdain for "Obama supporters" who are allegedly attempting to revise history. Use of the phrase "politically advantageous" is also telling - It appears that you have a belief in which slavery has been exploited, past and present, in a manner that is far-reaching and has dramatically altered history. Therefore this exercise.

      Let's take item #1 for example. So, the first freeman to own slaves was black. Unfortunately, this does not change the fact that slavery in America was exclusive to using blacks. While Europeans could be indentured servants, actual white slavery was never practiced in America. Your point changes very little.

      And so it goes on down the list - every item is promoted as forbidden knowledge, which somehow changes contemporary thinking/knowledge in a manner which is profound.

      "Black crime and gang attacks were common" is surely lacking relevance, focus and sources. Is there a presumption somewhere that blacks either never committed crimes or did so at a lower rate than the general populace? The author of the article quoted is surely adding quite a bit of hyperbole and is promoting their bias rather transparently. One can find similar examples throughout history - Martin Luther on the Jews, Biblical dialogues on the Phillistines and accounts I've read in early California publications about native Americans and Mexicans. Yet here, you've used such an account to prove what?

      Do you suppose that this cathartic ritual in which you've engaged would change anything if it were taught in high school? Would "black culture" not be so popular or Obama not be president? Would the world you live in today be somehow different?

      Ultimately, I don't find you to be a revisionist - I think you would fit the "conspiracy theorist" mold. Ultimately, you and others who are using the term "liberal" as a generic pejorative are insecure and afraid - this stress, coupled with absolutist thinking (black and white thinking) creates imaginary monsters for you to fight. In essence, you become the very thing you claim to despise (projection) - the false victims of oppression and victims of a systemic attempt to deprive you of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Delete
    2. What an annoying twit you are. The point of this is that it is true and historically accurate. Truth for truth's sake. Would it change things? Of course, and that is why this isn't taught.

      You obviously feel threatened by this information or you wouldn't put on pretensions of false objectivity. You offer no facts, just a bunch of speculation regarding the motives of the author. Attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.

      And why does it matter if there were no white slaves? Africans were already slaves in Africa so nothing really changed.

      Toodle pip you obnoxious buffoon.

      Delete
    3. "Slavery in America was exclusive to using blacks." And the replies accept this false fact without question... Google "white slaves in america" see what you get. Why is a statement accepted as fact when it is so easily refuted?

      Delete
  10. Great article. I've passed it around.

    BG

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello, I was wondering what you thought of these claims regarding John Punch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Historians, obviously aware of black servitude dating back to the 1620s, have long considered Casor to be the first black slave. I don't know what technicality caused them to assign that 'honor.' It may have some regard to legal definition or precedence. Specifically, I believe Casor may have been the first black person actually declared to be a slave for life. Perhaps Punch, though a defacto slave, was never legally declared as such.

      The short answer is: I don't know.

      Obama supporters, suspecting Punch to be his ancestor, have found it politically advantageous to presume he was the first slave. And who knows? They may be correct. Then, again, we may be watching history being revised before our very eyes.

      I've since made some alterations. Rather than referring to Casor as the first slave, I refer to him as the one whom historians have "long considered to be the first slave."

      Considering liberals write history books, I suspect references to Casor as the first slave will disappear.

      Delete
  12. Many Native Americans owned black slaves in the South.

    ReplyDelete
  13. an amazing article....it took me a year to find it but I will pass it on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Slavery in America was exclusive to using blacks." And the replies accept this false fact without question... Google "white slaves in america" see what you get. Why is a statement accepted as fact when it is so easily refuted?"

    THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES--The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America

    "This is a history of White people that has never been told in any coherent form, largely because most modern historians have, for reasons of politics or psychology, refused to recognize White slaves in early America as just that.

    Today, not a tear is shed for the sufferings of millions of our own enslaved forefathers. 200 years of White slavery in America have been almost completely obliterated from the collective memory of the American people.

