Once again it's time for the "woke" holiday that was adopted after the BLM riots.
And it seems that a majority of people are ignoring it, which makes sense since it really isn't that much of an event.
It's way more hype tied with a desire to appease the people who went wild in 2020.
On the other hand, Philadelphia's Odunde actually gathers a crowd. Toss in that it has a lot of community support.
"Jane"
So, maybe we should have gone with Odunde which is a thing as opposed to Juneteenth which was pretty much a non-event along the line of the Plymouth Plantation crowd and thanksgiving.
Who hears about Jamestown's starving time?
Jane needs to be recognised for her struggle in the creation of America!
She needs to be an "American Girl" doll!
We need to know the story of Jane! Who was she? Did she have a say in her ultimate fate?
So, I propose that we need a holiday to remember Jane while we're doing away with Juneteenth and Thanksgiving.
"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.
This may be more legend, than reality as my previous post pointed out.
The big one: Granger may not have read the proclamation.
Longstanding urban legend places a historic reading of General Order No. 3 at Ashton Villa; but no historical evidence supports this claim.[41] There is no evidence that Granger or any of his troops proclaimed
the Ordinance by reading it aloud. All indications are that copies of
the Ordinance were posted in public places, including the Negro Church
on Broadway, since renamed Reedy Chapel A.M.E. Church.
Secondly, despite the Union victory, Slaves were not freed, as this points out. And to recap this from yesterday:
Although this event commemorates the end of slavery, emancipation for the remaining enslaved population in two Union border states, Delaware and Kentucky, would not come until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.[44][c][e]
The federal amendment also put a definitive end to chattel
slavery and indentured servitude in New Jersey, freeing approximately 16
elderly individuals.[f][47][48] Furthermore, thousands of black slaves were not freed until after the Reconstruction Treaties
of late 1866, when the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and
Seminole tribes were forced to sign new treaties that required them to
free their slaves.[49][50]
The freedom of formerly enslaved people in Texas was given state law status in a series of Texas Supreme Court decisions between 1868 and 1874.
OK, the video isn't totally accurate since it doesn't get into the fact that the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed slaves in most of the Confederate Territory, not all of it. That's an important point, which is being left out of this. The video also continues the nonsense about Grainger's General Order. It only gets good when it gets to the truth of the matter: the General Order didn't do a lot for the slaves of Texas.
I would start watching at 4 minutes in.
If the point of this is to commemorate the end of slavery, then there is probably a much better date for that. But has slavery ended if prison labour can be used in a similar way?
from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States
and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this
day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St.
Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James
Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and
Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except
the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the
counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York,
Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and
Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left
precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do
order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be
free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including
the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain
the freedom of said persons.
Ever wonder where this came from? I mean unless you were listening, this event came out of the blue. OK, I'm going to be lazy and quote Wikipedia, and not even bother to remove the footnotes, just because this whole thing isn't really worth my time.
Texas was the first state to recognize the date by enacted law, in 1980. By 2002, eight states officially recognized Juneteenth[97] and four years later 15 states recognized the holiday.[54] By 2008, just over half of the states recognized Juneteenth in some way.[98] By 2019, 47 states and the District of Columbia recognized Juneteenth,[99] although as of 2020 only Texas had adopted the holiday as a paid holiday for state employees.[100]
In June 2019, Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Wolf recognized Juneteenth as a holiday in the state.[101] In the yearlong aftermath of the murder of George Floyd that occurred on May 25, 2020, nine states designated Juneteenth a paid holiday,[102] including New York, Washington, and Virginia.[103] In 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker
issued a proclamation that the day would be marked as "Juneteenth
Independence Day". This followed the filing of bills by both the House
and Senate to make Juneteenth a state holiday. Baker did not comment on
these bills specifically but promised to grant the observance of
Juneteenth greater importance.[104] On June 16, 2021, Illinois adopted a law changing its ceremonial holiday to a paid state holiday.
So, if you're like me, you didn't notice this "holiday" this year, but I have various reasons which make that an easy thing to do. I can say "Juneteenth Quoi ?" or more like "Juneteenth, quoi c'est bordel?" And most people should be doing that since the 1980s and 1990s, the holiday has been more widely celebrated
among African-American communities and has seen increasing mainstream
attention in the US. In other words, it popped into the consciousness around 120 years after the fact. And it may be more fiction than fact since.
