I made comments in previous posts such as; 

"US Black history should have a basis in African Cultures such as the Mali Empire and the Kingdom of Benin (not the modern country)."

And something along the lines of my wanting to be Kosovar to feel European, which sort of relates to the meat of today's post.

Meet the Bozo people!

Yes, there is an African ethnic group called the Bozos. They are part of the larger Mande ethnic group located predominantly along the Niger River in Mali.

And Mali has a long tradition of slavery:

The slave trade in Mali has a long history, with slavery existing since before the Mali Empire and continuing through the Trans-Saharan slave trade. Today, an estimated 200,000 people in Mali are still held in forms of servitude, often linked to descent-based slavery practices that persist in various forms. Slavery in Mali exists today, with as many as 200,000 people held in direct servitude to a master. Since 2006, a movement called Temedt has been active in Mali struggling against the persistence of slavery and the discrimination associated with ex-slaves. There were reports that in the Tuareg Rebellion of 2012, ex-slaves were recaptured by their former masters. Moreover, the phenomenon of descent-based slavery still persist in different ethnic groups. 

 As I said, the issue of reparations is much more complicated than most people realise.

But back to the Bozos! I wonder how many "African Americans" have Bozo in their genetics?

This is gonna make the discussion of the slave trade far more interesting because Africa is like the Balkans in that there are loads of ethnic groups with even more sub-groups like the Mande and the Bozos.

And slavery is part of African culture. 

 I don't totally agree with what he says, but I agree for the most part of what he says.

And not having the plantation around makes it a whole lot easier to deny what happened.

I mentioned in my last post that getting married in a plantation would be the perfect form of revenge given marriage and family life was not allowed.  Actually, this is a subject for debate, but I don't want to get into it.

I object to any comparison of plantations to concentration camps since I see a lot of ignorance even from historians in the US about this topic. 

Number one and most importantly, the only people who wanted to see these destroyed were the people who committed the crimes. Everyone else is aware that the destruction of concentration camps will erase their memory. I used the example of Belzec. It was one of the operation Reinhard camps where between 430,000 and 500,000 Jews (I would say more but cannot prove it) are believed to have been murdered by the SS at Bełżec . It was the third-deadliest extermination camp, exceeded only by Treblinka and Auschwitz. Only seven members of the Sonderkommando Survived.

Not many people have heard about it because it was destroyed. But that is an aside.

The second reason is that like under slavery, Jews were discouraged from getting married in the camps. Marriage was an act of resistance:

“They got married in the ghetto and gave birth there. The “Death Machine” didn’t break the main thing – the human spirit and the will to live. After all, they wouldn’t let them die, otherwise, it was the ultimate surrender”, – says Alexander Boroda, the President of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia.

After the war, people found themselves in Displaced Persons camps, some of which were on the site of former concentration camps. They got married in those camps.

But to answer the question:

Historic military compound the Seventh Fort in Vilnius, Lithuania has become a popular site for weeding parties and children summer camps, but, according to Israeli press, a Nazi German concentration camp had once stood there.

Belgian new portal New Europe reports citing The Jerusalem Post that the 18-acre red-brick bunker complex built in 1880s was also the site of a concentration camp in 1941. The Israeli newspaper wrote that thousands of Jews were imprisoned, treated inhumanely, killed and buried at the Seventh Fort.

from https://bnn-news.com/weddings-in-vilnius-held-near-wwii-concentration-camp-148244 

The weddings are not held on the area where the Holocaust victims are buried, which is only 2% of the camp area.

So, if you are going to use the concentration camp example, then the descendants of formerly enslaved people should be "jumping" at the chance to get married on a plantation since it was something denied to their ancestors.

And descendants of people killed in concentration camps show their defiance and love for life by doing exactly that.

