BRAWL – Internal Cultural Differences and Historical Realities – Amanda S. Green

*The lateness of this post is not the author’s fault.  I’m exceptionally derpy and couldn’t finish reading it in any sane amount of time.  But here it is, and sorry to be so late Amanda.  On the bad side, she’s going back to reading masochism with the next book, at least from what she told me — SAH*

BRAWL – Internal Cultural Differences and Historical Realities – Amanda S. Green

If you were to ask most anyone how African-Americans first came to the United States, you’d be told they came as slaves. Thanks to our schools and public misconception, we are not taught about those who came as indentured servants. Of course, we aren’t taught about the whites who came over in similar circumstances. To be honest, it is something I learned the hard way when I was in school too many years ago to count. I made the mistake of asking about indentured servants in a history class and being told such things hadn’t existed here in the States, at least not for whites. Funny, I have the original handwritten advertisement that had to be published notifying the people of New Jersey that my own ancestors had fulfilled the terms of their indenture and were now free persons.

That is a part of our history, be you speaking about black or white history, we have chosen to forget. Unfortunately, that has led to more than a little “confusion” about our nation and problems we still encounter today.

The first misconception that needs to be shattered is that blacks first came to America as slaves. That’s wrong. The first Africans brought to Colonial Virginia in 1619 came as indentured servants, a status shared by a number of whites. (BRAWL, pg. 41) This status of being “indentured” meant they could work off their indenture or buy it out. Once they had, they became free persons. The first law recognizing perpetual slavery was passed in 1661 in Virginia. (Note, this is part of the “red neck” sector of what would become the United States. More on that later.)

Once you accept this, you have to accept that slavery isn’t a uniquely “American” event. It originated under British rule more than 100 years before the colonies gained their independence. It also raises the question of why those clamoring for the removal of Civil War memorials (be they statues, street or building names or other forms of public recognition) honoring members of the CSA aren’t doing the same for not only our Founding Fathers (which some of them are) but also those British ancestors, both here and in England, who not only allowed slavery to be established here but promoted it. But that wouldn’t fit the narrative, would it?

In fact, the “size of the free black population increased after the United States came into existence as an independent nation, as the ideology of freedom associated with the American revolution led most Northern states to abolish slavery, and even in the South, enough white slave owners freed their slaves to cause the free black population there to nearly double and then redouble between 1790 and 1810.” (BRAWL, pg 41) Wait! What? That doesn’t fit the narrative.

As a result of this, there was an influx of freed blacks moving north. Even so, it is no surprise that, in 1860, there were more free people of color living in Washington D. C. than in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia combined. After all, who would want to remain in the area where you had been enslaved. However, this mass immigration caused problems, problems that we would see repeated a century later.

Many of the issues caused by this mass migration to the North came about because of the differences between the “free people of color” native to the North and those moving there. The northern “free people of color” were more literate and more urbanized than their Southern counterparts. In 1850, most free people of color in the North were literate while most slaves were not. It would take 50 years for most people of color to become literate or, to put it into context, two generations. Urbanization didn’t really occur until 1940. As Sowell notes, the “size of the free black population increased after the United States came into existence as an independent nation, as the ideology of freedom associated with the American revolution led most Northern states to abolish slavery, and even in the South, enough white slave owners freed their slaves to cause the free black population there to nearly double and then redouble between 1790 and 1810.” (BRAWL, pg. 41)

Among the consequences of the extreme range of education and acculturation within the Negro community has been the larger society’s erection of racial barriers provoked by black rednecks, which barriers then deeply offended those individuals at the other end of the cultural spectrum . . .That internal social barriers within the black community became more pronounced at the same time as white barriers against blacks in general suggests that more than coincidence was involved, since both occurred in the wake of the mass arrival of black rednecks from the South. (BRAWL, pg. 44 -45)

These barriers prevented the “cultural elites from separating themselves as much as they would like from the lower class blacks”. It forced them to live close to those they wanted to be set apart from. It forced them to share schools, churches and other institutions essential to their way of life. This led to a hypocrisy Sowell notes – one where these elites protested against the social and economic barriers raised by the whites while, in turn, wanting to erect those same barriers between themselves and the lower class blacks.

Another thing Sowell points out is that it took more than a light complexion or money to become an elite in this society. There was a behavioral aspect as well. One illustration of this behavior is the more stable family life the black elites enjoyed. Stable families with few separations or divorces marked this black elite society, unlike its counterpart.

So what changed? What curbed the social freedoms the “free people of color” enjoyed in the North prior to the Civil War?