Planters and other slaveholders from eastern states had migrated into
Texas to escape the fighting, and many brought enslaved people with
them, increasing by the thousands the enslaved population in the state
at the end of the Civil War.[9] Although most lived in rural areas, more than 1,000 resided in Galveston or Houston by 1860, with several hundred in other large towns.[37] By 1865, there were an estimated 250,000 enslaved people in Texas.[9][8]
Despite the surrender of Confederate General-in-Chief Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, the western Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi did not formally surrender until June 2.[9] On the morning of June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived on the island of Galveston[38]
to take command of the more than 2,000 federal troops recently landed
in the department of Texas to enforce the emancipation of its enslaved
population and oversee Reconstruction, nullifying all laws passed within Texas during the war by Confederate lawmakers.[38][39]
The order informed all Texans that, in accordance with a Proclamation
from the Executive of the United States, all enslaved people were free:
The people of Texas are informed
that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United
States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of
personal rights and rights of property between former masters and
slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that
between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain
quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed
that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they
will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.[40]
Longstanding urban legend places a historic reading of General Order No. 3 at Ashton Villa; but no historical evidence supports this claim.[41] There is no evidence that Granger or any of his troops proclaimed
the Ordinance by reading it aloud. All indications are that copies of
the Ordinance were posted in public places, including the Negro Church
on Broadway, since renamed Reedy Chapel A.M.E. Church.[42]
On June 21, 2014, the Galveston Historical Foundation and Texas Historical Commission
erected a Juneteenth plaque where the Osterman Building once stood
signifying the location of Major General Granger's Union Headquarters
believed to be where he issued his general orders.[43]
Although this event commemorates the end of slavery, emancipation for the remaining enslaved population in two Union border states, Delaware and Kentucky, would not come until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.[44][c][e]
The federal amendment also put a definitive end to chattel
slavery and indentured servitude in New Jersey, freeing approximately 16
elderly individuals.[f][47][48] Furthermore, thousands of black slaves were not freed until after the Reconstruction Treaties
of late 1866, when the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and
Seminole tribes were forced to sign new treaties that required them to
free their slaves.[49][50]
The freedom of formerly enslaved people in Texas was given state law status in a series of Texas Supreme Court decisions between 1868 and 1874.
So, this make be the biggest commemoration of a non-event that ever happened because it wasn't the actual end of slavery in Texas and the General may never have made a speech telling the slaves of a plantation in Galveston that they were free!
And for that matter, there was still slavery despite the Emancipation proclamation!
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 this year.
While
the media tried to make this sound like something which had been around
for a long time, the reality is that the Juneteenth this was
steamrollered over us. Wired points it out in their Why Juneteenth Went Viral.Wired's piece tends toward this being something contemplative, but I do question the interest in Juneteenth, as opposed to Odunde, as being virtue signalling.
It's no coincidence that the movement to celebrate Juneteenth came during the Black Lives Matter
riots (sorry, but more than one city was trashed and these were
counterproductive as fuck. So, fuck you, I'll call them as I see them).
It's more of the meaningless virtue signalling to try and calm the
rioters.
But it was a small group of people who made this a thing as Protocol's How a Group of Creatives made Juneteenth 'spread like wildfire'. Yeah, "creatives" as in advertising types. Not just any advertising types, but ones connected to the social media industry.
I
am trying to break from the surveillance economy,. Not only do they
keep tabs on you, but they try and influence your opinion.
I cried "bullshit" about Russiagate.
I'm crying "bullshit" about the virtue signalling relating to Black Lives Matter.
Nothing significant will come from the past few months. If anything,
those events will make matters worse. I know they increased gun sales.
I am already certain that Trump will be reelected. Even if he isn't, the Democratic candidate isn't onside.
So, what was the point of it all?
I prefer substance to Bullshit, but the bullshit is piling up like the trash on the streets of Philadelphia and NYC.
{OK, Given that Juneteenth isn't really that meaningfull, this was pulled from Wikipedia and a couple of my previous post on the issue. This is a "holiday" that needs to GO AWAY because it's BS].
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.
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.
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."
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:
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.
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.
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:
racismrā′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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Journalist Zaid Jilani weighs in on the controversy over the Pulitzer Prize winning 1619 Project. I may have mentioned the judgement in Somersetts case, but that would not have impacted colonies such as Pennsylvania, New York, and New England.
OK, "Columbus Day" is unacceptable, but people in the US aren't going to be like Canadians and call it "Thanksgiving". That would mean there would be two Thanksgivings in the US. We can argue over who "discovered" the Western Hemisphere, which can get interesting.
On the other hand, there pretty much isn't any group in the Western Hemisphere which isn't without some dirt, or gripes. That's why the concept of reparations starts getting interesting. Trust me: reparations have long been discussed and rejected as impossible to implement. And any implementation gets more impossible with the passage of time.
This leaves us with two options.
Have a frank and open discussion of race and oppression in the Western Hemisphere.
Trying to accept people for who they are and not what they are.
I go for the second since option 1 has been tried and found to be a failure.
Or the more I learn about it, the worse it sounds. This comes from a source friendly to the concept: Politifact:
Critical race theory — a broad set of ideas about systemic bias and
privilege — might have its roots in legal academia, but it is fast
becoming one of the more explosive flashpoints in America’s state
legislatures...
Critical race theory isn’t one set thing, but more a changing package of ideas.
Legal scholars, such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller and Kendall Thomas, developed Bell’s ideas further. In a 1995 book,
they wrote that critical race theory is rooted in the desire "to
understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of
people of color have been created and maintained in America."
They said that the fundamental problem was the "distribution of
political and economic power." And they defined their movement as one
that was "race conscious" and was committed to change.
There are a couple of metrics set by Martin Luther King which I am going to use here. The first is that racism is making one group more powerful than another based upon race. The Second is that racism will be overcome once there is a black president.
Now, I have a problem when people like Ursula Burns, Michele Obama, Megan Markel, Oprah Winfrey, and other black people with money and power want to lecture me on how they are somehow oppressed. There is this set of blinders which says that white people are somehow privileged and don't suffer from the same issues black people do.
People who say that need to take a trip to Appalachia.
The problem with reparations is that they have been discussed since the Emancipation Proclamation was promulgated. Besides Bacon's Rebellion any serious discussion of this topic needs to look at the Reconstruction Period. I suggest Henry Louis Gates Jr.PBS series for an eye opener on this topic.
The real bottom line here is that any serious discussion of this topic needs to be (1) colour blind (2) all encompassing and (3) informed.
Right now the issue is that Critical Race Theory wants to place blacks as the victims of a system which lasted 244 years (1619-1863), if even that long. The largest numbers of slaves were taken to the Americas during the 18th
century, when, according to historians’ estimates, nearly three-fifths
of the total volume of the transatlantic slave trade took place. We need to factor in that this trade also included the Caribbean and South America: which is another factor in having this be colour blind and all encompassing.
As I have pointed out, slavery ended 156 years ago if we use the "Juneteenth" date. Although some say slavery still exists in the US, but that makes this a really interesting topic.
But I seriously question this concept when I see "people of colour" in positions of power. Especially when they want to tell me that I am the one with "privilege".
Alexandre Dumas, AKA Alexandre Dumas père, author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo (and father of Alexandre Dumas fils, who wrote La Dame aux Camélias). Alexandre père's father (or, if you prefer, the père's père), General Alexandre (Alex) Dumas, was black Haitian, the son of an aristocratic French father, Marquis Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie, and a freed slave, Marie-Cesette Dumas. Toss in that the father was a general in Napoleon's grande armée!
The writer's father's dad sold the boy as a slave to pay for his passage to France
(that's remedial parenting classes for you, Marquis de la Pailleterie)
before buying his freedom. Later, Alex rose through the ranks of the
army to become a general before he was 30. He was so effective that that
the Austrians called him Der schwarze Teufel ("the Black Devil").
During the French revolution fought with other black men in a unit
called the African Legion.
Study up on this French writer and have a great time challenging people's stereotypes on race.