James Catnach - The Marriage Act Displayed in Cuts and Verse (British Library)

I'm not going to go into the history of this tradition other than to repeat something said in one article about it:

Parry writes that despite the racial animus which characterized the US South during the nineteenth century, poor white Southerners (many of whom were descendants of people who had irregular forms of matrimony in Britain) and enslaved African Americans had more cultural exchange than is commonly acknowledged.

But the reason I bring it up is that one of the institutions which was prohibited to slaves was marriage and a stable family life. A lot of the criticism about Nottoway is that it was used for weddings, which was something prohibited to slaves. On the other hand, no one has mentioned if blacks were prohibited from celebrating their marriages there in recent times. I'm not going to get into a discussion of "jumping the broom" or the institution of marriage during slavery since it would take a lot more than a blog post.

On the other hand, what would be a better form of revenge than for black people to get married on a place where it was prohibited to their ancestors?

I see way too much boohooing and handwringing that "slavery was bad" without too much introspection on what has been lost to future generations. The concentration camps have been kept as memorials. The only people who wanted them destroyed were the people who committed the crimes to hide the evidence. 

Have you ever heard of Belzec? No, it was destroyed to hide the evidence. If you are going to mention concentration camps--then you should mention that.

This place was up for sale not too long ago: why didn't people buy it to turn it into another Whitney Plantation where slavery is addressed honestly?

To be honest if reparations are going to happen, they probably won't monetary, or just focused on one race: they will only come from an honest and open discussion of race in America.

And destroying the places which are painful really isn't the answer.

I'm rather surprised by black people rejoicing at the destruction of this plantation since it seems to me that they would want to preserve this. They seem to ignore that the destruction of this historic structure erases it from the collective memory. It's like destroying native American heritage wipes it from the mental landscape.

While blacks know about it, I thought I would try to find an unbiased account of this place. The US media is sharply divided on the issue with blacks being disgusted by the house being used for weddings. This is despite areas where the slaves were kept being present. Also, this plantation was a sugar plantation, which made far more money than cotton did.

I am one who believes in trying to stay historically accurate. I agree with this comment by Redacted on the Independent.co.uk website. Perhaps more deference should have been given to the slaves, but I didn't hear anyone who has commented about how happy they are to see the destruction of this plantation say that the current owners discriminated in anyway.

And it would be ironic if black people had weddings and visited the plantation, which they can't do for the time being.

Anyway, I tried to find some coverage about Nottoway in the French media and only found articles about it as a tourist destination.

So, maybe the joy is merited.

On the other hand, one of the youtube posts rejoicing in the destruction was followed by a very complimentary post about Nathan Bedford Forrest.

The French have a saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

I'm with Michael Twitty, the person who wrote the screencapped article at the top of this page:

Coming to terms with what these plantations have meant is a process that takes time and generational commitment. Plantations and sites related to slavery have to have foot traffic and human and financial investment to preserve the evidence of African and African American labor, craft and resistance. Still, they shouldn’t exist as mere resorts.

This interview is in English, please listen to it. 

I learned about this philosopher from an article in Le Figaro about the shooting of Nihel last month and have been reading his books. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but his positions on racism and "western guilt" totally resonate with me. 

I like that you can hear him speak because I think that he is someone who needs to be more widely publicised in the Anglophone world. I think it is especially important for a lot of white people to hear what he has to say because the "western guilt" of this book has led to a lot of bad results.

Also take a look at "Enlightenment Fundamentalism or Racism of the Anti-Racists?" for a conversation starter. He has some interesting thoughts on race and multiculturalism.

The more I listen to him, the more I like his thoughts on this subject.

OK, I'll start this out by pointing out something I like about European cities: the slums are in the suburbs! So, Centre City Paris is peaceful while the 'burbs are blowing up. Anyway,

I'm sure most Americans are missing this, but a 17 year old was shot in Nanterre, which is in the Hauts-de-Seine, or the Western Suburbs of Paris. It's actually Departement 92, not 93. Still, I'll put up this song.

