Are reparations for slavery an anglophone thing?

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.

Critical Race Theory: it shouldn't just be "wippl" who are getting uncomfortable talking about race.

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)?

Why the "Tulsa Massacre" will be a blip on the screen if even that

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.

Hey, Lucian Truscott, you didn't fall too far from the tree.

 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.

Why is the problematic "Critical Race Theory" being pushed on us

Oh, boy. Yet another way to divide the nation!

 And it's not just the right wing Trump supporters who dislike this theory. 

This pretty much sums up the intent of  "Critical Race Theory" and the 1619 Project:

It's no criticism of the show, generally credited with handling the harrowing events respectfully, to acknowledge that "what white people are comfortable with" can't be the criterion for what history is allowed to enter public discourse and to shape it.

It's perfect that comes from coverage on Tulsa because that incident is one that is worth examining. And examining in an unbiased manner. Like Juneteenth, Tulsa has been sitting around, but few people knew about it. My guess on the reason is that there was culpability on both sides.

So, History isn't just what "what white people are comfortable with", or even black people are comfortable with. There is a lot of shit out there that won't make you feel good.

See, I have a problem with all this "systemic racism" shit and that's Barack Obama. Or maybe I should say Michele Obama. And the reason I say that is that her husband was a first an Illinois then US Senator and finally President of the United States. 

But first a story about when I was practising law in Philadelphia. My client was a young black kid charged with a gun crime because he threatened another child with an umbrella handle he said was a gun. His mother started yelling that the system was "racist". Well, he was black, his alleged victim was black, the police who arrested him were black, the DA was black, as was the judge. The only white person who was involved was me and I was doing everything in my power to try and get the kid a good deal.

But my point is that it's hard to allege "systemic racism" if a lot of the people in the system happen to be black. I was going to say doesn't that mean that anyone in the system happens to be racist. But we know the answer to that question is a resounding "YES!!!". And you are a confirmed racist if you somehow dare to question your being a racist! So, why should whippl want to help if we are already classified as racist?

The bottom line here is that a good portion of these gripes are over 50 years old now. Even more importantly, blacks have achieved positions of power in that time. There are blacks in the system. One of which made it to be President of the USA.

And Ms. Obama might want to rethink the accusations of "systemic racism" for a myriad of reasons. The major one is that YOU ARE THE SYSTEM.

Why I don't support Black Lives Matter.

OK, I am going to start this off by saying I was totally supportive of BLM when it was about Trayvon Martin, Jordan David, and "Stand Your Ground" Laws. In fact, my attitude about current events is totally related to my attitude about "Gun Violence Prevention". Which is why an interaction which started with the following post in a Facebook Group, possibly something called Occupy the NRA, led to my distrust for the group:

OK, you can guess how this interaction is going to turn out and I don't need to say more, but there is more. I wanted to know who the fuck this guy was, especially since he was posting in a GVP group. Alas. I didn't screencap very much of this and I either left the GVP group or was thrown out of it. The next cap of a conversation with someone else who was a party to this is useful since this has become pretty much hearsay.

Now, I need to make a historical explanation if people wonder about my attitude toward Tulsa and all this. First off, I have a problem with the black victimhood narrative. If anything, that is the racist narrative straight out of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation where the blacks are all cowering as the KKK rides to terrorise them.

And it's not exactly true. Blacks did fight back. The Colfax Massacre is one instance that comes to mind, which led to first Second Amendment case of US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), Which is an aside, but blacks did fight back with varying success. But my opinion of armed resistance is that it is counterproductive, which is probably why the Tulsa thing will probably evaporate as will reparations. 

The gist of all this is that the post in question happened after the Charleston Church Shooting (18 June 2015). The topic of armed resistance was brought up with hashtags such as the ones mentioned. Lots of reasons why I would react the way I did to the post. In fact, I was surprised that very few people were questioning what was said since having GVP people appear to approve of "armed resistance" could be used against the GVP movement.

In fact, as someone on the left, I question any time anyone on the left advocates violence since they could be an agent provacateur. Or at least someone who wants to discredit the movement. And yeah, as the person I was discussing this with said, I am quite willing to speak my mind, which I did to Dante.

OK, I'm a racist in the minds of people like Dante and nothing I will say really matters: no matter how factually based it may be. But gun violence is something which is hurting the black community. A lot of the critics of the BLM movement point out the innocent children killed in the crossfire.