The growth of this largely unacculturated population—“fugitives in the rough,” in the words of black historian Carter G. Woodson—in Northern cities during the first half of the nineteenth century brought both social barriers and discriminatory laws barring black children from schools and black adults from equal access to public accommodations.

Yet, as these black communities grew more acculturated over time, and began to rise economically, these laws and practices began to be relaxed in many Northern cities in the latter part of the nineteenth century. (BRAWL, pp 45-46)

“As these black communities grew more acculturated” is the key phrase. These immigrants from the South adapted to their surroundings. They adopted behaviors accepted not only by the free persons of color from that area but of the white citizenry as well. That adaptation, or acculturation, led to many of the restrictions to be eased.

This ability to become acculturated was severely tested in the 20th Century. For example, there were approximately 30,000 blacks living in Chicago in 1900. By 1920, that number grew to 100,000. By 1940, there were 277,000 living there. In 1900 Detroit, there were approximately 4,000 blacks. That number grew to 149,000 by 1940. New York City’s black population came in at approximately 60,000 in 1900 and exploded to 450,000 in 1940. (BRAWL pg. 47)

Anyone who studied history could see what would happen. The exodus of blacks from the South to the North in the early 1800s led to restrictions on their way of life – where they could live, work, worship, shop, learn, etc. That is exactly what happened again.

The sheer numbers of these new black migrants from the South not only overwhelmed the relatively small black populations in Northern cities demographically in the early twentieth century, their very different behavior patterns shocked both blacks and whites at the time, as witnessed by adverse comments from earlier black settlers and the black press, denouncing the new arrivals from the South as vulgar, rowdy, unwashed, and criminal. Nor were these conclusions without foundation. For example, a study in early twentieth century Pennsylvania found that the rate of violent crimes by blacks who had migrated there was nearly five times the rate of such crimes by blacks born in Pennsylvania. In Washington, the rate of births out of wedlock more than doubled with a large influx of Southern blacks during the late nineteenth century. (BRAWL, pg 47)

It is difficult, if not impossible, to become “acculturated” to a new community when you outnumber it. That was the situation the Northern enclaves faced and, as society had done 100 years earlier, it reacted negatively and laws, written and unwritten, were passed to try to control this new, red-necked majority suddenly taking up residence.

But, with the passage of time, things began to change back to the better, just as they had 100 years earlier. Sowell contends this improvement has its foundation in more than just the passage of time.

“Nor can these advances be attributed to the civil rights laws that began in the 1960s, for the advancement of blacks antedated any serious civil rights legislation by years and was in fact more dramatic in the years preceding such legislation.” (BRAWL, pg 50) In fact, the number of black families living below the official poverty level fell from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960. That precedes the Civil Rights era. According to Sowell, the “principal factor that raised black incomes during that period, both absolutely and relative to white income, was migration—from low-income areas to higher-income areas.” (BRAWL, pg 50)

So, as Sowell points out, this mass migration North, and later West, put Southern blacks into a much better situation than they had been before moving. They were now in places where their children could go to better schools. Adults could get better jobs. Even if the migration negatively impacted those blacks already living in the North or West, it improved a greater number simply because of the infrastructure of the areas they moved to.

And, with the passing of years, the “black rednecks” slowly integrated into the existing society, “as minority groups tend to do in countries around the world.” (BRAWL, pg 59) As this happened, racial barriers once again began to drop. This happened after World War II and before the 1960’s. Illustrations of this include not only the increase in salaries blacks enjoyed but also things like Jackie Robinson breaking the barriers and joining MLB. Then you have President Truman working toward ending segregation in the military.

Yes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 dealt a number of blows to racial restrictions, especially in the South.

Economically, however, the upward trends in black income and occupations that had begun decades earlier simply continued, but at no accelerated rate. The rise of blacks into professional and other high-level occupations was in fact greater in the years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the years afterward, and was greater in the 1940s than in the 1950s. Behind such developments was the fact that blacks were closing the gap between themselves and whites in years of schooling during this era. (BRAWL, pp 50-51)

So, despite all the back slapping and self-congratulations we hear from the liberals about how they’ve been champions of African-Americans, the libs haven’t done nearly as much as they’d like us to believe. In fact, by saying their actions are why African-Americans now enjoy a better life is to denigrate the actions taken by that segment of our society on its own behalf. It is to deny history. It is, in fact, to show the libs truly do believe African-Americans are incapable of improving their lot on their own.

What was improving their way of life were the major social transformations within their community. Blacks that had moved from the South to the North or the West (during WWII to find jobs) began integrating into their new communities and taking advantages of the better possibilities their new lives presented.