Time to get serious here since it's relates to police shooting someone during a traffic stop, something which happens in the US. But one difference is that there might be a firearm present in the states--less of a possibility in France, but not totally unknown. On the other hand, cops shooting someone is a whole lot less common in France. I'm not totally sure how different the concept of "legitimate defence" is in France. Toss in the law was relaxed in 2017. It's also against the law to comply with a police officer.

This is the French law on the use of firearms by the "guardians of the peace": According to article L. 435-1 of the French Internal Security Code, police officers and gendarmes may only use firearms in five very distinct and clearly described situations:

• When their lives or physical integrity are threatened or when armed persons threaten their lives, their physical integrity or that of others.
• When, after two loud summonses, they cannot otherwise defend the premises they occupy or the persons entrusted to their care (a privilege reserved exclusively for the gendarmes prior to 2017).
• When, immediately after two loud summonses, they cannot compel persons to stop, other than by the use of weapons, if they are trying to escape from their custody or their investigations and if, in their flight, they are likely to cause injury to themselves or to others.
• When they are unable to immobilise, other than by the use of weapons, vehicles, boats or other means of transport, the drivers of which do not comply with the order to stop and the occupants of which are likely, in their flight, to cause injury to themselves or to others.
• For the sole purpose of preventing the recurrence, in the near future, of one or more murders or attempted murders that have just been committed, when they have real and objective reasons for considering that such a recurrence is likely in the light of the information available to them at the time they use their weapons.

In addition to the question of legitimate self-defence under one of the above criteria, there are also the issues of resisting arrest and fleeing from the police--which is criterion #3 above. Also, the police office in question was saying he feared for his companion's life, but that is under question based upon the video of the arrest.

The interesting bit is that the victim had been the subject of as many as five police checks since 2021 - what are known as refus d'obtempérer - refusals to co-operate. So, he sort of knew the drill, but decided to run anyway despite his reputation of being well liked and a good kid. I'm going to add that the 2005 riots were started when when two teenagers were electrocuted as they fled police after a game of football and ran into an electricity substation in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois.

Yes, you can see the bullet in the magazine.

So, you don't need to have a cop kill you to start a riot--just do something stupid. That seems to be the case here as well since the cop had a gun drawn. I would add that the 2017 law made the cops a bit more trigger happy according to some people.

On the other hand, having been through a few police roadblocks in Ireland, you should take a hint if the cops are carrying weapons, especially obviously cocked machineguns where you can see the bullet, that trying to avoid the roadblock might be a bad idea. 

Even if you are white in a safe place like Ireland.

Yes, it's Idi Amin Dada!

Seriously, if we are going to get into how to be "anti-racists" maybe we need to start with ourselves. And black people need to admit that whites don't have a monopoly on being racist, which is why I mention Idi Amin.

A lot of the kids I was in school and University with happened to be victims of his expulsion of the Asians from Uganda. So, Amin wasn't just out to beat up on the colonial British. On the other hand, he considered himself the King of Scotland. Yep, he declared  himself: “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.” He never won the DSO and MC, and the VC was his own medal the Victorious Cross.

He once said: “I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world.” And he really did claim to be the uncrowned king of Scotland, largely because of his love for pipe bands. 

So, not only was he a racist--he was a total headcase.

And his expulsion of 80,000 Ugandan Asians totally trashed the economy of Uganda. Amin was overthrown in April 1979 and died in exile in Saudi Arabia on August 16, 2003.

So, keep that in mind when you want to paint one group of people with the same brush.

From "The Underhanded History of the US"

I have a lot of respect for Fred Hampton. He was probably one of three leaders who might surprise people as to how inclusive they were since most people don't associate Malcolm X with being inclusive. Malcolm's going on the Hajj changed his perspectives toward race which may have led to his assassination by the Nation of Islam (see Netflix's Who Killed Malcolm X). Likewise, Martin Luther King may have been too far to the left for the establishment.