I'm more than willing to call it out if blacks contributed to the escalation of violence in Tulsa. In fact, maybe we should be looking at the restoration period and how and why it led to Jim Crow. Henry Louis Gates Jr. PBS series for an eye opener on the topic of reconstruction.

Anyway, not much is going to happen if there is name calling and antagonism when we are trying to have a discussion to solve this issue. In fact, it probably won't get solved if we don't simmer down and talk with cool heads.

Evanston, Illionois tries reparations with predictable results.

I had to check out the story when I heard that Evanston, IL actually decided to try and implement reparations. Then I decided I was going to do a post about what a failure it was. This is the perfect headline:

The story is pretty good:

Recently, Priscilla Giles, a retired teacher of English as a second language in Chicago Public Schools, said she has been feeling something “between sad and angry.”

Three months ago the city of Evanston, Illinois, where Giles was born and raised, approved the first local reparations program in the country. The city announced its first phase would pay Black Evanston residents who experienced housing discrimination $25,000 in the form of home improvement costs, down payment and closing cost assistance, and mortgage payments.

Since Giles is Black and lived in the city from 1919 to 1969, she is automatically eligible, but she said she is reluctant to apply. “It’s not reparations,” she said. “And that’s for sure.”

Evanston residents have been debating the details of its current reparations program for more than three years. When the legislation passed, it was deemed a “blueprint” for the rest of the country. Yet a few months into the first initiative, frustration and legal pressure have clouded the city’s pioneering vision.

Maybe reparations should be in the form of some accurate history about slavery, reconstruction, and the "Jim Crow" era. Especially since reparations have been tried before.

And, like Evanston's experiment, they failed miserably despite great promise. That's because reparations have always been problematic. In this case the offer was for up to $25,000 in "home improvement costs" and only about 16 families ended up being eligible for the "reparations". This was despite the fact that the tax on recreational marijuana would foot the bill. 

The problem with people who are demanding, or even discussing, reparations is that most of them do it with historical ignorance. Or they do it from the wrong perspective.

So, maybe a course in "black history" which is accurate and not with an agenda, like the 1619 Project happened to be, should be the form that reparations take. Especially since that information would have prevented the disappointment that a lot of people are feeling right now.

The 1921 Tulsa Riots: was there culpability on both sides?

I'm enough of a historian to know about the whatever you want to call what happened in Tulsa 100 years ago. Additionally, I have enough skills that I could  research the incident. I do have to add that some of the primary source material has been deleted. I would also add that maybe a lot of that material has been deleted. Additionally, the neglect of the incident allows for some details to be ignored.

One of which is particularly troublesome to me is that both blacks and whites were armed. The source for the passages is Wikipedia, but it's probably the most unbiased:

A few blocks away on Greenwood Avenue, members of the Black community gathered to discuss the situation at Gurley's Hotel.Given the recent lynching of Belton, a White man accused of murder, they believed that Rowland was greatly at risk. Many Black residents were determined to prevent the crowd from lynching Rowland, but they were divided about tactics. Young World War I veterans prepared for a battle by collecting guns and ammunition. Older, more prosperous men feared a destructive confrontation that likely would cost them dearly. O. W. Gurley stated that he had tried to convince the men that there would be no lynching, but the crowd responded that Sheriff McCullough had personally told them their presence was required. About 9:30 p.m., a group of approximately 50–60 Black men, armed with rifles and shotguns, arrived at the jail to support the sheriff and his deputies in defending Rowland from the mob.

I think the previous passage is important to understanding the events of those days because the sight of armed blacks led to whites feeling the need to "tool up". That is important for a lot of reasons, especially given the debate about firearms in US society. But the people you would think would raise this issue, the "gun violence prevention" crowd are oddly silent about this. Anyway, armed blacks led to the following.

Having seen the armed Black men, some of the more than 1,000 Whites who had been at the courthouse went home for their own guns. Others headed for the National Guard armory at the corner of Sixth Street and Norfolk Avenue, where they planned to arm themselves. The armory contained a supply of small arms and ammunition. Major James Bell of the 180th Infantry Regiment learned of the mounting situation downtown and the possibility of a break-in, and he consequently took measures to prevent. He called the commanders of the three National Guard units in Tulsa, who ordered all the Guard members to put on their uniforms and report quickly to the armory. When a group of Whites arrived and began pulling at the grating over a window, Bell went outside to confront the crowd of 300 to 400 men. Bell told them that the Guard members inside were armed and prepared to shoot anyone who tried to enter. After this show of force, the crowd withdrew from the armory.

OK, I don't really want to point fingers here as to who was responsible especially since it is unclear how the violence escalated. But, as I pointed out, the "gun violence prevention" crowd is silent about this aspect of the incident. That is strange since the escalation of violence was a definite factor in the massacre. The following is conjecture, but it is the closest I have seen to what may have happened.

Shortly after 10 p.m., a second, larger group of approximately 75 armed Black men decided to go to the courthouse. They offered their support to the sheriff, who declined their help. According to witnesses, a White man is alleged to have told one of the armed Black men to surrender his pistol. The man refused, and a shot was fired. That first shot might have been accidental, or meant as a warning; it was a catalyst for an exchange of gunfire.

Now, firearms violence doesn't happen when firearms aren't present. That is a simple fact that when something doesn't exist, it can't effect anything. On the other hand there was a combination of hot heads and firearms. There is something called the "weapons effect" which is where the mere presence of weapons may increase aggression. Wouldn't you think the GVP crowd would be mentioning this? Especially since this pretty much makes their argument.

The upshot was that the gunshots led to an immediate escalation of violence with both sides firing on the other. The first "battle" was said to last a few seconds but  resulted in ten Whites and two Black men lying dead or dying in the street.

The Black men who had offered to provide security at the jail ended up retreating toward Greenwood. A rolling gunfight between both sides ensued. The armed White mob pursued the Black contingent toward Greenwood, with many stopping to loot local stores for additional weapons and ammunition. Panic set in as the White mob began firing on any Black people in the crowd. The White mob also shot and killed at least one White man in the confusion. The two groups squared off in gunfights throughout the night. At around 1 a.m., the White mob began setting fires, mainly in businesses on commercial Archer Street at the southern edge of the Greenwood district.

The problem with this is that the incident is covered, but not very well. There was a Grand Jury investigation into this in 1921, but I don't think it led to much. Although it does make interesting reading. There are lots of gaps in what is known. 

There were no convictions for any of the charges related to violence. The  silence about the terror, violence, and losses of this event went on for decades. The riot has been omitted from most local, state and national histories: It was not recognized in the Tulsa Tribune feature of "Fifteen Years Ago Today" or "Twenty-five Years Ago Today". A 2017 report detailing the history of the Tulsa Fire Department from 1897 until 2017 makes no mention of the 1921 massacre.

"The Tulsa race riot of 1921 was rarely mentioned in history books, classrooms or even in private. Black and White people alike grew into middle age unaware of what had taken place".

I'm not going to get into the details about this since they are quite frankly under dispute. Neither side is very helpful since copies of one of the newspapers involved have pretty much vanished from the face of the earth. There was a reward offer for copies of this newspaper during the 1990s investigation, but none could be found. Likewise, the reports of mass graves are being investigated, but it sounds like these may indeed rumours.

Anyway, it seems odd that an armed group of black people are marching on Tulsa to commemorate this event. I have to wonder how much of what happened was due to an armed populace and hot heads. Dick Rowland, the person whose arrest started this chain of events, was well known among attorneys and other legal professionals within the city, many of whom knew Rowland through his work as a shoeshiner. Some witnesses later recounted hearing several attorneys defend Rowland in their conversations with one another. One of the men said, "Why, I know that boy, and have known him a good while. That's not in him."

On June 3, 1921, a group of over 1,000 businessmen and civic leaders met, resolving to form a committee to raise funds and aid in rebuilding Greenwood. Judge J. Martin, a former mayor of Tulsa, was chosen as the chairman of the group. He said at the mass meeting:

Tulsa can only redeem herself from the country-wide shame and humiliation into which she is today plunged by complete restitution and rehabilitation of the destroyed black belt. The rest of the United States must know that the real citizenship of Tulsa weeps at this unspeakable crime and will make good the damage, so far as it can be done, to the last penny.

Sadly, Most of the promised funding was never raised for the Black residents, and they struggled to rebuild after the violence.

Virtue signalling doesn't cost anything, real actions do.  Additionally, there is a certain irony here of an armed black parade in commemoration if a major factor in the incident was that the blacks had chosen to arm themselves 100 years ago.