It would hardly be surprising if it also had an impact on how whites viewed blacks, as had happened in the nineteenth century. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s may well have been an effect of the rise of blacks, rather than the sole or predominant cause of that rise, as it has been represented as being, by those leaders—black and white—with incentives to magnify their own role in racial progress.

The difference between cultural explanations of changing race relations and explanations based on political acts or swings of the pendulum in white public opinion is not just a matter of intellectual preference. There are wholly different implications, not only about the past, but especially about the future. The question is whether the advancement of blacks is helped or hindered by promoting a black “identity” built around a redneck culture whose track record has been largely negative for both blacks and whites. (BRAWL, pg 51)

Think about that. “The civil rights legislation of the 1960s may well have been an effect of the rise of blacks, rather than the sole or predominant cause of that rise, as it has been represented as being, by those leaders—black and white—with incentives to magnify their own role in racial progress.”

That most definitely doesn’t fit the narrative of the Left. Not only does their stance deny not only facts but historical trends, it downplays the abilities and capabilities of a large segment of our society. Isn’t it time to fight the narrative and call them out on their BS? More importantly, isn’t it time for that part of our society to realize just how well they’ve been played by politicians and, as Sowell calls them, “those leaders—black and white—with incentives to magnify their own role in racial progress?”

[For raising the tone of this blog — ATH is culture! — and helping me with the exposing of the roots of the current mess — in her case with more facts! — if you decide to  send the woman a drink–  And her Amazon author page is here –  Also, she has a new book: Light Magic, under her Ellie Ferguson pen name. SAH]


117 thoughts on “BRAWL – Internal Cultural Differences and Historical Realities – Amanda S. Green

  1. On the bad side, she’s going back to reading masochism with the next book, at least from what she told me

    Uh oh. Do I need to consult the Anvil list? Difford’s Guide? Or just a decent bottle of rye? It’s been a nice break, why, the current text barely even calls for Mateus.

          1. Absinthe might not be enough for that… that.. that. It might need Rectified Spirits. Or lysergic acid diethylamide (What? Like it could make significantly LESS sense thus?).

  2. What curbed the social freedoms the `free people of color` enjoyed in the North prior to the Civil War?

    It was those damned Deplorables.

  3. That most definitely doesn’t fit the narrative of the Left.

    The Left’s narrative usually consists of identifying a positive social trend, trying to impede it and then jumping n front and claiming they had been pushing it all along. Because the Left is the bastion of group identity politics, all advances in individual attainment are achieved in spite of them, not because of them.

    1. The narrative also likes to pretend that slavery didn’t exist anywhere else. Ever. In human history. Didn’t happen ‘ever’ in the ‘enlightened eras of Greece, or Rome or Egypt’, that the Amerinds never practiced it, that the Africans didn’t practice it, the Chinese didn’t, nor the Indians, or the Japanese, or Vikings, or Celts, or ANY OTHER CULTURE and YOU LIE!!111 about Arabs/Muslims practicing it now. (But of course, the Jews practiced it and yes, Christians did and that’s why they’re evilbadmustbedestroyed.)

      And ‘happiness in slavery’? BUT THAT CANNOT BE!!! (Never mind that there were people who did not mind their status of slave, because in those eras, it was possible for a slave to be a trusted servant, or an influencing teacher to the master’s children, and indeed would come to love the family they belonged to. They ‘don’t exist and you’re a bigot if you cite facts!’)

      Okay, stopping there. This trying to think like a social justice zombie is making my head hurt and it’s likely to become very hot over here today.

      1. George Washington was considered one of the best, if not -the- best, horseman in Virginia. He rode -everywhere-. He was frequently accompanied by his personal servant (slave). William Lee. Lee was at his side throughout the Revolution, astride a horse that he could ride like few others.

        Lee was able to keep up with Washington. Had he chosen to depart, who would have been able to catch him? As such things are measured, Lee had -very- high status, yet was -property-.

        Was he happy that way? Resigned? I cannot fathom it.

        1. I have heard the Chinese ideogram meaning “prime minister” derives from the one meaning “prisoner of war” — via a period meaning “slave.”

          After all, the personal slaves of the powerful have a good amount of power themselves.

      2. Never mind that there were people who did not mind their status of slave
        Why would this be surprising to anyone? After all, look at how many people strive to live under communism.

        Oh, and it’s ok to point out slavery among the Vikings – because blond, blue-eyed, duh. Naturally they were slave-owners.

        1. “Didn’t mind” may be a very misleading way of viewing it. But people do, very much, deal with life the way it IS, even if they also understand how to ought to be, adjust to their circumstances and to the extent possible make the best of them.