 But I want to talk about Fred Hampton.  A short bio of Hampton is:

He came to prominence in Chicago as deputy chairman of the national Black Panther Party and chair of the Illinois chapter. As a progressive African American, he founded the anti-racist, anti-classist Rainbow Coalition, a prominent multicultural political organization that initially included the Black Panthers, Young Patriots (which organized poor whites), and the Young Lords (which organized Hispanics), and an alliance among major Chicago street gangs to help them end infighting and work for social change. A Marxist–Leninist,  Hampton considered fascism the greatest threat, saying, "nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all.”

He majored in pre-Law and used his knowledge of the law in his community police supervision project. I would like to think he was intelligent enough to not have been as into armed self-defence since that was the ostensible reason for his assassination. My opinion was that he was someone who would have unified diverse groups into a viable resistance. Divide and conquer has long been a tactic of repression and I think he was well aware of that. Or to use his own words:

"We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism"

J Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, Knew that the radical coalitions that Hampton forged in between the Black Panthers, Young Patriots, Young Lords, and other groups in Chicago were a stepping stone to the rise of a revolution that could cause a radical change in the United States. I'm not sure what the exact course of events were that led to the brutal murder of Fred Hampton, but it was planned at high levels. The Chicago police announced the hit squad who killed Hampton had been attacked by the "violent" and "extremely vicious" Panthers and defended themselves accordingly. 

But Hampton didn't shoot back. He had been drugged and was slaughtered in his sleep. This is why I would like to believe he wasn't tooled up and knew that option was not the best choice. I would like to believe that he knew that being non-violent does not mean being submissive, but it also doesn't mean being a fool.  Unfortunately, he let the wrong person into his inner circle.

I'm not sure how much I agree with Judas and the Black Messiah, but the bottom line is that Hampton was someone who understood what the issues were, and still are, in US culture. I imagine him being the first black president. Even sadder is the fact that he was sold out by a Judas and we are left waiting for a second, or first, coming.

Then Bernie Sanders would have seemed conservative if Fred Hampton had been around.

Mentioning Fred Hampton is the best way to celebrate today. Focusing on the issues that effect us all is the best way to remember him. I wish I could have him say it, but the quote above pretty much does the job.

I am hopeful that there is another Fred Hampton out there who will work to unify the races because he really speaks the truth to power. It's hard to believe that such a person doesn't exist in the age of the internet. We need the new black messiah to straighten things out between the races.

But will people listen to that person?

I find this interesting since he is from Texas and he talks about his memories of how Juneteeth was celebrated. His story is a totally different take on the narrative we are given that General Granger told the slaves of Galveston that they were free.

He gives a good reason for why this holiday should be celebrated by taking it out of the popular context. But he points out he is from Texas and has a bias toward this celebration, as do a lot of other people who have promoted it. Juneteenth was not nationally known until recently. For the longest time, it was been something mostly celebrated by African Americans, Black Americans in Texas, and millennials. I'm not sure whether its becoming a Federal Holiday has actually led to any real acceptance.

I'm not sure that Juneteenth can keep up with the hype surrounding it. It was probably counterproductive to push this onto people without any real connection to the history behind the event. The fact that some black people in Texas would gather around for a barbecue isn't really a reason that will get people to pay attention to WHY it should be celebrated.

In fact, it works better for the people who want to virtue signal without substance.

Another take on this:

See also:

• How a group of creatives made Juneteenth 'spread like wildfire' in tech  
• Why Juneteenth went Viral

I have no problem with the interracial aspect, but, I have always thought this was a musical odd couple: sort of like Johnny Rotten and Marie Osmond. Well, it's been confirmed by Mademoiselle Greco herself:

I wasn't tempted to sing with Miles: why try to do badly, or less well, something that other people do so well? I'm not going to start singing jazz standards: it's not in my blood or my culture. Mind you, I have a deep affection and huge admiration for Ella Fitzgerald and a few others.
 

It's interesting how US blacks would come to France and experience freedom. Joesphine Baker sang that she had two loves, her home country and Paris. And for good reason.

The reason this relationship ended was:

At four o'clock in the morning I got a call from Miles, who was in tears. "I couldn't come by myself," he said. "I don't ever want to see you again here, in a country where this kind of relationship is impossible." I suddenly understood that I'd made a terrible mistake, from which came a strange feeling of humiliation that I'll never forget. In America his colour was made blatantly obvious to me, whereas in Paris I didn't even notice that he was black.

Although, it may never have truly ended:

Between Miles and me there was a great love affair, the kind you'd want everybody to experience. Throughout our lives, we were never lost to each other. Whenever he could, he would leave messages for me in the places I travelled in Europe: "I was here, you weren't."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/may/25/jazz

Or how an obscure event became a thing. Trying to call it Worldwide or implying it has much of a significance beyond the US is a stretch: sort of like the World Series. And it's not that I am being a "Grinch" since the google trends doc shows that it had little or no interest prior to 2015. And it wasn't until Black Lives Matter and the associated virtue signalling appeared that it was able to take off according to Google Trends: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=juneteenth

Now, mainstream media would have us believe that this was some sort of "thing" prior to BLM, instead of a bunch of scared people trying to pander to that organisation. Virtue signalling costs nothing, but feels really good.

So, take a relatively obscure celebration and turn it into a "something".  You weren't crazy if you were wondering why you had never heard of it before 2020.  And you were among a very small group of people if you DID know about this prior to then. But there's this little truth bomb hidden in all the bullshit about Juneteenth:

The fuel behind the amplification of the Juneteenth signal was not simply historical reflection but the uprisings that followed the killing of George Floyd, and perhaps the pandemic.

Very few people of all ethnicities gave a shit about Juneteenth prior to that date. I seriously doubt they would have given a rat's ass about it afterward either. The NPR clip mentioned in the screen cap pretty much sums the situation up. More amusingly, NPR interviews Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, who happens to have been born in Ghana.

Those with a familiarity of the triangular trade will know it as home to the Ashanti Empire, which was the largest slaveowning and slave trading state during the Atlantic slave trade and is found in the territory that is today's Ghana. 

Somehow, I think that Ms. Opoku-Agyeman's opinion on Juneteenth is probably not the best one to have taken. I could be even meaner as to who NPR could have chosen to interview, but he's dead. Actually, there were a lot of slave traders out there besides the one I was thinking about.

But virtue signalling is free!

And when it comes to race everything is truly black and white in the US. Not the nuance needed for a reasoned discussion of this topic.

I find it amusing that Rolling Stone is talking about a Neo-Nazi group who are Terrified Nobody Will Care About Their Juneteenth Protest. Personally, I would ignore it and we'll see it go the way of Kwanzaa if I were in their shoes. They aren't doing their cause much good by attracting more attention to all this.

Or Odunde.

Personally, I would have picked Odunde if we want to go for obscure African-American festivals since it probably has more of a following than Juneteenth. I mean, you may as well go all out if you are going to virtue signalling.

I know that Juneteenth would have passed me by had it not been a call to my bank over a declined charge where I was greeted by a recording that the institution would be closed because of Juneteenth.

I'm surprised people care, but it is a day off from work. 

And I won't quote a certain DC shock jock no matter how germane that might be to the discussion... On the other hand, the above clip is much better than that shock jock's statement ever was for showing racism.

Also NPR chose to take the opinion of someone from hails from a nation that was one of the worst offenders in the slave trade about WHY we should be concerned about Juneteenth. Never mind all talk of slavery tends to focus on white people.  But not all white people were slaveowners. And that leaves out the abolitionists who were white and put their lives on the line to free slaves. John Brown mean anything to you?

You can't blame everyone for the actions of a small group, otherwise these black people need to get off their high horse since they were complicit in the ethnic cleansing of the native North Americans courtesy of the Buffalo Soldiers, or the blacks who were in the US Army after the Civil War. The ones who found they could get ahead by going west and fighting the Native Americans. 

