The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Pulitzer Center-Affiliated 1619 Project Wins Pulitzer Prize for Contributions to Black Narcissism and Megalomania
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Pulitzer Center, which is totally separate from the Pulitzer Prize:

Nikole Hannah-Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize for 1619 Project
May 04, 2020 | Project news, Education news, Awards
BY JEFF BARRUS

1619 Project wins Pulitzer Prize

Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for The 1619 Project, The New York Times Magazine’s groundbreaking exploration of the legacy of Black Americans starting with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in 1619.

As The 1619 Project’s official education partner, the Pulitzer Center has connected curricula based on the work of Hannah-Jones and her collaborators to some 4,500 classrooms since August 2019.

Highlights of the Center’s 1619 Project education work include:

Tens of thousands of students in all 50 states engaged with the curricular resources, which include reading guides, lesson plans, and extension activities.
Tens of thousands of copies of the magazine were shipped by The New York Times and the Pulitzer Center to students and educators at K-12 schools, community colleges, HBCUs, and other campuses.
Five school systems adopted the project at broad scale: Buffalo, New York; Chicago; Washington, DC; Wilmington, Delaware; and Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Pulitzer Center events were organized with Hannah-Jones in five cities and at educational institutions including Whitney Young Magnet High School, Wilbur Wright College of City Colleges of Chicago, University of Chicago, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Winston-Salem’s RJ Reynolds High School, Washington, DC’s Dunbar High School, and HBCUs Howard University, Hampton University, and Huston Tillotson University.

The Center congratulates Hannah-Jones on her historic win and looks forward to continuing to collaborate with her and the team at The New York Times Magazine on this important work.

As you’ll recall, the New York Times’ “1619 Project” about how blacks are absolutely the center of American history was announced by NYT editor Dean Baquet as the NYT’s Plan B after the ignominious failure of its Plan A to get Trump, its RussiaGate Conspiracy Theory.

Here are my Taki’s columns “1619: Founding Fallacies” and “1619: Alternative America.”

As I wrote in December:

Myself, I kind of like the NYT’s crackpot theory (that 1776 was motivated by the urge to oppress blacks) more than do the five distinguished (but white) historians.

My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies. …

So, my crackpot theory of the Revolution is that it had more to do with the American desire to beat up on the poor Indians and take their land, and that the Crown was reluctant to help the colonists do that.

But because I have my own personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution, I’m not all that dismissive or hostile toward the NYT having their own personal crackpot theory either.

But of course, in summary, I advocated we go even further back into the past to understand present day American race relations:

America needs a “1618 Project” to educate naive Americans about the numerous connections between African-American behavioral tendencies in 2020 and the sub-Saharan environments and cultures in which their ancestors evolved over the previous 70,000 years.

 
Hide 189 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current “right wing” or HBD crowd says will stop it. They’re impotent.

    But, it’s just a continuation of the same old line. This time, it clearly demonizes all Whites, in every region of the country.

    So what? Who cares? Why should a few Really Smart people living near Canada get a pass?

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever “this is WWII and we must fight evil” project our corrupt leaders come up with next.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children's culture? They're largely Boomers.

    My favorite is when hardcore HBD Boomers will suggest ideas right up until the point of the obvious conclusion -- sterilization of individuals who are unfit to have children. But to a person, they will backtrack and say that idea is too cruel and infeasible.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20's to affordably have children. Guess it's not so cruel to sterilize their own posterity? And when this trend was beginning to reverse in the previous economic boom, they had no problem shutting down the entire economy. Suddenly, that became quite feasible as well.

    To compare the Boomer Right Wing to cucks is being unfair to cucks. When you sell out your own children, it's not called cucking, it's called pimping.
    , @Thomas

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever “this is WWII and we must fight evil” project our corrupt leaders come up with next.
     
    If you're an A C C E L E R A T I O N I S T, a post-American, a white nationalist, or anything in that general vicinity, breaking down whites' attachment to America and American patriotism is probably net-net a good thing. It begins to cut the mental and sentimental attachments of whites to the "propositional, credal nation" BS and opens the door to them considering "what comes next." Ironically, this sort of hate Whitey historical negationism might be doing more to further self-conscious white identity than Jared Taylor ever could hope to.
    , @South Texas Guy

    This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current “right wing” or HBD crowd says will stop it. They’re impotent.
     
    That's like saying they're impotent in regards to the Oscars, Tonys, or the Grammys. It is what is always was. The Pulitzers have been outright corrupt for a few decades, and subtly corrupt for years before that. Oh, and by the way, remember Tennessee Coates won a Genius award. Sandra Cisneros still lives a nice lifestyle off of one book, The House on Mango Street, a shit fest, only because high schools and colleges make it mandatory reading.

    On the plus side, the vast majority of people don't give a damn about those meaningless awards anymore.
  2. You are right to say that an important reason for the American revolution is the colonists wish to
    take Indian land, and the crown being reluctant to help them. It was much easier to be sympathetic
    to the Indians when you are 3 00o miles away and won’t get most of the benefits of displacing them.

    • Agree: RichardTaylor
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Certain Indian tribes had helped the British against the French and their Indian allies during the big war the two superpowers had just fought, and the British felt they were owed something for that. So they forbade the colonists from settling and encroaching on Indian territory beyond the Appalachians, which of course pissed the colonists off to no end.
    , @Hibernian
    It's a mainstream view that this is one reason for the Revolution. It's in the Declaration of Independence. The 1763 Proclamation line limiting settlement to the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont was partly because we and the British had won against the French, their colonists, and the Indians at least in part because of the low population density of French North American territory.
  3. OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong"
    , @BenKenobi
    OH SAY CAN YOU SEE
    , @but an humble craftsman
    The murdered man's wife is actually called Latryna.

    I always thought this was a sick racist joke about black christian names..

    , @Reg Cæsar
    Sharmel Lashe Teague = Message: a health rule!
    , @bomag
    Kind-of takes some shine off the glory of 1619.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    You take your life in your hands when you presume to publicly criticize blacks for their failure to observe norms. You tell them not to litter, not to talk at the movie theater, or not to hit their three-year-old child in the face at the risk of your life.
    , @anonymous
    The Daily Beast ran this story a few days ago before the perps were identified, in which they implied the shooters were White protestors.

    This is the natural endgame of removing mugshots from the nightly news and local reporting, like WRAL did recently. Naturally, if the perp is white, they will find a reason to show the mugshot. And if the perp is non-white, they can always imply he was white, unless it was something obviously black like a shooting in a Chuck-E-Cheese over the last chicken wing.

    The end result is apartheid for the 2020 cohort of White children in 3-4 decades. Naturally, most white Boomer men are indifferent to this, and will continue to insist that public subsidies to the Big Three + Public Radio somehow serve the public interest.

  4. So, my crackpot theory of the Revolution is that it had more to do with the American desire to beat up on the poor Indians and take their land, and that the Crown was reluctant to help the colonists do that.

    You are right to say that an important reason for the American revolution is the colonists wish to
    take Indian land, and the crown being reluctant to help them. It was much easier to be sympathetic
    to the Indians when you are 3 00o miles away and won’t get most of the benefits of displacing them.

  5. @AKAHorace
    You are right to say that an important reason for the American revolution is the colonists wish to
    take Indian land, and the crown being reluctant to help them. It was much easier to be sympathetic
    to the Indians when you are 3 00o miles away and won't get most of the benefits of displacing them.

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    • Replies: @AKAHorace

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).
     
    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth. A bit
    politically correct (British, French, Indians and women all working together) but see the govt ad for the war of 1812.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i_qe9W6Dk
    , @Anon
    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren't very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren't nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they'd burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They'd do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain's day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren't awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Twain really liked the Chinese too. He said “There’s no such thing as a lazy Chinaman” or something to that effect.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Twain really liked the Chinese too. He said “There’s no such thing as a lazy Chinaman” or something to that effect.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Longfellow wrote the Indian epic The Song of Hiawatha, which kicked off the era of Indian-Romanticism, in the early 1850s ... while overlooking Harvard Yard. So far as I know, he had never been further West than Brookline.

    I believe Stephen Vincent Benét originally made this observation about Longfellow, but I can't find it now.

    Unlike Longfellow, the New England Atlanticist lawyer's son, Benét was a son of inland Pennsylvania, born to a military family. Though later than Longefellow, Benét's writing evinces little romanticism about Indians:

    The news of the sudden, breath-taking attack
    When only the ships' guns had saved the settlement.
    One moment, they had been working, and the next
    The hazel arrows rained from the thick coverts,
    The Indian yell gone up.
    And, when it had passed,
    There were seventeen of them hurt, one boy dead,
    And again the clumsy muskets had done no harm.
    They had had to run for them, stored in the dry-fats,
    And 'twas hard to shoot men slipping from tree to tree.
    But they'd be warier now, build a palisade,
    Keep closer watch. They did so with toil and sweat.
    But, beyond the fort were the weeds and the long grass,
    The thick, primeval cover—and enemies
    Who did not stand in battalia to be butchered
    But crept like the forest vines.
    It daunted a man.
    Step beyond the fort—aye, but ten paces beyond,
    As Eustace Clovell, gentleman, did one day,
    Unarmed, on a pleasant Sunday—they heard him running,
    They heard his voice crying hoarsely out "Arm! Arm!"
    But he stumbled into the fort with six arrows in him
    Died eight days later.
    And so it was, day after day.
    A man would be killed or hurt or the arrows fall
    Like fierce, Spring raindrops out of the a smiling sky,
    But, when you fired at the forest, there was nothing.

     

    Benét was also a Pulitzer Prize winner, lol. It did mean something once.
    , @Peter D. Bredon
    "Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks)."

    Not that that got him any get out of jail points in the Present Day.
    , @syonredux

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).
     
    Just compare Jim in Huckleberry Finn to Injun Joe in Tom Sawyer. Jim is depicted with great sympathy and compassion, whereas Injun Joe is something out of a nightmare....

    Look here, what does this mean?” said the doctor. “You required your pay in advance, and I’ve paid you.”
     

    “Yes, and you done more than that,” said Injun Joe, approaching the doctor, who was now standing. “Five years ago you drove me away from your father’s kitchen one night, when I come to ask for something to eat, and you said I warn’t there for any good; and when I swore I’d get even with you if it took a hundred years, your father had me jailed for a vagrant. Did you think I’d forget? The Injun blood ain’t in me for nothing. And now I’ve got you, and you got to settle, you know!”
     
  6. Anonymous[175] • Disclaimer says:
    @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    “When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong”

  7. The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    Karl May wrote from Germany. On his only visit to America, he never got farther west than Niagara Falls.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnetou

  8. @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth. A bit
    politically correct (British, French, Indians and women all working together) but see the govt ad for the war of 1812.

    • Replies: @Dube
    I stopped at what seemed a modest monument on the TransCanada, and read the plaque where around me the battle had taken place. I love the Canadian cousins, but it was odd from my perspective to pause in commemoration of a loss in war and to read the names of the honored dead. Odd especially since I'd been raised to be proud of never having lost a war. "We sent them packing," says my friend Bill from North Bay.

    Close call. Don't give up the guns.
    , @syonredux

    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth
     
    ......Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that "alliance" didn't do the Amerinds much good.....



    When Canada used hunger to clear the West

    What we didn't know at the time was that a key aspect of preparing the land was the subjugation and forced removal of indigenous communities from their traditional territories, essentially clearing the plains of aboriginal people to make way for railway construction and settlement. Despite guarantees of food aid in times of famine in Treaty No. 6, Canadian officials used food, or rather denied food, as a means to ethnically cleanse a vast region from Regina to the Alberta border as the Canadian Pacific Railway took shape.
     
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west/article13316877/

    In government archives, Daschuk found ample primary evidence showing that Macdonald’s Indian agents explicitly withheld food in order to drive bands onto reserve and out of the way of the railroad. A Liberal MP at the time even called it “a policy of submission shaped by a policy of starvation.”
     
    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people
    , @Almost Missouri
    That narrator ("our", "we", "our", "we") sure doesn't sound like a Canadian. I'm thinking Orange County.
    , @Ganderson
    There’s a wonderful museum in Brantford, Ontario- The Canadian Military Heritage Museum. It’s lovingly tended by Canadian Korean War vets- or at least was, on my first visit in 2003. I imagine most of them are a bit long in the tooth by now.

    Not much foot traffic the last time I went, so I got the personal tour from this old guy- come to think of it he looked a bit like Eddie Shack, and I remember remarking, that, while I knew more about Canada’s military history than most yanks, I didn’t realize there were Canadians in Korea. He looked at me with a wry smile and said “ Don’t worry,eh? Most Canadians don’t either”

    When we got to a particular section of the museum (the 1812 exhibition) he said to me “You’re not gonna like this part- this is where we kicked your asses.” I smiled, and told him that I had always been taught that it was a draw, But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Here’s a tribute to Old Hickory:

    https://youtu.be/V7a-cGY-VGQ

  9. Anon[731] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren’t very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren’t nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they’d burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They’d do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain’s day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren’t awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I want to see an enactment of Abe Lincoln's speech to Minnesota Indian chiefs at the White House on how White Man believe world is a big ball.
    , @Cortes
    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians. I have vague memories of reading accounts by French missionaries of all-night torture by Algonquins of unfortunates whose valour was scored on how well and long they lasted and remained defiant.
    , @obwandiyag
    They tortured themselves, too: cf. the Mandan.

    They had no choice. If they were not utterly ruthless and made of steel, their enemies would be for them. Cf. The Huron turning Christian enabling the Iroquois to wipe them out.

    As if the whites didn't massacre. See the "battle" of Tippecanoe.
    , @jbwilson24
    "If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they’d burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough."

    Sure, but is that really all that terrible? Most groups of humans have pretty sordid histories of torture.

    The Mongols used torture for political control to the maximal degree possible. The Catholic Church tortured heretics and dissenters in brutal ways, and the various European instruments of torture are far beyond what the Plains Indians could dream up (Iron Maidens, etc). Drawing and Quartering. The Britons with their Wicker Men. The Etruscans were pretty terrible.

    In fact, the more I think about it the more I think that Islam was actually something of a civilizing force in the old world. Chopping off hands and heads is relatively clean work, compared to flaying, impaling, or the like. Africans in the Congo used to take captives, break their legs, and soak them in a river for a while to soften up before putting them on the fire for a meal.

    I simply can't see the American Indians as unusually awful in the scheme of things. Given the brutality of the Aztecs, they weren't even the worst in their neighborhood.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Anon 731, on my desk, just arrived today, is my new hardbound copy of " Empire of the Summer Moon" by S.C.Gwynne. If you read just one book about the plains indians make it this one. A page turning epic account, including the horrific torture inflicted on enemies, men, women, children and infants. Then to be fair, balance it out with "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." by Dee Brown. The best arguments come from a well informed source, not that I'm that guy. Stay safe.
  10. @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    OH SAY CAN YOU SEE

  11. From The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting:

    Though the United States had yet to be established, their arrival marked its foundation, the beginning of the system of slavery on which the country was built.

    And if you don’t believe that, you don’t work in this town — and country.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "the system of slavery on which this country was built"

    IIRC, at the time of settlement, horses were not native to North America, and had to be imported. Far more useful and versatile than negroes, plus they don't burn down your cities and rape your women later on. Perhaps NYT could fund "Project Equus," studying how the importation of horses was the central, foundational event of this country. It would be a step towards... Equuity.
  12. @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    The murdered man’s wife is actually called Latryna.

    I always thought this was a sick racist joke about black christian names..

    • LOL: EldnahYm, Escher
  13. In pointless gossip, Elon Musk and Grimes have had a child, an offspring they’re calling X Æ A-12 Musk. The kid’s name sounds like a perfume sample still in the testing phase. I can’t imagine what a child of two such yo-yos would be like.

  14. @Anon
    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren't very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren't nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they'd burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They'd do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain's day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren't awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    I want to see an enactment of Abe Lincoln’s speech to Minnesota Indian chiefs at the White House on how White Man believe world is a big ball.

  15. Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen. Being drunk and bored on their isolated plantations, or in the backcountry, they probably took the phrase ‘Rights of Englishmen’ seriously while idly looking through a cast off volume of history sent from London.

    Perhaps the realization after the mid-1760s that this was not the case had some sort of impact. The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants. If you actually want a bold crackpot theory Mr. Sailer, try that one. Because it requires the most balls now. It actually puts the thoughts and feelings of the actual British colonists at the time in the forefront. And that was the reality.

    Prior to the break, George Washington himself was a proud member of the British Empire. (Regarding slavery, if anything, his voyage to Barbados probably convinced him Virginia planters were saints to their slaves.)

    And after faithful service in the French and Indian War, after traveling months and months to beg a British Army commission — Washington’s dream — from William Shirley, he was of course turned down, and returned to Mount Vernon. In an alternate history he would have finished as a brave, solid, British Army colonel. He probably had first inklings at the time the union would not last.

    However, in various forms, among various occupations, thousands of times, the same story played out over the Colonies. And that is what did it.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Washington fought with the British in the French and Indian War when Braddock tried to take Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh) and led the retreat after Braddock was mortally wounded.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I'm reading Boswell's "Life of Johnson," most of which consists of conversations and letters from the 1770s. Samuel Johnson was a fierce monarchist who despised the rebellious Americans. He could get into quite a froth on the subject. Boswell, as well as others in their circle, felt the Americans had legitimate grievances and that the king was treating them shabbily. It's interesting to read how the debate went at that time.
    , @Polynikes
    This is correct. Same with Franklin. He considered himself an Englishman. Not only that he held the belief that the colonies would reconcile that fact with the crown and become equals all the way until his trip to Parliament to advocate for that solution. It wasn't until he was humiliated during his speech to Parliament that he considered the equality solution unattainable and that some sort of independence must occur.

    England didn't make the same mistake with other English principalities like Canada and Australia and their union remained intact, more or less, into the 20th Century.
    , @Corvinus
    "Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen."

    In theory. But in practice, the southern plantation elite and the northern plantation elite were assuredly not willing to let the unwashed masses get control of the joint once the British were kicked out.

    "The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants."

    To the contrary, it had much do with slaves. The North wanted to keep shipping them without paying British duties and the South wanted to expand it west of the Appalachian Mountains. So both were looking out for their economic interests.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with Indians. The British prohibited the colonists from moving onto their territory, and any colonist who usurped sacred ground for themselves were booted off by the redcoats. So the colonists were seeking to exercise their freedom to move.

    To the contrary, it had EVERYTHING to do with Jews. It always does in some way, shape, or form.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with immigrants. In his writings from the 1750's, Benjamin Franklin wrote.

    1) They weren’t as smart as the people already living in the colonies.

    “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”

    2) They were unable to adapt to the local values.

    “Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.”

    3) They were endangering New England’s whiteness.

    “[T]he Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.”

    In short, they were not to be liberally admitted to Pennsylvania, because as Franklin argued, “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”
  16. genocide happened for centuries. My people, blonde and blue-eyed, were sold as slaves 5,000 years BC.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Agree.

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.

  17. @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    Sharmel Lashe Teague = Message: a health rule!

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Sharmel was the name Clint Eastwood came up with for the housing development he planned for blacks in the Carmel Valley. This was in the late 1960s when West Coast whites were still under the impression that blacks wanted agricultural work. In the 2000s, George Lucas had a plan to bring affordable housing to Marin County for the blacks in Richmond he thought existed that wanted to work as domestics for rich whites like him and his beefy black wife. He was surprised when his Marin neighbors worked with the county government to nullify his plan. Lucas and his bbw threw a fit and cancelled plans to put his Star Wars Museum in the nearby Presidio. Recent research indicates he bestowed upon the city of Chicago the gift of his museum of plastic toy merchandising. But Lucas's palace of juvenalia suffers from low attendance due its location in a black neighborhood.
  18. Anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @RichardTaylor
    This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current "right wing" or HBD crowd says will stop it. They're impotent.

    But, it's just a continuation of the same old line. This time, it clearly demonizes all Whites, in every region of the country.

    So what? Who cares? Why should a few Really Smart people living near Canada get a pass?

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever "this is WWII and we must fight evil" project our corrupt leaders come up with next.

    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children’s culture? They’re largely Boomers.

    My favorite is when hardcore HBD Boomers will suggest ideas right up until the point of the obvious conclusion — sterilization of individuals who are unfit to have children. But to a person, they will backtrack and say that idea is too cruel and infeasible.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20’s to affordably have children. Guess it’s not so cruel to sterilize their own posterity? And when this trend was beginning to reverse in the previous economic boom, they had no problem shutting down the entire economy. Suddenly, that became quite feasible as well.

    To compare the Boomer Right Wing to cucks is being unfair to cucks. When you sell out your own children, it’s not called cucking, it’s called pimping.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    I do think the invention of the term cuckservative was an absolute masterstroke. It captures the heart of these people.

    But yeah, the utter lack of concern for their own blood descendants is pure sickness. And I don't just mean their immediate family. They'll often say they did well by their immediate son or daughter. But we're talking about treason to an entire race that their related to. Even chimps care about their troop beyond immediate family.

    And how well will their grandchildren do as a hated minority?

    , @bomag

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20’s to affordably have children.
     
    Yeah, usually in the name of a bigger score when selling a house/business.

    Time to update the Arab proverb:

    When you are drowning in the desire for more money, put your child under your feet.

    , @MBlanc46
    Doubtless, your eyes are brown.
    , @restless94110

    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children’s culture? They’re largely Boomers.
     
    Ok, Millenial. Boomers have nary a thing to do with this subject.
  19. @RichardTaylor
    This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current "right wing" or HBD crowd says will stop it. They're impotent.

    But, it's just a continuation of the same old line. This time, it clearly demonizes all Whites, in every region of the country.

    So what? Who cares? Why should a few Really Smart people living near Canada get a pass?

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever "this is WWII and we must fight evil" project our corrupt leaders come up with next.

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever “this is WWII and we must fight evil” project our corrupt leaders come up with next.

    If you’re an A C C E L E R A T I O N I S T, a post-American, a white nationalist, or anything in that general vicinity, breaking down whites’ attachment to America and American patriotism is probably net-net a good thing. It begins to cut the mental and sentimental attachments of whites to the “propositional, credal nation” BS and opens the door to them considering “what comes next.” Ironically, this sort of hate Whitey historical negationism might be doing more to further self-conscious white identity than Jared Taylor ever could hope to.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    Changing the worldview of young Whites, especially young White men, is very important.

    But I'm not a post-American because, well, we are Americans (Whites all over the midwest, the South, great parts of the rest of the country are the ones who really think of themselves as Americans anyway. I'm not sure what Latinos and Asians consider themselves deep inside).

    The most common ethnicity reported by Whites in some parts of the country (the South for example) is literally American. That's not likely to change.

    But there may be some kind of post 'USA-Run-By-People-Who-Hate-Us' thing afoot. I don't think anyone knows what the future holds. I just want young Whites to get street smart.
  20. Our language is from Europe. Our religion is from Europe. Our science is from Europe. Our form of government is from Europe. Our art and literature are from Europe. Most of our music is from Europe. Our industrial revolution was brought here from Europe (specifically from Great Britain). The industry which built this country and made it a global powerhouse was mostly built in the North, far from the slaves and cotton plantations of the South.

    But yeah sure, somehow, some way, Africans and slavery are the one essential foundation on which this country was built. Sure.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    But yeah sure, somehow, some way, Africans and slavery are the one essential foundation on which this country was built. Sure.
     
    When you count the incredible cost of the Civil War, there is no way anyone could argue that America actually benefited from having black slavery.

    A small percentage of Southern Whites lived off the practice for awhile, until they were impoverished by the War. But the arrival of black slaves was an unmitigated disaster for America.
    , @International Jew

    Our religion is from Europe.
     
    Your religion is from western Asia.
  21. @Dube
    From The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting:

    Though the United States had yet to be established, their arrival marked its foundation, the beginning of the system of slavery on which the country was built.
     
    And if you don't believe that, you don't work in this town -- and country.

    “the system of slavery on which this country was built”

    IIRC, at the time of settlement, horses were not native to North America, and had to be imported. Far more useful and versatile than negroes, plus they don’t burn down your cities and rape your women later on. Perhaps NYT could fund “Project Equus,” studying how the importation of horses was the central, foundational event of this country. It would be a step towards… Equuity.

    • Thanks: Inverness
    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    You gave me a laugh... but isn't the germ theory of disease something a privileged white male cooked up?
  22. Anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT.

    They gave not one, but two, prizes to the NYT for its promotion of the fake Russia Collusion hoax. They can put those on the shelf with the prize they got in the 30s for promoting Stalin's policies of genocide in the Ukraine.

    Getting approval from the Pulitzer committee really should be cause for suspicion rather than something to brag about.
    , @Known Fact
    News projects such as 1619 are usually reverse-engineered to win specific prestigious awards, right from their conception.
  23. Jake Silverstein, the editor of The New York Times Magazine, which created The 1619 Project, made a “clarification” to Hannah-Jones’s essay about two months ago. Part of that clarification:

    That accounting is itself part of a growing acceptance that the patriots represented a truly diverse coalition animated by a variety of interests, which varied by region, class, age, religion and a host of other factors…

    This is a rather blatant way of admitting that the basic argument of The 1619 Project is a lie, while also trying to lay claim to the American Revolution to use in whatever way the Left sees fit. One day they will be heroes, and the next day they will be racists, depeneding on what purpose the Left currently needs them for.

    It’s rather like the way the Left uses American history with regards to racism and immigration. One day we’re the racist country that limited naturalization to “free white persons” and that banned immigration from China for 60 years. The next day they’re brushing that under the rug and explaining to us that the Founding Fathers always meant this country to be open to unlimited immigration from everywhere.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  24. Did their project include this little gem?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor

    • Thanks: Meretricious
  25. What would an America that had never had slavery look like? It would almost certainly look a lot like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. They are certainly all different in certain ways from the US, but in many ways could easily be confused for the United States, as well.

    What would an America look like with blacks but no whites? That’s harder to imagine, since modern Africans never discovered or settled anyplace outside of Africa voluntarily – not even Madagascar. But given what we know about other places outside of Africa where blacks are the majority – some Caribbean islands, much of whose economy is dependent on white tourism – one can only assume it wouldn’t be all that impressive.

    Which brings us to the truth of the matter: the quality of life of white Americans depends very, very little on black Americans. Without black Americans we would be living like Canucks or Aussies. That prospect is hardly likely to send shivers down many spines.

    Without white Americans, however, the quality of life of black Americans would be different by an order of magnitude or more – and not in a good sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You raise an interesting issue, but I must disagree...
    I think American white men are more virile via their awareness of American blacks.
    Life is complex.
    It seems that the most archetypical virile American white man are in some way influenced by sports or popular music or both, and both show considerable Afro-American influence.
    I mean yeah, you could be a Canadian backwoodsman or a jolly swagman... but is that the image they have on the world stage. And in both Canada and Australia the most "hard core" image of a white man is partially informed by the image of the "natives"....
    America does seem to depend on blacks as a crucial element and not in the fake "1619" sense either....
    I suspect that part of the reason the best American white men can kick the asses of their European and global brethren is because they pay attention to their black brothers. Complex.
  26. @Thomas

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever “this is WWII and we must fight evil” project our corrupt leaders come up with next.
     
    If you're an A C C E L E R A T I O N I S T, a post-American, a white nationalist, or anything in that general vicinity, breaking down whites' attachment to America and American patriotism is probably net-net a good thing. It begins to cut the mental and sentimental attachments of whites to the "propositional, credal nation" BS and opens the door to them considering "what comes next." Ironically, this sort of hate Whitey historical negationism might be doing more to further self-conscious white identity than Jared Taylor ever could hope to.

    Changing the worldview of young Whites, especially young White men, is very important.

    But I’m not a post-American because, well, we are Americans (Whites all over the midwest, the South, great parts of the rest of the country are the ones who really think of themselves as Americans anyway. I’m not sure what Latinos and Asians consider themselves deep inside).

    The most common ethnicity reported by Whites in some parts of the country (the South for example) is literally American. That’s not likely to change.

    But there may be some kind of post ‘USA-Run-By-People-Who-Hate-Us’ thing afoot. I don’t think anyone knows what the future holds. I just want young Whites to get street smart.

    • Replies: @Thomas
    Just remember that the first Americans didn't start as Americans. They were British one day, and then Americans the next. Just as people in our lifetime were Soviets, or Czechoslovaks, or Yugoslavians, one day and something else the next. We may live to see the day when Americans realize that being American no longer secures "the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and that it is time to wake up and become something else again.
  27. @Anon
    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children's culture? They're largely Boomers.

    My favorite is when hardcore HBD Boomers will suggest ideas right up until the point of the obvious conclusion -- sterilization of individuals who are unfit to have children. But to a person, they will backtrack and say that idea is too cruel and infeasible.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20's to affordably have children. Guess it's not so cruel to sterilize their own posterity? And when this trend was beginning to reverse in the previous economic boom, they had no problem shutting down the entire economy. Suddenly, that became quite feasible as well.

    To compare the Boomer Right Wing to cucks is being unfair to cucks. When you sell out your own children, it's not called cucking, it's called pimping.

    I do think the invention of the term cuckservative was an absolute masterstroke. It captures the heart of these people.

    But yeah, the utter lack of concern for their own blood descendants is pure sickness. And I don’t just mean their immediate family. They’ll often say they did well by their immediate son or daughter. But we’re talking about treason to an entire race that their related to. Even chimps care about their troop beyond immediate family.

    And how well will their grandchildren do as a hated minority?

    • Replies: @Inverness
    Both of you are blaming white folks for being brainwashed. Which is fine with me, but please at least admit what you're doing. And note that you are leaving the people who do the brainwashing totally untouched.
  28. The NEW YORK POST’s article was pretty good:

    The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction

    As it was designed to do, The New York Times’ woefully mistaken 1619 Project just won a Pulitzer Prize. Worse, the award for commentary actually went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her essay introducing the series — that is, to the article that brought the most sustained criticism from historians across the spectrum for its naked errors of fact.

    https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/the-only-pulitzer-the-1619-project-deserved-was-for-fiction/

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    "Facts aren't Truth". One suspects that the Silverstein family didn't contribute much to the building of America, either.
  29. Dube says:
    @AKAHorace

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).
     
    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth. A bit
    politically correct (British, French, Indians and women all working together) but see the govt ad for the war of 1812.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i_qe9W6Dk

    I stopped at what seemed a modest monument on the TransCanada, and read the plaque where around me the battle had taken place. I love the Canadian cousins, but it was odd from my perspective to pause in commemoration of a loss in war and to read the names of the honored dead. Odd especially since I’d been raised to be proud of never having lost a war. “We sent them packing,” says my friend Bill from North Bay.

    Close call. Don’t give up the guns.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    ... but it was odd from my perspective to pause in commemoration of a loss in war ....
     
    I'm sorry, but do you seriously think the US won the War of 1812? Do you know why the White House is white? The war in North America was little more than a side-show to the Napoleonic Wars, and considering the US attempted to use the Napoleonic Wars as a distraction to try to annex Canada and failed to do so, I would call that a draw at best.
  30. @AKAHorace

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).
     
    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth. A bit
    politically correct (British, French, Indians and women all working together) but see the govt ad for the war of 1812.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i_qe9W6Dk

    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth

    ……Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that “alliance” didn’t do the Amerinds much good…..

    When Canada used hunger to clear the West

    What we didn’t know at the time was that a key aspect of preparing the land was the subjugation and forced removal of indigenous communities from their traditional territories, essentially clearing the plains of aboriginal people to make way for railway construction and settlement. Despite guarantees of food aid in times of famine in Treaty No. 6, Canadian officials used food, or rather denied food, as a means to ethnically cleanse a vast region from Regina to the Alberta border as the Canadian Pacific Railway took shape.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west/article13316877/

    In government archives, Daschuk found ample primary evidence showing that Macdonald’s Indian agents explicitly withheld food in order to drive bands onto reserve and out of the way of the railroad. A Liberal MP at the time even called it “a policy of submission shaped by a policy of starvation.”

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people

    • Replies: @AKAHorace

    ……Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that “alliance” didn’t do the Amerinds much good…..
     
    True, but we have a story(myth ??) that the settling of the Canadian west was much less violent than the settling of the American west. The two revolts that we had were by the Metis (mixed French/Indians). Can you explain this or is this a lie ?
    , @BenKenobi
    This coupled with the loss of cellphone and internet service will be the best way to de-diversify the West.

    I mean, what are they gonna do when they can no longer post emoticons to social media? The grass will be greener.

    It doesn't matter if it takes another 70 years to send them all back. Just that they go.
  31. @Anon
    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren't very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren't nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they'd burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They'd do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain's day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren't awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians. I have vague memories of reading accounts by French missionaries of all-night torture by Algonquins of unfortunates whose valour was scored on how well and long they lasted and remained defiant.

    • Replies: @anon
    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians.

    Torture and slavery were common across North America well before 1619 to varying degrees. Meso americans were not angels.
    , @YetAnotherAnon

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
     
    Kipling, The Female Of The Species.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Cortes, You are correct. The French Jesuit missionaries were captured and tortured and put to death. St. Issac Joques, Jesuit, was the first Catholic martyr in the New World.Fingers gnawed off and his thumb cut off.
  32. @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    Twain really liked the Chinese too. He said “There’s no such thing as a lazy Chinaman” or something to that effect.

  33. @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    Twain really liked the Chinese too. He said “There’s no such thing as a lazy Chinaman” or something to that effect.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In Twain's 1898 article on Jews, he says he dislikes only one race in the world, which he doesn't name, but I would assume it's American Indians.
  34. The “1619 Project” is utter bilge:

    Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.Black Americans have fought to make them true.

    …With a lot of vital help from WASPs (ending the slave trade, abolishing slavery) and Jews (ending Jim Crow)…..

    If you want to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.

    …And, for an extra dose of brutality, you could always do a survey of the death-rates on the French sugar islands of the Caribbean….

    Myths about physical racial differences were used to justify slavery — and are still believed by doctors today.

    Sickle Cell anemia? Racist lie.

    America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding:that some people deserve more power than others

    Yeah, like, say, the people who run the NYTIMES…..

    Slavery Gave America a fear of Black people and a taste for violent punishment. Both still define our prison system

    Without slavery, the USA would have very few Blacks and a vastly lower violent crime rate….

    A vast wealth gap, driven by segregation, redlining, evictions, and exclusion, separates black and white America

    So, we’re just going to pretend that the USA’s demographics haven’t changed since the 1950s?OK…..

  35. Anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey
    What would an America that had never had slavery look like? It would almost certainly look a lot like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. They are certainly all different in certain ways from the US, but in many ways could easily be confused for the United States, as well.

    What would an America look like with blacks but no whites? That's harder to imagine, since modern Africans never discovered or settled anyplace outside of Africa voluntarily - not even Madagascar. But given what we know about other places outside of Africa where blacks are the majority - some Caribbean islands, much of whose economy is dependent on white tourism - one can only assume it wouldn't be all that impressive.

    Which brings us to the truth of the matter: the quality of life of white Americans depends very, very little on black Americans. Without black Americans we would be living like Canucks or Aussies. That prospect is hardly likely to send shivers down many spines.

    Without white Americans, however, the quality of life of black Americans would be different by an order of magnitude or more - and not in a good sense.

    You raise an interesting issue, but I must disagree…
    I think American white men are more virile via their awareness of American blacks.
    Life is complex.
    It seems that the most archetypical virile American white man are in some way influenced by sports or popular music or both, and both show considerable Afro-American influence.
    I mean yeah, you could be a Canadian backwoodsman or a jolly swagman… but is that the image they have on the world stage. And in both Canada and Australia the most “hard core” image of a white man is partially informed by the image of the “natives”….
    America does seem to depend on blacks as a crucial element and not in the fake “1619” sense either….
    I suspect that part of the reason the best American white men can kick the asses of their European and global brethren is because they pay attention to their black brothers. Complex.

    • Replies: @fnn
    Ever heard of Russia? But under Putinism it looks like they're under more control than US blacks and don't shoot each other willy-nilly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZO6qP_Z-Rg
  36. @AKAHorace
    You are right to say that an important reason for the American revolution is the colonists wish to
    take Indian land, and the crown being reluctant to help them. It was much easier to be sympathetic
    to the Indians when you are 3 00o miles away and won't get most of the benefits of displacing them.

    Certain Indian tribes had helped the British against the French and their Indian allies during the big war the two superpowers had just fought, and the British felt they were owed something for that. So they forbade the colonists from settling and encroaching on Indian territory beyond the Appalachians, which of course pissed the colonists off to no end.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    The Brits just didn't want to have to deal with a large-scale Indian war:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War
    , @Ancient Briton
    With the French Empire gone from North America the colonists no longer needed the protection of British troops.
    Britain sought to refill her coffers after a long expensive war by taxing her colonies. We all know how that worked out...
  37. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Twain really liked the Chinese too. He said “There’s no such thing as a lazy Chinaman” or something to that effect.

    In Twain’s 1898 article on Jews, he says he dislikes only one race in the world, which he doesn’t name, but I would assume it’s American Indians.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    In Twain’s 1898 article on Jews, he says he dislikes only one race in the world, which he doesn’t name, but I would assume it’s American Indians.

     

    Had he been alive today, it would certainly have been Whites.
  38. anonymous[247] • Disclaimer says:

    Doesn’t Kendrick Lamar have one ?

    • Replies: @Abe

    Doesn’t Kendrick Lamar have one ?
     
    Colson Whitehead just won his 2nd Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in the span of 2 years. The only other multi-award winners in the prize’s recent (i.e. more recent than 100 years ago) history are John Updike (whatever arguments one could make about his career being a sort of Silent Gen’r/Old Boomer “song to myself” hype, he was at the very least a fixture of the literary scene since forever) and William Faulkner- who got his second one posthumously.

    Let me repeat that. Someone with the given name Arch Colson Chip Whitehead, who seems like a less talented, more dilettante-ish version of David Foster Wallace (not that Wallace is necessarily that great either; the only post-modernist who’s ever struck me as head-spinningly brilliant is Thomas Pynchon circa GRAVITY RAINBOW) just got his second Pulitzer Prize in fiction for going full BLACKETY-BLACK-BLACK-BLACK . I shudder at the madcap revelry to follow in the Black 1%-er part of Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe Colson and Skip Gates’s nephew can drunkenly joust at each other atop Dr. Seuss bikes once the shelter-in-place orders are lifted.

  39. @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    Kind-of takes some shine off the glory of 1619.

  40. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Certain Indian tribes had helped the British against the French and their Indian allies during the big war the two superpowers had just fought, and the British felt they were owed something for that. So they forbade the colonists from settling and encroaching on Indian territory beyond the Appalachians, which of course pissed the colonists off to no end.

    The Brits just didn’t want to have to deal with a large-scale Indian war:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War

  41. Enlightened America does not yet grasp the significance of Corona-chan. Charming tales of dead security guards and conflicts over airborne rambunctiousness suggest enlightened America will never grasp the significance of Corona-chan. Those who engage in safe behavior, including heart healthy diets, controlling diabetes, and the wearing of face masks will be the ones most likely to stand aside while Basketball Americans first eschew civility and sound judgement, secondly acquire disease and complain about the unfairness of it all, and finally succumb , either loudly or not; we will neither care nor object so long as civility increases. Open America up; I’m ready.

    • Replies: @Anon
    That’s MISS Corona-Chan;

    Is there a time for keeping a distance
    A time to turn your eyes away
    Is there a time for keeping your head down
    For getting on with your day

    Is there a time for kohl and lipstick
    A time for cutting hair
    Is there a time for high street shopping
    To find the right dress to wear

    Here she comes
    Heads turn around
    Here she comes
    To take her crown

    Is there a time to walk for cover
    A time for kiss and tell
    Is there a time for different colors
    Different names you find it hard to spell

    Is there a time for first communion
    A time for east 17
    Is there a time to turn the mecca
    Is there a time to be a beauty queen

    Here she comes
    Beauty plays the crown
    Here she comes
    Surreal in her crown
  42. @Wilkey
    Our language is from Europe. Our religion is from Europe. Our science is from Europe. Our form of government is from Europe. Our art and literature are from Europe. Most of our music is from Europe. Our industrial revolution was brought here from Europe (specifically from Great Britain). The industry which built this country and made it a global powerhouse was mostly built in the North, far from the slaves and cotton plantations of the South.

    But yeah sure, somehow, some way, Africans and slavery are the one essential foundation on which this country was built. Sure.

    But yeah sure, somehow, some way, Africans and slavery are the one essential foundation on which this country was built. Sure.

    When you count the incredible cost of the Civil War, there is no way anyone could argue that America actually benefited from having black slavery.

    A small percentage of Southern Whites lived off the practice for awhile, until they were impoverished by the War. But the arrival of black slaves was an unmitigated disaster for America.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Without slavery, the USA would be a vastly better place:

    The more important slavery was in a country or state the lower the level of income was in the future. Nathan Nunn “Slavery, Inequality and Economic Development in the Americas: An Examination of the Engerman-Sokoloff Argument (October 2007).
     

    Slave states had lower levels of educational attainment and less innovation (measured by patents) than states without slavery. This was true even in the areas that were most like the North in geography and economic activity. See John Majewski “Why Did Northerners Oppose the Expansion of Slavery? Economic Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism
     
    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html

    And here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:

    The preceding section suggests that if slavery had been abolished nationally at the time of the Constitution, the Cotton South would have developed through family-scale farms like the rest of the country, delivering as much or perhaps more cotton to the eager textile mills of Lancashire, and building a more diverse and prosperous regional economy in the process.
     
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view




    Frankly, the whole “Cotton built America” thesis is wrongheaded:

    It’s true that cotton was among the world’s most widely traded commodities, and that it was America’s principal antebellum export. But it’s also true that exports constituted a small share of American GDP (typically less than 10 percent) and that the total value of cotton was therefore small by comparison with the overall American economy (less than 5 percent, lower than the value of corn).
     

    It’s true that slavery made many fortunes, in both cotton and sugar, such that there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the country. But it’s also true that most of that wealth stayed in the South, where it was tied up in land and slaves, such that the net effect on real accumulation was probably negative.
     

    Finally, both Desmond and many of the historians on whom he relies neglect other ways that slavery imposed constraints on economic growth and development. The renowned historian of slavery Gavin Wright recently delivered the Tawney lecture to the Economic History Society on these constraints. He pointed out that Southern slave-owners opposed almost every policy of state and federal economic development, including investments in education and agricultural improvement.
     

    it cannot be denied that the size of the Southern economy as a share of the national economy fell from 1800 to 1860. Simply put: despite all the evidence of its economic dynamism, the slave South was falling behind the free North.
     
    https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalism
  43. @Cortes
    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians. I have vague memories of reading accounts by French missionaries of all-night torture by Algonquins of unfortunates whose valour was scored on how well and long they lasted and remained defiant.

    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians.

    Torture and slavery were common across North America well before 1619 to varying degrees. Meso americans were not angels.

  44. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/CharlesFLehman/status/1257394965929484288

    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT.

    They gave not one, but two, prizes to the NYT for its promotion of the fake Russia Collusion hoax. They can put those on the shelf with the prize they got in the 30s for promoting Stalin’s policies of genocide in the Ukraine.

    Getting approval from the Pulitzer committee really should be cause for suspicion rather than something to brag about.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT

    That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes. They gave a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times for its two years of investigative reporting on Russia-Collusion, without it ever discovering was a hoax. In other words, for failing to discover the most obvious thing about the Russuia-Collusion story. Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.
  45. International Jew [AKA "Hebrew National"] says:

    to some 4,500 classrooms since August 2019

    Now that’s what I call a superspreader.

    • Replies: @black sea
    And I wonder what would happen to a student in any one of those 4,500 classrooms who chose to disagree with any of the historical claims or interpretations advanced by the 1619 Project.

    Actually, I don't wonder.
  46. @Steve Sailer
    In Twain's 1898 article on Jews, he says he dislikes only one race in the world, which he doesn't name, but I would assume it's American Indians.

    In Twain’s 1898 article on Jews, he says he dislikes only one race in the world, which he doesn’t name, but I would assume it’s American Indians.

    Had he been alive today, it would certainly have been Whites.

    • LOL: Polynikes
  47. @RichardTaylor
    This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current "right wing" or HBD crowd says will stop it. They're impotent.

    But, it's just a continuation of the same old line. This time, it clearly demonizes all Whites, in every region of the country.

    So what? Who cares? Why should a few Really Smart people living near Canada get a pass?

    I just hope it makes young White men think twice before sacrificing their lives for whatever "this is WWII and we must fight evil" project our corrupt leaders come up with next.

    This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current “right wing” or HBD crowd says will stop it. They’re impotent.

    That’s like saying they’re impotent in regards to the Oscars, Tonys, or the Grammys. It is what is always was. The Pulitzers have been outright corrupt for a few decades, and subtly corrupt for years before that. Oh, and by the way, remember Tennessee Coates won a Genius award. Sandra Cisneros still lives a nice lifestyle off of one book, The House on Mango Street, a shit fest, only because high schools and colleges make it mandatory reading.

    On the plus side, the vast majority of people don’t give a damn about those meaningless awards anymore.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor

    On the plus side, the vast majority of people don’t give a damn about those meaningless awards anymore.
     
    That's true. It's just the silly intellectuals who yearn to be invited to the right parties who care.

    But my concern is not the award, but that all this is taught to children. Students graduating from high school know nothing about the horrors of communism. But they'll know all about how evil White men are.

    It's a sick religion.

  48. @Dube
    I stopped at what seemed a modest monument on the TransCanada, and read the plaque where around me the battle had taken place. I love the Canadian cousins, but it was odd from my perspective to pause in commemoration of a loss in war and to read the names of the honored dead. Odd especially since I'd been raised to be proud of never having lost a war. "We sent them packing," says my friend Bill from North Bay.

    Close call. Don't give up the guns.

    … but it was odd from my perspective to pause in commemoration of a loss in war ….

    I’m sorry, but do you seriously think the US won the War of 1812? Do you know why the White House is white? The war in North America was little more than a side-show to the Napoleonic Wars, and considering the US attempted to use the Napoleonic Wars as a distraction to try to annex Canada and failed to do so, I would call that a draw at best.

  49. @International Jew

    to some 4,500 classrooms since August 2019
     
    Now that's what I call a superspreader.

    And I wonder what would happen to a student in any one of those 4,500 classrooms who chose to disagree with any of the historical claims or interpretations advanced by the 1619 Project.

    Actually, I don’t wonder.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    The teacher would do her best to ensure a zero R0 for that student's ideas.
  50. My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies. …

    So, my crackpot theory of the Revolution is that it had more to do with the American desire to beat up on the poor Indians and take their land, and that the Crown was reluctant to help the colonists do that.

    Of course, this is irony. Most historians agree that desire for further territorial expansion & Britain’s opposition to it were perhaps chief causes for the conflict (and revolution).

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    There's really only one bona fide unified field theory of the American Revolution: Thomas Paine knew it, and two centuries later Clinton Rossiter agreed, and so did all sane people in between.

    Thomas Paine arrived in America aged 37, a compleat Englishman, and he understood immediately that the Americans were no longer Englishmen, they had become... Americans. They were taller, larger and more robust, more free-hearted and liberal in their manners, more socially at ease, and most importantly, they were marinated in a spirit of freedom -- they did as they pleased and did not cravenly defer to ninety-six layers of high-born social betters. They were a new people, who would no longer stand to be ruled by the old one, et voila! The Revolution.

    We are watching a similar process unfold right now, with the artificial formation of the bogus identity called "People of Color." Blacks and Jews, who have both long dreamed of overthrowing and enslaving Whitey but who did not have the numbers, now see their chance in post-1965 immigrant Paperwork-Americans.

    Latinos, Pajeets, Asian graspers and climbers, Muslims... they all know perfectly well that they are not really Americans, they are just here for the gibs and the free stuff. They stepped off a plane into a country that was already fully built, conceptualizer, and developed. They built nothing, sacrificed nothing, risked nothing, contribute nothing. They have no mythos here.

    But if Blacks and Jews can convince them of imaginary oppression and get them to march under the righteous banner of the Slaveocaust, they will all have the numbers to overthrow Whitey and create a new nation of their own... with a chicken in every pot, and a Becky in every brotha's bed.
  51. Nikole Hannah-Jones = N., she jokin’ ’n’ an a-hole.

  52. International Jew [AKA "Hebrew National"] says:
    @black sea
    And I wonder what would happen to a student in any one of those 4,500 classrooms who chose to disagree with any of the historical claims or interpretations advanced by the 1619 Project.

    Actually, I don't wonder.

    The teacher would do her best to ensure a zero R0 for that student’s ideas.

  53. @syonredux
    The NEW YORK POST's article was pretty good:

    The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction
     

    As it was designed to do, The New York Times’ woefully mistaken 1619 Project just won a Pulitzer Prize. Worse, the award for commentary actually went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her essay introducing the series — that is, to the article that brought the most sustained criticism from historians across the spectrum for its naked errors of fact.

     

    https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/the-only-pulitzer-the-1619-project-deserved-was-for-fiction/

    “Facts aren’t Truth”. One suspects that the Silverstein family didn’t contribute much to the building of America, either.

  54. International Jew [AKA "Hebrew National"] says:
    @Wilkey
    Our language is from Europe. Our religion is from Europe. Our science is from Europe. Our form of government is from Europe. Our art and literature are from Europe. Most of our music is from Europe. Our industrial revolution was brought here from Europe (specifically from Great Britain). The industry which built this country and made it a global powerhouse was mostly built in the North, far from the slaves and cotton plantations of the South.

    But yeah sure, somehow, some way, Africans and slavery are the one essential foundation on which this country was built. Sure.

    Our religion is from Europe.

    Your religion is from western Asia.

    • Replies: @Rich
    Although the central character of the Christian religion was born in a Mediterranean province of Rome, the religion founded in his name is clearly not Western Asian, but Greco-Roman. No circumcision, no kosher laws and no matrilineal membership show that Christianity is clearly not "Judaic" . Christianity was devised by Romans and so, is clearly a European religion.
  55. @South Texas Guy

    This latest anti-White narrative is going mainstream and nothing the current “right wing” or HBD crowd says will stop it. They’re impotent.
     
    That's like saying they're impotent in regards to the Oscars, Tonys, or the Grammys. It is what is always was. The Pulitzers have been outright corrupt for a few decades, and subtly corrupt for years before that. Oh, and by the way, remember Tennessee Coates won a Genius award. Sandra Cisneros still lives a nice lifestyle off of one book, The House on Mango Street, a shit fest, only because high schools and colleges make it mandatory reading.

    On the plus side, the vast majority of people don't give a damn about those meaningless awards anymore.

    On the plus side, the vast majority of people don’t give a damn about those meaningless awards anymore.

    That’s true. It’s just the silly intellectuals who yearn to be invited to the right parties who care.

    But my concern is not the award, but that all this is taught to children. Students graduating from high school know nothing about the horrors of communism. But they’ll know all about how evil White men are.

    It’s a sick religion.

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...all this is taught to children
     
    This. Schools are now propaganda centers.
  56. @RichardTaylor
    I do think the invention of the term cuckservative was an absolute masterstroke. It captures the heart of these people.

    But yeah, the utter lack of concern for their own blood descendants is pure sickness. And I don't just mean their immediate family. They'll often say they did well by their immediate son or daughter. But we're talking about treason to an entire race that their related to. Even chimps care about their troop beyond immediate family.

    And how well will their grandchildren do as a hated minority?

    Both of you are blaming white folks for being brainwashed. Which is fine with me, but please at least admit what you’re doing. And note that you are leaving the people who do the brainwashing totally untouched.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    Well, either White people have brains or we're a bunch of retards.

    All the evidence is, White people have brains, but we have an old tradition of self-hatred. Monks were self-flagellating until recently. Long ago in India, when it was ruled by Aryans, guys like Buddha wanted total race-mixing to get rid of the caste system (and Whites).

    We have enemies. But far worse are race-traitors. Enemies wouldn't stand a chance without them. A lot of people freak out about the ADL or SPLC hating Whites (and they do), but they'll give some virtue signaling white person a pass, because, after all, "they meant well".

    Put another way, if we act like retarded suckers, someone is going to take us to the cleaners. I don't think everything can be blamed on an external agent brainwashing us.

  57. @Anonymous
    You raise an interesting issue, but I must disagree...
    I think American white men are more virile via their awareness of American blacks.
    Life is complex.
    It seems that the most archetypical virile American white man are in some way influenced by sports or popular music or both, and both show considerable Afro-American influence.
    I mean yeah, you could be a Canadian backwoodsman or a jolly swagman... but is that the image they have on the world stage. And in both Canada and Australia the most "hard core" image of a white man is partially informed by the image of the "natives"....
    America does seem to depend on blacks as a crucial element and not in the fake "1619" sense either....
    I suspect that part of the reason the best American white men can kick the asses of their European and global brethren is because they pay attention to their black brothers. Complex.

    Ever heard of Russia? But under Putinism it looks like they’re under more control than US blacks and don’t shoot each other willy-nilly:

    • Replies: @James Speaks

    ... and don’t shoot each other willy-nilly:

     

    I don’t think Putin bestowed that particular white privilege on them. I think they came that way.
  58. @Inverness
    Both of you are blaming white folks for being brainwashed. Which is fine with me, but please at least admit what you're doing. And note that you are leaving the people who do the brainwashing totally untouched.

    Well, either White people have brains or we’re a bunch of retards.

    All the evidence is, White people have brains, but we have an old tradition of self-hatred. Monks were self-flagellating until recently. Long ago in India, when it was ruled by Aryans, guys like Buddha wanted total race-mixing to get rid of the caste system (and Whites).

    We have enemies. But far worse are race-traitors. Enemies wouldn’t stand a chance without them. A lot of people freak out about the ADL or SPLC hating Whites (and they do), but they’ll give some virtue signaling white person a pass, because, after all, “they meant well”.

    Put another way, if we act like retarded suckers, someone is going to take us to the cleaners. I don’t think everything can be blamed on an external agent brainwashing us.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "All the evidence is, White people have brains, but we have an old tradition of self-hatred."

    No, YOU think that whites hate themselves. Feel free to speak for yourself, and not the rest of us whites. The reality is we normies love liberty, and the ability to make our own decisions about race and culture. So whenever we whites follow through with our preferences, your (weak) counter is that we have been brainwashed and we hate ourselves.

    "But far worse are race-traitors."

    Like John Derbyshire? Like Fred Reed?
  59. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Speaks
    Enlightened America does not yet grasp the significance of Corona-chan. Charming tales of dead security guards and conflicts over airborne rambunctiousness suggest enlightened America will never grasp the significance of Corona-chan. Those who engage in safe behavior, including heart healthy diets, controlling diabetes, and the wearing of face masks will be the ones most likely to stand aside while Basketball Americans first eschew civility and sound judgement, secondly acquire disease and complain about the unfairness of it all, and finally succumb , either loudly or not; we will neither care nor object so long as civility increases. Open America up; I’m ready.

    That’s MISS Corona-Chan;

    Is there a time for keeping a distance
    A time to turn your eyes away
    Is there a time for keeping your head down
    For getting on with your day

    Is there a time for kohl and lipstick
    A time for cutting hair
    Is there a time for high street shopping
    To find the right dress to wear

    Here she comes
    Heads turn around
    Here she comes
    To take her crown

    Is there a time to walk for cover
    A time for kiss and tell
    Is there a time for different colors
    Different names you find it hard to spell

    Is there a time for first communion
    A time for east 17
    Is there a time to turn the mecca
    Is there a time to be a beauty queen

    Here she comes
    Beauty plays the crown
    Here she comes
    Surreal in her crown

  60. @AKAHorace

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).
     
    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth. A bit
    politically correct (British, French, Indians and women all working together) but see the govt ad for the war of 1812.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i_qe9W6Dk

    That narrator (“our”, “we”, “our”, “we”) sure doesn’t sound like a Canadian. I’m thinking Orange County.

  61. @AKAHorace

    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).
     
    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth. A bit
    politically correct (British, French, Indians and women all working together) but see the govt ad for the war of 1812.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i_qe9W6Dk

    There’s a wonderful museum in Brantford, Ontario- The Canadian Military Heritage Museum. It’s lovingly tended by Canadian Korean War vets- or at least was, on my first visit in 2003. I imagine most of them are a bit long in the tooth by now.

    Not much foot traffic the last time I went, so I got the personal tour from this old guy- come to think of it he looked a bit like Eddie Shack, and I remember remarking, that, while I knew more about Canada’s military history than most yanks, I didn’t realize there were Canadians in Korea. He looked at me with a wry smile and said “ Don’t worry,eh? Most Canadians don’t either”

    When we got to a particular section of the museum (the 1812 exhibition) he said to me “You’re not gonna like this part- this is where we kicked your asses.” I smiled, and told him that I had always been taught that it was a draw, But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Here’s a tribute to Old Hickory:

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    >But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Well, you started it by burning down our capital.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York
    , @Bragadocious
    Canadians are stupid. There was no Canada in 1812. They were a British military base. Canadians love to make up shit that makes them seem brave and brilliant. The 1972 Summit Series is a great example. Canada "won" by purposely injuring the USSR's best player. They've spent the last 50 years lying about that.
  62. @Cortes
    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians. I have vague memories of reading accounts by French missionaries of all-night torture by Algonquins of unfortunates whose valour was scored on how well and long they lasted and remained defiant.

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.

    Kipling, The Female Of The Species.

    • Thanks: Cortes
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Yet Another, I went to a Jesuit College and in the quad was a statue of St. Issac Joques, if I remember correctly, the first Catholic Martyr in the new world. The Mohawks or Hurons had chewed his fingers off. His statue had him standing with his mangled hand reaching skyward. We called him Father Fair Catch.
    , @syonredux
    When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    So-oldier of the Queen!

    Kipling, "The Young British Soldier"


    http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_youngbrit.htm
  63. blacks built america which is why america is so remarkably different than anglo settler colonies like australia, canada and New zealand

  64. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen. Being drunk and bored on their isolated plantations, or in the backcountry, they probably took the phrase 'Rights of Englishmen' seriously while idly looking through a cast off volume of history sent from London.

    Perhaps the realization after the mid-1760s that this was not the case had some sort of impact. The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants. If you actually want a bold crackpot theory Mr. Sailer, try that one. Because it requires the most balls now. It actually puts the thoughts and feelings of the actual British colonists at the time in the forefront. And that was the reality.

    Prior to the break, George Washington himself was a proud member of the British Empire. (Regarding slavery, if anything, his voyage to Barbados probably convinced him Virginia planters were saints to their slaves.)

    And after faithful service in the French and Indian War, after traveling months and months to beg a British Army commission -- Washington's dream -- from William Shirley, he was of course turned down, and returned to Mount Vernon. In an alternate history he would have finished as a brave, solid, British Army colonel. He probably had first inklings at the time the union would not last.

    However, in various forms, among various occupations, thousands of times, the same story played out over the Colonies. And that is what did it.

    Washington fought with the British in the French and Indian War when Braddock tried to take Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh) and led the retreat after Braddock was mortally wounded.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    I know that. I'm not sure where you got the opposite impression. Washington certainly did not want to remain merely a colonial militia officer, and greatly desired a commission in the British Army, and went through enormous effort to try to get one.
  65. @Anon
    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children's culture? They're largely Boomers.

    My favorite is when hardcore HBD Boomers will suggest ideas right up until the point of the obvious conclusion -- sterilization of individuals who are unfit to have children. But to a person, they will backtrack and say that idea is too cruel and infeasible.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20's to affordably have children. Guess it's not so cruel to sterilize their own posterity? And when this trend was beginning to reverse in the previous economic boom, they had no problem shutting down the entire economy. Suddenly, that became quite feasible as well.

    To compare the Boomer Right Wing to cucks is being unfair to cucks. When you sell out your own children, it's not called cucking, it's called pimping.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20’s to affordably have children.

    Yeah, usually in the name of a bigger score when selling a house/business.

    Time to update the Arab proverb:

    When you are drowning in the desire for more money, put your child under your feet.

  66. Rich says:
    @International Jew

    Our religion is from Europe.
     
    Your religion is from western Asia.

    Although the central character of the Christian religion was born in a Mediterranean province of Rome, the religion founded in his name is clearly not Western Asian, but Greco-Roman. No circumcision, no kosher laws and no matrilineal membership show that Christianity is clearly not “Judaic” . Christianity was devised by Romans and so, is clearly a European religion.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
  67. @AKAHorace
    You are right to say that an important reason for the American revolution is the colonists wish to
    take Indian land, and the crown being reluctant to help them. It was much easier to be sympathetic
    to the Indians when you are 3 00o miles away and won't get most of the benefits of displacing them.

    It’s a mainstream view that this is one reason for the Revolution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. The 1763 Proclamation line limiting settlement to the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont was partly because we and the British had won against the French, their colonists, and the Indians at least in part because of the low population density of French North American territory.

  68. @RichardTaylor

    On the plus side, the vast majority of people don’t give a damn about those meaningless awards anymore.
     
    That's true. It's just the silly intellectuals who yearn to be invited to the right parties who care.

    But my concern is not the award, but that all this is taught to children. Students graduating from high school know nothing about the horrors of communism. But they'll know all about how evil White men are.

    It's a sick religion.

    …all this is taught to children

    This. Schools are now propaganda centers.

  69. Congratulations to the New York Times on the Pulitzer, somehow they managed to have both Walter Duranty and Jones awarded the prize!

  70. @fnn
    Ever heard of Russia? But under Putinism it looks like they're under more control than US blacks and don't shoot each other willy-nilly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZO6qP_Z-Rg

    … and don’t shoot each other willy-nilly:

    I don’t think Putin bestowed that particular white privilege on them. I think they came that way.

  71. H.L. Mencken once, was writing about another newspaper and described it as having won more Pulitzer Prizes than a Pulitzer paper.

  72. I thought that the American Revolution happened because all the Founding Fathers were deep in debt to the British. At least that was the politically correct version of 35 years ago.

  73. @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    Longfellow wrote the Indian epic The Song of Hiawatha, which kicked off the era of Indian-Romanticism, in the early 1850s … while overlooking Harvard Yard. So far as I know, he had never been further West than Brookline.

    I believe Stephen Vincent Benét originally made this observation about Longfellow, but I can’t find it now.

    Unlike Longfellow, the New England Atlanticist lawyer’s son, Benét was a son of inland Pennsylvania, born to a military family. Though later than Longefellow, Benét’s writing evinces little romanticism about Indians:

    The news of the sudden, breath-taking attack
    When only the ships’ guns had saved the settlement.
    One moment, they had been working, and the next
    The hazel arrows rained from the thick coverts,
    The Indian yell gone up.
    And, when it had passed,
    There were seventeen of them hurt, one boy dead,
    And again the clumsy muskets had done no harm.
    They had had to run for them, stored in the dry-fats,
    And ’twas hard to shoot men slipping from tree to tree.
    But they’d be warier now, build a palisade,
    Keep closer watch. They did so with toil and sweat.
    But, beyond the fort were the weeds and the long grass,
    The thick, primeval cover—and enemies
    Who did not stand in battalia to be butchered
    But crept like the forest vines.
    It daunted a man.
    Step beyond the fort—aye, but ten paces beyond,
    As Eustace Clovell, gentleman, did one day,
    Unarmed, on a pleasant Sunday—they heard him running,
    They heard his voice crying hoarsely out “Arm! Arm!”
    But he stumbled into the fort with six arrows in him
    Died eight days later.
    And so it was, day after day.
    A man would be killed or hurt or the arrows fall
    Like fierce, Spring raindrops out of the a smiling sky,
    But, when you fired at the forest, there was nothing.

    Benét was also a Pulitzer Prize winner, lol. It did mean something once.

    • Replies: @songbird
    John Phillips Marquand, the guy who wrote the Mr. Moto stories, also won a Pulitzer.
  74. @Lagertha
    genocide happened for centuries. My people, blonde and blue-eyed, were sold as slaves 5,000 years BC.

    Agree.

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history"

    The real death and myriad suffering caused by the Chinese virus is an instrument of the genocide you speak of. The entire event has a baroque quality; a dream of misery and pain conjured by disciples of a god that rewards diabolical acts.
    , @AnotherDad

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.
     
    Well said Almost.

    Contra all the "oppression" propaganda white Christians detribalized themselves, developed the highest affective empathy in the world, built neighborly "we're all in this together" nations and gradually evolved an ethic to swear off conquest and genocide and principles of fundamental natural rights ... (along with creating modern science and technology and the resultant modern prosperity).

    And this non-tribalism, empathy and fair play is being used against us by the tribals to destroy our nations and genocide us.
    , @Lagertha
    agree. And, I want to see Americans come together to go against the .1% (in this country and abroad) who have chosen China to be their model to control society. It's one thing to be angry, and it's another thing to act on that anger. So, far...I do not see action.
  75. @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    You take your life in your hands when you presume to publicly criticize blacks for their failure to observe norms. You tell them not to litter, not to talk at the movie theater, or not to hit their three-year-old child in the face at the risk of your life.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    OT....Cinco De Mayo finally falls on Taco Tuesday which is cancelled by a virus named after a Mexican beer. No credit, this was forwarded to me.
  76. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen. Being drunk and bored on their isolated plantations, or in the backcountry, they probably took the phrase 'Rights of Englishmen' seriously while idly looking through a cast off volume of history sent from London.

    Perhaps the realization after the mid-1760s that this was not the case had some sort of impact. The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants. If you actually want a bold crackpot theory Mr. Sailer, try that one. Because it requires the most balls now. It actually puts the thoughts and feelings of the actual British colonists at the time in the forefront. And that was the reality.

    Prior to the break, George Washington himself was a proud member of the British Empire. (Regarding slavery, if anything, his voyage to Barbados probably convinced him Virginia planters were saints to their slaves.)

    And after faithful service in the French and Indian War, after traveling months and months to beg a British Army commission -- Washington's dream -- from William Shirley, he was of course turned down, and returned to Mount Vernon. In an alternate history he would have finished as a brave, solid, British Army colonel. He probably had first inklings at the time the union would not last.

    However, in various forms, among various occupations, thousands of times, the same story played out over the Colonies. And that is what did it.

    I’m reading Boswell’s “Life of Johnson,” most of which consists of conversations and letters from the 1770s. Samuel Johnson was a fierce monarchist who despised the rebellious Americans. He could get into quite a froth on the subject. Boswell, as well as others in their circle, felt the Americans had legitimate grievances and that the king was treating them shabbily. It’s interesting to read how the debate went at that time.

  77. @Hypnotoad666
    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT.

    They gave not one, but two, prizes to the NYT for its promotion of the fake Russia Collusion hoax. They can put those on the shelf with the prize they got in the 30s for promoting Stalin's policies of genocide in the Ukraine.

    Getting approval from the Pulitzer committee really should be cause for suspicion rather than something to brag about.

    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT

    That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes. They gave a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times for its two years of investigative reporting on Russia-Collusion, without it ever discovering was a hoax. In other words, for failing to discover the most obvious thing about the Russuia-Collusion story. Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.

    • Agree: Redman
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes."

    Nope. The degradation will continue if the same managerial goodwhites continue their desperate crusade to legitimize black clown culture.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.
     
    The NYT has definitely become an activist organization that works hand-in-glove with the political players themselves in order to make news rather than report it. The Biden article on the Tara Reade allegations was a good example. They deliberately crafted a piece specifically to give Biden cover to claim that the New York Times had supposedly "investigated" and "cleared" him, which was of course pure fake news.
    , @fnn
    Col. McCormick's Chicago Tribune (little to no relation to the current paper with that name) boycotted the Pulitzers from 1936-1960 because he said the prize was a tool of "East Coast elites."
  78. The short version…

    NYT: Africans built America!

    DREARY REALITY: Africans can’t even build Detroit… which was even already built when they got it. Back home in the glorious Motherland, Africans can’t even build a two-story house.

  79. @RichardTaylor
    Changing the worldview of young Whites, especially young White men, is very important.

    But I'm not a post-American because, well, we are Americans (Whites all over the midwest, the South, great parts of the rest of the country are the ones who really think of themselves as Americans anyway. I'm not sure what Latinos and Asians consider themselves deep inside).

    The most common ethnicity reported by Whites in some parts of the country (the South for example) is literally American. That's not likely to change.

    But there may be some kind of post 'USA-Run-By-People-Who-Hate-Us' thing afoot. I don't think anyone knows what the future holds. I just want young Whites to get street smart.

    Just remember that the first Americans didn’t start as Americans. They were British one day, and then Americans the next. Just as people in our lifetime were Soviets, or Czechoslovaks, or Yugoslavians, one day and something else the next. We may live to see the day when Americans realize that being American no longer secures “the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” and that it is time to wake up and become something else again.

  80. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/CharlesFLehman/status/1257394965929484288

    News projects such as 1619 are usually reverse-engineered to win specific prestigious awards, right from their conception.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  81. White shitlib history PhD candidates hardest hit. Imagine spending five years on your thesis, Prolapse on the Delaware: Queer Ontologies of 1776, and finding out your tenure-track dreams have been shattered by ten thousand variations on Black black black black black: Black black, black black, cranked out by the dimmest high yella bulbs from your MA program

    It’s all just more of the same. File Mrs. Hannah-Jones in the drawer with Roxane Gay, Ta-Nehisi Coates, etc. Fundamentally incurious people who like the idea of being a Most Foremost Public Intellectual, but don’t want too much reading to cut into their TV time. Fortunately for them, there’s a demand in suburban Whitopia for Black Bodies boilerplate. What else are you going to leave on your coffee table so the Merry Maids know you’re not racist?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    What else are you going to leave on your coffee table so the Merry Maids know you’re not racist?

    Other than kindergarten Spanish, the Merry Maids are mostly not literate.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    More R1b, please add professor Britteny Cooper, from Rutgers, to your list.
  82. My first crackpot theory of the american revolution is that the only real problem the founding fathers had was that they weren’t running the place.

    My second crackpot theory is that the constitution was primarily about economic rights, and the federal govt constructed around protecting those rights.

    • Agree: James Speaks
  83. @Reg Cæsar
    Sharmel Lashe Teague = Message: a health rule!

    Sharmel was the name Clint Eastwood came up with for the housing development he planned for blacks in the Carmel Valley. This was in the late 1960s when West Coast whites were still under the impression that blacks wanted agricultural work. In the 2000s, George Lucas had a plan to bring affordable housing to Marin County for the blacks in Richmond he thought existed that wanted to work as domestics for rich whites like him and his beefy black wife. He was surprised when his Marin neighbors worked with the county government to nullify his plan. Lucas and his bbw threw a fit and cancelled plans to put his Star Wars Museum in the nearby Presidio. Recent research indicates he bestowed upon the city of Chicago the gift of his museum of plastic toy merchandising. But Lucas’s palace of juvenalia suffers from low attendance due its location in a black neighborhood.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    No, we didn’t get it. He was going to go back to the Bay Area with it. I don’t know if it’s built yet.
  84. I found this website, iSteve, in a roundabout way. A friend recommended that I read the Huff Post, no really, he is a friend, just very liberal. Then there was a link to The Root, and I visited there. Henry Louis “Skip” Gates’ website is so anti white that it should be shut down…sorry what was I thinking. BUT, I did learn from Skip Gates, the PBS and NPR source for all things slavery, that less than 500K African slaves were brought to the shores of the US. I thought it was millions. Oh, and thankfully a commenter at The Root mentioned iSteve and here I am. Swore off visiting The Root.

  85. @Harry Baldwin
    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT

    That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes. They gave a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times for its two years of investigative reporting on Russia-Collusion, without it ever discovering was a hoax. In other words, for failing to discover the most obvious thing about the Russuia-Collusion story. Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.

    “That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes.”

    Nope. The degradation will continue if the same managerial goodwhites continue their desperate crusade to legitimize black clown culture.

  86. I’ve heard the theory that America only won independence because the British could not bring their full military power to bear as they needed to keep some of their troops in the Caribbean in order to keep a handle on the slaves down there.

    So far as I know, it is a theory favored by blacks, but I kind of like it.

    • Replies: @anon
    So far as I know, it is a theory favored by blacks, but I kind of like it.

    Most people know next to nothing about the American revo, and this nonsense theory demonstrates that.
  87. anonymous[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @PiltdownMan
    OT:

    Three people charged in killing of Family Dollar security guard over mask policy

    A Family Dollar store security guard was fatally shot in Flint, Mich., on Friday after telling a customer her child had to wear a face mask to enter the store, the prosecutor’s office said.

    The argument began when the security guard, Calvin Munerlyn, 43, told Sharmel Lashe Teague, 45, that customers needed to wear face masks in the store, Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Monday. She yelled at him, spit on him and drove off, Leyton said. About 20 minutes later, her car returned to the store, and her husband and her son, Larry Edward Teague, 44, and Ramonyea Travon Bishop, 23, stepped out and confronted Munerlyn, according to investigators who spoke to witnesses in the store and reviewed surveillance video. Bishop pulled out a gun and shot Munerlyn, Leyton said.

     


     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/04/security-guards-death-might-have-been-because-he-wouldnt-let-woman-store-without-mask

    The Daily Beast ran this story a few days ago before the perps were identified, in which they implied the shooters were White protestors.

    This is the natural endgame of removing mugshots from the nightly news and local reporting, like WRAL did recently. Naturally, if the perp is white, they will find a reason to show the mugshot. And if the perp is non-white, they can always imply he was white, unless it was something obviously black like a shooting in a Chuck-E-Cheese over the last chicken wing.

    The end result is apartheid for the 2020 cohort of White children in 3-4 decades. Naturally, most white Boomer men are indifferent to this, and will continue to insist that public subsidies to the Big Three + Public Radio somehow serve the public interest.

    • Replies: @restless94110

    The end result is apartheid for the 2020 cohort of White children in 3-4 decades. Naturally, most white Boomer men are indifferent to this,
     
    What are you high on, sonny? Whites not standing up to black nonsense has nary a thing to do with a Boiomer.

    Is this the Millenial or Gen-X version of "never let a good crisis go to waste: blame Boomers for everything, every time, 24/7/365."

    Do you even listen to yourself? Projection is such an easy thing to spot.
  88. @Almost Missouri
    Agree.

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.

    “now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history”

    The real death and myriad suffering caused by the Chinese virus is an instrument of the genocide you speak of. The entire event has a baroque quality; a dream of misery and pain conjured by disciples of a god that rewards diabolical acts.

  89. @Almost Missouri
    Longfellow wrote the Indian epic The Song of Hiawatha, which kicked off the era of Indian-Romanticism, in the early 1850s ... while overlooking Harvard Yard. So far as I know, he had never been further West than Brookline.

    I believe Stephen Vincent Benét originally made this observation about Longfellow, but I can't find it now.

    Unlike Longfellow, the New England Atlanticist lawyer's son, Benét was a son of inland Pennsylvania, born to a military family. Though later than Longefellow, Benét's writing evinces little romanticism about Indians:

    The news of the sudden, breath-taking attack
    When only the ships' guns had saved the settlement.
    One moment, they had been working, and the next
    The hazel arrows rained from the thick coverts,
    The Indian yell gone up.
    And, when it had passed,
    There were seventeen of them hurt, one boy dead,
    And again the clumsy muskets had done no harm.
    They had had to run for them, stored in the dry-fats,
    And 'twas hard to shoot men slipping from tree to tree.
    But they'd be warier now, build a palisade,
    Keep closer watch. They did so with toil and sweat.
    But, beyond the fort were the weeds and the long grass,
    The thick, primeval cover—and enemies
    Who did not stand in battalia to be butchered
    But crept like the forest vines.
    It daunted a man.
    Step beyond the fort—aye, but ten paces beyond,
    As Eustace Clovell, gentleman, did one day,
    Unarmed, on a pleasant Sunday—they heard him running,
    They heard his voice crying hoarsely out "Arm! Arm!"
    But he stumbled into the fort with six arrows in him
    Died eight days later.
    And so it was, day after day.
    A man would be killed or hurt or the arrows fall
    Like fierce, Spring raindrops out of the a smiling sky,
    But, when you fired at the forest, there was nothing.

     

    Benét was also a Pulitzer Prize winner, lol. It did mean something once.

    John Phillips Marquand, the guy who wrote the Mr. Moto stories, also won a Pulitzer.

  90. @Ganderson
    There’s a wonderful museum in Brantford, Ontario- The Canadian Military Heritage Museum. It’s lovingly tended by Canadian Korean War vets- or at least was, on my first visit in 2003. I imagine most of them are a bit long in the tooth by now.

    Not much foot traffic the last time I went, so I got the personal tour from this old guy- come to think of it he looked a bit like Eddie Shack, and I remember remarking, that, while I knew more about Canada’s military history than most yanks, I didn’t realize there were Canadians in Korea. He looked at me with a wry smile and said “ Don’t worry,eh? Most Canadians don’t either”

    When we got to a particular section of the museum (the 1812 exhibition) he said to me “You’re not gonna like this part- this is where we kicked your asses.” I smiled, and told him that I had always been taught that it was a draw, But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Here’s a tribute to Old Hickory:

    https://youtu.be/V7a-cGY-VGQ

    >But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Well, you started it by burning down our capital.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

    • Replies: @Ganderson
    I guess the theory was, from the revolution through 1815, that if we invaded you guys enough, killed a enough of you and broke enough of your stuff you’d want to join us. Hmmm. You got your revenge up until the early ‘70s by unofficially banning Americans from the NHL.
  91. The purpose of 1619 and valorization of blacks is twofold: one, to explain away the multitude of cultural shortcomings that half a century of wealth redistribution, affirmative action, and Democratic control of major cities have done little to ameliorate; and two, to make resistance to any progressive policy carried out in the name of ‘equity’ morally indefensible.

    I think the more alert members of the left have realized all the social engineering brought about since the civil rights era didn’t really work and never will. Now it’s time for outright racial power politics and the only chance they have at making the public swallow that pill is creating a new mythology built around the moral superiority of black Americans and the immorality of whites of acting in their own perceived self interests if it isn’t even more beneficial for blacks.

    Now it’s possible that over time the left fails to assemble the multiracial coalition it thinks it’s going to have, particularly if significant percentages of Latinos and Asians decide they’d rather cast their lot with whites in politics. But if it works and whites find themselves rendered politically and culturally irrelevant while still comprising the single largest group in the country, we’re in for times that will make the 60s look like a warm up act.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I think the more alert members of the left have realized all the social engineering brought about since the civil rights era didn’t really work and never will.

    'Work' toward what end?


    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights). This is not typically done for a menu of reasons, most attributable to cultural factors among the professional-managerial class on both sides of the color bar.

    That aside, what's notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy. Every segment of the population has family problems that were characteristic of only an odd minority 60 years ago. It's worse in the black population, to be sure, but the black and non-black subpopulations are far closer in their dispositions and behavior today than they are to those of the generic American of 1955. As for levels of affluence and life expectancies, black Americans compare favorably to Mediterranean Europe in their real income levels and have life expectancies equivalent to non-black Americans in the dark days of ...1995.

    Over the last five generations, there has been continuing evolution in the occupational distribution of the black population and in levels of formal education and demonstrable skills. There's also been a gradual improvement in income levels vis a vis the non-black population (in the context of improved real incomes generally). The problem in our political culture was one identified by Edward Banfield fifty years ago: a chronic incapacity in identifying the nature and severity of the problems we do have and then exacerbating matters by prescribing solutions for problems we do not have.
  92. @Jim Don Bob
    Washington fought with the British in the French and Indian War when Braddock tried to take Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh) and led the retreat after Braddock was mortally wounded.

    I know that. I’m not sure where you got the opposite impression. Washington certainly did not want to remain merely a colonial militia officer, and greatly desired a commission in the British Army, and went through enormous effort to try to get one.

  93. @YetAnotherAnon

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
     
    Kipling, The Female Of The Species.

    Yet Another, I went to a Jesuit College and in the quad was a statue of St. Issac Joques, if I remember correctly, the first Catholic Martyr in the new world. The Mohawks or Hurons had chewed his fingers off. His statue had him standing with his mangled hand reaching skyward. We called him Father Fair Catch.

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
    • LOL: ben tillman
  94. @Harry Baldwin
    You take your life in your hands when you presume to publicly criticize blacks for their failure to observe norms. You tell them not to litter, not to talk at the movie theater, or not to hit their three-year-old child in the face at the risk of your life.

    OT….Cinco De Mayo finally falls on Taco Tuesday which is cancelled by a virus named after a Mexican beer. No credit, this was forwarded to me.

  95. @songbird
    I've heard the theory that America only won independence because the British could not bring their full military power to bear as they needed to keep some of their troops in the Caribbean in order to keep a handle on the slaves down there.

    So far as I know, it is a theory favored by blacks, but I kind of like it.

    So far as I know, it is a theory favored by blacks, but I kind of like it.

    Most people know next to nothing about the American revo, and this nonsense theory demonstrates that.

  96. @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    “Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).”

    Not that that got him any get out of jail points in the Present Day.

  97. i wonder what kind of name (Pulitzer) is. oh, right.

    Steve, the internet’s greatest noticer, somehow never notices the most important thing, or puts stuff together into a coherent overall picture of what’s actually happening.

    in fact, Steve’s blog is now one of the most useful on the internet, specifically for this. Steve notices stuff that’s absurd and posts about it, but then doesn’t notice (who) is behind all these absurd news stories he blogs about.

  98. @Anon
    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren't very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren't nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they'd burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They'd do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain's day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren't awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    They tortured themselves, too: cf. the Mandan.

    They had no choice. If they were not utterly ruthless and made of steel, their enemies would be for them. Cf. The Huron turning Christian enabling the Iroquois to wipe them out.

    As if the whites didn’t massacre. See the “battle” of Tippecanoe.

  99. @Harry Baldwin
    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT

    That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes. They gave a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times for its two years of investigative reporting on Russia-Collusion, without it ever discovering was a hoax. In other words, for failing to discover the most obvious thing about the Russuia-Collusion story. Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.

    Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.

    The NYT has definitely become an activist organization that works hand-in-glove with the political players themselves in order to make news rather than report it. The Biden article on the Tara Reade allegations was a good example. They deliberately crafted a piece specifically to give Biden cover to claim that the New York Times had supposedly “investigated” and “cleared” him, which was of course pure fake news.

    • Replies: @anon
    The NYT has definitely become an activist organization that works hand-in-glove with the political players themselves in order to make news rather than report it.

    "Has become"? "Has become?
    Has been that for years, for decades, for generations. Longer than any of us have been alive.

    https://www.getsmartacre.com/uploads/welcome-to-the-party.gif
  100. Next year the Pulitzer winning article will be about Wakanda

  101. anon[399] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.
     
    The NYT has definitely become an activist organization that works hand-in-glove with the political players themselves in order to make news rather than report it. The Biden article on the Tara Reade allegations was a good example. They deliberately crafted a piece specifically to give Biden cover to claim that the New York Times had supposedly "investigated" and "cleared" him, which was of course pure fake news.

    The NYT has definitely become an activist organization that works hand-in-glove with the political players themselves in order to make news rather than report it.

    “Has become”? “Has become?
    Has been that for years, for decades, for generations. Longer than any of us have been alive.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Maybe not that long, but certainly since the mid 1990's they have been moving steadily leftward to the point that their views are indistinguishable now from leftist magazines like Mother Jones and The Nation. Their book review actually gave The Bell Curve a positive review back in 1994, hard as that is to believe today.

    They were late in getting the memo that the appropriate response was preemptive denuniciation, not actually bothering to read the book. This is not to say that weren't liberal long before, but were late in the process of editorializing masquerading as reporting compared some other mainstream media sources.

  102. @Arclight
    The purpose of 1619 and valorization of blacks is twofold: one, to explain away the multitude of cultural shortcomings that half a century of wealth redistribution, affirmative action, and Democratic control of major cities have done little to ameliorate; and two, to make resistance to any progressive policy carried out in the name of 'equity' morally indefensible.

    I think the more alert members of the left have realized all the social engineering brought about since the civil rights era didn't really work and never will. Now it's time for outright racial power politics and the only chance they have at making the public swallow that pill is creating a new mythology built around the moral superiority of black Americans and the immorality of whites of acting in their own perceived self interests if it isn't even more beneficial for blacks.

    Now it's possible that over time the left fails to assemble the multiracial coalition it thinks it's going to have, particularly if significant percentages of Latinos and Asians decide they'd rather cast their lot with whites in politics. But if it works and whites find themselves rendered politically and culturally irrelevant while still comprising the single largest group in the country, we're in for times that will make the 60s look like a warm up act.

    I think the more alert members of the left have realized all the social engineering brought about since the civil rights era didn’t really work and never will.

    ‘Work’ toward what end?

    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights). This is not typically done for a menu of reasons, most attributable to cultural factors among the professional-managerial class on both sides of the color bar.

    That aside, what’s notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy. Every segment of the population has family problems that were characteristic of only an odd minority 60 years ago. It’s worse in the black population, to be sure, but the black and non-black subpopulations are far closer in their dispositions and behavior today than they are to those of the generic American of 1955. As for levels of affluence and life expectancies, black Americans compare favorably to Mediterranean Europe in their real income levels and have life expectancies equivalent to non-black Americans in the dark days of …1995.

    Over the last five generations, there has been continuing evolution in the occupational distribution of the black population and in levels of formal education and demonstrable skills. There’s also been a gradual improvement in income levels vis a vis the non-black population (in the context of improved real incomes generally). The problem in our political culture was one identified by Edward Banfield fifty years ago: a chronic incapacity in identifying the nature and severity of the problems we do have and then exacerbating matters by prescribing solutions for problems we do not have.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights).
     
    Such as?
    , @AnotherDad

    That aside, what’s notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy.
     
    Art this is a weird statement. The standout characteristic of black populations isn't affluence, lower life expectancy or even "discombobulated family relations" (i.e. single motherhood, illegitimacy, desertion, etc.).

    It is crime. Or more generally "disorder".

    Crime and disorder, and other groups--extremely sane!--desire not to be around blacks crime and disorder is what makes blacks the "social problem" that they are ... in every society that they are in.

    In contrast the income difference--80% of median--is ho-hum, the life expectancy issue is nugatory (at high ages black life expectancy is actually longer) and the family issue while substantial are 2x, 3x deals. Crime on the other hand is 5-10x--running around 8x for homicide which really tends to put people off!

    If the black crime issue did not exist race relations would dramatically improve. You'd still have separate peoples. Most whites do not consider blacks attractive--physically or culturally--nor would consider them suitable marriage partners. But absent crime, creating swathes of hellish dysfunction and making contact with blacks/black communities undesirable for everyone else, all the other issues would be tractable to live with.

    ~~

    Blacks simply have a very different set of traits from white people--and generally all people who have been selected over thousands of years for success in settled agricultural societies in temperate climates and/or requiring high male labor input.

    Blacks--relative to Euro whites--have very high time preference, coupled with low cooperation and low IQ. That yields crime and disorder and makes blacks relative failures in civilized society and a nuisance to other peoples. That's the genesis of our "race problem".
  103. I see that Buffalo was among the public school districts to adopt “Project 1619” as part of their curriculum and that is just sad. Buffalo public schools are majority minority with an abysmal 64.7% HS graduation rate. An astonishing 35% of HS students miss 37 school days or more. A HS student can not be given a grade lower than 60. So, if a student gets an 80 in the first marking quarter and does nothing in the next three quarters they pass with a 65 average. The city, with state aid, built the $40 million dollar Northland Training Center to train machinists and welders. They have now instituted a remedial reading program as only 25%-30% of applicants can pass the employer required reading exam. But all is good because somehow or other blacks will continue to build America. Public education is worthy of a RICO investigation.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Can we talk?

    Your problem was identified by Leon Podles half-a-generation ago (and has been referred to by Thomas Sowell as well). The default setting of secondary education is instruction in academic subjects. Sowell: kids who can't be bothered with that get in the way of kids who want to learn. Podles: it's only in the last three generations that instruction in liberal arts was considered appropriate for aught but an odd minority.

    You're complaining about students enrolled in secondary schooling not showing up and not acquiring credentials whose extrinsic value has been severely vitiated by the fools politicians have allowed to remain in charge of the educational apparat.

    1. If they're not showing up for school, that can be a good thing, because they'd be making trouble if they were actually in school. Let's not do this half-assed. Sequester them systematically if they're a problem, then at 14 exclude them from the schools entirely. The better ones will find low-level service jobs and the worse ones will land in the maw of the criminal justice system.

    2. If they're having trouble passing a basic skills test administered as a screen for vocational training, it's because they had deficient primary schooling for all the reasons people have deficient primary schooling. And some of them are just not promising material for skilled trades - they have generic deficits and no particular talents which can be developed in spite of their generic deficits. The response to this realization should be to work on repairs to primary schooling. Of course, there are impregnable constituencies who like primary schooling just the way it is.

    3. Have a tripartite secondary system where manpower is distributed between academic subjects, vocational subjects, and basic-schooling-with-life-skills. Right now, only 2% of the schoolteachers in the United States are teaching VoTech. Why not 15%-20% while 10%-15% are deployed to academic secondary instruction with about 2/3 devoted to various modes of basic education?

    4. Quit fretting over graduation rates. Instead of a high school diploma, confer on youths at age 18 a book of certificates which indicates levels of accomplishment in specific trades and subjects, a book they can add to when they're willing and able with adult education courses given at community colleges and the like.

  104. @More R1b, Less H1B
    White shitlib history PhD candidates hardest hit. Imagine spending five years on your thesis, Prolapse on the Delaware: Queer Ontologies of 1776, and finding out your tenure-track dreams have been shattered by ten thousand variations on Black black black black black: Black black, black black, cranked out by the dimmest high yella bulbs from your MA program

    It's all just more of the same. File Mrs. Hannah-Jones in the drawer with Roxane Gay, Ta-Nehisi Coates, etc. Fundamentally incurious people who like the idea of being a Most Foremost Public Intellectual, but don't want too much reading to cut into their TV time. Fortunately for them, there's a demand in suburban Whitopia for Black Bodies boilerplate. What else are you going to leave on your coffee table so the Merry Maids know you're not racist?

    What else are you going to leave on your coffee table so the Merry Maids know you’re not racist?

    Other than kindergarten Spanish, the Merry Maids are mostly not literate.

  105. @More R1b, Less H1B
    White shitlib history PhD candidates hardest hit. Imagine spending five years on your thesis, Prolapse on the Delaware: Queer Ontologies of 1776, and finding out your tenure-track dreams have been shattered by ten thousand variations on Black black black black black: Black black, black black, cranked out by the dimmest high yella bulbs from your MA program

    It's all just more of the same. File Mrs. Hannah-Jones in the drawer with Roxane Gay, Ta-Nehisi Coates, etc. Fundamentally incurious people who like the idea of being a Most Foremost Public Intellectual, but don't want too much reading to cut into their TV time. Fortunately for them, there's a demand in suburban Whitopia for Black Bodies boilerplate. What else are you going to leave on your coffee table so the Merry Maids know you're not racist?

    More R1b, please add professor Britteny Cooper, from Rutgers, to your list.

  106. @Almost Missouri
    Agree.

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.

    Well said Almost.

    Contra all the “oppression” propaganda white Christians detribalized themselves, developed the highest affective empathy in the world, built neighborly “we’re all in this together” nations and gradually evolved an ethic to swear off conquest and genocide and principles of fundamental natural rights … (along with creating modern science and technology and the resultant modern prosperity).

    And this non-tribalism, empathy and fair play is being used against us by the tribals to destroy our nations and genocide us.

  107. @YetAnotherAnon

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
     
    Kipling, The Female Of The Species.

    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    So-oldier of the Queen!

    Kipling, “The Young British Soldier”

    http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_youngbrit.htm

  108. Pulitzer Prize. Bullet Surprise?

    I think it was columnist William Safire in the late 70s or early 80s reported hearing it mis-heard as “Somebody or other just won the Bullet Surprise.” The concerned hard-of-hearing gent asked “Did he live?”

  109. @Bardon Kaldian

    My personal crackpot theory of the American Revolution is that it was motivated less by the urge to keep blacks down than by the urge to conquer the North American continent from the American Indians and their European allies. …

    So, my crackpot theory of the Revolution is that it had more to do with the American desire to beat up on the poor Indians and take their land, and that the Crown was reluctant to help the colonists do that.
     
    Of course, this is irony. Most historians agree that desire for further territorial expansion & Britain's opposition to it were perhaps chief causes for the conflict (and revolution).

    There’s really only one bona fide unified field theory of the American Revolution: Thomas Paine knew it, and two centuries later Clinton Rossiter agreed, and so did all sane people in between.

    Thomas Paine arrived in America aged 37, a compleat Englishman, and he understood immediately that the Americans were no longer Englishmen, they had become… Americans. They were taller, larger and more robust, more free-hearted and liberal in their manners, more socially at ease, and most importantly, they were marinated in a spirit of freedom — they did as they pleased and did not cravenly defer to ninety-six layers of high-born social betters. They were a new people, who would no longer stand to be ruled by the old one, et voila! The Revolution.

    We are watching a similar process unfold right now, with the artificial formation of the bogus identity called “People of Color.” Blacks and Jews, who have both long dreamed of overthrowing and enslaving Whitey but who did not have the numbers, now see their chance in post-1965 immigrant Paperwork-Americans.

    Latinos, Pajeets, Asian graspers and climbers, Muslims… they all know perfectly well that they are not really Americans, they are just here for the gibs and the free stuff. They stepped off a plane into a country that was already fully built, conceptualizer, and developed. They built nothing, sacrificed nothing, risked nothing, contribute nothing. They have no mythos here.

    But if Blacks and Jews can convince them of imaginary oppression and get them to march under the righteous banner of the Slaveocaust, they will all have the numbers to overthrow Whitey and create a new nation of their own… with a chicken in every pot, and a Becky in every brotha’s bed.

    • Agree: Dtbb, Inverness
  110. @Hypnotoad666

    But yeah sure, somehow, some way, Africans and slavery are the one essential foundation on which this country was built. Sure.
     
    When you count the incredible cost of the Civil War, there is no way anyone could argue that America actually benefited from having black slavery.

    A small percentage of Southern Whites lived off the practice for awhile, until they were impoverished by the War. But the arrival of black slaves was an unmitigated disaster for America.

    Without slavery, the USA would be a vastly better place:

    The more important slavery was in a country or state the lower the level of income was in the future. Nathan Nunn “Slavery, Inequality and Economic Development in the Americas: An Examination of the Engerman-Sokoloff Argument (October 2007).

    Slave states had lower levels of educational attainment and less innovation (measured by patents) than states without slavery. This was true even in the areas that were most like the North in geography and economic activity. See John Majewski “Why Did Northerners Oppose the Expansion of Slavery? Economic Development and Education in the Limestone South” Chapter 14 in Slavery’s Capitalism

    http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html

    And here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:

    The preceding section suggests that if slavery had been abolished nationally at the time of the Constitution, the Cotton South would have developed through family-scale farms like the rest of the country, delivering as much or perhaps more cotton to the eager textile mills of Lancashire, and building a more diverse and prosperous regional economy in the process.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view

    Frankly, the whole “Cotton built America” thesis is wrongheaded:

    It’s true that cotton was among the world’s most widely traded commodities, and that it was America’s principal antebellum export. But it’s also true that exports constituted a small share of American GDP (typically less than 10 percent) and that the total value of cotton was therefore small by comparison with the overall American economy (less than 5 percent, lower than the value of corn).

    It’s true that slavery made many fortunes, in both cotton and sugar, such that there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the country. But it’s also true that most of that wealth stayed in the South, where it was tied up in land and slaves, such that the net effect on real accumulation was probably negative.

    Finally, both Desmond and many of the historians on whom he relies neglect other ways that slavery imposed constraints on economic growth and development. The renowned historian of slavery Gavin Wright recently delivered the Tawney lecture to the Economic History Society on these constraints. He pointed out that Southern slave-owners opposed almost every policy of state and federal economic development, including investments in education and agricultural improvement.

    it cannot be denied that the size of the Southern economy as a share of the national economy fell from 1800 to 1860. Simply put: despite all the evidence of its economic dynamism, the slave South was falling behind the free North.

    https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalism

  111. anon[399] • Disclaimer says:

    Walter Duranty was the Moscow bureau chief for the New York Times from 1918 to 1936. He was awarded the Pulitzer in 1932 for his reporting on the USSR. His reports completely covered up the artificial, Soviet-created famine, especially the horrible killer of 1932 – 1933.

    In 1990 the New York Times finally admitted that his work was “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper”. But his Pulitzer is still in the Times building, along side others. Inaction speaks louder than words.

    The Pulitzer is a political award, much like Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize of 2008 was given just for showing up. A wise person will never forget this.

  112. @Anon
    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren't very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren't nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they'd burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They'd do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain's day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren't awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    “If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they’d burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough.”

    Sure, but is that really all that terrible? Most groups of humans have pretty sordid histories of torture.

    The Mongols used torture for political control to the maximal degree possible. The Catholic Church tortured heretics and dissenters in brutal ways, and the various European instruments of torture are far beyond what the Plains Indians could dream up (Iron Maidens, etc). Drawing and Quartering. The Britons with their Wicker Men. The Etruscans were pretty terrible.

    In fact, the more I think about it the more I think that Islam was actually something of a civilizing force in the old world. Chopping off hands and heads is relatively clean work, compared to flaying, impaling, or the like. Africans in the Congo used to take captives, break their legs, and soak them in a river for a while to soften up before putting them on the fire for a meal.

    I simply can’t see the American Indians as unusually awful in the scheme of things. Given the brutality of the Aztecs, they weren’t even the worst in their neighborhood.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    jb, comparative levels of whose torture was worse..." Yeah, I know this hurts like hell, but just be happy we weren't captured by the mongols. Wow, you should see how weird you look with no skin."
  113. @Steve Sailer
    The further east you were, the more you tended to like American Indians.

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    E.g., the Westerner Mark Twain just plain hated Indians (while he liked blacks).

    Just compare Jim in Huckleberry Finn to Injun Joe in Tom Sawyer. Jim is depicted with great sympathy and compassion, whereas Injun Joe is something out of a nightmare….

    Look here, what does this mean?” said the doctor. “You required your pay in advance, and I’ve paid you.”

    “Yes, and you done more than that,” said Injun Joe, approaching the doctor, who was now standing. “Five years ago you drove me away from your father’s kitchen one night, when I come to ask for something to eat, and you said I warn’t there for any good; and when I swore I’d get even with you if it took a hundred years, your father had me jailed for a vagrant. Did you think I’d forget? The Injun blood ain’t in me for nothing. And now I’ve got you, and you got to settle, you know!”

  114. @Anon
    Eastern whites hated Indians in the 1600s and early 1700s because eastern Indians were very violent in that era. By the later 1700s, they had interbred to the point to where they weren't very Indian any longer and had adopted white ways. On the plains, Twain encountered un-interbred Indians who still lived their traditional lifestyle of horse-stealing, murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery of other local tribes and whites. Go look up tribes like the Comanche, Apache, and Lakota. There weren't nice.

    If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they'd burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough. They'd do this to white women and children too, if it took their fancy. This stuff is well-documented, and Plains Indians were still torturing whites and making war against white settlements as late as Twain's day. This is why the US army was employed in pacifying the Plains tribes after the Civil War and spent so much time trying to force them to live in settlements, become farmers, and obey the law.

    When Plains Indians taught their males to be warriors, what do people think these Indians were expected to do with their warrior skills? Plant corn? They were supposed to attack, kill, and plunder their neighbors, etc. Indians counted coup and won social status among themselves by how many enemies they killed, how many horses they stole, etc. They weren't awarded coup or given any special social status by the tribe for raising the biggest ear of corn. That was white folk stuff.

    Anon 731, on my desk, just arrived today, is my new hardbound copy of ” Empire of the Summer Moon” by S.C.Gwynne. If you read just one book about the plains indians make it this one. A page turning epic account, including the horrific torture inflicted on enemies, men, women, children and infants. Then to be fair, balance it out with “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.” by Dee Brown. The best arguments come from a well informed source, not that I’m that guy. Stay safe.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  115. @Cortes
    I’m not sure that the torture of enemies was restricted to the Plains Indians. I have vague memories of reading accounts by French missionaries of all-night torture by Algonquins of unfortunates whose valour was scored on how well and long they lasted and remained defiant.

    Cortes, You are correct. The French Jesuit missionaries were captured and tortured and put to death. St. Issac Joques, Jesuit, was the first Catholic martyr in the New World.Fingers gnawed off and his thumb cut off.

  116. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Certain Indian tribes had helped the British against the French and their Indian allies during the big war the two superpowers had just fought, and the British felt they were owed something for that. So they forbade the colonists from settling and encroaching on Indian territory beyond the Appalachians, which of course pissed the colonists off to no end.

    With the French Empire gone from North America the colonists no longer needed the protection of British troops.
    Britain sought to refill her coffers after a long expensive war by taxing her colonies. We all know how that worked out…

  117. @syonredux

    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth
     
    ......Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that "alliance" didn't do the Amerinds much good.....



    When Canada used hunger to clear the West

    What we didn't know at the time was that a key aspect of preparing the land was the subjugation and forced removal of indigenous communities from their traditional territories, essentially clearing the plains of aboriginal people to make way for railway construction and settlement. Despite guarantees of food aid in times of famine in Treaty No. 6, Canadian officials used food, or rather denied food, as a means to ethnically cleanse a vast region from Regina to the Alberta border as the Canadian Pacific Railway took shape.
     
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west/article13316877/

    In government archives, Daschuk found ample primary evidence showing that Macdonald’s Indian agents explicitly withheld food in order to drive bands onto reserve and out of the way of the railroad. A Liberal MP at the time even called it “a policy of submission shaped by a policy of starvation.”
     
    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people

    ……Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that “alliance” didn’t do the Amerinds much good…..

    True, but we have a story(myth ??) that the settling of the Canadian west was much less violent than the settling of the American west. The two revolts that we had were by the Metis (mixed French/Indians). Can you explain this or is this a lie ?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    True, but we have a story(myth ??) that the settling of the Canadian west was much less violent than the settling of the American west. The two revolts that we had were by the Metis (mixed French/Indians). Can you explain this or is this a lie ?
     
    Different strategies.The USA employed brute force, whereas the Canadians used famine:



    Clearing the Plains New Edition: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Indigenous Life

    by James Daschuk

    Revealing how Canada's first Prime Minister used a policy of starvation against Indigenous people to clear the way for settlement, the multiple award-winning Clearing the Plains sparked widespread debate about genocide in Canada.

     


    In arresting, but harrowing, prose, James Daschuk examines the roles that Old World diseases, climate, and, most disturbingly, Canadian politics--the politics of ethnocide--played in the deaths and subjugation of thousands of Indigenous people in the realization of Sir John A. Macdonald's "National Dream."
     
    https://www.amazon.com/Clearing-Plains-Politics-Starvation-Indigenous/dp/0889776229
  118. res says:

    I think it would be fun to start tweeting along the line: “Another in the fine tradition of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to the NYT” then link to
    https://www.pulitzer.org/news/statement-walter-duranty

    BTW, it might be worth remembering the standard they applied there when thinking about other cases of going after people from the past.

    However, the board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.

  119. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen. Being drunk and bored on their isolated plantations, or in the backcountry, they probably took the phrase 'Rights of Englishmen' seriously while idly looking through a cast off volume of history sent from London.

    Perhaps the realization after the mid-1760s that this was not the case had some sort of impact. The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants. If you actually want a bold crackpot theory Mr. Sailer, try that one. Because it requires the most balls now. It actually puts the thoughts and feelings of the actual British colonists at the time in the forefront. And that was the reality.

    Prior to the break, George Washington himself was a proud member of the British Empire. (Regarding slavery, if anything, his voyage to Barbados probably convinced him Virginia planters were saints to their slaves.)

    And after faithful service in the French and Indian War, after traveling months and months to beg a British Army commission -- Washington's dream -- from William Shirley, he was of course turned down, and returned to Mount Vernon. In an alternate history he would have finished as a brave, solid, British Army colonel. He probably had first inklings at the time the union would not last.

    However, in various forms, among various occupations, thousands of times, the same story played out over the Colonies. And that is what did it.

    This is correct. Same with Franklin. He considered himself an Englishman. Not only that he held the belief that the colonies would reconcile that fact with the crown and become equals all the way until his trip to Parliament to advocate for that solution. It wasn’t until he was humiliated during his speech to Parliament that he considered the equality solution unattainable and that some sort of independence must occur.

    England didn’t make the same mistake with other English principalities like Canada and Australia and their union remained intact, more or less, into the 20th Century.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Benjamin Franklin, "ON THE SUBJECT OF UNITING THE COLONIES MORE INTIMATELY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, BY ALLOWING THEM REPRESENTATIVES IN PARLIAMENT"


     Now, I look on the colonies as so many countries gained to Great Britain, and more advantageous to it than if they had been gained out of the seas around its coasts and joined to its lands; for, being in different climates, they afford greater variety of produce and materials for more manufactures, and being separated by the ocean, they increase much more its shipping and seamen; and since they are all included in the British empire, which has only extended itself by their means, and the strength and wealth of the parts are the strength and wealth of the whole, what imports it to the general state whether a merchant, a smith, or a hatter grows rich in Old or New England? And if, through increase of the people, two smiths are wanted for one employed before, why may not the new smith be allowed to live and thrive in [58] the new country, as well as the old one in the old? In fine, why should the countenance of a state be partially afforded to its people, unless it be most in favor of those who have most merit? And if there be any difference, those who have most contributed to enlarge Britain’s empire and commerce, increase her strength, her wealth, and the numbers of her people, at the risk of their own lives and private fortunes in new and strange countries, methinks ought rather to expect some preference.
     https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/franklin-the-works-of-benjamin-franklin-vol-iii-letters-and-misc-writings-1753-1763

  120. America needs a “1618 Project” to educate naive Americans about the numerous connections between African-American behavioral tendencies in 2020 and the sub-Saharan environments and cultures in which their ancestors evolved over the previous 70,000 years.

    Brilliant.

  121. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "the system of slavery on which this country was built"

    IIRC, at the time of settlement, horses were not native to North America, and had to be imported. Far more useful and versatile than negroes, plus they don't burn down your cities and rape your women later on. Perhaps NYT could fund "Project Equus," studying how the importation of horses was the central, foundational event of this country. It would be a step towards... Equuity.

    You gave me a laugh… but isn’t the germ theory of disease something a privileged white male cooked up?

  122. Abe says:
    @anonymous
    Doesn't Kendrick Lamar have one ?

    Doesn’t Kendrick Lamar have one ?

    Colson Whitehead just won his 2nd Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in the span of 2 years. The only other multi-award winners in the prize’s recent (i.e. more recent than 100 years ago) history are John Updike (whatever arguments one could make about his career being a sort of Silent Gen’r/Old Boomer “song to myself” hype, he was at the very least a fixture of the literary scene since forever) and William Faulkner- who got his second one posthumously.

    Let me repeat that. Someone with the given name Arch Colson Chip Whitehead, who seems like a less talented, more dilettante-ish version of David Foster Wallace (not that Wallace is necessarily that great either; the only post-modernist who’s ever struck me as head-spinningly brilliant is Thomas Pynchon circa GRAVITY RAINBOW) just got his second Pulitzer Prize in fiction for going full BLACKETY-BLACK-BLACK-BLACK . I shudder at the madcap revelry to follow in the Black 1%-er part of Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe Colson and Skip Gates’s nephew can drunkenly joust at each other atop Dr. Seuss bikes once the shelter-in-place orders are lifted.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    What did people think would happen when all the cool kids decided awards were gay?

    They gotta give ‘em to somebody.
  123. @Polynikes
    This is correct. Same with Franklin. He considered himself an Englishman. Not only that he held the belief that the colonies would reconcile that fact with the crown and become equals all the way until his trip to Parliament to advocate for that solution. It wasn't until he was humiliated during his speech to Parliament that he considered the equality solution unattainable and that some sort of independence must occur.

    England didn't make the same mistake with other English principalities like Canada and Australia and their union remained intact, more or less, into the 20th Century.

    Benjamin Franklin, “ON THE SUBJECT OF UNITING THE COLONIES MORE INTIMATELY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, BY ALLOWING THEM REPRESENTATIVES IN PARLIAMENT”

    Now, I look on the colonies as so many countries gained to Great Britain, and more advantageous to it than if they had been gained out of the seas around its coasts and joined to its lands; for, being in different climates, they afford greater variety of produce and materials for more manufactures, and being separated by the ocean, they increase much more its shipping and seamen; and since they are all included in the British empire, which has only extended itself by their means, and the strength and wealth of the parts are the strength and wealth of the whole, what imports it to the general state whether a merchant, a smith, or a hatter grows rich in Old or New England? And if, through increase of the people, two smiths are wanted for one employed before, why may not the new smith be allowed to live and thrive in [58] the new country, as well as the old one in the old? In fine, why should the countenance of a state be partially afforded to its people, unless it be most in favor of those who have most merit? And if there be any difference, those who have most contributed to enlarge Britain’s empire and commerce, increase her strength, her wealth, and the numbers of her people, at the risk of their own lives and private fortunes in new and strange countries, methinks ought rather to expect some preference.

    https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/franklin-the-works-of-benjamin-franklin-vol-iii-letters-and-misc-writings-1753-1763

    • Thanks: Polynikes
  124. @AKAHorace

    ……Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that “alliance” didn’t do the Amerinds much good…..
     
    True, but we have a story(myth ??) that the settling of the Canadian west was much less violent than the settling of the American west. The two revolts that we had were by the Metis (mixed French/Indians). Can you explain this or is this a lie ?

    True, but we have a story(myth ??) that the settling of the Canadian west was much less violent than the settling of the American west. The two revolts that we had were by the Metis (mixed French/Indians). Can you explain this or is this a lie ?

    Different strategies.The USA employed brute force, whereas the Canadians used famine:

    Clearing the Plains New Edition: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Indigenous Life

    by James Daschuk

    Revealing how Canada’s first Prime Minister used a policy of starvation against Indigenous people to clear the way for settlement, the multiple award-winning Clearing the Plains sparked widespread debate about genocide in Canada.

    In arresting, but harrowing, prose, James Daschuk examines the roles that Old World diseases, climate, and, most disturbingly, Canadian politics–the politics of ethnocide–played in the deaths and subjugation of thousands of Indigenous people in the realization of Sir John A. Macdonald’s “National Dream.”

  125. @jbwilson24
    "If Plains Indians caught an enemy, they did things like stake their captive alive over a fire ant mount, or they’d burn him alive, or flay him alive, whatever took their fancy as being gruesome enough."

    Sure, but is that really all that terrible? Most groups of humans have pretty sordid histories of torture.

    The Mongols used torture for political control to the maximal degree possible. The Catholic Church tortured heretics and dissenters in brutal ways, and the various European instruments of torture are far beyond what the Plains Indians could dream up (Iron Maidens, etc). Drawing and Quartering. The Britons with their Wicker Men. The Etruscans were pretty terrible.

    In fact, the more I think about it the more I think that Islam was actually something of a civilizing force in the old world. Chopping off hands and heads is relatively clean work, compared to flaying, impaling, or the like. Africans in the Congo used to take captives, break their legs, and soak them in a river for a while to soften up before putting them on the fire for a meal.

    I simply can't see the American Indians as unusually awful in the scheme of things. Given the brutality of the Aztecs, they weren't even the worst in their neighborhood.

    jb, comparative levels of whose torture was worse…” Yeah, I know this hurts like hell, but just be happy we weren’t captured by the mongols. Wow, you should see how weird you look with no skin.”

  126. @SunBakedSuburb
    Sharmel was the name Clint Eastwood came up with for the housing development he planned for blacks in the Carmel Valley. This was in the late 1960s when West Coast whites were still under the impression that blacks wanted agricultural work. In the 2000s, George Lucas had a plan to bring affordable housing to Marin County for the blacks in Richmond he thought existed that wanted to work as domestics for rich whites like him and his beefy black wife. He was surprised when his Marin neighbors worked with the county government to nullify his plan. Lucas and his bbw threw a fit and cancelled plans to put his Star Wars Museum in the nearby Presidio. Recent research indicates he bestowed upon the city of Chicago the gift of his museum of plastic toy merchandising. But Lucas's palace of juvenalia suffers from low attendance due its location in a black neighborhood.

    No, we didn’t get it. He was going to go back to the Bay Area with it. I don’t know if it’s built yet.

  127. @Anon
    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children's culture? They're largely Boomers.

    My favorite is when hardcore HBD Boomers will suggest ideas right up until the point of the obvious conclusion -- sterilization of individuals who are unfit to have children. But to a person, they will backtrack and say that idea is too cruel and infeasible.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20's to affordably have children. Guess it's not so cruel to sterilize their own posterity? And when this trend was beginning to reverse in the previous economic boom, they had no problem shutting down the entire economy. Suddenly, that became quite feasible as well.

    To compare the Boomer Right Wing to cucks is being unfair to cucks. When you sell out your own children, it's not called cucking, it's called pimping.

    Doubtless, your eyes are brown.

  128. “The system that slavery built,” and all of the wealth derived from it, were completely obliterated during the Civil War. I’ve never heard a legitimate argument otherwise.

  129. @anon
    The NYT has definitely become an activist organization that works hand-in-glove with the political players themselves in order to make news rather than report it.

    "Has become"? "Has become?
    Has been that for years, for decades, for generations. Longer than any of us have been alive.

    https://www.getsmartacre.com/uploads/welcome-to-the-party.gif

    Maybe not that long, but certainly since the mid 1990’s they have been moving steadily leftward to the point that their views are indistinguishable now from leftist magazines like Mother Jones and The Nation. Their book review actually gave The Bell Curve a positive review back in 1994, hard as that is to believe today.

    They were late in getting the memo that the appropriate response was preemptive denuniciation, not actually bothering to read the book. This is not to say that weren’t liberal long before, but were late in the process of editorializing masquerading as reporting compared some other mainstream media sources.

  130. Ragno says:

    Can we just rename the Pulitzer Prize the Silver Duranty, or the “Wally” for short? I mean, given how every single award for achievement in pretty much any area of endeavor has long since been infiltrated, colonized, and sucked dry of honest valuation, it’s no longer possible to feel despondency or outrage at a story like this.

    One correction, however: merely claiming that the award was given to ensure the Project be “launder(ed) …. into respectable discourse” is beside the point and wholly secondary – the point was to create a version of reality certain to introduce, and prioritize, hatred for all whites into the woolly heads of hottentots yet unborn- and to hone that hatred into the all-important will to kill that the Left prizes over all other attributes. From that standpoint, this Silver Duranty was well-earned indeed.

    • Replies: @anon
    Can we just rename the Pulitzer Prize the Silver Duranty, or the “Wally” for short?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O8gTIr4lys
  131. @syonredux

    In Canada the alliance between the crown and the Indians is part of our national myth
     
    ......Seeing as how Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are not free and independent Amerind states, I would say that that "alliance" didn't do the Amerinds much good.....



    When Canada used hunger to clear the West

    What we didn't know at the time was that a key aspect of preparing the land was the subjugation and forced removal of indigenous communities from their traditional territories, essentially clearing the plains of aboriginal people to make way for railway construction and settlement. Despite guarantees of food aid in times of famine in Treaty No. 6, Canadian officials used food, or rather denied food, as a means to ethnically cleanse a vast region from Regina to the Alberta border as the Canadian Pacific Railway took shape.
     
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west/article13316877/

    In government archives, Daschuk found ample primary evidence showing that Macdonald’s Indian agents explicitly withheld food in order to drive bands onto reserve and out of the way of the railroad. A Liberal MP at the time even called it “a policy of submission shaped by a policy of starvation.”
     
    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people

    This coupled with the loss of cellphone and internet service will be the best way to de-diversify the West.

    I mean, what are they gonna do when they can no longer post emoticons to social media? The grass will be greener.

    It doesn’t matter if it takes another 70 years to send them all back. Just that they go.

  132. @Anon
    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children's culture? They're largely Boomers.

    My favorite is when hardcore HBD Boomers will suggest ideas right up until the point of the obvious conclusion -- sterilization of individuals who are unfit to have children. But to a person, they will backtrack and say that idea is too cruel and infeasible.

    Meanwhile, they have implemented policies that make it borderline impossible for people in their 20's to affordably have children. Guess it's not so cruel to sterilize their own posterity? And when this trend was beginning to reverse in the previous economic boom, they had no problem shutting down the entire economy. Suddenly, that became quite feasible as well.

    To compare the Boomer Right Wing to cucks is being unfair to cucks. When you sell out your own children, it's not called cucking, it's called pimping.

    Why would the current right wing or HBD crowd do anything about it, such as fight for their children’s culture? They’re largely Boomers.

    Ok, Millenial. Boomers have nary a thing to do with this subject.

    • Agree: Buffalo Joe
  133. @anonymous
    The Daily Beast ran this story a few days ago before the perps were identified, in which they implied the shooters were White protestors.

    This is the natural endgame of removing mugshots from the nightly news and local reporting, like WRAL did recently. Naturally, if the perp is white, they will find a reason to show the mugshot. And if the perp is non-white, they can always imply he was white, unless it was something obviously black like a shooting in a Chuck-E-Cheese over the last chicken wing.

    The end result is apartheid for the 2020 cohort of White children in 3-4 decades. Naturally, most white Boomer men are indifferent to this, and will continue to insist that public subsidies to the Big Three + Public Radio somehow serve the public interest.

    The end result is apartheid for the 2020 cohort of White children in 3-4 decades. Naturally, most white Boomer men are indifferent to this,

    What are you high on, sonny? Whites not standing up to black nonsense has nary a thing to do with a Boiomer.

    Is this the Millenial or Gen-X version of “never let a good crisis go to waste: blame Boomers for everything, every time, 24/7/365.”

    Do you even listen to yourself? Projection is such an easy thing to spot.

    • Agree: Buffalo Joe
  134. @AKAHorace
    >But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Well, you started it by burning down our capital.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

    I guess the theory was, from the revolution through 1815, that if we invaded you guys enough, killed a enough of you and broke enough of your stuff you’d want to join us. Hmmm. You got your revenge up until the early ‘70s by unofficially banning Americans from the NHL.

  135. “after the ignominious failure of its Plan A to get Trump, its RussiaGate Conspiracy Theory.”

    Yes, indeed, it must be panhandling time for the “Master Pattern Recognizer”. Normally, you’re cagey on this matter, but throwing a bone or two to those who help pay your bills might fill your coffers quicker.

  136. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen. Being drunk and bored on their isolated plantations, or in the backcountry, they probably took the phrase 'Rights of Englishmen' seriously while idly looking through a cast off volume of history sent from London.

    Perhaps the realization after the mid-1760s that this was not the case had some sort of impact. The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants. If you actually want a bold crackpot theory Mr. Sailer, try that one. Because it requires the most balls now. It actually puts the thoughts and feelings of the actual British colonists at the time in the forefront. And that was the reality.

    Prior to the break, George Washington himself was a proud member of the British Empire. (Regarding slavery, if anything, his voyage to Barbados probably convinced him Virginia planters were saints to their slaves.)

    And after faithful service in the French and Indian War, after traveling months and months to beg a British Army commission -- Washington's dream -- from William Shirley, he was of course turned down, and returned to Mount Vernon. In an alternate history he would have finished as a brave, solid, British Army colonel. He probably had first inklings at the time the union would not last.

    However, in various forms, among various occupations, thousands of times, the same story played out over the Colonies. And that is what did it.

    “Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen.”

    In theory. But in practice, the southern plantation elite and the northern plantation elite were assuredly not willing to let the unwashed masses get control of the joint once the British were kicked out.

    “The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    To the contrary, it had much do with slaves. The North wanted to keep shipping them without paying British duties and the South wanted to expand it west of the Appalachian Mountains. So both were looking out for their economic interests.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with Indians. The British prohibited the colonists from moving onto their territory, and any colonist who usurped sacred ground for themselves were booted off by the redcoats. So the colonists were seeking to exercise their freedom to move.

    To the contrary, it had EVERYTHING to do with Jews. It always does in some way, shape, or form.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with immigrants. In his writings from the 1750’s, Benjamin Franklin wrote.

    1) They weren’t as smart as the people already living in the colonies.

    “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”

    2) They were unable to adapt to the local values.

    “Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.”

    3) They were endangering New England’s whiteness.

    “[T]he Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.”

    In short, they were not to be liberally admitted to Pennsylvania, because as Franklin argued, “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so.

    You've failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals.

    George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west -- successfully I might add -- and the British government didn't enforce the line anyway. This after he was rejected by the British Army! Imagine if he had held a British Army commission. He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts.

    The Declaration of Independence lists a lot of grievances against the crown for denying the colonists the 'Rights of Englishmen', now 'unalienable Rights'. Those are listed prominently and first. So I take the colonists word for it that that was their main overriding concern. But I am impressed that you, and many commenters here, are able to peer into the minds of men long dead and ascertain their true motives not recorded on paper.

    Much of the backcountry of Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina was sparsely populated by British settlers, who spent a lot of time fighting the Cherokee and other tribes that existed on the British side of the Proclamation Line. So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That's laughable.

    And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans, as the Scots-Irish were much more wild, less enamored of listening to the (or any) government, and much more efficient at killing Indians. Which Franklin didn't much care for. Nor did he care much for slavery, him freeing his own few slaves by 1770, and attacking the slave trade.

    What was your point again?
    , @syonredux

    In theory. But in practice, the southern plantation elite and the northern plantation elite were assuredly not willing to let the unwashed masses get control of the joint once the British were kicked out.
     
    Massachusetts had a "plantation elite?" In comparison to say, South Carolina....

    “The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    To the contrary, it had much do with slaves. The North wanted to keep shipping them without paying British duties and the South wanted to expand it west of the Appalachian Mountains. So both were looking out for their economic interests.
     
    Dear boy, congratulations! You've attained Nikole Hannah-Jones-level idiocy. That means that Ibram X Kendi is your only remaining rival....Unless my suspicions are correct, and you are a parody account.....In which case, bravo! Your ability to simulate idiocy is truly remarkable....

    To the contrary, it had much to do with immigrants. In his writings from the 1750’s, Benjamin Franklin wrote.
     
    Here's something that Franklin wrote:

    Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them [Germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled, and take some care to prevent the practice lately fallen into by some of the Ship Owners, of sweeping the German Gaols to make up the number of their Passengers. I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary; They are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.
     
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0173
  137. @Art Deco
    I think the more alert members of the left have realized all the social engineering brought about since the civil rights era didn’t really work and never will.

    'Work' toward what end?


    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights). This is not typically done for a menu of reasons, most attributable to cultural factors among the professional-managerial class on both sides of the color bar.

    That aside, what's notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy. Every segment of the population has family problems that were characteristic of only an odd minority 60 years ago. It's worse in the black population, to be sure, but the black and non-black subpopulations are far closer in their dispositions and behavior today than they are to those of the generic American of 1955. As for levels of affluence and life expectancies, black Americans compare favorably to Mediterranean Europe in their real income levels and have life expectancies equivalent to non-black Americans in the dark days of ...1995.

    Over the last five generations, there has been continuing evolution in the occupational distribution of the black population and in levels of formal education and demonstrable skills. There's also been a gradual improvement in income levels vis a vis the non-black population (in the context of improved real incomes generally). The problem in our political culture was one identified by Edward Banfield fifty years ago: a chronic incapacity in identifying the nature and severity of the problems we do have and then exacerbating matters by prescribing solutions for problems we do not have.

    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights).

    Such as?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    1. Hire police officers

    2 Deploy them over the landscape optimally

    3. Have them use best practices.

    4. Do not penalize them for doing their jobs.

    5. Eliminate social work from penology. Use fines only as a supplementary penalty for minor crimes (and corporate offenders), use labor services with people who do not pay their fines, make use of corporal punishments for people under 25 (the birch, the cane, the pillory-and-stocks), and make use of brief and determinate sentences in prison as a matter of course (served in prisons with few amenities wherein you spend 2/3 of your day in solitary confinement). For offenders under 25, you apply a standard dispensation wherein some of your time in prison is remitted in favor of probation, so a youth of 17 serves half in prison and half on probation; that would be your only use of probation.

    6. Sequester school trouble-makers and turn them over to day detention centers run by the local sheriff's department. The centers are run like jails leavened with some remedial schooling.

    7. In service to the objects above, vest law enforcement functions in county government and multi-county authorities. No more municipal police in metropolitan centers. Leave municipal governments to pick up the trash and trim the street trees.

    8. Limit the franchise to lay and collect property taxes to municipalities, school districts, non-metropolitan counties, and miscellaneous special district authorities. Have state governments and metropolitan counties rely on sales or value-added taxes, while non-metropolitan counties would be clear to collect both sales and property taxes. Require (bar qualifications below) that all property holders pay the same rate on assessed valuation to their local authorities (but providing for philanthropies to apply to state governments for full re-imbursement) and that governments and public authorities which own property add appropriations to their budget to make payments-in-lieu of taxes to local authorities.

    9. Have state governments make unrestricted grants to counties and school districts. The sum appropriated would be discretionary, but its distribution would be according to formulae encoded in state constitutions. The formula would skew the distribution to impecunious counties and districts, to give them a riser to stand on.

    10. Have county governments make unrestricted grants to their municipalities along the same lines. Again, the global amount to allocate to such grants would be wholly discretionary, but the distribution formula would be fixed.

    11. Analyze ever agglomeration of densely settled Census block groups in your state whose population exceeds 50,000. If you've a fragment of such a settlement which spills over the border into another state, analyze the whole, not just the portion in your state.

    12. Rank order said block groups according to per capita income, lowest to highest. Calculate a running balance of their populations until you've identified the block groups which are below the 16th percentile of all the block groups in the set in terms of their income. Designate these block groups 'zone A'. Then identify those block groups which are above the 15th percentile but below the 20th percentile. This is zone B. The rest is zone C.

    13. Ordinarily, an authority with a franchise to lay and collect property taxes would have to levy them at a uniform rate. However, should such an authority have territory in zone A or zone B, they'd have to use three rates: x% in zone c, 0.5x% in zone B, and 0% in zone A.

    14. Grant to municipalities, school districts, and special district authorities whose territory intersects with zone A or zone B to lay and collect a substitutionary sales tax. The rate of the tax would be capped. The cap would be a function of the share of collections lost with the institution of the property tax dispensations.

    15. Make a decennial amendment to the boundaries of zone A and zone B every 10 years. However, if a property is bumped from zone A to zone B or zone C or from zone B to zone C in the boundary amendments, refrain from imposing the new rate on the property for 10 years.

    16. Eliminate subsidies to mundane consumer purchases (e.g.. groceries, rent, and utility bills). Partially replace these with cash transfers. An aspect of this would be to liquidate all holdings of public housing.

    17. Replace open-ended cash doles for the non-elderly and non-disabled population with a more elaborate program of earned-income subsidies.

    18. Replace the minimum wage with a 'minimum-take-home-pay' standard. The minimum would be adjusted each year and equal to 1 / 10th the mean compensation per worker in the region in which you live. You could divide the continental U.S. into two or three regions and then have local rates for Alaska, Hawaii, and the insular dependencies.

    19. Eliminate rent control where extant. This can be done by (1) putting all rent-controlled apartments under a 'rent-stabilized' regime wherein the rent is permitted to rise each year by a rate determined by the annual increase in nominal personal income per capita in the commuter belt in question, (2) allowing landlords to pay a negotiated lump sum to a rent-control tenant to compensate them for abjuring their right to controlled rent and putting the apartment back on the open market, (3) limit rights of succession to rent-controlled tenancies to surviving spouses and surviving children under guardianship, (4) prohibiting rent-control on any apartment or room made available after a certain date.

    20. Dissolve core city school districts. Incorporate each school therein as a philanthropy under a board elected by a legally-defined body of stakeholders (say, alumni of said school resident in the county in question). Issue vouchers to every custodial parent within the district with which they could do one of two things: present them to a county or municipal fund in return for a fragment of their face value calculated according to their household's direct tax payments and the number of children in their household; or (2) present them to the school of their choice to finance said schools. Local schools could elect to participate in the voucher program or not. The ones who participate would be debarred from charging tuition. In effect, turn all schools into charter schools and private schools. Ideally, schools would have plenary discretion to admit or expel anyone they cared to. Youngsters no one wants would have to be home schooled or turned over to the sheriff's department for their schooling.

    21. Encourage, through regents examinations, basic education and life-skills classes for slow adolescents and vo-tech for more nimble adolescents. Limit academic secondary education for students who perform above the 55th percentile, and encourage vo-tech for students generally.

    22. Lower the school leaving age to 14. Amend child labor laws, permitting youths of 14 to work anywhere with parental permission and youths between 10 and 14 to do so in family businesses.

    23. Institute streamlined procedures to implement evictions. If you cannot evict with dispatch, slum property is not much of an income producing asset.

    24. Have a less elaborate set of building codes for zone A and zone B properties, concentrating on health and safety priorities (fire danger, plumbing, rodents) and indicia of disorder (graffiti, broken windows).

    25. Have beautification programs for slum neighborhoods. Issue citations for graffiti and broken windows in week one, then have city crews fix them in week three if you don't, and then bill you. Have extra street-sweeping details to pick up trash on the street, sidewalks, and in vacant lots (billing property holders).

    26. Eliminate anti-discrimination laws bar in restricted venues (in re the product of natural monopolies and certain common carriers, and in re the provision of food-fuel-and-lodgings in remote areas, and in re public sector employment and higher education berths). Require certain enterprises (e.g. colleges) to disclose data on the demographics of their work-force and clientele, but that would be it.

    27. Replace Medicare, Medicaid, and employer based health plans with publicly financed, high deductible plans financed by a special income tax. The share of personal income devoted to public financing of medical care and l/t care would be fixed.

    28. Dismantle social work as an independent profession. Instead, recruit child protective inspectors from the ranks of sheriff's deputies, public health nurses, and junior grade psychologists, and then send them out for cross-training certificates. Replace social workers in any other venue with people trained on-the-job.

    29. Institute value-added taxes as the modal means of raising revenue at the state and federal level. The purpose of income taxes in such a system would be re-distributive. You set aside some revenue for certain programs (e.g. cash veterans benefits, disaster relief, SSI), and the rest is remitted on a roughly per-capita basis. You calculate household liabilities thus: (0.4 x taxable household income) - sum paid in payroll taxes - (household members x general credit). Most people will have a negative liability. However, remittances would be capped at a particular % of your earned income (in households where none of the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a % of personal income per capita in your region (in households where all the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a compromise between the two (where one taxpayer is elderly or disabled and the other isnt).

    30. Always remember, no institution should have as its purpose making people feel better about themselves, or distributing patronage to favored ascribed groups.


    Everything here makes use of conventional policy tools and in sum it reduces the degree to which allocation of social product is made by government employees.
  138. @RichardTaylor
    Well, either White people have brains or we're a bunch of retards.

    All the evidence is, White people have brains, but we have an old tradition of self-hatred. Monks were self-flagellating until recently. Long ago in India, when it was ruled by Aryans, guys like Buddha wanted total race-mixing to get rid of the caste system (and Whites).

    We have enemies. But far worse are race-traitors. Enemies wouldn't stand a chance without them. A lot of people freak out about the ADL or SPLC hating Whites (and they do), but they'll give some virtue signaling white person a pass, because, after all, "they meant well".

    Put another way, if we act like retarded suckers, someone is going to take us to the cleaners. I don't think everything can be blamed on an external agent brainwashing us.

    “All the evidence is, White people have brains, but we have an old tradition of self-hatred.”

    No, YOU think that whites hate themselves. Feel free to speak for yourself, and not the rest of us whites. The reality is we normies love liberty, and the ability to make our own decisions about race and culture. So whenever we whites follow through with our preferences, your (weak) counter is that we have been brainwashed and we hate ourselves.

    “But far worse are race-traitors.”

    Like John Derbyshire? Like Fred Reed?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “But far worse are race-traitors.”

    Like John Derbyshire? Like Fred Reed?
     
    Fred is the one who's OK with the Latinx conquering Anglo-America.....



    http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/chicano-park-mural-san-diego.jpg

    http://www.cvltnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/tumblr_nlt79lXduv1s9rx9zo1_500.jpg
  139. @Harry Baldwin
    The Pulitzer, like most American institutions, is a leftist scam to give legitimacy to other leftist scammers like the NYT

    That should be the end of any legitimacy for Pulitzer Prizes. They gave a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times for its two years of investigative reporting on Russia-Collusion, without it ever discovering was a hoax. In other words, for failing to discover the most obvious thing about the Russuia-Collusion story. Or, more likely, they got a prize for investigating a hoax that they had a hand in creating from the start.

    Col. McCormick’s Chicago Tribune (little to no relation to the current paper with that name) boycotted the Pulitzers from 1936-1960 because he said the prize was a tool of “East Coast elites.”

  140. @Buffalo Joe
    I see that Buffalo was among the public school districts to adopt "Project 1619" as part of their curriculum and that is just sad. Buffalo public schools are majority minority with an abysmal 64.7% HS graduation rate. An astonishing 35% of HS students miss 37 school days or more. A HS student can not be given a grade lower than 60. So, if a student gets an 80 in the first marking quarter and does nothing in the next three quarters they pass with a 65 average. The city, with state aid, built the $40 million dollar Northland Training Center to train machinists and welders. They have now instituted a remedial reading program as only 25%-30% of applicants can pass the employer required reading exam. But all is good because somehow or other blacks will continue to build America. Public education is worthy of a RICO investigation.

    Can we talk?

    Your problem was identified by Leon Podles half-a-generation ago (and has been referred to by Thomas Sowell as well). The default setting of secondary education is instruction in academic subjects. Sowell: kids who can’t be bothered with that get in the way of kids who want to learn. Podles: it’s only in the last three generations that instruction in liberal arts was considered appropriate for aught but an odd minority.

    You’re complaining about students enrolled in secondary schooling not showing up and not acquiring credentials whose extrinsic value has been severely vitiated by the fools politicians have allowed to remain in charge of the educational apparat.

    1. If they’re not showing up for school, that can be a good thing, because they’d be making trouble if they were actually in school. Let’s not do this half-assed. Sequester them systematically if they’re a problem, then at 14 exclude them from the schools entirely. The better ones will find low-level service jobs and the worse ones will land in the maw of the criminal justice system.

    2. If they’re having trouble passing a basic skills test administered as a screen for vocational training, it’s because they had deficient primary schooling for all the reasons people have deficient primary schooling. And some of them are just not promising material for skilled trades – they have generic deficits and no particular talents which can be developed in spite of their generic deficits. The response to this realization should be to work on repairs to primary schooling. Of course, there are impregnable constituencies who like primary schooling just the way it is.

    3. Have a tripartite secondary system where manpower is distributed between academic subjects, vocational subjects, and basic-schooling-with-life-skills. Right now, only 2% of the schoolteachers in the United States are teaching VoTech. Why not 15%-20% while 10%-15% are deployed to academic secondary instruction with about 2/3 devoted to various modes of basic education?

    4. Quit fretting over graduation rates. Instead of a high school diploma, confer on youths at age 18 a book of certificates which indicates levels of accomplishment in specific trades and subjects, a book they can add to when they’re willing and able with adult education courses given at community colleges and the like.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Art, first thank you. One of my biggest complaints, no really the biggest complaint, is the amount of money wasted on Public Education. NYS teachers are very well compensated, with to die for benefit packages. Buffalo's PS budget exceeded ONE BILLION dollars this year. Well, you can say, "Hey Buff where is your skin in the game? You have no one in BPS." That is true, but the City of Buffalo contributes about 8% to the budget, the rest comes from NYS and Erie County, where I reside. Trade schools and apprenticeships I am all in, but to quote the Business Agent for the local carpenters union..."Is it asking too much that people can read, do simple math, read a rule and know fractions?" (Paraphrasing) The Northland Training Center was to get people ready for good paying jobs as machinists and weldors, but if you can't read you can't be employed. I just read a past article from the Buffalo News which said that BPS students' attendence at BOCES was abysmal, because they were actually required to attend and perform. Art I don't know what you did for a living but I spent 25 years as an Ironworker. I dealt with people who were functionally illiterate. So their FUs put my job in jeopardy and my job supported my family. But we are good, again thank you. Stay safe.
  141. @Ganderson
    There’s a wonderful museum in Brantford, Ontario- The Canadian Military Heritage Museum. It’s lovingly tended by Canadian Korean War vets- or at least was, on my first visit in 2003. I imagine most of them are a bit long in the tooth by now.

    Not much foot traffic the last time I went, so I got the personal tour from this old guy- come to think of it he looked a bit like Eddie Shack, and I remember remarking, that, while I knew more about Canada’s military history than most yanks, I didn’t realize there were Canadians in Korea. He looked at me with a wry smile and said “ Don’t worry,eh? Most Canadians don’t either”

    When we got to a particular section of the museum (the 1812 exhibition) he said to me “You’re not gonna like this part- this is where we kicked your asses.” I smiled, and told him that I had always been taught that it was a draw, But I guess any war where the enemy lands and burns your capital is not exactly a rousing success!

    Here’s a tribute to Old Hickory:

    https://youtu.be/V7a-cGY-VGQ

    Canadians are stupid. There was no Canada in 1812. They were a British military base. Canadians love to make up shit that makes them seem brave and brilliant. The 1972 Summit Series is a great example. Canada “won” by purposely injuring the USSR’s best player. They’ve spent the last 50 years lying about that.

    • Replies: @Jacques Strappe
    By this token, most of Benjamin Franklin's scientific achievements should be credited to the British. After all, the USA did not exist at the times of these events.

    Even though Canada didn't exist as a nation at the time, the descendants of the British made up a significant portion of our founding stock and were living here during the War of 1812, so Canadians did fight Americans.

    This being said, we Canadians shouldn't brag about tying Americans. We can be weirdly snobby at times.
  142. We’ve already seen Steve act like Civil Rights was ever about “equality” and not just a power grab by blacks and Jews. Boomers like him are content to remain on the academic fringes and look wistfully at the era of their youth with rose-colored glasses while engaging in “commentary” from the sidelines. Ultimately you can’t rely on those who won’t live another 20 years and focus more on their good memories of the past than what looms in the future

  143. @Corvinus
    "Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen."

    In theory. But in practice, the southern plantation elite and the northern plantation elite were assuredly not willing to let the unwashed masses get control of the joint once the British were kicked out.

    "The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants."

    To the contrary, it had much do with slaves. The North wanted to keep shipping them without paying British duties and the South wanted to expand it west of the Appalachian Mountains. So both were looking out for their economic interests.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with Indians. The British prohibited the colonists from moving onto their territory, and any colonist who usurped sacred ground for themselves were booted off by the redcoats. So the colonists were seeking to exercise their freedom to move.

    To the contrary, it had EVERYTHING to do with Jews. It always does in some way, shape, or form.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with immigrants. In his writings from the 1750's, Benjamin Franklin wrote.

    1) They weren’t as smart as the people already living in the colonies.

    “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”

    2) They were unable to adapt to the local values.

    “Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.”

    3) They were endangering New England’s whiteness.

    “[T]he Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.”

    In short, they were not to be liberally admitted to Pennsylvania, because as Franklin argued, “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”

    Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so.

    You’ve failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals.

    George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west — successfully I might add — and the British government didn’t enforce the line anyway. This after he was rejected by the British Army! Imagine if he had held a British Army commission. He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts.

    The Declaration of Independence lists a lot of grievances against the crown for denying the colonists the ‘Rights of Englishmen’, now ‘unalienable Rights’. Those are listed prominently and first. So I take the colonists word for it that that was their main overriding concern. But I am impressed that you, and many commenters here, are able to peer into the minds of men long dead and ascertain their true motives not recorded on paper.

    Much of the backcountry of Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina was sparsely populated by British settlers, who spent a lot of time fighting the Cherokee and other tribes that existed on the British side of the Proclamation Line. So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That’s laughable.

    And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans, as the Scots-Irish were much more wild, less enamored of listening to the (or any) government, and much more efficient at killing Indians. Which Franklin didn’t much care for. Nor did he care much for slavery, him freeing his own few slaves by 1770, and attacking the slave trade.

    What was your point again?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so."

    Actually, my responses are on the mark.

    "You’ve failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals."

    I wasn't rebutting your main assertion. I was refuting this statement--“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    "George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west — successfully I might add — and the British government didn’t enforce the line anyway."

    You do realize you are assisting in furthering my point, right? The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists. A desire for good farmland caused many colonists to defy the proclamation; others merely resented the royal restrictions on trade and migration. With the British out of the way, there would be more land for the taking without fear of retribution.

    "He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts."

    And risk alienating his allies Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton? I think not.

    "So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That’s laughable."

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.

    "And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans..."

    Perhaps he felt that way, although he helped to negotiate a settlement with this group in the Paxton Boys revolt. Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable. The British government allowed their importation of (alleged) inferior stock.

  144. @Corvinus
    "Sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, a bunch of colonies founded by the English, mainly settled by inhabitants of the British Isles, and essentially left alone with minimal supervision or protection for roughly a century, got damn used to thinking of themselves as coequal Englishmen."

    In theory. But in practice, the southern plantation elite and the northern plantation elite were assuredly not willing to let the unwashed masses get control of the joint once the British were kicked out.

    "The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants."

    To the contrary, it had much do with slaves. The North wanted to keep shipping them without paying British duties and the South wanted to expand it west of the Appalachian Mountains. So both were looking out for their economic interests.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with Indians. The British prohibited the colonists from moving onto their territory, and any colonist who usurped sacred ground for themselves were booted off by the redcoats. So the colonists were seeking to exercise their freedom to move.

    To the contrary, it had EVERYTHING to do with Jews. It always does in some way, shape, or form.

    To the contrary, it had much to do with immigrants. In his writings from the 1750's, Benjamin Franklin wrote.

    1) They weren’t as smart as the people already living in the colonies.

    “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”

    2) They were unable to adapt to the local values.

    “Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.”

    3) They were endangering New England’s whiteness.

    “[T]he Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.”

    In short, they were not to be liberally admitted to Pennsylvania, because as Franklin argued, “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”

    In theory. But in practice, the southern plantation elite and the northern plantation elite were assuredly not willing to let the unwashed masses get control of the joint once the British were kicked out.

    Massachusetts had a “plantation elite?” In comparison to say, South Carolina….

    “The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    To the contrary, it had much do with slaves. The North wanted to keep shipping them without paying British duties and the South wanted to expand it west of the Appalachian Mountains. So both were looking out for their economic interests.

    Dear boy, congratulations! You’ve attained Nikole Hannah-Jones-level idiocy. That means that Ibram X Kendi is your only remaining rival….Unless my suspicions are correct, and you are a parody account…..In which case, bravo! Your ability to simulate idiocy is truly remarkable….

    To the contrary, it had much to do with immigrants. In his writings from the 1750’s, Benjamin Franklin wrote.

    Here’s something that Franklin wrote:

    Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them [Germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled, and take some care to prevent the practice lately fallen into by some of the Ship Owners, of sweeping the German Gaols to make up the number of their Passengers. I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary; They are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0173

  145. Art Deco says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights).
     
    Such as?

    1. Hire police officers

    2 Deploy them over the landscape optimally

    3. Have them use best practices.

    4. Do not penalize them for doing their jobs.

    5. Eliminate social work from penology. Use fines only as a supplementary penalty for minor crimes (and corporate offenders), use labor services with people who do not pay their fines, make use of corporal punishments for people under 25 (the birch, the cane, the pillory-and-stocks), and make use of brief and determinate sentences in prison as a matter of course (served in prisons with few amenities wherein you spend 2/3 of your day in solitary confinement). For offenders under 25, you apply a standard dispensation wherein some of your time in prison is remitted in favor of probation, so a youth of 17 serves half in prison and half on probation; that would be your only use of probation.

    6. Sequester school trouble-makers and turn them over to day detention centers run by the local sheriff’s department. The centers are run like jails leavened with some remedial schooling.

    7. In service to the objects above, vest law enforcement functions in county government and multi-county authorities. No more municipal police in metropolitan centers. Leave municipal governments to pick up the trash and trim the street trees.

    8. Limit the franchise to lay and collect property taxes to municipalities, school districts, non-metropolitan counties, and miscellaneous special district authorities. Have state governments and metropolitan counties rely on sales or value-added taxes, while non-metropolitan counties would be clear to collect both sales and property taxes. Require (bar qualifications below) that all property holders pay the same rate on assessed valuation to their local authorities (but providing for philanthropies to apply to state governments for full re-imbursement) and that governments and public authorities which own property add appropriations to their budget to make payments-in-lieu of taxes to local authorities.

    9. Have state governments make unrestricted grants to counties and school districts. The sum appropriated would be discretionary, but its distribution would be according to formulae encoded in state constitutions. The formula would skew the distribution to impecunious counties and districts, to give them a riser to stand on.

    10. Have county governments make unrestricted grants to their municipalities along the same lines. Again, the global amount to allocate to such grants would be wholly discretionary, but the distribution formula would be fixed.

    11. Analyze ever agglomeration of densely settled Census block groups in your state whose population exceeds 50,000. If you’ve a fragment of such a settlement which spills over the border into another state, analyze the whole, not just the portion in your state.

    12. Rank order said block groups according to per capita income, lowest to highest. Calculate a running balance of their populations until you’ve identified the block groups which are below the 16th percentile of all the block groups in the set in terms of their income. Designate these block groups ‘zone A’. Then identify those block groups which are above the 15th percentile but below the 20th percentile. This is zone B. The rest is zone C.

    13. Ordinarily, an authority with a franchise to lay and collect property taxes would have to levy them at a uniform rate. However, should such an authority have territory in zone A or zone B, they’d have to use three rates: x% in zone c, 0.5x% in zone B, and 0% in zone A.

    14. Grant to municipalities, school districts, and special district authorities whose territory intersects with zone A or zone B to lay and collect a substitutionary sales tax. The rate of the tax would be capped. The cap would be a function of the share of collections lost with the institution of the property tax dispensations.

    15. Make a decennial amendment to the boundaries of zone A and zone B every 10 years. However, if a property is bumped from zone A to zone B or zone C or from zone B to zone C in the boundary amendments, refrain from imposing the new rate on the property for 10 years.

    16. Eliminate subsidies to mundane consumer purchases (e.g.. groceries, rent, and utility bills). Partially replace these with cash transfers. An aspect of this would be to liquidate all holdings of public housing.

    17. Replace open-ended cash doles for the non-elderly and non-disabled population with a more elaborate program of earned-income subsidies.

    18. Replace the minimum wage with a ‘minimum-take-home-pay’ standard. The minimum would be adjusted each year and equal to 1 / 10th the mean compensation per worker in the region in which you live. You could divide the continental U.S. into two or three regions and then have local rates for Alaska, Hawaii, and the insular dependencies.

    19. Eliminate rent control where extant. This can be done by (1) putting all rent-controlled apartments under a ‘rent-stabilized’ regime wherein the rent is permitted to rise each year by a rate determined by the annual increase in nominal personal income per capita in the commuter belt in question, (2) allowing landlords to pay a negotiated lump sum to a rent-control tenant to compensate them for abjuring their right to controlled rent and putting the apartment back on the open market, (3) limit rights of succession to rent-controlled tenancies to surviving spouses and surviving children under guardianship, (4) prohibiting rent-control on any apartment or room made available after a certain date.

    20. Dissolve core city school districts. Incorporate each school therein as a philanthropy under a board elected by a legally-defined body of stakeholders (say, alumni of said school resident in the county in question). Issue vouchers to every custodial parent within the district with which they could do one of two things: present them to a county or municipal fund in return for a fragment of their face value calculated according to their household’s direct tax payments and the number of children in their household; or (2) present them to the school of their choice to finance said schools. Local schools could elect to participate in the voucher program or not. The ones who participate would be debarred from charging tuition. In effect, turn all schools into charter schools and private schools. Ideally, schools would have plenary discretion to admit or expel anyone they cared to. Youngsters no one wants would have to be home schooled or turned over to the sheriff’s department for their schooling.

    21. Encourage, through regents examinations, basic education and life-skills classes for slow adolescents and vo-tech for more nimble adolescents. Limit academic secondary education for students who perform above the 55th percentile, and encourage vo-tech for students generally.

    22. Lower the school leaving age to 14. Amend child labor laws, permitting youths of 14 to work anywhere with parental permission and youths between 10 and 14 to do so in family businesses.

    23. Institute streamlined procedures to implement evictions. If you cannot evict with dispatch, slum property is not much of an income producing asset.

    24. Have a less elaborate set of building codes for zone A and zone B properties, concentrating on health and safety priorities (fire danger, plumbing, rodents) and indicia of disorder (graffiti, broken windows).

    25. Have beautification programs for slum neighborhoods. Issue citations for graffiti and broken windows in week one, then have city crews fix them in week three if you don’t, and then bill you. Have extra street-sweeping details to pick up trash on the street, sidewalks, and in vacant lots (billing property holders).

    26. Eliminate anti-discrimination laws bar in restricted venues (in re the product of natural monopolies and certain common carriers, and in re the provision of food-fuel-and-lodgings in remote areas, and in re public sector employment and higher education berths). Require certain enterprises (e.g. colleges) to disclose data on the demographics of their work-force and clientele, but that would be it.

    27. Replace Medicare, Medicaid, and employer based health plans with publicly financed, high deductible plans financed by a special income tax. The share of personal income devoted to public financing of medical care and l/t care would be fixed.

    28. Dismantle social work as an independent profession. Instead, recruit child protective inspectors from the ranks of sheriff’s deputies, public health nurses, and junior grade psychologists, and then send them out for cross-training certificates. Replace social workers in any other venue with people trained on-the-job.

    29. Institute value-added taxes as the modal means of raising revenue at the state and federal level. The purpose of income taxes in such a system would be re-distributive. You set aside some revenue for certain programs (e.g. cash veterans benefits, disaster relief, SSI), and the rest is remitted on a roughly per-capita basis. You calculate household liabilities thus: (0.4 x taxable household income) – sum paid in payroll taxes – (household members x general credit). Most people will have a negative liability. However, remittances would be capped at a particular % of your earned income (in households where none of the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a % of personal income per capita in your region (in households where all the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a compromise between the two (where one taxpayer is elderly or disabled and the other isnt).

    30. Always remember, no institution should have as its purpose making people feel better about themselves, or distributing patronage to favored ascribed groups.

    Everything here makes use of conventional policy tools and in sum it reduces the degree to which allocation of social product is made by government employees.

    • Thanks: Jim Don Bob, Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Art, just two remarks to your list. Cops have been kicked out of schools, because they enforce the law. My daughter is a School Psycologist, the problems with kids in the inner city are not solvable. I fear for her because she has to deal with parent(s) that have no idea about raising a child and don't want to "hear no shit from a white bitch." Take care buddy.
    , @anon
    31. A free unicorn pony for everyone, carrying a pot of gold from the nearest rainbow in its mouth.
  146. @Corvinus
    "All the evidence is, White people have brains, but we have an old tradition of self-hatred."

    No, YOU think that whites hate themselves. Feel free to speak for yourself, and not the rest of us whites. The reality is we normies love liberty, and the ability to make our own decisions about race and culture. So whenever we whites follow through with our preferences, your (weak) counter is that we have been brainwashed and we hate ourselves.

    "But far worse are race-traitors."

    Like John Derbyshire? Like Fred Reed?

    “But far worse are race-traitors.”

    Like John Derbyshire? Like Fred Reed?

    Fred is the one who’s OK with the Latinx conquering Anglo-America…..

  147. @Art Deco
    Can we talk?

    Your problem was identified by Leon Podles half-a-generation ago (and has been referred to by Thomas Sowell as well). The default setting of secondary education is instruction in academic subjects. Sowell: kids who can't be bothered with that get in the way of kids who want to learn. Podles: it's only in the last three generations that instruction in liberal arts was considered appropriate for aught but an odd minority.

    You're complaining about students enrolled in secondary schooling not showing up and not acquiring credentials whose extrinsic value has been severely vitiated by the fools politicians have allowed to remain in charge of the educational apparat.

    1. If they're not showing up for school, that can be a good thing, because they'd be making trouble if they were actually in school. Let's not do this half-assed. Sequester them systematically if they're a problem, then at 14 exclude them from the schools entirely. The better ones will find low-level service jobs and the worse ones will land in the maw of the criminal justice system.

    2. If they're having trouble passing a basic skills test administered as a screen for vocational training, it's because they had deficient primary schooling for all the reasons people have deficient primary schooling. And some of them are just not promising material for skilled trades - they have generic deficits and no particular talents which can be developed in spite of their generic deficits. The response to this realization should be to work on repairs to primary schooling. Of course, there are impregnable constituencies who like primary schooling just the way it is.

    3. Have a tripartite secondary system where manpower is distributed between academic subjects, vocational subjects, and basic-schooling-with-life-skills. Right now, only 2% of the schoolteachers in the United States are teaching VoTech. Why not 15%-20% while 10%-15% are deployed to academic secondary instruction with about 2/3 devoted to various modes of basic education?

    4. Quit fretting over graduation rates. Instead of a high school diploma, confer on youths at age 18 a book of certificates which indicates levels of accomplishment in specific trades and subjects, a book they can add to when they're willing and able with adult education courses given at community colleges and the like.

    Art, first thank you. One of my biggest complaints, no really the biggest complaint, is the amount of money wasted on Public Education. NYS teachers are very well compensated, with to die for benefit packages. Buffalo’s PS budget exceeded ONE BILLION dollars this year. Well, you can say, “Hey Buff where is your skin in the game? You have no one in BPS.” That is true, but the City of Buffalo contributes about 8% to the budget, the rest comes from NYS and Erie County, where I reside. Trade schools and apprenticeships I am all in, but to quote the Business Agent for the local carpenters union…”Is it asking too much that people can read, do simple math, read a rule and know fractions?” (Paraphrasing) The Northland Training Center was to get people ready for good paying jobs as machinists and weldors, but if you can’t read you can’t be employed. I just read a past article from the Buffalo News which said that BPS students’ attendence at BOCES was abysmal, because they were actually required to attend and perform. Art I don’t know what you did for a living but I spent 25 years as an Ironworker. I dealt with people who were functionally illiterate. So their FUs put my job in jeopardy and my job supported my family. But we are good, again thank you. Stay safe.

  148. @Art Deco
    1. Hire police officers

    2 Deploy them over the landscape optimally

    3. Have them use best practices.

    4. Do not penalize them for doing their jobs.

    5. Eliminate social work from penology. Use fines only as a supplementary penalty for minor crimes (and corporate offenders), use labor services with people who do not pay their fines, make use of corporal punishments for people under 25 (the birch, the cane, the pillory-and-stocks), and make use of brief and determinate sentences in prison as a matter of course (served in prisons with few amenities wherein you spend 2/3 of your day in solitary confinement). For offenders under 25, you apply a standard dispensation wherein some of your time in prison is remitted in favor of probation, so a youth of 17 serves half in prison and half on probation; that would be your only use of probation.

    6. Sequester school trouble-makers and turn them over to day detention centers run by the local sheriff's department. The centers are run like jails leavened with some remedial schooling.

    7. In service to the objects above, vest law enforcement functions in county government and multi-county authorities. No more municipal police in metropolitan centers. Leave municipal governments to pick up the trash and trim the street trees.

    8. Limit the franchise to lay and collect property taxes to municipalities, school districts, non-metropolitan counties, and miscellaneous special district authorities. Have state governments and metropolitan counties rely on sales or value-added taxes, while non-metropolitan counties would be clear to collect both sales and property taxes. Require (bar qualifications below) that all property holders pay the same rate on assessed valuation to their local authorities (but providing for philanthropies to apply to state governments for full re-imbursement) and that governments and public authorities which own property add appropriations to their budget to make payments-in-lieu of taxes to local authorities.

    9. Have state governments make unrestricted grants to counties and school districts. The sum appropriated would be discretionary, but its distribution would be according to formulae encoded in state constitutions. The formula would skew the distribution to impecunious counties and districts, to give them a riser to stand on.

    10. Have county governments make unrestricted grants to their municipalities along the same lines. Again, the global amount to allocate to such grants would be wholly discretionary, but the distribution formula would be fixed.

    11. Analyze ever agglomeration of densely settled Census block groups in your state whose population exceeds 50,000. If you've a fragment of such a settlement which spills over the border into another state, analyze the whole, not just the portion in your state.

    12. Rank order said block groups according to per capita income, lowest to highest. Calculate a running balance of their populations until you've identified the block groups which are below the 16th percentile of all the block groups in the set in terms of their income. Designate these block groups 'zone A'. Then identify those block groups which are above the 15th percentile but below the 20th percentile. This is zone B. The rest is zone C.

    13. Ordinarily, an authority with a franchise to lay and collect property taxes would have to levy them at a uniform rate. However, should such an authority have territory in zone A or zone B, they'd have to use three rates: x% in zone c, 0.5x% in zone B, and 0% in zone A.

    14. Grant to municipalities, school districts, and special district authorities whose territory intersects with zone A or zone B to lay and collect a substitutionary sales tax. The rate of the tax would be capped. The cap would be a function of the share of collections lost with the institution of the property tax dispensations.

    15. Make a decennial amendment to the boundaries of zone A and zone B every 10 years. However, if a property is bumped from zone A to zone B or zone C or from zone B to zone C in the boundary amendments, refrain from imposing the new rate on the property for 10 years.

    16. Eliminate subsidies to mundane consumer purchases (e.g.. groceries, rent, and utility bills). Partially replace these with cash transfers. An aspect of this would be to liquidate all holdings of public housing.

    17. Replace open-ended cash doles for the non-elderly and non-disabled population with a more elaborate program of earned-income subsidies.

    18. Replace the minimum wage with a 'minimum-take-home-pay' standard. The minimum would be adjusted each year and equal to 1 / 10th the mean compensation per worker in the region in which you live. You could divide the continental U.S. into two or three regions and then have local rates for Alaska, Hawaii, and the insular dependencies.

    19. Eliminate rent control where extant. This can be done by (1) putting all rent-controlled apartments under a 'rent-stabilized' regime wherein the rent is permitted to rise each year by a rate determined by the annual increase in nominal personal income per capita in the commuter belt in question, (2) allowing landlords to pay a negotiated lump sum to a rent-control tenant to compensate them for abjuring their right to controlled rent and putting the apartment back on the open market, (3) limit rights of succession to rent-controlled tenancies to surviving spouses and surviving children under guardianship, (4) prohibiting rent-control on any apartment or room made available after a certain date.

    20. Dissolve core city school districts. Incorporate each school therein as a philanthropy under a board elected by a legally-defined body of stakeholders (say, alumni of said school resident in the county in question). Issue vouchers to every custodial parent within the district with which they could do one of two things: present them to a county or municipal fund in return for a fragment of their face value calculated according to their household's direct tax payments and the number of children in their household; or (2) present them to the school of their choice to finance said schools. Local schools could elect to participate in the voucher program or not. The ones who participate would be debarred from charging tuition. In effect, turn all schools into charter schools and private schools. Ideally, schools would have plenary discretion to admit or expel anyone they cared to. Youngsters no one wants would have to be home schooled or turned over to the sheriff's department for their schooling.

    21. Encourage, through regents examinations, basic education and life-skills classes for slow adolescents and vo-tech for more nimble adolescents. Limit academic secondary education for students who perform above the 55th percentile, and encourage vo-tech for students generally.

    22. Lower the school leaving age to 14. Amend child labor laws, permitting youths of 14 to work anywhere with parental permission and youths between 10 and 14 to do so in family businesses.

    23. Institute streamlined procedures to implement evictions. If you cannot evict with dispatch, slum property is not much of an income producing asset.

    24. Have a less elaborate set of building codes for zone A and zone B properties, concentrating on health and safety priorities (fire danger, plumbing, rodents) and indicia of disorder (graffiti, broken windows).

    25. Have beautification programs for slum neighborhoods. Issue citations for graffiti and broken windows in week one, then have city crews fix them in week three if you don't, and then bill you. Have extra street-sweeping details to pick up trash on the street, sidewalks, and in vacant lots (billing property holders).

    26. Eliminate anti-discrimination laws bar in restricted venues (in re the product of natural monopolies and certain common carriers, and in re the provision of food-fuel-and-lodgings in remote areas, and in re public sector employment and higher education berths). Require certain enterprises (e.g. colleges) to disclose data on the demographics of their work-force and clientele, but that would be it.

    27. Replace Medicare, Medicaid, and employer based health plans with publicly financed, high deductible plans financed by a special income tax. The share of personal income devoted to public financing of medical care and l/t care would be fixed.

    28. Dismantle social work as an independent profession. Instead, recruit child protective inspectors from the ranks of sheriff's deputies, public health nurses, and junior grade psychologists, and then send them out for cross-training certificates. Replace social workers in any other venue with people trained on-the-job.

    29. Institute value-added taxes as the modal means of raising revenue at the state and federal level. The purpose of income taxes in such a system would be re-distributive. You set aside some revenue for certain programs (e.g. cash veterans benefits, disaster relief, SSI), and the rest is remitted on a roughly per-capita basis. You calculate household liabilities thus: (0.4 x taxable household income) - sum paid in payroll taxes - (household members x general credit). Most people will have a negative liability. However, remittances would be capped at a particular % of your earned income (in households where none of the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a % of personal income per capita in your region (in households where all the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a compromise between the two (where one taxpayer is elderly or disabled and the other isnt).

    30. Always remember, no institution should have as its purpose making people feel better about themselves, or distributing patronage to favored ascribed groups.


    Everything here makes use of conventional policy tools and in sum it reduces the degree to which allocation of social product is made by government employees.

    Art, just two remarks to your list. Cops have been kicked out of schools, because they enforce the law. My daughter is a School Psycologist, the problems with kids in the inner city are not solvable. I fear for her because she has to deal with parent(s) that have no idea about raising a child and don’t want to “hear no shit from a white bitch.” Take care buddy.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    What problem do you want to solve? You're always going to have problem people with which you can't do much other than punish and sequester. Get them out of there and get them away from the passable kids. As for their parents, as long as you don't have the judiciary running interference for them (and you can strip judges of any statutory warrant to do so), just have the sheriff's deputies escort them off the premises and bust 'em if you have to. We don't do that because the apparat and and the politicians Just.Don't.Feel.Like.It.
    , @Desiderius
    I taught in an all-Black charter in Cincinnati that consisted largely of kids kicked out of the Publics. The parents generally wanted more discipline and backed us up on the discipline we managed to maintain but the do-gooder progs often stood in the way.

    Blacks understand that discipline and ambition go hand in hand. So do whites, but too many are against both.
  149. @Buffalo Joe
    Art, just two remarks to your list. Cops have been kicked out of schools, because they enforce the law. My daughter is a School Psycologist, the problems with kids in the inner city are not solvable. I fear for her because she has to deal with parent(s) that have no idea about raising a child and don't want to "hear no shit from a white bitch." Take care buddy.

    What problem do you want to solve? You’re always going to have problem people with which you can’t do much other than punish and sequester. Get them out of there and get them away from the passable kids. As for their parents, as long as you don’t have the judiciary running interference for them (and you can strip judges of any statutory warrant to do so), just have the sheriff’s deputies escort them off the premises and bust ’em if you have to. We don’t do that because the apparat and and the politicians Just.Don’t.Feel.Like.It.

  150. @Art Deco
    I think the more alert members of the left have realized all the social engineering brought about since the civil rights era didn’t really work and never will.

    'Work' toward what end?


    The peculiar social problems suffered by the black population and anyone in their vicinity can be dramatically reduced in severity by some creativity and sustained attention (with conventional policy tools and commonsensical insights). This is not typically done for a menu of reasons, most attributable to cultural factors among the professional-managerial class on both sides of the color bar.

    That aside, what's notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy. Every segment of the population has family problems that were characteristic of only an odd minority 60 years ago. It's worse in the black population, to be sure, but the black and non-black subpopulations are far closer in their dispositions and behavior today than they are to those of the generic American of 1955. As for levels of affluence and life expectancies, black Americans compare favorably to Mediterranean Europe in their real income levels and have life expectancies equivalent to non-black Americans in the dark days of ...1995.

    Over the last five generations, there has been continuing evolution in the occupational distribution of the black population and in levels of formal education and demonstrable skills. There's also been a gradual improvement in income levels vis a vis the non-black population (in the context of improved real incomes generally). The problem in our political culture was one identified by Edward Banfield fifty years ago: a chronic incapacity in identifying the nature and severity of the problems we do have and then exacerbating matters by prescribing solutions for problems we do not have.

    That aside, what’s notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy.

    Art this is a weird statement. The standout characteristic of black populations isn’t affluence, lower life expectancy or even “discombobulated family relations” (i.e. single motherhood, illegitimacy, desertion, etc.).

    It is crime. Or more generally “disorder”.

    Crime and disorder, and other groups–extremely sane!–desire not to be around blacks crime and disorder is what makes blacks the “social problem” that they are … in every society that they are in.

    In contrast the income difference–80% of median–is ho-hum, the life expectancy issue is nugatory (at high ages black life expectancy is actually longer) and the family issue while substantial are 2x, 3x deals. Crime on the other hand is 5-10x–running around 8x for homicide which really tends to put people off!

    If the black crime issue did not exist race relations would dramatically improve. You’d still have separate peoples. Most whites do not consider blacks attractive–physically or culturally–nor would consider them suitable marriage partners. But absent crime, creating swathes of hellish dysfunction and making contact with blacks/black communities undesirable for everyone else, all the other issues would be tractable to live with.

    ~~

    Blacks simply have a very different set of traits from white people–and generally all people who have been selected over thousands of years for success in settled agricultural societies in temperate climates and/or requiring high male labor input.

    Blacks–relative to Euro whites–have very high time preference, coupled with low cooperation and low IQ. That yields crime and disorder and makes blacks relative failures in civilized society and a nuisance to other peoples. That’s the genesis of our “race problem”.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    It is crime. Or more generally “disorder”.

    Again, this has been addressed above.


    The observation applies to some portions of the black population and not the others. Where it applies, it can be dealt with, just not completely. If anyone cares to deal with it. You want slums to be Switzerland, that's not happening. You want them to have homicide rates 1/3 of what we tolerate now, that is achievable.
  151. @AnotherDad

    That aside, what’s notable about the black population is that they tend to be less affluent than the remainder of the population, to have more discombobulated family relations, and to have a lower life expectancy.
     
    Art this is a weird statement. The standout characteristic of black populations isn't affluence, lower life expectancy or even "discombobulated family relations" (i.e. single motherhood, illegitimacy, desertion, etc.).

    It is crime. Or more generally "disorder".

    Crime and disorder, and other groups--extremely sane!--desire not to be around blacks crime and disorder is what makes blacks the "social problem" that they are ... in every society that they are in.

    In contrast the income difference--80% of median--is ho-hum, the life expectancy issue is nugatory (at high ages black life expectancy is actually longer) and the family issue while substantial are 2x, 3x deals. Crime on the other hand is 5-10x--running around 8x for homicide which really tends to put people off!

    If the black crime issue did not exist race relations would dramatically improve. You'd still have separate peoples. Most whites do not consider blacks attractive--physically or culturally--nor would consider them suitable marriage partners. But absent crime, creating swathes of hellish dysfunction and making contact with blacks/black communities undesirable for everyone else, all the other issues would be tractable to live with.

    ~~

    Blacks simply have a very different set of traits from white people--and generally all people who have been selected over thousands of years for success in settled agricultural societies in temperate climates and/or requiring high male labor input.

    Blacks--relative to Euro whites--have very high time preference, coupled with low cooperation and low IQ. That yields crime and disorder and makes blacks relative failures in civilized society and a nuisance to other peoples. That's the genesis of our "race problem".

    It is crime. Or more generally “disorder”.

    Again, this has been addressed above.

    The observation applies to some portions of the black population and not the others. Where it applies, it can be dealt with, just not completely. If anyone cares to deal with it. You want slums to be Switzerland, that’s not happening. You want them to have homicide rates 1/3 of what we tolerate now, that is achievable.

  152. @Ragno
    Can we just rename the Pulitzer Prize the Silver Duranty, or the "Wally" for short? I mean, given how every single award for achievement in pretty much any area of endeavor has long since been infiltrated, colonized, and sucked dry of honest valuation, it's no longer possible to feel despondency or outrage at a story like this.

    One correction, however: merely claiming that the award was given to ensure the Project be "launder(ed) .... into respectable discourse" is beside the point and wholly secondary - the point was to create a version of reality certain to introduce, and prioritize, hatred for all whites into the woolly heads of hottentots yet unborn- and to hone that hatred into the all-important will to kill that the Left prizes over all other attributes. From that standpoint, this Silver Duranty was well-earned indeed.

    Can we just rename the Pulitzer Prize the Silver Duranty, or the “Wally” for short?

  153. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so.

    You've failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals.

    George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west -- successfully I might add -- and the British government didn't enforce the line anyway. This after he was rejected by the British Army! Imagine if he had held a British Army commission. He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts.

    The Declaration of Independence lists a lot of grievances against the crown for denying the colonists the 'Rights of Englishmen', now 'unalienable Rights'. Those are listed prominently and first. So I take the colonists word for it that that was their main overriding concern. But I am impressed that you, and many commenters here, are able to peer into the minds of men long dead and ascertain their true motives not recorded on paper.

    Much of the backcountry of Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina was sparsely populated by British settlers, who spent a lot of time fighting the Cherokee and other tribes that existed on the British side of the Proclamation Line. So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That's laughable.

    And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans, as the Scots-Irish were much more wild, less enamored of listening to the (or any) government, and much more efficient at killing Indians. Which Franklin didn't much care for. Nor did he care much for slavery, him freeing his own few slaves by 1770, and attacking the slave trade.

    What was your point again?

    “Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so.”

    Actually, my responses are on the mark.

    “You’ve failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals.”

    I wasn’t rebutting your main assertion. I was refuting this statement–“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    “George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west — successfully I might add — and the British government didn’t enforce the line anyway.”

    You do realize you are assisting in furthering my point, right? The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists. A desire for good farmland caused many colonists to defy the proclamation; others merely resented the royal restrictions on trade and migration. With the British out of the way, there would be more land for the taking without fear of retribution.

    “He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts.”

    And risk alienating his allies Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton? I think not.

    “So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That’s laughable.”

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.

    “And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans…”

    Perhaps he felt that way, although he helped to negotiate a settlement with this group in the Paxton Boys revolt. Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable. The British government allowed their importation of (alleged) inferior stock.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.

    The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That's not intolerable.

    Washington wasn't allies with Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams until the mid 1770s. After the British had offended the colonial elite so much they wanted to rebel. Learn the correct timeline -- you're putting the cart before the horse because your knowledge of Colonial America is so poor.

    The British were not breathing down plantation owners' necks -- the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn't want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn't a point of contention between the colonials and British.

    Franklin opposed immigration? He also opposed slavery. And his views on these matters changed through life. He was not advocating for American independence because he was passionately concerned about immigration either way. And Franklin of course was only one Founding Father.
    , @syonredux

    I was refuting this statement–“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”
     
    It had little to do with slaves, Jews, and immigrants. On the other hand, it had a lot to do with Amerinds.

    The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists.
     
    Not so much "protection" as not wanting to pay for a biggish war with the Amerinds:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.
     
    Which was true of nearly everyone in the colonies.

    Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable.
     
    Not to all immigration. Franklin just wanted controls:

    Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them [Germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled, and take some care to prevent the practice lately fallen into by some of the Ship Owners, of sweeping the German Gaols to make up the number of their Passengers. I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary; They are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.
     
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0173
  154. @Art Deco
    1. Hire police officers

    2 Deploy them over the landscape optimally

    3. Have them use best practices.

    4. Do not penalize them for doing their jobs.

    5. Eliminate social work from penology. Use fines only as a supplementary penalty for minor crimes (and corporate offenders), use labor services with people who do not pay their fines, make use of corporal punishments for people under 25 (the birch, the cane, the pillory-and-stocks), and make use of brief and determinate sentences in prison as a matter of course (served in prisons with few amenities wherein you spend 2/3 of your day in solitary confinement). For offenders under 25, you apply a standard dispensation wherein some of your time in prison is remitted in favor of probation, so a youth of 17 serves half in prison and half on probation; that would be your only use of probation.

    6. Sequester school trouble-makers and turn them over to day detention centers run by the local sheriff's department. The centers are run like jails leavened with some remedial schooling.

    7. In service to the objects above, vest law enforcement functions in county government and multi-county authorities. No more municipal police in metropolitan centers. Leave municipal governments to pick up the trash and trim the street trees.

    8. Limit the franchise to lay and collect property taxes to municipalities, school districts, non-metropolitan counties, and miscellaneous special district authorities. Have state governments and metropolitan counties rely on sales or value-added taxes, while non-metropolitan counties would be clear to collect both sales and property taxes. Require (bar qualifications below) that all property holders pay the same rate on assessed valuation to their local authorities (but providing for philanthropies to apply to state governments for full re-imbursement) and that governments and public authorities which own property add appropriations to their budget to make payments-in-lieu of taxes to local authorities.

    9. Have state governments make unrestricted grants to counties and school districts. The sum appropriated would be discretionary, but its distribution would be according to formulae encoded in state constitutions. The formula would skew the distribution to impecunious counties and districts, to give them a riser to stand on.

    10. Have county governments make unrestricted grants to their municipalities along the same lines. Again, the global amount to allocate to such grants would be wholly discretionary, but the distribution formula would be fixed.

    11. Analyze ever agglomeration of densely settled Census block groups in your state whose population exceeds 50,000. If you've a fragment of such a settlement which spills over the border into another state, analyze the whole, not just the portion in your state.

    12. Rank order said block groups according to per capita income, lowest to highest. Calculate a running balance of their populations until you've identified the block groups which are below the 16th percentile of all the block groups in the set in terms of their income. Designate these block groups 'zone A'. Then identify those block groups which are above the 15th percentile but below the 20th percentile. This is zone B. The rest is zone C.

    13. Ordinarily, an authority with a franchise to lay and collect property taxes would have to levy them at a uniform rate. However, should such an authority have territory in zone A or zone B, they'd have to use three rates: x% in zone c, 0.5x% in zone B, and 0% in zone A.

    14. Grant to municipalities, school districts, and special district authorities whose territory intersects with zone A or zone B to lay and collect a substitutionary sales tax. The rate of the tax would be capped. The cap would be a function of the share of collections lost with the institution of the property tax dispensations.

    15. Make a decennial amendment to the boundaries of zone A and zone B every 10 years. However, if a property is bumped from zone A to zone B or zone C or from zone B to zone C in the boundary amendments, refrain from imposing the new rate on the property for 10 years.

    16. Eliminate subsidies to mundane consumer purchases (e.g.. groceries, rent, and utility bills). Partially replace these with cash transfers. An aspect of this would be to liquidate all holdings of public housing.

    17. Replace open-ended cash doles for the non-elderly and non-disabled population with a more elaborate program of earned-income subsidies.

    18. Replace the minimum wage with a 'minimum-take-home-pay' standard. The minimum would be adjusted each year and equal to 1 / 10th the mean compensation per worker in the region in which you live. You could divide the continental U.S. into two or three regions and then have local rates for Alaska, Hawaii, and the insular dependencies.

    19. Eliminate rent control where extant. This can be done by (1) putting all rent-controlled apartments under a 'rent-stabilized' regime wherein the rent is permitted to rise each year by a rate determined by the annual increase in nominal personal income per capita in the commuter belt in question, (2) allowing landlords to pay a negotiated lump sum to a rent-control tenant to compensate them for abjuring their right to controlled rent and putting the apartment back on the open market, (3) limit rights of succession to rent-controlled tenancies to surviving spouses and surviving children under guardianship, (4) prohibiting rent-control on any apartment or room made available after a certain date.

    20. Dissolve core city school districts. Incorporate each school therein as a philanthropy under a board elected by a legally-defined body of stakeholders (say, alumni of said school resident in the county in question). Issue vouchers to every custodial parent within the district with which they could do one of two things: present them to a county or municipal fund in return for a fragment of their face value calculated according to their household's direct tax payments and the number of children in their household; or (2) present them to the school of their choice to finance said schools. Local schools could elect to participate in the voucher program or not. The ones who participate would be debarred from charging tuition. In effect, turn all schools into charter schools and private schools. Ideally, schools would have plenary discretion to admit or expel anyone they cared to. Youngsters no one wants would have to be home schooled or turned over to the sheriff's department for their schooling.

    21. Encourage, through regents examinations, basic education and life-skills classes for slow adolescents and vo-tech for more nimble adolescents. Limit academic secondary education for students who perform above the 55th percentile, and encourage vo-tech for students generally.

    22. Lower the school leaving age to 14. Amend child labor laws, permitting youths of 14 to work anywhere with parental permission and youths between 10 and 14 to do so in family businesses.

    23. Institute streamlined procedures to implement evictions. If you cannot evict with dispatch, slum property is not much of an income producing asset.

    24. Have a less elaborate set of building codes for zone A and zone B properties, concentrating on health and safety priorities (fire danger, plumbing, rodents) and indicia of disorder (graffiti, broken windows).

    25. Have beautification programs for slum neighborhoods. Issue citations for graffiti and broken windows in week one, then have city crews fix them in week three if you don't, and then bill you. Have extra street-sweeping details to pick up trash on the street, sidewalks, and in vacant lots (billing property holders).

    26. Eliminate anti-discrimination laws bar in restricted venues (in re the product of natural monopolies and certain common carriers, and in re the provision of food-fuel-and-lodgings in remote areas, and in re public sector employment and higher education berths). Require certain enterprises (e.g. colleges) to disclose data on the demographics of their work-force and clientele, but that would be it.

    27. Replace Medicare, Medicaid, and employer based health plans with publicly financed, high deductible plans financed by a special income tax. The share of personal income devoted to public financing of medical care and l/t care would be fixed.

    28. Dismantle social work as an independent profession. Instead, recruit child protective inspectors from the ranks of sheriff's deputies, public health nurses, and junior grade psychologists, and then send them out for cross-training certificates. Replace social workers in any other venue with people trained on-the-job.

    29. Institute value-added taxes as the modal means of raising revenue at the state and federal level. The purpose of income taxes in such a system would be re-distributive. You set aside some revenue for certain programs (e.g. cash veterans benefits, disaster relief, SSI), and the rest is remitted on a roughly per-capita basis. You calculate household liabilities thus: (0.4 x taxable household income) - sum paid in payroll taxes - (household members x general credit). Most people will have a negative liability. However, remittances would be capped at a particular % of your earned income (in households where none of the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a % of personal income per capita in your region (in households where all the taxpayers are elderly or disabled) or a compromise between the two (where one taxpayer is elderly or disabled and the other isnt).

    30. Always remember, no institution should have as its purpose making people feel better about themselves, or distributing patronage to favored ascribed groups.


    Everything here makes use of conventional policy tools and in sum it reduces the degree to which allocation of social product is made by government employees.

    31. A free unicorn pony for everyone, carrying a pot of gold from the nearest rainbow in its mouth.

  155. One of the concepts for which white supremacism is notorious, is that of conflict of interest.

  156. @Corvinus
    "Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so."

    Actually, my responses are on the mark.

    "You’ve failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals."

    I wasn't rebutting your main assertion. I was refuting this statement--“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    "George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west — successfully I might add — and the British government didn’t enforce the line anyway."

    You do realize you are assisting in furthering my point, right? The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists. A desire for good farmland caused many colonists to defy the proclamation; others merely resented the royal restrictions on trade and migration. With the British out of the way, there would be more land for the taking without fear of retribution.

    "He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts."

    And risk alienating his allies Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton? I think not.

    "So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That’s laughable."

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.

    "And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans..."

    Perhaps he felt that way, although he helped to negotiate a settlement with this group in the Paxton Boys revolt. Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable. The British government allowed their importation of (alleged) inferior stock.

    And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.

    The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That’s not intolerable.

    Washington wasn’t allies with Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams until the mid 1770s. After the British had offended the colonial elite so much they wanted to rebel. Learn the correct timeline — you’re putting the cart before the horse because your knowledge of Colonial America is so poor.

    The British were not breathing down plantation owners’ necks — the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn’t want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn’t a point of contention between the colonials and British.

    Franklin opposed immigration? He also opposed slavery. And his views on these matters changed through life. He was not advocating for American independence because he was passionately concerned about immigration either way. And Franklin of course was only one Founding Father.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Franklin's opposition to immigration eased up after the British Empire won the 7 Year's War, opening up the vast Ohio River Valley.
    , @Corvinus
    "And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants."

    I have only shown the colonial side of matters. As far as slaves themselves, they were caught in between, as their masters and the British enticed them with freedom for remaining loyal. Blacks at that time, freemen or slave, thought a British victory would eradicate slavery. Fears of a slave revolt gripped the South, as the British generals recognized this region could be neutralized if it encouraged slave uprisings. Joseph Hewes, one of North Carolina’s signers of the Declaration of Independence, accused the British of planning to “let loose Indians on our Frontiers” and to “raise the Negroes against us". James Iredell from that same state accused the British with “exciting [the blacks] to cut our throats, and involve Men, Women and Children in one universal Massacre". Regarding Native Americans, they also were smack dab in the hostilities. At the start of the war, Patriots sought ensure Indian neutrality, for various tribal groups could offer valuable strategic military assistance. Of course, the British enticed their Native American allies with further assurances that their sovereign lands would be protected against future white encroachment.

    So stop being silly here.

    "The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That’s not intolerable."

    It was intolerable because the colonists believed since they were denied the right to that land since they assisted their brethren to defeat France and her allies. They felt there was no need for Parliament to pass a law that decidedly infringed on their liberties, regardless if there was a lack of consistent enforcement.

    "The British were not breathing down plantation owners’ necks — the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn’t want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn’t a point of contention between the colonials and British."

    Actually, it was a point of contention. Those "hostile Indians" were given assurances by the British that colonial interference in their lands would be severely dealt with. The last thing the British Empire needed were were hordes of colonists crossing the Appalachians to fuel French and tribal anger. As a result, colonial resentment rose against "being under the imperial thumb".

  157. Anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

  158. @Corvinus
    "Your responses to everyone are usually nonsensical, but this even more so."

    Actually, my responses are on the mark.

    "You’ve failed to rebut, in any way, case, or form, my main assertion: the Thirteen Colonies would have remained colonies (and eventually dominions) if the British had treated the colonial elite as equals."

    I wasn't rebutting your main assertion. I was refuting this statement--“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    "George Washington himself, as a surveyor and land speculator in the Ohio Valley, was deeply impacted by the Proclamation Line of 1763. Yet he continued to lobby the crown to push the boundary west — successfully I might add — and the British government didn’t enforce the line anyway."

    You do realize you are assisting in furthering my point, right? The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists. A desire for good farmland caused many colonists to defy the proclamation; others merely resented the royal restrictions on trade and migration. With the British out of the way, there would be more land for the taking without fear of retribution.

    "He would have absolutely stayed within the British Empire system to resolve conflicts."

    And risk alienating his allies Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton? I think not.

    "So plantation owners where not thick on the ground waiting to march slaves west. That’s laughable."

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.

    "And Franklin had a lot more issues with the Scots-Irish than he did the Germans..."

    Perhaps he felt that way, although he helped to negotiate a settlement with this group in the Paxton Boys revolt. Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable. The British government allowed their importation of (alleged) inferior stock.

    I was refuting this statement–“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    It had little to do with slaves, Jews, and immigrants. On the other hand, it had a lot to do with Amerinds.

    The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists.

    Not so much “protection” as not wanting to pay for a biggish war with the Amerinds:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.

    Which was true of nearly everyone in the colonies.

    Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable.

    Not to all immigration. Franklin just wanted controls:

    Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them [Germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled, and take some care to prevent the practice lately fallen into by some of the Ship Owners, of sweeping the German Gaols to make up the number of their Passengers. I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary; They are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0173

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, Corvinus doesn't argue in good faith. I stopped engaging with him a long time ago, and this was one of the reasons. He's been repeatedly corrected on this point, but keeps coming back with the same selective quotation of Franklin to give the impression that he opposed all German immigration to America.

    Franklin's argument is that the objective of immigration should be assimilation. This is as valid today as it was in his day.

    It's like these people who say that if you don't want 50 million Mexicans in your country that you hate all Mexicans.

    The last thing young America needed was to become another 'Germany' - a multitude of squabbling statelets with no national unity.
  159. @Almost Missouri
    Agree.

    Genocide and conquest = business as usual

    Except for one people who has tried to forswear it in any form—indeed has tried to forswear tribalism itself—and is now on the losing end of the most elaborate genocide in history.

    agree. And, I want to see Americans come together to go against the .1% (in this country and abroad) who have chosen China to be their model to control society. It’s one thing to be angry, and it’s another thing to act on that anger. So, far…I do not see action.

  160. The American revolution was more accidental. The colonists were protesting many abuses by Parliament, as their right as Englishmen. the King was heavy handed in his response and events escalated out of control. There was no strategy or master plan. Gerald Horn is the race hustler who started this nonsense about the 1772 Somerset case and the American slaveholders afraid Britain would abolish slavery. The Anglo-Saxons were always apprehensive about slavery, they placed a high value on individual rights and we enjoy the legacy of their achievements. No surprise a court declared it illegal in Britain. Parliament had no authority to abolish slavery in America.

  161. @Bragadocious
    Canadians are stupid. There was no Canada in 1812. They were a British military base. Canadians love to make up shit that makes them seem brave and brilliant. The 1972 Summit Series is a great example. Canada "won" by purposely injuring the USSR's best player. They've spent the last 50 years lying about that.

    By this token, most of Benjamin Franklin’s scientific achievements should be credited to the British. After all, the USA did not exist at the times of these events.

    Even though Canada didn’t exist as a nation at the time, the descendants of the British made up a significant portion of our founding stock and were living here during the War of 1812, so Canadians did fight Americans.

    This being said, we Canadians shouldn’t brag about tying Americans. We can be weirdly snobby at times.

  162. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.

    The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That's not intolerable.

    Washington wasn't allies with Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams until the mid 1770s. After the British had offended the colonial elite so much they wanted to rebel. Learn the correct timeline -- you're putting the cart before the horse because your knowledge of Colonial America is so poor.

    The British were not breathing down plantation owners' necks -- the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn't want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn't a point of contention between the colonials and British.

    Franklin opposed immigration? He also opposed slavery. And his views on these matters changed through life. He was not advocating for American independence because he was passionately concerned about immigration either way. And Franklin of course was only one Founding Father.

    Franklin’s opposition to immigration eased up after the British Empire won the 7 Year’s War, opening up the vast Ohio River Valley.

  163. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.

    The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That's not intolerable.

    Washington wasn't allies with Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams until the mid 1770s. After the British had offended the colonial elite so much they wanted to rebel. Learn the correct timeline -- you're putting the cart before the horse because your knowledge of Colonial America is so poor.

    The British were not breathing down plantation owners' necks -- the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn't want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn't a point of contention between the colonials and British.

    Franklin opposed immigration? He also opposed slavery. And his views on these matters changed through life. He was not advocating for American independence because he was passionately concerned about immigration either way. And Franklin of course was only one Founding Father.

    “And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”

    I have only shown the colonial side of matters. As far as slaves themselves, they were caught in between, as their masters and the British enticed them with freedom for remaining loyal. Blacks at that time, freemen or slave, thought a British victory would eradicate slavery. Fears of a slave revolt gripped the South, as the British generals recognized this region could be neutralized if it encouraged slave uprisings. Joseph Hewes, one of North Carolina’s signers of the Declaration of Independence, accused the British of planning to “let loose Indians on our Frontiers” and to “raise the Negroes against us”. James Iredell from that same state accused the British with “exciting [the blacks] to cut our throats, and involve Men, Women and Children in one universal Massacre”. Regarding Native Americans, they also were smack dab in the hostilities. At the start of the war, Patriots sought ensure Indian neutrality, for various tribal groups could offer valuable strategic military assistance. Of course, the British enticed their Native American allies with further assurances that their sovereign lands would be protected against future white encroachment.

    So stop being silly here.

    “The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That’s not intolerable.”

    It was intolerable because the colonists believed since they were denied the right to that land since they assisted their brethren to defeat France and her allies. They felt there was no need for Parliament to pass a law that decidedly infringed on their liberties, regardless if there was a lack of consistent enforcement.

    “The British were not breathing down plantation owners’ necks — the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn’t want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn’t a point of contention between the colonials and British.”

    Actually, it was a point of contention. Those “hostile Indians” were given assurances by the British that colonial interference in their lands would be severely dealt with. The last thing the British Empire needed were were hordes of colonists crossing the Appalachians to fuel French and tribal anger. As a result, colonial resentment rose against “being under the imperial thumb”.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    More fail from you. As expected.

    And you glide by your ignorant assertions that I continually have to correct.

    As for slaves themselves, and free blacks, they played no role in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and a minor one in the war itself. The fact some very mistakenly thought a British victory would end slavery reveals staggeringly deep ignorance of British possessions elsewhere -- like the British West Indies (with roughly the same amount of slaves as British North America) -- and staggeringly deep ignorance of the British themselves. Of the 20 percent of the American population at the time under bondage (almost all in the South), few revolted or ran away. This of course had little to do with patriotic fervor. Many worked on plantations owned by Loyalists. Any sleep Loyalist planters lost was due to worrying about what their Patriot neighbors would do to them, not some silly conceit that the British would be freeing their slaves, or slaves in general, anytime soon. And they were of course right.

    Many slaves on Patriot plantations were no doubt intelligent enough (I'm not an HBDer) to realize this war was not about them, and their sad lot would continue regardless of who won. And they were correct. Pointing out the British unsuccessfully tried to incite slave revolts to gain advantage in the middle of a military campaign isn't impressive, as it had little impact in the Revolutionary War, which is precisely my point.

    Note the British both seized (mentioned way less often) or freed slaves from rebel planations. They also seized horses, cows, goat, chickens, crops, and anything else they could carry. These were methods to cripple individual 'traitors', not either a major cause, or facet, of the Revolutionary War.

    Now, acting as if slaves or slavery played a major role in founding America is of course the main point of the 1619 project. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that you have similar views....
  164. Anonymous[188] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    I was refuting this statement–“The Revolutionary War had little at all to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.”
     
    It had little to do with slaves, Jews, and immigrants. On the other hand, it had a lot to do with Amerinds.

    The British protection of tribes was intolerable to the colonists.
     
    Not so much "protection" as not wanting to pay for a biggish war with the Amerinds:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War

    They assuredly desired opportunities to expand their land holdings without the British breathing down their neck.
     
    Which was true of nearly everyone in the colonies.

    Regardless, the fact remains that Franklin was opposed to immigration, and certainly would want a new American government to limit those deemed undesirable.
     
    Not to all immigration. Franklin just wanted controls:

    Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them [Germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled, and take some care to prevent the practice lately fallen into by some of the Ship Owners, of sweeping the German Gaols to make up the number of their Passengers. I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary; They are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.
     
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0173

    Yes, Corvinus doesn’t argue in good faith. I stopped engaging with him a long time ago, and this was one of the reasons. He’s been repeatedly corrected on this point, but keeps coming back with the same selective quotation of Franklin to give the impression that he opposed all German immigration to America.

    Franklin’s argument is that the objective of immigration should be assimilation. This is as valid today as it was in his day.

    It’s like these people who say that if you don’t want 50 million Mexicans in your country that you hate all Mexicans.

    The last thing young America needed was to become another ‘Germany’ – a multitude of squabbling statelets with no national unity.

  165. International Jew [AKA "Hebrew National"] says:
    @Rich
    Although the central character of the Christian religion was born in a Mediterranean province of Rome, the religion founded in his name is clearly not Western Asian, but Greco-Roman. No circumcision, no kosher laws and no matrilineal membership show that Christianity is clearly not "Judaic" . Christianity was devised by Romans and so, is clearly a European religion.
    • Replies: @Rich
    Well, some truths are universall, no? Thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, honor your parents, don't blaspheme, are there any cultures on earth that don't share these truths? The Saturday sabbath is one of the most important aspects of Judaism, Christians celebrate on Sunday. Christianity is universal, Judaism ethnic, Christianity is based on Greco-Roman traditions and philosophies. Even the concept of Messiah is different, to Jews the Messiah is a military leader, jesus is a man of peace.

    Reformed Judaism adapted to become more like Christianity, but can hardly be considered true Judaism.
  166. @Corvinus
    "And again, you fail. The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants."

    I have only shown the colonial side of matters. As far as slaves themselves, they were caught in between, as their masters and the British enticed them with freedom for remaining loyal. Blacks at that time, freemen or slave, thought a British victory would eradicate slavery. Fears of a slave revolt gripped the South, as the British generals recognized this region could be neutralized if it encouraged slave uprisings. Joseph Hewes, one of North Carolina’s signers of the Declaration of Independence, accused the British of planning to “let loose Indians on our Frontiers” and to “raise the Negroes against us". James Iredell from that same state accused the British with “exciting [the blacks] to cut our throats, and involve Men, Women and Children in one universal Massacre". Regarding Native Americans, they also were smack dab in the hostilities. At the start of the war, Patriots sought ensure Indian neutrality, for various tribal groups could offer valuable strategic military assistance. Of course, the British enticed their Native American allies with further assurances that their sovereign lands would be protected against future white encroachment.

    So stop being silly here.

    "The Proclamation Line was not intolerable to colonists: the frontier settlers ignored it with no action from the British, and the colonial elite had no issue petitioning the crown for exemptions, and winning. That’s not intolerable."

    It was intolerable because the colonists believed since they were denied the right to that land since they assisted their brethren to defeat France and her allies. They felt there was no need for Parliament to pass a law that decidedly infringed on their liberties, regardless if there was a lack of consistent enforcement.

    "The British were not breathing down plantation owners’ necks — the issue with western lands even on the British side of the Proclamation Line were hostile Indians. And the British didn’t want them in the Thirteen Colonies any more than the colonists did. So that wasn’t a point of contention between the colonials and British."

    Actually, it was a point of contention. Those "hostile Indians" were given assurances by the British that colonial interference in their lands would be severely dealt with. The last thing the British Empire needed were were hordes of colonists crossing the Appalachians to fuel French and tribal anger. As a result, colonial resentment rose against "being under the imperial thumb".

    More fail from you. As expected.

    And you glide by your ignorant assertions that I continually have to correct.

    As for slaves themselves, and free blacks, they played no role in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and a minor one in the war itself. The fact some very mistakenly thought a British victory would end slavery reveals staggeringly deep ignorance of British possessions elsewhere — like the British West Indies (with roughly the same amount of slaves as British North America) — and staggeringly deep ignorance of the British themselves. Of the 20 percent of the American population at the time under bondage (almost all in the South), few revolted or ran away. This of course had little to do with patriotic fervor. Many worked on plantations owned by Loyalists. Any sleep Loyalist planters lost was due to worrying about what their Patriot neighbors would do to them, not some silly conceit that the British would be freeing their slaves, or slaves in general, anytime soon. And they were of course right.

    Many slaves on Patriot plantations were no doubt intelligent enough (I’m not an HBDer) to realize this war was not about them, and their sad lot would continue regardless of who won. And they were correct. Pointing out the British unsuccessfully tried to incite slave revolts to gain advantage in the middle of a military campaign isn’t impressive, as it had little impact in the Revolutionary War, which is precisely my point.

    Note the British both seized (mentioned way less often) or freed slaves from rebel planations. They also seized horses, cows, goat, chickens, crops, and anything else they could carry. These were methods to cripple individual ‘traitors’, not either a major cause, or facet, of the Revolutionary War.

    Now, acting as if slaves or slavery played a major role in founding America is of course the main point of the 1619 project. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that you have similar views….

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "More fail from you. As expected. And you glide by your ignorant assertions that I continually have to correct."

    If it makes you feel better to outright lie to yourself, be my guest.

    "As for slaves themselves, and free blacks, they played no role in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and a minor one in the war itself."

    Are you attempting to change the goalposts here? You assertion was that "The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” Assuredly, these actors were decidedly involved.

    "The fact some very mistakenly thought a British victory would end slavery reveals staggeringly deep ignorance of British possessions elsewhere"

    Regardless of this ignorance of British slave policies elsewhere, the fact remains that the British promised freedom to slaves who left rebels to side with them. That assurance led African Americans to reasonably assume that the "peculiar institution" could be permanently removed. Thousands of refugee slaves flooded New York City, which the British occupied, in hopes to gain freedom. As a result, British military officials developed a registry of escaped slaves, called the Book of Negroes. So do not keep telling the viewing audience that the Revolutionary War had little to do with slaves.

    "Any sleep Loyalist planters lost was due to worrying about what their Patriot neighbors would do to them, not some silly conceit that the British would be freeing their slaves, or slaves in general, anytime soon. And they were of course right."

    I pointed out two individuals--Joseph Hewes and James Iredell--who represent other fine southern gentlemen of the threat they believed the British constituted when the British offered freedom to slaves. Here is additional evidence that supports how this fear among plantation owners and southerners was legitimate.

    Source --> https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/african-americans


    Slaves, however, did not need encouragement to strike for freedom. In every colony from Maryland to Georgia, slaves weighed their chances for freedom and seemed on the edge of revolt. Massachusetts revolutionary John Adams commented on a “grapevine” that spread news among slaves: “The [N]egroes have a wonderful art of communicating intelligence among themselves; it will run several hundreds of miles in a week or fortnight [two weeks]."

    Aroused perhaps by British promises of freedom, slaves in Pitt and Beaufort counties tried to break the chains of bondage. In July 1775 the Pitt County Committee of Safety discovered a slave plot for an insurrection just before it was to start. A posse of one hundred men captured the suspected leaders and jailed more than forty blacks. The same month other blacks were captured along the Pitt-Craven county line. Their plan, according to the confessions (probably obtained through torture), was to “destroy the family where they lived” and then to march “from House to House (Burning as they went) until they arrived in the Back Country.” There they were to be welcomed by the British who would reward them by settling the former slaves “in a free government of their own.”

    Meanwhile, in Virginia, the royal governor, Lord Dunmore, promised freedom to all the slaves and indentured servants of revolutionaries who would take up arms and fight for “His Majesty’s crown and dignity.” The effect was electric. Immediately, slaves rushed to Norfolk to join “Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment.” Across the chest of each black soldier appeared the words LIBERTY TO SLAVES. During the winter of 1775/1776, Dunmore commanded approximately 2,000 men, half of them black. At the Battle of Great Bridge near Norfolk in December 1775, North Carolina troops under General Robert Howe fought against the combined British-black army.

     

    "Many slaves on Patriot plantations were no doubt intelligent enough (I’m not an HBDer) to realize this war was not about them, and their sad lot would continue regardless of who won."

    The above quotation directly challenges your assertion.

    "Pointing out the British unsuccessfully tried to incite slave revolts to gain advantage in the middle of a military campaign isn’t impressive, as it had little impact in the Revolutionary War, which is precisely my point."

    The above quotation directly challenges your assertion.


    From the same source...


    After Lord Dunmore’s proclamation of freedom for slaves who joined the British army, the patriots had to consider offering freedom from slavery in exchange for service in their army. When General George Washington saw the brave performance of black soldiers at Bunker Hill, he took action to bring black troops into the army.

    However, southern states, especially South Carolina, resisted efforts to arm blacks. Only Maryland permitted slaves to enlist, but free blacks joined the armies and navies in Virginia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Connecticut. Perhaps as many as three-fourths of Rhode Island’s Continental troops included slaves who exchanged their service for freedom.

    At White Plains, New York, in August 1778, muster rolls for the Continental army recorded 755 blacks. Fifty-eight of them, probably free men, were with the North Carolina Continental Line. Black soldiers were more likely to serve as laborers and craftsmen. They built fortifications, made weapons and ammunition, cleared roads, and shod horses. They also acted as spies, guides, musicians, or servants to white officers.
     

  167. Rich says:
    @International Jew
    https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

    Well, some truths are universall, no? Thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, honor your parents, don’t blaspheme, are there any cultures on earth that don’t share these truths? The Saturday sabbath is one of the most important aspects of Judaism, Christians celebrate on Sunday. Christianity is universal, Judaism ethnic, Christianity is based on Greco-Roman traditions and philosophies. Even the concept of Messiah is different, to Jews the Messiah is a military leader, jesus is a man of peace.

    Reformed Judaism adapted to become more like Christianity, but can hardly be considered true Judaism.

  168. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    More fail from you. As expected.

    And you glide by your ignorant assertions that I continually have to correct.

    As for slaves themselves, and free blacks, they played no role in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and a minor one in the war itself. The fact some very mistakenly thought a British victory would end slavery reveals staggeringly deep ignorance of British possessions elsewhere -- like the British West Indies (with roughly the same amount of slaves as British North America) -- and staggeringly deep ignorance of the British themselves. Of the 20 percent of the American population at the time under bondage (almost all in the South), few revolted or ran away. This of course had little to do with patriotic fervor. Many worked on plantations owned by Loyalists. Any sleep Loyalist planters lost was due to worrying about what their Patriot neighbors would do to them, not some silly conceit that the British would be freeing their slaves, or slaves in general, anytime soon. And they were of course right.

    Many slaves on Patriot plantations were no doubt intelligent enough (I'm not an HBDer) to realize this war was not about them, and their sad lot would continue regardless of who won. And they were correct. Pointing out the British unsuccessfully tried to incite slave revolts to gain advantage in the middle of a military campaign isn't impressive, as it had little impact in the Revolutionary War, which is precisely my point.

    Note the British both seized (mentioned way less often) or freed slaves from rebel planations. They also seized horses, cows, goat, chickens, crops, and anything else they could carry. These were methods to cripple individual 'traitors', not either a major cause, or facet, of the Revolutionary War.

    Now, acting as if slaves or slavery played a major role in founding America is of course the main point of the 1619 project. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that you have similar views....

    “More fail from you. As expected. And you glide by your ignorant assertions that I continually have to correct.”

    If it makes you feel better to outright lie to yourself, be my guest.

    “As for slaves themselves, and free blacks, they played no role in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and a minor one in the war itself.”

    Are you attempting to change the goalposts here? You assertion was that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” Assuredly, these actors were decidedly involved.

    “The fact some very mistakenly thought a British victory would end slavery reveals staggeringly deep ignorance of British possessions elsewhere”

    Regardless of this ignorance of British slave policies elsewhere, the fact remains that the British promised freedom to slaves who left rebels to side with them. That assurance led African Americans to reasonably assume that the “peculiar institution” could be permanently removed. Thousands of refugee slaves flooded New York City, which the British occupied, in hopes to gain freedom. As a result, British military officials developed a registry of escaped slaves, called the Book of Negroes. So do not keep telling the viewing audience that the Revolutionary War had little to do with slaves.

    “Any sleep Loyalist planters lost was due to worrying about what their Patriot neighbors would do to them, not some silly conceit that the British would be freeing their slaves, or slaves in general, anytime soon. And they were of course right.”

    I pointed out two individuals–Joseph Hewes and James Iredell–who represent other fine southern gentlemen of the threat they believed the British constituted when the British offered freedom to slaves. Here is additional evidence that supports how this fear among plantation owners and southerners was legitimate.

    Source –> https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/african-americans

    Slaves, however, did not need encouragement to strike for freedom. In every colony from Maryland to Georgia, slaves weighed their chances for freedom and seemed on the edge of revolt. Massachusetts revolutionary John Adams commented on a “grapevine” that spread news among slaves: “The [N]egroes have a wonderful art of communicating intelligence among themselves; it will run several hundreds of miles in a week or fortnight [two weeks].”

    Aroused perhaps by British promises of freedom, slaves in Pitt and Beaufort counties tried to break the chains of bondage. In July 1775 the Pitt County Committee of Safety discovered a slave plot for an insurrection just before it was to start. A posse of one hundred men captured the suspected leaders and jailed more than forty blacks. The same month other blacks were captured along the Pitt-Craven county line. Their plan, according to the confessions (probably obtained through torture), was to “destroy the family where they lived” and then to march “from House to House (Burning as they went) until they arrived in the Back Country.” There they were to be welcomed by the British who would reward them by settling the former slaves “in a free government of their own.”

    Meanwhile, in Virginia, the royal governor, Lord Dunmore, promised freedom to all the slaves and indentured servants of revolutionaries who would take up arms and fight for “His Majesty’s crown and dignity.” The effect was electric. Immediately, slaves rushed to Norfolk to join “Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment.” Across the chest of each black soldier appeared the words LIBERTY TO SLAVES. During the winter of 1775/1776, Dunmore commanded approximately 2,000 men, half of them black. At the Battle of Great Bridge near Norfolk in December 1775, North Carolina troops under General Robert Howe fought against the combined British-black army.

    “Many slaves on Patriot plantations were no doubt intelligent enough (I’m not an HBDer) to realize this war was not about them, and their sad lot would continue regardless of who won.”

    The above quotation directly challenges your assertion.

    “Pointing out the British unsuccessfully tried to incite slave revolts to gain advantage in the middle of a military campaign isn’t impressive, as it had little impact in the Revolutionary War, which is precisely my point.”

    The above quotation directly challenges your assertion.

    From the same source…

    After Lord Dunmore’s proclamation of freedom for slaves who joined the British army, the patriots had to consider offering freedom from slavery in exchange for service in their army. When General George Washington saw the brave performance of black soldiers at Bunker Hill, he took action to bring black troops into the army.

    However, southern states, especially South Carolina, resisted efforts to arm blacks. Only Maryland permitted slaves to enlist, but free blacks joined the armies and navies in Virginia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Connecticut. Perhaps as many as three-fourths of Rhode Island’s Continental troops included slaves who exchanged their service for freedom.

    At White Plains, New York, in August 1778, muster rolls for the Continental army recorded 755 blacks. Fifty-eight of them, probably free men, were with the North Carolina Continental Line. Black soldiers were more likely to serve as laborers and craftsmen. They built fortifications, made weapons and ammunition, cleared roads, and shod horses. They also acted as spies, guides, musicians, or servants to white officers.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Wow. Thousands of refugee slaves in New York City? 1,000 black soldiers here. 755 there. And highlighted...so of course unusual. Very impressive out of a population of 600,000...

    Note 'little to do with', and 'minor', mean roughly the same thing. I shouldn't need to instruct you on that point, but there you go.

    The British Empire empire freed about 850,000 slaves in 1833 when slavery was abolished, 50 years after the formal end of the Revolutionary War. So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.
  169. @Corvinus
    "More fail from you. As expected. And you glide by your ignorant assertions that I continually have to correct."

    If it makes you feel better to outright lie to yourself, be my guest.

    "As for slaves themselves, and free blacks, they played no role in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and a minor one in the war itself."

    Are you attempting to change the goalposts here? You assertion was that "The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” Assuredly, these actors were decidedly involved.

    "The fact some very mistakenly thought a British victory would end slavery reveals staggeringly deep ignorance of British possessions elsewhere"

    Regardless of this ignorance of British slave policies elsewhere, the fact remains that the British promised freedom to slaves who left rebels to side with them. That assurance led African Americans to reasonably assume that the "peculiar institution" could be permanently removed. Thousands of refugee slaves flooded New York City, which the British occupied, in hopes to gain freedom. As a result, British military officials developed a registry of escaped slaves, called the Book of Negroes. So do not keep telling the viewing audience that the Revolutionary War had little to do with slaves.

    "Any sleep Loyalist planters lost was due to worrying about what their Patriot neighbors would do to them, not some silly conceit that the British would be freeing their slaves, or slaves in general, anytime soon. And they were of course right."

    I pointed out two individuals--Joseph Hewes and James Iredell--who represent other fine southern gentlemen of the threat they believed the British constituted when the British offered freedom to slaves. Here is additional evidence that supports how this fear among plantation owners and southerners was legitimate.

    Source --> https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/african-americans


    Slaves, however, did not need encouragement to strike for freedom. In every colony from Maryland to Georgia, slaves weighed their chances for freedom and seemed on the edge of revolt. Massachusetts revolutionary John Adams commented on a “grapevine” that spread news among slaves: “The [N]egroes have a wonderful art of communicating intelligence among themselves; it will run several hundreds of miles in a week or fortnight [two weeks]."

    Aroused perhaps by British promises of freedom, slaves in Pitt and Beaufort counties tried to break the chains of bondage. In July 1775 the Pitt County Committee of Safety discovered a slave plot for an insurrection just before it was to start. A posse of one hundred men captured the suspected leaders and jailed more than forty blacks. The same month other blacks were captured along the Pitt-Craven county line. Their plan, according to the confessions (probably obtained through torture), was to “destroy the family where they lived” and then to march “from House to House (Burning as they went) until they arrived in the Back Country.” There they were to be welcomed by the British who would reward them by settling the former slaves “in a free government of their own.”

    Meanwhile, in Virginia, the royal governor, Lord Dunmore, promised freedom to all the slaves and indentured servants of revolutionaries who would take up arms and fight for “His Majesty’s crown and dignity.” The effect was electric. Immediately, slaves rushed to Norfolk to join “Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment.” Across the chest of each black soldier appeared the words LIBERTY TO SLAVES. During the winter of 1775/1776, Dunmore commanded approximately 2,000 men, half of them black. At the Battle of Great Bridge near Norfolk in December 1775, North Carolina troops under General Robert Howe fought against the combined British-black army.

     

    "Many slaves on Patriot plantations were no doubt intelligent enough (I’m not an HBDer) to realize this war was not about them, and their sad lot would continue regardless of who won."

    The above quotation directly challenges your assertion.

    "Pointing out the British unsuccessfully tried to incite slave revolts to gain advantage in the middle of a military campaign isn’t impressive, as it had little impact in the Revolutionary War, which is precisely my point."

    The above quotation directly challenges your assertion.


    From the same source...


    After Lord Dunmore’s proclamation of freedom for slaves who joined the British army, the patriots had to consider offering freedom from slavery in exchange for service in their army. When General George Washington saw the brave performance of black soldiers at Bunker Hill, he took action to bring black troops into the army.

    However, southern states, especially South Carolina, resisted efforts to arm blacks. Only Maryland permitted slaves to enlist, but free blacks joined the armies and navies in Virginia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Connecticut. Perhaps as many as three-fourths of Rhode Island’s Continental troops included slaves who exchanged their service for freedom.

    At White Plains, New York, in August 1778, muster rolls for the Continental army recorded 755 blacks. Fifty-eight of them, probably free men, were with the North Carolina Continental Line. Black soldiers were more likely to serve as laborers and craftsmen. They built fortifications, made weapons and ammunition, cleared roads, and shod horses. They also acted as spies, guides, musicians, or servants to white officers.
     

    Wow. Thousands of refugee slaves in New York City? 1,000 black soldiers here. 755 there. And highlighted…so of course unusual. Very impressive out of a population of 600,000…

    Note ‘little to do with’, and ‘minor’, mean roughly the same thing. I shouldn’t need to instruct you on that point, but there you go.

    The British Empire empire freed about 850,000 slaves in 1833 when slavery was abolished, 50 years after the formal end of the Revolutionary War. So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves."

    If you want to double down on historical ignorance, be my guest.

    Source --> https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/


    [British historian] Simon Schama [in his book Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution (2006) state[d] that Dunsmore’s strategy backfired in the North, “as it did throughout the South. Instead of being cowed by the threat of a British armed liberation of the blacks, the slaveholding population mobilized to resist. Innumerable whites, especially those in the habitually loyal backcountry of Virginia, had been hitherto skeptical of following the more hot-headed of their Patriot leaders. But the news that the British troops would liberate their blacks, then give them weapons and their blessing to use them on their masters, persuaded many into thinking that perhaps the militant patriots were right? It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue. However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity. Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery. Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     

  170. [MORE]

  171. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Wow. Thousands of refugee slaves in New York City? 1,000 black soldiers here. 755 there. And highlighted...so of course unusual. Very impressive out of a population of 600,000...

    Note 'little to do with', and 'minor', mean roughly the same thing. I shouldn't need to instruct you on that point, but there you go.

    The British Empire empire freed about 850,000 slaves in 1833 when slavery was abolished, 50 years after the formal end of the Revolutionary War. So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.

    “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    If you want to double down on historical ignorance, be my guest.

    Source –> https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/

    [British historian] Simon Schama [in his book Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution (2006) state[d] that Dunsmore’s strategy backfired in the North, “as it did throughout the South. Instead of being cowed by the threat of a British armed liberation of the blacks, the slaveholding population mobilized to resist. Innumerable whites, especially those in the habitually loyal backcountry of Virginia, had been hitherto skeptical of following the more hot-headed of their Patriot leaders. But the news that the British troops would liberate their blacks, then give them weapons and their blessing to use them on their masters, persuaded many into thinking that perhaps the militant patriots were right? It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue. However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity. Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery. Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Schama's book is utter crap.

    It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.
     
    Yes, actually it is too much.Far too much.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     
    There's a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often......It's called scarcity of evidence.


    The freeing and arming of slaves was a last ditch maneuver, a sign that the Royalists had lost control:

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.
     

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech delivered at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]
     

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia’s militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor’s wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.

     


    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor’s Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against “a certain Patrick Henry… and a Number of deluded Followers” who had organised “an Independent Company… and put themselves in a Posture of War.“[7]
     

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.
     
    All of that happened before the Proclamation was issued in November, 1775...



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore



    Royal governor Josiah Martin had a rough time of it….

    After his home was attacked by Whigs on 24 April 1775, he sent his family to his in-laws’ home in New York and took refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, transferring his headquarters to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River. When the Mecklenburg Resolves were published in May 1775, Martin transmitted a copy to England,[4] which he described as “setting up a system of rule and regulation subversive of his majesty’s government.” Martin then requested a supply of arms and ammunition from General Thomas Gage in Boston.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin


    South Carolina:

    Royal Governor Lord William Campbell was in bad shape….

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.
     

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.[1]
     
    He left office 15 Sept., 1175. And all of that happened before the Proclamation came out in November of 1775….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell
  172. Again, more failure from you.
    Learn something Corvy — I have faith you have some minimal ability there.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/24/nytr-d24.html

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    As I suspected, you moved the goalposts. Your assertion was that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” Assuredly, these actors were decidedly involved.

    Your source said "he cannot accept the view that 'one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.' I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves."

    He is making a different argument. Try again.
  173. @Corvinus
    "So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves."

    If you want to double down on historical ignorance, be my guest.

    Source --> https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/


    [British historian] Simon Schama [in his book Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution (2006) state[d] that Dunsmore’s strategy backfired in the North, “as it did throughout the South. Instead of being cowed by the threat of a British armed liberation of the blacks, the slaveholding population mobilized to resist. Innumerable whites, especially those in the habitually loyal backcountry of Virginia, had been hitherto skeptical of following the more hot-headed of their Patriot leaders. But the news that the British troops would liberate their blacks, then give them weapons and their blessing to use them on their masters, persuaded many into thinking that perhaps the militant patriots were right? It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue. However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity. Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery. Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     

    Schama’s book is utter crap.

    It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.

    Yes, actually it is too much.Far too much.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”

    There’s a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often……It’s called scarcity of evidence.

    The freeing and arming of slaves was a last ditch maneuver, a sign that the Royalists had lost control:

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech delivered at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia’s militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor’s wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.

    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor’s Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against “a certain Patrick Henry… and a Number of deluded Followers” who had organised “an Independent Company… and put themselves in a Posture of War.“[7]

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.

    All of that happened before the Proclamation was issued in November, 1775…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore

    Royal governor Josiah Martin had a rough time of it….

    After his home was attacked by Whigs on 24 April 1775, he sent his family to his in-laws’ home in New York and took refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, transferring his headquarters to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River. When the Mecklenburg Resolves were published in May 1775, Martin transmitted a copy to England,[4] which he described as “setting up a system of rule and regulation subversive of his majesty’s government.” Martin then requested a supply of arms and ammunition from General Thomas Gage in Boston.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin

    South Carolina:

    Royal Governor Lord William Campbell was in bad shape….

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.[1]

    He left office 15 Sept., 1175. And all of that happened before the Proclamation came out in November of 1775….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

    • Replies: @res

    Schama’s book is utter crap.
     
    One of Corvinus' most interesting characteristics is his consistent ability to come up with untrustworthy references. I would expect even a blind squirrel (or crow) to find a nut every now then then.
    , @Corvinus
    "Schama’s book is utter crap."

    You, as an alleged professor, know better than to make this type of statement.

    "There’s a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often……It’s called scarcity of evidence."

    Actually, there was abundance in evidence.
  174. @syonredux
    Schama's book is utter crap.

    It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.
     
    Yes, actually it is too much.Far too much.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     
    There's a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often......It's called scarcity of evidence.


    The freeing and arming of slaves was a last ditch maneuver, a sign that the Royalists had lost control:

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.
     

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech delivered at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]
     

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia’s militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor’s wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.

     


    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor’s Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against “a certain Patrick Henry… and a Number of deluded Followers” who had organised “an Independent Company… and put themselves in a Posture of War.“[7]
     

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.
     
    All of that happened before the Proclamation was issued in November, 1775...



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore



    Royal governor Josiah Martin had a rough time of it….

    After his home was attacked by Whigs on 24 April 1775, he sent his family to his in-laws’ home in New York and took refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, transferring his headquarters to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River. When the Mecklenburg Resolves were published in May 1775, Martin transmitted a copy to England,[4] which he described as “setting up a system of rule and regulation subversive of his majesty’s government.” Martin then requested a supply of arms and ammunition from General Thomas Gage in Boston.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin


    South Carolina:

    Royal Governor Lord William Campbell was in bad shape….

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.
     

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.[1]
     
    He left office 15 Sept., 1175. And all of that happened before the Proclamation came out in November of 1775….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

    Schama’s book is utter crap.

    One of Corvinus’ most interesting characteristics is his consistent ability to come up with untrustworthy references. I would expect even a blind squirrel (or crow) to find a nut every now then then.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "One of Corvinus’ most interesting characteristics is his consistent ability to come up with untrustworthy references."

    Thanks for your unsubstantiated claim. Please show how and why this historian is untrustworthy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Schama
  175. @syonredux
    Schama's book is utter crap.

    It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.
     
    Yes, actually it is too much.Far too much.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     
    There's a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often......It's called scarcity of evidence.


    The freeing and arming of slaves was a last ditch maneuver, a sign that the Royalists had lost control:

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.
     

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech delivered at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]
     

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia’s militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor’s wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.

     


    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor’s Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against “a certain Patrick Henry… and a Number of deluded Followers” who had organised “an Independent Company… and put themselves in a Posture of War.“[7]
     

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.
     
    All of that happened before the Proclamation was issued in November, 1775...



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_4th_Earl_of_Dunmore



    Royal governor Josiah Martin had a rough time of it….

    After his home was attacked by Whigs on 24 April 1775, he sent his family to his in-laws’ home in New York and took refuge on board the sloop-of-war HMS Cruizer, transferring his headquarters to Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River. When the Mecklenburg Resolves were published in May 1775, Martin transmitted a copy to England,[4] which he described as “setting up a system of rule and regulation subversive of his majesty’s government.” Martin then requested a supply of arms and ammunition from General Thomas Gage in Boston.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin


    South Carolina:

    Royal Governor Lord William Campbell was in bad shape….

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.
     

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.[1]
     
    He left office 15 Sept., 1175. And all of that happened before the Proclamation came out in November of 1775….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

    “Schama’s book is utter crap.”

    You, as an alleged professor, know better than to make this type of statement.

    “There’s a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often……It’s called scarcity of evidence.”

    Actually, there was abundance in evidence.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Schama’s book is utter crap.”

    You, as an alleged professor, know better than to make this type of statement.
     
    Professors make that kind of comment all the time. Just hang out in a faculty lounge.....

    There’s a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often……It’s called scarcity of evidence.”

    Actually, there was abundance in evidence.
     
    That Dunmore's Proclamation was a major factor factor pushing the South to rebel against the Crown? Feel free to provide it.
  176. @res

    Schama’s book is utter crap.
     
    One of Corvinus' most interesting characteristics is his consistent ability to come up with untrustworthy references. I would expect even a blind squirrel (or crow) to find a nut every now then then.

    “One of Corvinus’ most interesting characteristics is his consistent ability to come up with untrustworthy references.”

    Thanks for your unsubstantiated claim. Please show how and why this historian is untrustworthy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Schama

    • Replies: @res
    This is more in syonredux's wheelhouse, so hopefully he will add to this, but since you asked here is one example. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449/htm

    Certain parts of Simon Schama’s Dead Certainties: Unwarranted Speculations (1991) are even more disturbing for those insisting on the the conventional dividing line between history and literary fiction. The first part, On the Many Deaths of General Wolfe, is about the battle of Québec, and the highly successful, monumental painting of General Wolfe, who was killed in action, by Benjamin West. Furthermore, it makes mention of Francis Parkman, chronicler of the American battles of the Seven Years’ War. The second part focuses on the murder of Doctor George Parkman, distant relative of Professor Parkman, and the trial of the murderer, Professor Webster, a chemist at Harvard, which was tremendously sensational at the time.

    We are informed that General Wolfe was quite distressed before the battle; we can read about the police investigator’s thoughts on the Boston élite and about how the governor, who rejected the plea for mercy, “glanced behind him at his blackthorn stick leaning against the wall of the Corner Office,” and how “he took off his silver-mounted spectacles and set them on the green leather desk-top” as he he was quietly thinking. If we take into consideration the general characteristics of historical sources, we can see that the inclusion of these pieces of information is quite unusual. Nevertheless, the readers might not even notice these details because they have already read, in the first and fourth chapters, a private soldier’s first-person singular account about the battle on 13 September in 1759, near Québec City. Furthermore, they also had the chance to be present at the police interrogation of the janitor that had discovered the remains of the victim in Professor Webster’s laboratory in the second chapter. In the book’s epilogue, Schama admits that these episodes are fictitious in their entirety. Concerning his writing, he says that it is “a work of the imagination that chronicles historical events”, and he also adds that “the narratives are based on primary sources” [11].

    Yet, since all this is revealed only at the very end of the book, his readers are, more or less, left in uncertainty as to what it is that they are actually reading. Since the book contains admittedly fictitious descriptions (the house, for instance, on the islands of the Azores, where Webster met his wife, and the one from where he was taken) and details that, as it later transpires, can evidently not be based on sources, the readers might also deem those parts fictitious that later claim to be based on primary sources. (Such texts are the letters written to the Governor of Massachusetts in Professor Webster’s favour, or other letters written by his sister-in-law. However, it is only at the end of the book that we learn that they are not fictitious, but based on original sources.)

    Schama deliberately subverts the conventions of traditional historiography in his narrative. The sections of his book are a kind of “historical novella,” and some episodes are “pure inventions based, however, on what documents suggest.” Schama insists that he does not want “to scorn the boundary between fact and fiction,” but to point out that, in each and every historical writing, the historian necessarily creates: edits, comments, interprets and delivers judgements ([11], p. 322). For the readers, however, the strongest feature of the book will still be the deliberate juxtaposition of real and fictitious elements.
     
  177. @XYZ (no Mr.)
    Again, more failure from you.
    Learn something Corvy -- I have faith you have some minimal ability there.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/24/nytr-d24.html

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html

    As I suspected, you moved the goalposts. Your assertion was that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” Assuredly, these actors were decidedly involved.

    Your source said “he cannot accept the view that ‘one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.’ I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves.”

    He is making a different argument. Try again.

  178. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "One of Corvinus’ most interesting characteristics is his consistent ability to come up with untrustworthy references."

    Thanks for your unsubstantiated claim. Please show how and why this historian is untrustworthy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Schama

    This is more in syonredux’s wheelhouse, so hopefully he will add to this, but since you asked here is one example. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449/htm

    Certain parts of Simon Schama’s Dead Certainties: Unwarranted Speculations (1991) are even more disturbing for those insisting on the the conventional dividing line between history and literary fiction. The first part, On the Many Deaths of General Wolfe, is about the battle of Québec, and the highly successful, monumental painting of General Wolfe, who was killed in action, by Benjamin West. Furthermore, it makes mention of Francis Parkman, chronicler of the American battles of the Seven Years’ War. The second part focuses on the murder of Doctor George Parkman, distant relative of Professor Parkman, and the trial of the murderer, Professor Webster, a chemist at Harvard, which was tremendously sensational at the time.

    We are informed that General Wolfe was quite distressed before the battle; we can read about the police investigator’s thoughts on the Boston élite and about how the governor, who rejected the plea for mercy, “glanced behind him at his blackthorn stick leaning against the wall of the Corner Office,” and how “he took off his silver-mounted spectacles and set them on the green leather desk-top” as he he was quietly thinking. If we take into consideration the general characteristics of historical sources, we can see that the inclusion of these pieces of information is quite unusual. Nevertheless, the readers might not even notice these details because they have already read, in the first and fourth chapters, a private soldier’s first-person singular account about the battle on 13 September in 1759, near Québec City. Furthermore, they also had the chance to be present at the police interrogation of the janitor that had discovered the remains of the victim in Professor Webster’s laboratory in the second chapter. In the book’s epilogue, Schama admits that these episodes are fictitious in their entirety. Concerning his writing, he says that it is “a work of the imagination that chronicles historical events”, and he also adds that “the narratives are based on primary sources” [11].

    Yet, since all this is revealed only at the very end of the book, his readers are, more or less, left in uncertainty as to what it is that they are actually reading. Since the book contains admittedly fictitious descriptions (the house, for instance, on the islands of the Azores, where Webster met his wife, and the one from where he was taken) and details that, as it later transpires, can evidently not be based on sources, the readers might also deem those parts fictitious that later claim to be based on primary sources. (Such texts are the letters written to the Governor of Massachusetts in Professor Webster’s favour, or other letters written by his sister-in-law. However, it is only at the end of the book that we learn that they are not fictitious, but based on original sources.)

    Schama deliberately subverts the conventions of traditional historiography in his narrative. The sections of his book are a kind of “historical novella,” and some episodes are “pure inventions based, however, on what documents suggest.” Schama insists that he does not want “to scorn the boundary between fact and fiction,” but to point out that, in each and every historical writing, the historian necessarily creates: edits, comments, interprets and delivers judgements ([11], p. 322). For the readers, however, the strongest feature of the book will still be the deliberate juxtaposition of real and fictitious elements.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Good stuff. And Rough Crossings is, essentially, more of the same. Pages are given over to psychological inferences regarding what people really thought......And all without much in the way of textual evidence. And then there are all the passages that are little more than just window dressing, pretty verbal pictures bereft of intellectual value:

    On Monday, the 22nd of June 1772 at 11 o'clock in the morning, all of London and beyond seemed to have come to Westminster Hall, spilling from the coffee-houses and taverns, the law courts and mercantile establishments, the shops and exhibition rooms, coming by carriage and sedan chair and horse and foot, from the trim new squares to the west and the clattering City streets to the east. Since 1740, the interior of the ancient Gothic chamber had been divided by an elaborate wooden screen. On one side were the two courtrooms of the King's Bench and Chancery; on the other, a vast public space, a field of stone where people stood, sat, perused the shops at the walls and, when judgement was to be given, halted and listened. Among that crowd this day were black faces who greeted Mansfield and Justices Ashton, Willes and Ashurst as the four long wigs passed through the screen and into King's Bench, carefully ascending the low steps where once the judges of Charles I had hectored the deposed king, and took their high-backed seats. Silver-Tongue appeared, for the moment, tongue-tied, uncharacteristically leaden, his habitual affability oppressed by the burdensome expectations of history. More than ever the hall seemed not merely a court of law, his court of law, but as it had been centuries before, the true curia regis, the court of the king and the kingdom. England glowered in a summer chill, and for once the Lord Chief Justice wore his learning moodily.
     
    , @Corvinus
    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work. Your selection comes from a larger piece by a historian (István M. Szijártó) who investigated narrative tools, including the use of fictitious elements, in historical scholarship. That author concludes that the "sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives."

    ...


    As we have seen in the first sections of this essay, neither their subject matter nor their methods offer readers a clear guidance if they wish to distinguish texts produced by history and those by literature. Mixing real and fictitious elements on the one hand (the way Rosenstone, Schama, Demos or Bisha do) and the use of narrative techniques to enforce their ideas when writing the history of a specific subject on the other (as the historians of the revolt in the Vendée do), suggests the basic similarity of historical and literary texts. However, Schama’s text on the counter-revolution in the Vendée points to a significant difference.

    It is not only, as Koselleck argued, that historians are not allowed to contradict their primary sources (those accepted as reliable by the scholarly community), but more than that, they may force historians to change their original outlook: they can essentially act as co-authors. Though texts usually distinguished as literary and historical narratives may be seen as different colours of the same spectrum, historians as authors have an actual advantage over writers of fiction, as is manifested by Schama’s narrative on the Vendée: the weight of their sources may persuade them to change their initial positions. In this way history, but only good history, can be distinguished from literature, despite the fact that both mix real and fictitious elements and use the same narrative techniques.
     

    It would seem to me that Szijártó is acknowledging the relevance and legitimacy of Schama's work and others who employ these literary techniques. On that basis, one could reasonably conclude Szijártó is SUPPORTING Schama's endeavor and is NOT questioning Schama's robust historical scholarship nor his level of trustworthiness. Here is a 1991 review of "Dead Certainties".

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/simon-schama/dead-certainties/


    "Here Schama (Citizens, 1989, etc.; History/Harvard) compellingly re-creates two historic deaths, both linked to the Parkman dynasty of Boston, by these contrasting re-creations and explores "the teasing gap separating a lived event and its subsequent narration." The first narrative is of the death of General James Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham during the historic Battle of Quebec. Relying on much primary source material, Schama tersely narrates the death of Wolfe from three perspectives; that of an eyewitness, that of fashionable painter Benjamin West (whose portrayal of Wolfe's death was less influenced by a concern for verisimilitude than by a desire to emulate classical models), and that of historian Francis Parkman (who, the author shows, tended to invest Wolfe with his own nervous sensibility and high-strung qualities). Then comes the story of a more obscure death — the alleged murder of George Parkman, uncle of the historian, at the hands of George Parkman's friend and debtor, George Webster. Here, forsaking reliance on historical documentation for a looser, more novelistic approach, Schama tells how Parkman hounded the hapless Webster over some debts, how Parkman disappeared, and how a man who detested Webster discovered the grisly remains of a corpse in the cellar of the medical school in which Webster taught. The agonizing tale of the trial, conviction, and execution of Webster reveals how the judicial process compelled acceptance of one of the competing versions of the truth. Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science."
     
    I imagine that Schama does have his detractors even if he has been nationally and internationally renowned for his scholarship. Who are these individuals in his field? What objections do they have of his work that would lay waste to his bona fides? In what particular areas do they view him as being "untrustworthy"?

    Please also NOTICE that Szijártó was critiquing a different work (Dead Certainties), NOT the source I provided (Rough Crossings). Here is Schama discussing that book, which is in the category of general non-fiction.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?193232-1/rough-crossings-britain-slaves-american-revolution

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)'s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama's work that counters this assertion? Is his work overall trustworthy? If not, how and why from your perspective? More importantly, would you contend that there are "invented elements" in the narrative? Explain, please, why or why not.

  179. @Corvinus
    "Schama’s book is utter crap."

    You, as an alleged professor, know better than to make this type of statement.

    "There’s a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often……It’s called scarcity of evidence."

    Actually, there was abundance in evidence.

    Schama’s book is utter crap.”

    You, as an alleged professor, know better than to make this type of statement.

    Professors make that kind of comment all the time. Just hang out in a faculty lounge…..

    There’s a reason why Rutledge gets hauled out so often……It’s called scarcity of evidence.”

    Actually, there was abundance in evidence.

    That Dunmore’s Proclamation was a major factor factor pushing the South to rebel against the Crown? Feel free to provide it.

  180. @res
    This is more in syonredux's wheelhouse, so hopefully he will add to this, but since you asked here is one example. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449/htm

    Certain parts of Simon Schama’s Dead Certainties: Unwarranted Speculations (1991) are even more disturbing for those insisting on the the conventional dividing line between history and literary fiction. The first part, On the Many Deaths of General Wolfe, is about the battle of Québec, and the highly successful, monumental painting of General Wolfe, who was killed in action, by Benjamin West. Furthermore, it makes mention of Francis Parkman, chronicler of the American battles of the Seven Years’ War. The second part focuses on the murder of Doctor George Parkman, distant relative of Professor Parkman, and the trial of the murderer, Professor Webster, a chemist at Harvard, which was tremendously sensational at the time.

    We are informed that General Wolfe was quite distressed before the battle; we can read about the police investigator’s thoughts on the Boston élite and about how the governor, who rejected the plea for mercy, “glanced behind him at his blackthorn stick leaning against the wall of the Corner Office,” and how “he took off his silver-mounted spectacles and set them on the green leather desk-top” as he he was quietly thinking. If we take into consideration the general characteristics of historical sources, we can see that the inclusion of these pieces of information is quite unusual. Nevertheless, the readers might not even notice these details because they have already read, in the first and fourth chapters, a private soldier’s first-person singular account about the battle on 13 September in 1759, near Québec City. Furthermore, they also had the chance to be present at the police interrogation of the janitor that had discovered the remains of the victim in Professor Webster’s laboratory in the second chapter. In the book’s epilogue, Schama admits that these episodes are fictitious in their entirety. Concerning his writing, he says that it is “a work of the imagination that chronicles historical events”, and he also adds that “the narratives are based on primary sources” [11].

    Yet, since all this is revealed only at the very end of the book, his readers are, more or less, left in uncertainty as to what it is that they are actually reading. Since the book contains admittedly fictitious descriptions (the house, for instance, on the islands of the Azores, where Webster met his wife, and the one from where he was taken) and details that, as it later transpires, can evidently not be based on sources, the readers might also deem those parts fictitious that later claim to be based on primary sources. (Such texts are the letters written to the Governor of Massachusetts in Professor Webster’s favour, or other letters written by his sister-in-law. However, it is only at the end of the book that we learn that they are not fictitious, but based on original sources.)

    Schama deliberately subverts the conventions of traditional historiography in his narrative. The sections of his book are a kind of “historical novella,” and some episodes are “pure inventions based, however, on what documents suggest.” Schama insists that he does not want “to scorn the boundary between fact and fiction,” but to point out that, in each and every historical writing, the historian necessarily creates: edits, comments, interprets and delivers judgements ([11], p. 322). For the readers, however, the strongest feature of the book will still be the deliberate juxtaposition of real and fictitious elements.
     

    Good stuff. And Rough Crossings is, essentially, more of the same. Pages are given over to psychological inferences regarding what people really thought……And all without much in the way of textual evidence. And then there are all the passages that are little more than just window dressing, pretty verbal pictures bereft of intellectual value:

    On Monday, the 22nd of June 1772 at 11 o’clock in the morning, all of London and beyond seemed to have come to Westminster Hall, spilling from the coffee-houses and taverns, the law courts and mercantile establishments, the shops and exhibition rooms, coming by carriage and sedan chair and horse and foot, from the trim new squares to the west and the clattering City streets to the east. Since 1740, the interior of the ancient Gothic chamber had been divided by an elaborate wooden screen. On one side were the two courtrooms of the King’s Bench and Chancery; on the other, a vast public space, a field of stone where people stood, sat, perused the shops at the walls and, when judgement was to be given, halted and listened. Among that crowd this day were black faces who greeted Mansfield and Justices Ashton, Willes and Ashurst as the four long wigs passed through the screen and into King’s Bench, carefully ascending the low steps where once the judges of Charles I had hectored the deposed king, and took their high-backed seats. Silver-Tongue appeared, for the moment, tongue-tied, uncharacteristically leaden, his habitual affability oppressed by the burdensome expectations of history. More than ever the hall seemed not merely a court of law, his court of law, but as it had been centuries before, the true curia regis, the court of the king and the kingdom. England glowered in a summer chill, and for once the Lord Chief Justice wore his learning moodily.

  181. @Abe

    Doesn’t Kendrick Lamar have one ?
     
    Colson Whitehead just won his 2nd Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in the span of 2 years. The only other multi-award winners in the prize’s recent (i.e. more recent than 100 years ago) history are John Updike (whatever arguments one could make about his career being a sort of Silent Gen’r/Old Boomer “song to myself” hype, he was at the very least a fixture of the literary scene since forever) and William Faulkner- who got his second one posthumously.

    Let me repeat that. Someone with the given name Arch Colson Chip Whitehead, who seems like a less talented, more dilettante-ish version of David Foster Wallace (not that Wallace is necessarily that great either; the only post-modernist who’s ever struck me as head-spinningly brilliant is Thomas Pynchon circa GRAVITY RAINBOW) just got his second Pulitzer Prize in fiction for going full BLACKETY-BLACK-BLACK-BLACK . I shudder at the madcap revelry to follow in the Black 1%-er part of Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe Colson and Skip Gates’s nephew can drunkenly joust at each other atop Dr. Seuss bikes once the shelter-in-place orders are lifted.

    What did people think would happen when all the cool kids decided awards were gay?

    They gotta give ‘em to somebody.

  182. @res
    This is more in syonredux's wheelhouse, so hopefully he will add to this, but since you asked here is one example. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449/htm

    Certain parts of Simon Schama’s Dead Certainties: Unwarranted Speculations (1991) are even more disturbing for those insisting on the the conventional dividing line between history and literary fiction. The first part, On the Many Deaths of General Wolfe, is about the battle of Québec, and the highly successful, monumental painting of General Wolfe, who was killed in action, by Benjamin West. Furthermore, it makes mention of Francis Parkman, chronicler of the American battles of the Seven Years’ War. The second part focuses on the murder of Doctor George Parkman, distant relative of Professor Parkman, and the trial of the murderer, Professor Webster, a chemist at Harvard, which was tremendously sensational at the time.

    We are informed that General Wolfe was quite distressed before the battle; we can read about the police investigator’s thoughts on the Boston élite and about how the governor, who rejected the plea for mercy, “glanced behind him at his blackthorn stick leaning against the wall of the Corner Office,” and how “he took off his silver-mounted spectacles and set them on the green leather desk-top” as he he was quietly thinking. If we take into consideration the general characteristics of historical sources, we can see that the inclusion of these pieces of information is quite unusual. Nevertheless, the readers might not even notice these details because they have already read, in the first and fourth chapters, a private soldier’s first-person singular account about the battle on 13 September in 1759, near Québec City. Furthermore, they also had the chance to be present at the police interrogation of the janitor that had discovered the remains of the victim in Professor Webster’s laboratory in the second chapter. In the book’s epilogue, Schama admits that these episodes are fictitious in their entirety. Concerning his writing, he says that it is “a work of the imagination that chronicles historical events”, and he also adds that “the narratives are based on primary sources” [11].

    Yet, since all this is revealed only at the very end of the book, his readers are, more or less, left in uncertainty as to what it is that they are actually reading. Since the book contains admittedly fictitious descriptions (the house, for instance, on the islands of the Azores, where Webster met his wife, and the one from where he was taken) and details that, as it later transpires, can evidently not be based on sources, the readers might also deem those parts fictitious that later claim to be based on primary sources. (Such texts are the letters written to the Governor of Massachusetts in Professor Webster’s favour, or other letters written by his sister-in-law. However, it is only at the end of the book that we learn that they are not fictitious, but based on original sources.)

    Schama deliberately subverts the conventions of traditional historiography in his narrative. The sections of his book are a kind of “historical novella,” and some episodes are “pure inventions based, however, on what documents suggest.” Schama insists that he does not want “to scorn the boundary between fact and fiction,” but to point out that, in each and every historical writing, the historian necessarily creates: edits, comments, interprets and delivers judgements ([11], p. 322). For the readers, however, the strongest feature of the book will still be the deliberate juxtaposition of real and fictitious elements.
     

    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work. Your selection comes from a larger piece by a historian (István M. Szijártó) who investigated narrative tools, including the use of fictitious elements, in historical scholarship. That author concludes that the “sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives.”

    As we have seen in the first sections of this essay, neither their subject matter nor their methods offer readers a clear guidance if they wish to distinguish texts produced by history and those by literature. Mixing real and fictitious elements on the one hand (the way Rosenstone, Schama, Demos or Bisha do) and the use of narrative techniques to enforce their ideas when writing the history of a specific subject on the other (as the historians of the revolt in the Vendée do), suggests the basic similarity of historical and literary texts. However, Schama’s text on the counter-revolution in the Vendée points to a significant difference.

    It is not only, as Koselleck argued, that historians are not allowed to contradict their primary sources (those accepted as reliable by the scholarly community), but more than that, they may force historians to change their original outlook: they can essentially act as co-authors. Though texts usually distinguished as literary and historical narratives may be seen as different colours of the same spectrum, historians as authors have an actual advantage over writers of fiction, as is manifested by Schama’s narrative on the Vendée: the weight of their sources may persuade them to change their initial positions. In this way history, but only good history, can be distinguished from literature, despite the fact that both mix real and fictitious elements and use the same narrative techniques.

    It would seem to me that Szijártó is acknowledging the relevance and legitimacy of Schama’s work and others who employ these literary techniques. On that basis, one could reasonably conclude Szijártó is SUPPORTING Schama’s endeavor and is NOT questioning Schama’s robust historical scholarship nor his level of trustworthiness. Here is a 1991 review of “Dead Certainties”.

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/simon-schama/dead-certainties/

    “Here Schama (Citizens, 1989, etc.; History/Harvard) compellingly re-creates two historic deaths, both linked to the Parkman dynasty of Boston, by these contrasting re-creations and explores “the teasing gap separating a lived event and its subsequent narration.” The first narrative is of the death of General James Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham during the historic Battle of Quebec. Relying on much primary source material, Schama tersely narrates the death of Wolfe from three perspectives; that of an eyewitness, that of fashionable painter Benjamin West (whose portrayal of Wolfe’s death was less influenced by a concern for verisimilitude than by a desire to emulate classical models), and that of historian Francis Parkman (who, the author shows, tended to invest Wolfe with his own nervous sensibility and high-strung qualities). Then comes the story of a more obscure death — the alleged murder of George Parkman, uncle of the historian, at the hands of George Parkman’s friend and debtor, George Webster. Here, forsaking reliance on historical documentation for a looser, more novelistic approach, Schama tells how Parkman hounded the hapless Webster over some debts, how Parkman disappeared, and how a man who detested Webster discovered the grisly remains of a corpse in the cellar of the medical school in which Webster taught. The agonizing tale of the trial, conviction, and execution of Webster reveals how the judicial process compelled acceptance of one of the competing versions of the truth. Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science.”

    I imagine that Schama does have his detractors even if he has been nationally and internationally renowned for his scholarship. Who are these individuals in his field? What objections do they have of his work that would lay waste to his bona fides? In what particular areas do they view him as being “untrustworthy”?

    Please also NOTICE that Szijártó was critiquing a different work (Dead Certainties), NOT the source I provided (Rough Crossings). Here is Schama discussing that book, which is in the category of general non-fiction.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?193232-1/rough-crossings-britain-slaves-american-revolution

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)’s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama’s work that counters this assertion? Is his work overall trustworthy? If not, how and why from your perspective? More importantly, would you contend that there are “invented elements” in the narrative? Explain, please, why or why not.

    • Replies: @res

    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work.
     
    I included a 500 word excerpt which seemed like plenty of context to me.

    Since making isolated demands for rigor seems to be one of your favorite moves these days, let's include another link to this:
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    Regarding the rest of your comment. The specific issue was about Schama being untrustworthy. Providing evidence of a tendency to embellish history with unknowables seems sufficient to me for supporting that assertion.
    , @syonredux

    Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science.”
     
    "[C]reative invention".......In other words, making stuff up......

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)’s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama’s work that counters this assertion?
     
    Here's one:

    But the news that the British troops would liberate their blacks, then give them weapons and their blessing to use them on their masters, persuaded many into thinking that perhaps the militant patriots were right? It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.
     
    Note the wording: "summer and autumn of 1775." Dunmore's Proclamation was issued on Nov. 7, 1775, by which point the autumn was nearly over.....And Dunmore's Proclamation was a last-ditch effort by a governor who had lost control over the colony:

    Lacking in diplomatic skills, Dunmore tried to govern without consulting the House of Burgesses of the Colonial Assembly for more than a year, which exacerbated an already tense situation.[5]
     

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.
     

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech delivered at St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]
     

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia's militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor's wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.
     

    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor's Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against "a certain Patrick Henry... and a Number of deluded Followers" who had organised "an Independent Company... and put themselves in a Posture of War."[7]
     

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.
     

    However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity.
     
    "[F]lourish?" By this point, Dunmore was a governor in name only, issuing proclamations from a warship.And Lord Campbell's position in North Carolina was even worse:

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

    Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery.
     
    "[F]irst and foremost?" This is sheer nonsense on Schama's part.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     
    Rutledge again.......As I noted above, there's a reason why he gets a kill-quote. It's called scarcity of evidence.


    Here's an article by an actual expert on the topic of slavery in Anglo-America:

    On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

     


    At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”
     

    I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

     


    More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition.
     
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
  183. @Buffalo Joe
    Art, just two remarks to your list. Cops have been kicked out of schools, because they enforce the law. My daughter is a School Psycologist, the problems with kids in the inner city are not solvable. I fear for her because she has to deal with parent(s) that have no idea about raising a child and don't want to "hear no shit from a white bitch." Take care buddy.

    I taught in an all-Black charter in Cincinnati that consisted largely of kids kicked out of the Publics. The parents generally wanted more discipline and backed us up on the discipline we managed to maintain but the do-gooder progs often stood in the way.

    Blacks understand that discipline and ambition go hand in hand. So do whites, but too many are against both.

  184. res says:
    @Corvinus
    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work. Your selection comes from a larger piece by a historian (István M. Szijártó) who investigated narrative tools, including the use of fictitious elements, in historical scholarship. That author concludes that the "sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives."

    ...


    As we have seen in the first sections of this essay, neither their subject matter nor their methods offer readers a clear guidance if they wish to distinguish texts produced by history and those by literature. Mixing real and fictitious elements on the one hand (the way Rosenstone, Schama, Demos or Bisha do) and the use of narrative techniques to enforce their ideas when writing the history of a specific subject on the other (as the historians of the revolt in the Vendée do), suggests the basic similarity of historical and literary texts. However, Schama’s text on the counter-revolution in the Vendée points to a significant difference.

    It is not only, as Koselleck argued, that historians are not allowed to contradict their primary sources (those accepted as reliable by the scholarly community), but more than that, they may force historians to change their original outlook: they can essentially act as co-authors. Though texts usually distinguished as literary and historical narratives may be seen as different colours of the same spectrum, historians as authors have an actual advantage over writers of fiction, as is manifested by Schama’s narrative on the Vendée: the weight of their sources may persuade them to change their initial positions. In this way history, but only good history, can be distinguished from literature, despite the fact that both mix real and fictitious elements and use the same narrative techniques.
     

    It would seem to me that Szijártó is acknowledging the relevance and legitimacy of Schama's work and others who employ these literary techniques. On that basis, one could reasonably conclude Szijártó is SUPPORTING Schama's endeavor and is NOT questioning Schama's robust historical scholarship nor his level of trustworthiness. Here is a 1991 review of "Dead Certainties".

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/simon-schama/dead-certainties/


    "Here Schama (Citizens, 1989, etc.; History/Harvard) compellingly re-creates two historic deaths, both linked to the Parkman dynasty of Boston, by these contrasting re-creations and explores "the teasing gap separating a lived event and its subsequent narration." The first narrative is of the death of General James Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham during the historic Battle of Quebec. Relying on much primary source material, Schama tersely narrates the death of Wolfe from three perspectives; that of an eyewitness, that of fashionable painter Benjamin West (whose portrayal of Wolfe's death was less influenced by a concern for verisimilitude than by a desire to emulate classical models), and that of historian Francis Parkman (who, the author shows, tended to invest Wolfe with his own nervous sensibility and high-strung qualities). Then comes the story of a more obscure death — the alleged murder of George Parkman, uncle of the historian, at the hands of George Parkman's friend and debtor, George Webster. Here, forsaking reliance on historical documentation for a looser, more novelistic approach, Schama tells how Parkman hounded the hapless Webster over some debts, how Parkman disappeared, and how a man who detested Webster discovered the grisly remains of a corpse in the cellar of the medical school in which Webster taught. The agonizing tale of the trial, conviction, and execution of Webster reveals how the judicial process compelled acceptance of one of the competing versions of the truth. Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science."
     
    I imagine that Schama does have his detractors even if he has been nationally and internationally renowned for his scholarship. