Kenn's Laws | | REAL Black History | Kenn's Essays | History & Archaeology | Weather

Why Racism is Wrong | Why White Supremacy is Wrong | Why Antisemitism Is Wrong

MUST READ ► My Horrific Experience With A Psychopath

June 18, 2014

Until this year, historians recognized
colonist Anthony Johnson as being
the first legal owner of a black slave.
Johnson, himself, was black.
Liberals lie.

That fact is both apparent and transparent to any who objectively consider the leftist view of history. Truth is obscured and displaced with revisionism that is tailored to fit the cultural Marxist agenda. A new narrative is formed.

Here's an example:

Below are two similar images. The first image is a screen shot taken from Wikipedia in 2012. It describes colonist Anthony Johnson as "the first to hold a black African servant as a legal slave in the mainland American colonies."

The second image is a screen shot taken this morning (June, 2014). It describes him as among "the first black property owners and slaveholders."

Why the change?

Anthony Johnson was a black African. For a black person to be the effective initiator of black slavery in America simply doesn't fit the cultural Marxist narrative. That narrative follows the line that non-whites -- blacks in particular -- are the victims of white privilege. It's a classic proletariat vs bourgeois conflict.

Wikipedia also removed an image of Johnson.

Click on the images to view a larger rendition.

On a whim of curiosity I decided two years ago to research early slavery in America and googled 'first slave owner in America.' I was so shocked to discover the first slave owner was black, I literally read the Wikipedia article twice, then did another Google search for further verification. Incredibly I found many other concurring sources, including one from the University of California in Berkeley.

I also knew that liberals change history to fit their agenda. With that reality at the forefront of my mind, I later did a screen shot of the Anthony Johnson article on Wikipedia and saved it to my computer. I had forgotten about it until this morning when I was searching for another, unrelated image.

The first image was saved to my hard drive Monday, ‎July ‎30, ‎2012, ‏‎1:50:28 PM.

In December, 2013, I found the Berkeley reference still in place and made a screen shot. The article clearly states that John Casor was the first legal slave in America. Casor was the slave owned by Johnson. This reference may still be on the university's web site, though I have been unable to relocate it.

It's not merely Wikipedia that engages in distorting history.

Today you would be hard-pressed to find any Internet source -- aside from sites like mine -- that presents actual history by portraying Anthony Johnson for whom he really was: The first legal slave owner in American history; a man who also happened to be a black immigrant from Africa.

In two years the first slave owner in American history has been demoted by liberal revisionism. He is honored as a successful early landowner who happened to have a slave.

Join Us On Facebook

Please Wait 10 Seconds...!!!Skip


Send no money. I don't take cash from readers. But you CAN help me help me when you  LIKE on Facebook. Click the  below.

Please report errors
Like this story?
Help Kenn spread the word by clicking it onto Facebook. See icon below . . .

Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.

COMMENTS: The use of vulgarities and pejoratives may result in your comment being zapped.


  1. That's very interesting. I knew he was a slave owner but the first? I looked and found, according to Journal of Negro History, he was the first known legally recognized slave owner in Virginia after examining court records. He kept his Indentured Servant past what John Casor, his slave, claimed was owed. Johnson argued in court Casor was his property and won.

  2. There's a discussion on the article's talk page that illuminates why the phrasing was changed over the course of a couple of years. Specifically, a John Punch was the first legal slave, previously an indentured servant belonging to a (white) Hugh Gwyn and sentenced to a lifetime of servitude after running away in 1640.

    What I don't understand is why you would say "liberals lie" in this context. I mean, I'm sure they do -- everyone lies. But such a statement is problematic for a few reasons.

    Foremost, it makes the unfounded assertion that a liberal (by your definition or by the editor's) changed the wording. It makes the unfounded assertion that the wording was changed to suit a political agenda and not because it was simply more accurate. It also implies that describing Anthony Johnson in the way that he is presently described in the Wikipedia article is a "lie", when it appears to be factually correct -- he was not technically the first.

    The article no longer states what you want it to state in the way that you wish for it to be stated, and clearly liberals are to blame...because, well, who else? You state "for a black person to be the effective initiator of black slavery in America simply doesn't fit the cultural Marxist narrative", which is definitely true, irrespective of whether or not a black person was the initiator of slavery in America. The revisions to the article may well have been motivated by a desire to adhere to such a narrative. But the revisions themselves are still factually valid based on extant evidence.

    If anything, it would seem like you're upset that the article doesn't fit *your* narrative as neatly as you would like it to. This is ironically -- but not surprisingly -- of what you accuse liberals.

    "One of the first" isn't quite as good, I'll admit. It just doesn't have quite that same sting.

  3. Both these articles say the exact same thing to me using slightly different phrasing. I am totally not seeing any agenda at work. He was a black slave owner, there's no doubt about it in either version. Whether he was the first or second is the only debate I think is valid. English has connotations and implications, but on a logical level of simple facts, they say the same thing. If someone is fooled by wording, they probably aren't bright enough to even be interested in the subject.

  4. The author of this article seems mad.

  5. Liberals are dedicated to revising, or ignoring actual history whenever they think they can get away with it.