But we have the the Google Trends data which shows most people aren't too concerned.  I'm just tired of the pointless virtue signalling which really doesn't change anything.

See Also:
--The Hill--Juneteenth at year two marked by commercial, political challenges

I have a love-hate relationship with Greg Gutfeld. He says some things which are bang on sometimes. He also says some things that are a little off. I used to think I would get into a fight if we got together. Then, I realised he likes to shock the way I do.

 His monologue cuts to the heart of the matter here in that blacks are victims, which leaves out a lot. Given that one of the "Buffalo Soldiers" main tasks was to help control the Native Americans of the Plain, the concept that blacks are without sin in the "race game" is something which needs to be seriously examined.

If I am guilty for slavery as a white person, then aren't blacks guilty of ethnically cleansing the native American population?

A significant number of blacks left the south after the Civil War to make lives in other parts of the US. And quite a few of them joined the US Military.

And Idi Amin was one of the most notorious racists EVER. Even though Idi Amin may have been Ugandan, but ask an Asian who was deported from Uganda during the 1970s how well they were treated by his government. And wasn't that the beginning of the "taking a knee" thing?

Yes, blacks can be racist too.

And let's close with some Russell Brand on the Democrats:

Malcolm X, who became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, is a very interesting person to me. He should have told the teacher who said he shouldn't be a lawyer, that he would be the best at whatever Malcolm put his mind to. 

He was.

And he made an impact in the Nation of Islam, enough so that he was probably under more FBI surveillance than MLK ever was. I watched the Netflix series on Malcolm X's assassination and I am even more convinced that his talent was wasted by that event. The FBI feared a charismatic black leader, which is a reason I think that even was allowed to happen. It was also why Fred Hampton met the same fate.

I'm not going to address the FBI and other "Law Enforcement" surveillance of either of these men, but it was extensive. But the threat they both posed as charismatic black leaders is dangerous, but the real threat was that they both were moving toward a rainbow coalition. The fact that oppressed people can be any race, creed, or colour.

Malcolm Little became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz because he made the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. That trip opened his eyes to see that Muslims can be any race. Which was a dangerous event for the Nation of Islam. 

Think if both of these men, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton, had gone on to unify people to work together on the problems of society. They were formidable leaders who would have made Berniemania look like nothing. 

Sadly, both of them were cut down way too early.

 I said that:

A black and a Hispanic, unless she is pretty much 100% indigenous to the Americas, is about as "Colonising" as you can get.

Now Mexico City has removed the statue of Christopher Columbus. The bronze Columbus statue was featured prominently on Paseo de la Reforma, Mexico City’s main avenue since the late 19th century. The reason for this:

Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum made an announcement on Sunday, the Day of the Indigenous Woman, said the Italian colonizer’s legacy is seen through “two visions”: One that is Euro-Centric, and another that recognizes that civilizations existed in the Americas long before Columbus arrived.

As I also pointed out in the original post that just having a "Latina" in the role doesn't eliminate the "colonising" aspect since just being Hispanic doesn't remove the colonialising aspect: One would have to be pretty much 100% indigenous. Not all Hispanics born in this hemisphere were kind to the indigenous people. Some were downright cruel.

The problem is that unless someone is writing in  an indigenous language (i.e., not Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, Swedish, Dutch, Russian, or Danish), they are acting in a colonialising way. Any of the aforementioned languages were all those of countries which had Colonies in the Western Hemishphere.

We could get into that no one is native to the Western Hemisphere since there is the theory that the Native Americans migrated from Asia. How long does one's ancestry need to go back to be "native"?

I'm not a fan of Christopher Columbus. His real role was to open the Western Hemisphere to Spanish colonialisation. We can get into other European settlements, but none were as extensive as the Spanish was in post-Columbian history. Which makes any comment about "HIspanic Culture" somehow not being "colonising" an absurdity.

The culture of the Western Hemisphere is pretty much a result of "Colonisation".

 Is all too evident in this headline:

Billy Porter’s fairy godmother sweeps out colonizer morals in inclusive ‘Cinderella’

Serious question since a majority of the francophone world is black (African and the Caribbean). I note that slavery is mentioned in the news, but that aspect of the racial question is decidedly absent. Then again, a good portion of francophones are Africans.

There were "Black Lives Matter" protests in France last year, but nothing to the extent of the US. Some french actors did their virtue signalling. But there was nothing like the "peaceful protests" in the States.

On the other hand, the US and Britain are dealing with the issue of reparations with some interesting results such as this opinion from Jamaica.  

It’s a cheap shot to blame Jamaica’s economic malaise entirely on the evil white bogeyman when successive post-independence administrations have overseen an economy with annual growth of less than 1% for the past four decades and a currency in freefall. Social dysfunction is rife, with murders ballooning 20% so far this year and youth unemployment nearing 40%. 

Jamaica – and the wider anglophone Caribbean – must come to terms with the inconvenient truth that, though the British slave masters were barbarous, when polled a couple of years ago the majority of Jamaicans said the country would have been better off if it had remained a UK colony. That indictment lies at the feet of Jamaica’s black governing class. 

I've said it before, it hard to say there is "systemic racism" when the people claiming that play a significant role in the system.

Hey, Bring it if we are going to have an open, honest, and unbiased discussion of race in the US. But the object here isn't to do that: the object is to make "wippl" uncomfortable. But before we start having this discussion, we need to have a definition of what exactly "racism" happens to be since I'm seeing that some people are unclear on the subject:

racism rā′sĭz″əm ►n.

• n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
• n.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
• n.The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.

 So, we might want to have some self-examination before we start criticising.

I was tempted to call this "CRT, BLM, and Black Conservatives" since not all black people like CRT. Except not all the black people who dislike this theory happen to be conservatives. In fact, there are  a couple of different critiques of CRT in the black community, which I'm not going to discuss here (I've done it a bit in other posts).

Additionally, Critical Race Theory came from something called Critical theory. Critical Theory believes that everything in our world is power. Systems and structures are created to maintain and build upon that power. Governments, organizations, businesses, and even hobby clubs exist solely to maintain and build power. Critical Theory’s goal is to intellectually emancipate society from oppression. 

Take it or leave it.

Critical Race Theory takes this argument and posits that power struggle is limited solely to race. Although true CRT looks at ALL races. The problem with CRT is that it's nebulous, sort of like "Black Lives Matters". Both are things which are out there, but no one has a real understanding what the fuck either one actually happens to be. To be quite honest, a racist organisation could take over the slogan "black lives matter" for their program of genocide. 

In other words, these two concepts are out there and they are whatever the fuck anyone wants to make of them. Worse, they attack anyone who questions them, which is amusing. But as I point out, proper CRT looks at all races, not just "wippl", but that's not what is going on here.

In fact, the honest assessment of the racial situation isn't happening. If anything, this is a sick parody of the situation.

After all, how does one account for systemic racism if blacks are a significant part of the system? Additionally, how does one account for the current situation if that has been the case for 50 years or so (possibly more)?

People need to remember I support regulating firearms, even if I am on the outs with a good portion of the GVP crowd these days (there's a post about that simmering). Look at this from the point of how common mass shootings happen to be in the US.

And then toss in that the blacks being armed may have been a contributing factor to all this.

Are you really serious that you think people are going to care about this in the long run?

Come on!

Other countries may react to mass shooting, but they are just another day in America. Especially if blacks are involved.

Fuck a shitload of white pre-schoolers were slaughtered at Sandy Hook and fuck all happened (so much for "pro-life"). And Las Vegas, a whole lot of whippl got capped at a country music concert and nothing happened. And let's not forget that a bunch of US legislators were capped with the usual result (that is fuck all happened). Well, they use it as a talking point...

So, do you think that anyone other than virtue signalling SJWs are going to keep this in their consciousness for much longer, if it is still there?  

Get real. It will be as much in the consciousness as the Colfax Massacre in another 15 minutes.

 I know your pedigree since you spout it anytime and anywhere.

On the other hand, I am a first generation US Citizen on my father's side, My mother's family has been here longer with her mother being first generation from Germany on my great-grandfather's side and Second Generation French on her great great great, grandmother's side.

My mother's father was a different story. His family has been here since the 1600s. I am descended from Mayflower Compact signer Edward Fuller (um, those comments I made about native Americans eating the settlers....). I had ancestors who were in Virginia in the early 1600s, but I don't know if they participated in Bacon's Rebellion, but, boy, would I be shouting it out if they had been some of the "indentured servants" who fought alongside the slaves in that rebellion (same applies for transported convicts).

I AM descended from Felix and Jakob Huber, two soldiers who fought in the Pennsylvania line. They were at Valley Forge and Morristown.

Yes, that Pennsylvania Line. The one that insisted that their three-year enlistments had expired, killed three officers in a drunken rage and abandoned the Continental Army’s winter camp at Morristown, New Jersey. I used to visit Morristown when I was at Fort Monmouth before I knew about my ancestor or the mutiny and thought that they should have continued the mutiny. I regret they didn't: especially when I read the shit you write defending "critical race theory".

That's because  they were in no way slave owners. they weren't the wealthy  assholes, which included the southern planters, who wouldn't foot the bill for the war George Washington caused, like your ancestor, Thomas Jefferson, which was another reason for the revolution besides slavery.In fact, there were quite a few reasons other than slavery that led to the War for Independence. 

No, My ancestors were the ones who bore the costs of war that your ancestor caused.

Pennsylvania is home to the abolitionist movement that was started by the Pennsylvania Germans. The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery wrote the first protest against enslavement of Africans made by a religious body in the Thirteen Colonies. Sure, it didn't go far, but the seed was sown for a movement. On the other hand, the War for Independence would have fizzled out pretty quickly had people in the North made slavery an issue.

Which gets to the issue of your ancestor, Thomas Jefferson. Someone I know was a complete scumbag, and you admit that was the case. He was fucking his slave Sally Hemmings while he was penning that bullshit about "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". You didn't fall too far from the tree.

Well, at least Jefferson. Your grandfather who shares your name would probably be profusely apologising for you're being a total fuckwit from what I've heard. He would understand exactly what I am saying. And it wouldn't be the first time he apologised to dead soldiers.

You are a shame to his name. My sincerest apologies to him for having a descendant who would have been locked away at one time instead of foisting himself in the public eye at every opportunity. I am sorry that he has you piling shit upon his name.

Like Vietnam, the people who fought in the War for Independence were the poor kids who couldn't avoid the draft. Or go to a military academy on the public dime and then get tossed from the service. 

My ancestor was one of the soldiers who went AWOL to tend the farm during those cold winters Thomas Paine talked about. I wish they had just told their leaders to go fuck themselves when I read the crap you write. Instead, they capitulated too many times and the war went on for another 6-7 years.

After having started yet another war that the colonies couldn't pay for, your ancestor wrote off the protests of the veterans as "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." and "The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." And your comments about that war being fought for slavery is a further insult.

Of course, Tommy changed his tune when he saw the French Revolution up close and personal.

So, Truscott, I don't appreciate the war your ancestor caused and the shit it brought with it. Likewise, I KNOW my ancestors would be even more unpleasant in their comments to you were they alive and heard the shit you say.

After all, they killed three officers at Morristown. Too bad Jefferson's head wasn't hoisted on a pole for being a traitor and causing a pointless war by mine, but he did die bankrupt.

You can piss on the graves of the soldiers who weren't as fortunate as you and went to 'Nam, but don't piss on the graves of the soldiers who fought to create this country in a war your ancestor created.

Because you are just proving how right I was when I thought they shouldn't have stopped the mutiny until the war ended.