    Who wants to be reminded that half—perhaps as many as thirds—of the original American colonists came here, not of their own free will, but kidnapped, shanghaied, impressed, duped, beguiled, and yes, in chains?... we tend to gloss over it... we’d prefer to forget the whole sorry chapter... “(Elaine Kendall, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 1, 1985).
    "

    http://www.resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/WhiteSlaves.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lincoln was simply the victim of "random violence" by "random teens", who randomly selected him for his randomness :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reblogged here:
    http://abagond.wordpress.com/open-thread/#comment-195078

    ReplyDelete
  17. Historians haven't long considered Casor the first legal slave in American history, this is gross misinformation. Spain had slavery since the mid 1500s, Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641, and Connecticut legalized it in 1650. So even if you narrow it down to just Virginia, it's still not true. Historians do differ on their opinions on when slavery started in Virginia. Some say 1619 when the first Negroes landed in Jamestown, some say that there were no slaves until the 1660s. If historians do decide to label a single person as the first distinction of lifetime slavery, they reference John Punch. Most don't mention Casor at all as playing a role in the development of slavery and the ones who do don't say he's the first, but merely use him as an example of how hard it was for indentured servants to escape slavery. Here are some scholarly sources published by journals or university presses and written by historians, lawyers, or sociologists, all with Ph. D's. Just search for "John Punch" and if you want, "John Casor".

    A. Leon Higginbotham. In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process. The Colonial Period. Oxford University Press. 1980
    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ErPg7VegkcMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22john+punch%22+higginbotham&ots=RD8BjPWEsA&sig=rqEqTivBBg9I3VfMuRS48157bPQ#v=onepage&q=%22john%20punch%22&f=false

    Tom Costa. Runaway Slaves and Servants in Colonial Virginia. Encyclopedia Virginia. 2011
    http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia

    W. T. M. Riches. White Slaves, Black Servants and the Question of Providence: Servitude and Slavery in Colonial Virginia 1609-1705. Irish Journal of American Studies. 1999
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30002672?Search=yes&searchText=%2522john%2Bpunch%2522&uid=3739824&uid=373843731&uid=2&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21102739281751

    Jordan Winthrop. White Over Black: American attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812. University of North Carolina Press. 1968.
    http://www.amazon.com/White-Over-Black-Attitudes-1550-1812/dp/0807871419

    Rodeney D. Coates. Law and the Cultural Production of Race and Racialized Systems of Oppression. American Behavioral Scientist 2003
    http://web.pdx.edu/~ingham/syllabi/Perspectives/LawHistRacism.pdf

    John Donoghue. Out of the Land of Bondage”: The English Revolution and the Atlantic Origins of Abolition. The American Historical Review. 2010
    http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/4/943.full.pdf

    Russell, John H. "Colored Freemen as Slave Owners in Virginia". The Johns Hopkins Press. 1913
    http://archive.org/stream/freenegro00russrich#page/30/mode/2up/search/%22john+punch%22

    Punch was the first legally documented lifetime slave and his master was Hugh Gwyn. It was after this case that negros started to be reduced to lifetime slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Goto youtube and search the Jewish slave Trade, see who REALLY ran the slave trade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read some history and you may learn that slavery has an unbroken history from Babylonia and ancient Egypt, to the Greeks, Carthage, the Romans, pre Islamic Arabs, Islam, etc. etc. There are debt slaves in India and Africa to this day. The Saudi's "abolished slavery in 1964, however their former slaves are now many families "poorly paid" servants, nannies, and housemaids.

      Delete
  19. The black negro owes an outstanding debt (that can never be repaid) to the White man for bringing him to America in deluxe accomodations and providing him with food, shelter, security, education and employment. If America could return to those truly good old days, this Country would be great again! God bless White America and no one else!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. the race card,the colonial card and, the slave card will no longer be useful when all of the truth comes out

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. All this race shit does is provide fleeting sense of purpose for people who have had their self esteem stripped from them by social engineering.

      Delete
  21. It would be a great service to this information if PDF's were made available.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Henry Louis Gates is full of lies... All made up bs.. Check Dr. Leonard Jeffries and he will tell you about gates and the things he make up to get paid...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for you anonymous comment.

      I grow weary of apologists for black lies insisting we "look up" material to support their contentions. If you have a contention to make, please do your own research and post it. Don't ask us to "check Dr...." Do your own checking and post the results.

      Delete