OK, the premise of it being "celebrated annually on June 19 to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States" is plain off wrong.
There were two documents "ending" slavery: The Emancipation Declaration of 1863 and the Thirteenth Amendment.
Slavery in the United States was officially abolished with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865. However, the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863, declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, but did not end slavery nationwide.
On September 22, 1862, President Lincoln issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which stated that enslaved people in those states or parts of states still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be declared free. One hundred days later, with the rebellion unabated, President issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious areas "are, and henceforward shall be free."
In the slave-owning areas controlled by Union forces on January 1, 1863, state action was used to abolish slavery. The exceptions were Kentucky, Delaware and New Jersey [1], where chattel slavery and indentured servitude were finally ended by the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So, the Emancipation Declaration of 1863 freed slaves in Confederate states but did not apply to border states or areas under Union control. That meant that slavery was still practised in Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey up until 6 December 1865.
Juneteenth was not in any way the end of slavery in the United States.
That's because the Thirteenth Amendment, which was passed on 6 December 1865 officially abolished slavery in the U.S.
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states which were active members of the Confederate States of America. I couldn't get an accurate number on the amount of enslaved people in Delaware, Kentucky, and New Jersey at the time of the 13th Amendment, but I would guess it was more than heard General Order #3 in Galveston, Texas on "Juneteenth".
The final nail in the coffin for this nonsense is:
Even more cold water: 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.
So much for Juneteenth ending slavery in the United States.
Footnote: there were 16 people enslaved in New Jersey when the 13th Amendment was passed!
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I detail in my book, DNA samples recovered in Egypt from the New
Kingdom to the Roman Period reveal that Egyptians had predominantly
southern European and Near Eastern ancestry; sub-Saharan African
ancestry didn’t exceed 15 percent in the ancient times and doesn’t
exceed 21 percent in Egypt today. So it’s safe to say that even with
some Egyptian heritage, in today’s terms she wouldn’t have been Black
but biracial.
There are quite a few important things to keep in mind here since the Mediterranean is surrounded by three continents: Europe, Africa, and Asia and there was trade between those continents from pre-historic times (yes). OK, this map is modern, but the geography is pretty much timeless.
You might be able to try and waffle that sub-Saharan Africa wasn't part of the trade, but the Gahanian and Malian Empires pretty much refute that: toss in the Kerma culture of Nubia for good measure.
It's simplistic to think of Europe as being this island in the upper parts of the Eastern (and some Western) Hemisphere isolated from the rest of the "known world": especially when you think of "here be monsters" on old maps. But the Hereford Mappa Mundi includes India.
I have no problem with the actress playing Cleopatra since she pretty much looks like what I would expect a Cleopatra to look like, instead of Elizabeth Taylor. Biracial and lighter complected.
Just because I identify with the Eastern Hemisphere, and Europe, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that other cultures haven't been influential in Europe. It's hard to deny when Africa is touching Iberia at the west.
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.
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:
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.