          People also talk like girls of a certain class, in the past, objected to being married off against their will in arranged marriages. There too, what use is there in fighting what seem to be the facts of life, even if there’s an odd wistful thought of what ought to be? No, you’re glad that your toothless old man is kind and has a very nice house and spends his time elsewhere, unlike your friend who’s toothless old man gambles and drinks his money away.

          1. Before I start, I should make clear: I am not advocating, by any stretch of imagination, a return to slavery, or that it is ‘a good thing’ objectively. But looking at the situation, historically, with the cultures that practiced it, would be judging the history with current values, which I feel is part of the reason why we are in the situation we are in today. Perhaps yes it is ‘make the best of one’s situation’, but is it really impossible to posit that a slave of certain eras could be happy, full on, full stop, because we would be unhappy, if we found ourselves in that situation?

            No, you’re glad that your toothless old man is kind and has a very nice house and spends his time elsewhere, unlike your friend who’s toothless old man gambles and drinks his money away.

            They’d be happy that their old man isn’t the latter, yes. It’s a ‘thank goodness my situation isn’t worse.’ It’s a form of happiness, in my view.

            I’ve run into people within the last two decades who have told me they did not mind entering into master-slave contracts. I am not talking about the BSDM scene of playing at ‘master’ Dom/me and Submissive, where, for the purposes of the kink, it’s pretend. The first one I encountered was a woman. She actively wanted it. I remember being shocked and asking her why would she want to give up her ability to make decisions for herself, and it was that reason, as well as the ‘security’ (I suppose she meant financial and otherwise) that the master she wanted to sign herself to slavery to was offering as part of the contract. Believe me, I didn’t know what to think of the whole thing, beyond “Isn’t that illegal?”, I was so stunned that another human being would give up their freedoms and rights willingly to ensure food, a roof over their head, safety, and companionship. (Apparently, the contract included that the master would take care of her children but they would not be slaves. She said they based the contract off of old indentured slavery ones.) The last time I chatted with her online, she seemed much, much happier than before. Since then, I’ve run into at least five other people who claimed to be slaves, and happy in it (four women, the fifth was a guy who struck me as very submissive) – and the one thing common in all of them was the way they were so happy not having to make decisions for themselves. They had their duties, and knew what was expected of them. For appearances’ sakes, they worked – and it helped bring in income they would hand over to their master – and ‘put on the mask of being a normal.’

            I met all of these people through gaming – the first before ‘she signed away’ her ‘freedom’, the rest I met when they were gaming – grinding or farming, actually for their master’s benefit. And no, they weren’t Chinese gold farmers. They were people in Western countries.

            Now, frankly, I could never accept it. The very thought makes my skin crawl and enrages me. And sure, the people I met could be lying to me. But it made me acknowledge the mindset is there, and it would be irrational of me to dismiss it out of hand, or ignore that it could have existed historically, and that there could be reasons why a person was happy in slavery – or making the best out of an objectively bad situation. Would a person sold into slavery be happy to find the person who bought them was kind? Certainly a relief, and if this hypothetical person would be asked, they were happy to find it was so. They would be keen, indeed, to make themselves useful to their masters so they would NOT be sold to someone else, who wouldn’t have kindness of their current master. Why would we then have accounts of loyal slaves, slaves who would give up their lives for their masters, and so on, if it did not benefit them, emotionally or otherwise, especially as we would think now that the death of the masters would result in freedom for the slaves, from their oppression. (More likely, it would mean a replacement of masters, after a few were killed to be made examples of.)

            Does it stop them from being property? No. But when I see people these days ‘rising up and demanding that they have’ the ‘freedoms’ of socialism, or communism, I realize the mindset is not as uncommon as I think – a desire to be ‘taken care of’ to ‘not worry about the big decisions, or even the medium ones’ – and yes, it is indeed terrifying. I’ve seen socialism up close and personal, and it is shit. I would never advocate for it. But there were people happy in that. There were people who couldn’t handle the myriad choices available after communism fell, or were exposed to America’s groceries. Some couldn’t handle it at all – I remember hearing about how there were people utterly miserable after the Wall fell, because now they had no sense of security, financial and otherwise.

            Even a slavery of the mind is still slavery. It is horrible, and awful, and sickening. I will never argue against that. But to dismiss that there were historical situations where people could have been ‘happy’, for varying degrees of happy, seems… modernistic to me.

            1. why would she want to give up her ability to make decisions for herself …

              Given her already demonstrated poor capacity for making such decisions …

              As for its historical role … contemplating the possibility of doing away with the institution of slavery would have been on a par with questioning why the Pilgrims didn’t simply fly the Concord to America or wondering why Columbus didn’t rely on GPS.

      3. And let’s not forget that only whites, especially Christian whites, practiced slavery. Hell, they were all probably white Mormon males with a great rack. VBEG

    2. I totally agree with you. It is yet another indication of what their true goal is — promoting everything for the state at the expense of the individual and individual freedoms.

        1. It’s different because we vote for it. That there is only one party that has all of the guns and no predeliction against disappearing nonpeople.

  4. the `principal factor that raised black incomes during that period, both absolutely and relative to white income, was migration—from low-income areas to higher-income areas.`

    One of the major factors for those higher incomes was the presence in those areas of unions, unions who saw the introduction of “cheap ni**er labor” as unfair competition and thus pushed for minimum wage laws to combat the price competition of more productive workers.

  5. Funny, but I can remember reading and talking about indentured servants in our colonial history Social Studies classes in elementary school; including test questions on it. Sounds like the evil Progressives have erased that from the current history books.

    Well, this does explain why Obama pushed the racism agenda. He made it look worse, and actually caused it to worsen, and for his own personal benefit. /sigh

      1. Graduated HS in 2001, in Idaho admittedly, and we were taught it in both HS history and middle school social studies. Come to think of it, we may have talked about it in English class, too, when we did The Crucible.

        1. My problem is that I can no longer remember what I was taught in school and what I learned because I read the way a shopworn junkie shoots up; regularly and compulsively. I knew about indentured servitude from an early dat. I also realized quite early on that THE CRUCIBLE has a great deal more to do with the Left’s McCarthyism Narrative than it does with the actual history of the actual witch trials. I had two history teachers for parents and absorbed a lot through my pores.

    1. It’s getting harder and harder to know what’s “common knowledge”. I learned this in grades school circa late 1970s.

      1. So did I – and I finished high school in 1972. I was a voracious reader of history, though, and I may very well have picked it all up in extra-curricular reading.
        There was a breakdown of the numbers taken out of Africa through the slave trade for a good few centuries. Can’t find the link at present, but the breakdown was that the largest part went east, to the then-Califphate. Of the remainder, the largest portion went to South America, and the Caribbean. Only about six per cent of black slaves from Africa finished up in North America … but the descendants of that six per cent are LOUD!

        1. Sowell gets to that in his history of the slave trade essay. He notes one major distinction about men sold into the Caliphate — they underwent a minor surgical alteration to render them more useful as harem guards and attendants.

          Of course, this is something our modern SJWs prefer to do psychologically.

        2. Graduated HS 1974. I too knew there were white & black indentured servants. Both could work of their debts. Difference being:

          * Whites usually were “volunteer’s”, in that it was either go to debtor’s prison or/& watch your kids starve or be put into orphanages where they were worked, then at some point they had to pay of the debts used to raise them & yours. Any one of the conditions listed would make families or individuals try to emigrate. Then there was the force Scott emigration. Families usually were kept together.

          * Blacks. Not usually volunteered. Families rarely together. Then too, it wasn’t white hunters going into the bush to round up tribes, it was other tribes, who had a history of taking & selling slaves.

          1. Now ask whether I know this outline because of instruction in school or extra reading … don’t remember.

            1. A lot of black indentured servants were descendants of black people who had emigrated or been taken to Europe or the UK. They spoke English, were Christians, and had skills already.

              1. The other thing to remember is that the indentured servant system was an outgrowth of the apprenticeship system. Thus the term of servitude to a particular master, instead of being tied to the land or available to have your servitude sold off to others.

                I don’t think your parents could sell you into indenture, though, like they could with some apprenticeships; or buy you into indenture, like they could with more prestigious apprenticeships that had competition for slots. (I think the idea of buying into officer slots in the military may have come from that.)

            1. The beginning of _Captain Blood_ by Sabatini describes how the main character is convicted of aiding a traitor and is enslaved, “Penal servitude,” and sent to the Caribbean.

              1. The thing is, Sabatini’s writing is probably about as historically accurate as, say, that of Edgar Rice Burroughs. So that passage from CAPTAIN BLOOD is evidence that the idea existed in the popular culture at the time Sabatini was writing, but not evidence that that is how things were in the period Sabatini was writing about.

                1. White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh is non-fiction

        3. I have always thought it was common knowledge that slavery was, well, common practice, but fact is I am not sure how much of that I learned in school or from history books and how much from old adventure novels. As I have said before I read a lot of those when I was young, and the villains being people mixed in slave trade seemed to be a fairly common plot thread, as well as the heroes and especially the heroines being captured. In the older historical romances she almost always seemed to either end up captured by the slavers at some point, especially if it was a longer book series, and then of course saved by the hero. Maybe not the most reliable sources… But then it was also mentioned in the history books I later started reading from library. At least in my youth it was not something hidden here. There was the white guilt element, but there were no claims that only white people used slaves.

          From what I have observed during the last couple of decades the white guilt part seems to have become more pronounced (as in whites were worse, especially by the time when it became a race thing, white masters and not-white slaves) but it is still observed that slavery used to be common in all societies.

          1. I certainly learned about the slave trade in those old Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan novels, in which the author’s racism led him to depict Arab and German slave traders in a very unflattering light.

            ERB made it clear that various African tribal cultures were distinct, with some (Oparians) degraded and others (Waziri) brave and noble. I do not recall whether he ever had Tarzan journey to Germany or the Caliphate to contrast their peaceful and enlightened societies against their traders.

    2. I knew about indentured slavery in the US, but didn’t find out about how the first man to own a chattel slave and bring about the laws that encouraged it being a black man who himself was a freed former indentured slave, until well into my college years.

    3. There was a little said about it when I was in school and usually only when I brought it up. By the time my son made it to school, it was totally out of the curriculum. After all, it didn’t fit the narrative that there were only black slaves and that slavery was the ONLY issue behind the Civil War. Yes, it was a major issue but there were others as well.

      1. The key to understanding the roots of the Civil War, imo, is to grasp that slavery intertwined itself about all those other issues and corrupted them. There were several issues, but slavery dragged them all back into its maw in the end.

    1. Thanks. I worry because the number of comments go down. But then I remind myself that it is hard for most of those who follow this blog to disagree with him. Shrug.

      1. Well, if all you’re looking for is cantankerous contrary comments, I could provide that. Heck, I think I have a badge in that, somewhere……

  6. The other interesting bit is “Why Blacks became Slaves from Indentured Servants?”

    The cause was fairly simple. You had a culture of hard working people, trying to get ahead, and make something of themselves and the country. The First Freed Indentured Servant, got a farm, started raising a family, became well off and was a pillar of the community. He was also from all accounts fully accepted. Most others Not so much.

    The Black culture of the freed Indentured Servants was the culture they had from Africa. Just get by, work when you had to, marriage was unimportant, education was unimportant, private property was a strange thing that could be ignored, and most of the other stereotypes. This is when those stereotypes formed.

    Now the straight laced, proper people could only take so much of this. These people were acting like CHILDREN. And didn’t seem to be able to learn to become productive citizens of the community. (There were a few exceptions, but they were few.) SOMEONE had to take responsibility for them. And looking back at the Bible, there was a perfect solution Slavery. So 7 year Indentured Servants became life long slaves. You can’t have trouble making slackers like the freed Blacks running around without supervision. It is harmful and dangerous to the community.

    And thus was born Slavery in the US. If only the Blacks had been like the White Indentured Servants, the Proper People wouldn’t of had to do this. Isn’t Culture a BITCH!

      1. One of the great things about the tour of Jamestown was they had a ranger acting in character as Anthony Johnson.
        And yes, he bemoaned both the rise of lifelong slavery, and the attempts of his own slave to run away (the famous Casor suit).
        A very impressive performance.

        1. I was a bit surprised at the hate-crime thing for cross burning. Making the assumption it happened on someone’s property not there own (in modern times – and yes it’s happened.. I head of such goings in Dubuque):

          Construction without permit(s)

          Why didn’t anyone go after the troublemakers for being arsonists?

          1. Looking at various definitions of arson I suspect that setting fire to your own cross, even if erected on another’s land, might not qualify as criminal arson.

            the willful or malicious burning of property (such as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent

            the malicious burning of another’s house or property, or in some statutes, the burning of one’s own house or property, as to collect insurance.

            the act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to another’s property or to one’s own property for some improper reason
            The Free Dictionary

            the malicious burning or exploding of the dwelling house of another, or the burning of a building within the curtilage, the immediate surrounding space, of the dwelling of another.
            Legal Dictionary

            The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines arson as any willful or malicious burning or attempting to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.

              1. I suspect it all comes down to how activist the judges are, e.g., if Donald Trump jokes about how he hopes somebody burns a cross in your yard it is a clear expression of racial and religious animus and undeniably arson requiring an immediate life sentence in solitary, whereas if Al Sharpton burns a cross in your fashion mart clothing store it is merely an unfortunately overzealous exercise of free speech and ten hours community service will suffice to atone.

            1. Oregon Department of Forestry would get really annoyed if your cross burned on someone else’s land. It was fireworks on July 5th and a 2 acre fire, but the perp got a $5000 fine. If it had been in one of the People’s republics, (Ashland, Portland, Salem, etc) it might have been a hate crime, especially if on July 4th.

            2. Just so we establish parameters here:

              If someone brings something of significant size onto my residence property, and sets it on uncontained fire, best not to make any important plans for the rest of the day.

              One would definitely be -late-.

              I would of course assist any of my neighbors who had similar concerns.

              1. To be clear: I do not advocate such fiery pastimes, merely attempt to explain why they may not constitute arson.

    1. Dan, do you have a source? I ask because that’s a little different from what I’ve read (Peter Kolchin, Eugene Genovese, et al) and I’d like to learn more. Thanks.

    2. I feel like there should be a distinction here between “reasons” and “excuses” for doing what people wanted to do to make permanent, inherited slavery the norm.

    3. Even the slavery practiced by the Jews in the Bible was necessarily life-long. You did have Jubilee years, where slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven, and the mercies of God were supposed to be manifest. If I understand it correctly, people, and even couples, could CHOOSE to remain slaves if they so desired. And I suspect even the Jews didn’t free uncontrolled murderous psychopaths, or even elect them to government office for that matter.

        1. Yes. Remember that Ancient Israel lived under “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” There were provisions in the Law to avoid executing those who killed accidentally (and those provisions included providing safe haven cities that the killers could flee to in order to avoid the bounty hunter that the victim’s family hired). But murderers were to be executed. No slavery for them.

      1. IIRC kidnapping another person (usually done for the purpose of selling the kidnappee as a slave) was a crime, punishable by death under the Law.

        The only slavery allowed was voluntary (i.e. other Jews selling themselves, usually to pay a debt) or what you did with prisoners of war (provided that whatever city the Jews were warring against had not been utterly devoted to destruction.)

      2. There was no provision for enslaving someone permanently, but slaves purchased from the surrounding nations had a different status than fellow Hebrews in temporary slavery; among other differences, the Jubilee year did not apply to them.

  7. “That most definitely doesn’t fit the narrative of the Left. Not only does their stance deny not only facts but historical trends, it downplays the abilities and capabilities of a large segment of our society.” You mean, the left LIED to us?????? The HORROR!!
    The horror… Those rotters!!

      1. I don’t see why you’re so surprised. the Narrative is Fiction, and as Mark Twain said:
        “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”

        1. I’m not surprised that it’s quite silly. The surprise, or perhaps disappointment is a better word, is that there are so many who seem not to realize such is the case.

  8. Yes, but the problem here is that you’re arguing with facts and reason, like the kid who tried to explain that his ‘dreadlocks’ weren’t cultural appropriation, since the Norse had similar styles.

    The correct response, of course, is to attack the kid, hold him down and forcibly cut his hair.

    I say ‘correct’ in that it’s the response that yields the desired result for the one that employs it. So long as there are no reprecussions. And there never are.

    1. Odin’s Beard! You cut off his braids! You want people to think he’s a mere thrall? Where’s my battle axe?

  9. Just the other day I saw someone arguing that slavery was responsible for the destruction of the black family and black culture. (Not their fault.) But vastly different people will tell you different. A couple of years ago that was, oh, the Duck Dynasty guy and Clive Bundy who both, separately, talked about how when they were wee little lads their playmates and coworkers were the neighborhood black kids and young people and everyone was hardworking and parents were married and then, somehow, it all went to heck. And THEN you’d hear the same thing from various people who were mad at them for it, like Ta Nehisi Coates or this other guy I’m blanking the name of atm, who were all up in arms and upset and declared the exact same thing was true, but they used different, acceptable language to say it. Whatever happened, happened *after* slavery ended.

    And yeah, the whole “institutional racism” and “white privilege” and inevitable and irreversible oppression due to everything that no one has any power over is almost entirely about how the oppressed can do nothing to change their situations and thus need the white activist class to save them.

    Never mind that this is exactly what seems to have destroyed them.

    1. The long chain of Black Family Survival was indeed broken by white Southern political action. LBJ did it with his “War on Poverty” — a war even less successful than his war in Vietnam.

    2. he’s persona non grata now, but Bill Cosby also harped on the death of the Black Family unit, and mention it happened not just after slavery, but in his lifetime.

      1. I think his being very influential in the matter was why they had to make him persona non grata. Last I heard, none, not one of the supposed sexual accusations against him were proven true and the charges against him were either dropped or the judgment was (quietly) ruled in his favor, but it didn’t matter any more. Cosby’s reputation was toast. The media didn’t even bother making a giant hue and cry about the ruling in Cosby’s favor. They’d gotten what they wanted.

        (remember how I said “wait, this woman making the accusation was claiming she was underage when she went to the Playboy Mansion, which had every interest in at least making a show of ‘nobody under 18, and legal age only’, because moral guardians giving them the stringent eye, and ‘snuck in’ with her ‘mother’s knowledge’ – yeah, is there a bridge someone wants to sell me in the middle of the Salt Lake flats?”)

          1. *shakes head* Based on what? The first one ruled because there wasn’t enough evidence that he had even done what he’d been accused of. (Frankly, what ever happened to ‘that person is not a credible witness?’)

            But SJWs gotta double down. And they will destroy the law to do so. It’s a travesty, and it’s sickening that it’s being allowed to happen.

        1. I don’t doubt that Mr. Cosby had sex with most of those women. I don’t doubt that he gave them drugs to, “help them relax”. What I do doubt was that he gave them those drugs without their consent and knowledge of what they would do under their influence.

          Just because you regret doing something foolish when you were younger is no reason to ruin someone else’s life when you reach middle age. Lord knows I did a heck of a lot of crap that I regret when I was a callow youth; but I don’t blame anyone but myself, and I’m certainly not hunting down those who enticed me to exact my pound of flesh from them, even if I could find them now.

          I wonder, how much of their going after Mr. Cosby is just because they do know where he is?

          1. Cosby was starting to get a reputation for taking “black culture” to task for its failures. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that was partially responsible for these women coming out of the woodwork.

  10. Indentures were a spinoff of the guild system; debt repaid with labor. Benjamin Franklin talked about bringing relatives to America under articles of indenture.

    1. Imagine the reaction if Trump proposed such a solution to chain migration.

      I’m so old I can remember when people sponsoring an immigrant to the US had to guarantee said immigrant’s support and that said immigrant would NOT be a burden on the public.

    1. I believe that there is a legal difference between “indentured servant” and “apprentice”.

      Andrew Johnson had been an apprentice to a tailor.

      1. I suppose it depends on if the apprentice can quit or not, and an apprentice is “hired” for a particular job in exchange for learning the craft.

  11. Advice on art

    1. I’ve always seen deer as more “performance artists” rather than poets; but then, perhaps that’s because I don’t speak deer. After all, I have never understood Russian poetry either.

  12. The Making of Toxic Masculinity
    By Sarah Hoyt
    Screaming against masculinity and “toxic masculinity” is much in the news these days. Some colleges have courses with that title, in which they devote their time to yelling at men for being men.

    Some idiot or sociologist has created this concept that masculinity is “toxic” to civilized environments.

    By the time I was in college, in the early eighties, we were inundated with texts on how men were not created for civilized life, how women were so much better as office workers, etc, and how men were “obsolete.”

    This is by the way of being an idiocy on a par with the academic whom I heard state that biological gender didn’t exist. (And before you get lost in the weeds of gender isn’t sex, yeah, because arguing over words has got us so far. Also in English, there are two genders that apply to human beings, period. So stow it.) It might make some sense to say that psychological gender/sex doesn’t exist, that the amazing variety of gender behavior we see is all the result of gender conditioning and social. Not that it makes sense per se and even the left obviously can’t square that circle. But, by definition, you can lie with impunity about things that are inside people’s heads and invisible. It’s much, much harder to deny the biology. Biologically there are males and females, which for our species (but not all of them) are XY and XX. Yes, sure there are intersex individuals, but claiming that because of a birth defect there is no biological sex/gender, is the same as arguing that because some kids are born without hands, it’s not normal for humans to have hands. Defects don’t deny the matrix.

    Why do I say even the left doesn’t believe it? …

    1. Concerning “toxic masculinity”, is it me, or do any of you think the Black Redneck male fits the concept of toxic masculinity to a “T”? Gang culture, lack of familial responsibility, distain for education, inability to plan for the future, etc.

      1. Agreed – that’s toxic masculinity … poisonous, nasty, horrific masculinity of a seriously warped degree. Everything that is held to be chivalrous conduct by the male of our human sex … is thrown on, and danced upon with vicious glee by those who exemplify the black ghetto culture.
        I find it ironic (and in no small degree) that current black ghetto culture is everything that mid-19th century racists claim was totally typical of black Americans:violent, brutal, ignorant and driven by their gonads.
        No one has to burn a cross on their lawn … they’ve done it all, themselves. Put the chains on their own ankles and wrists, and pronounced them to be … something to be proud of.

Comments are closed.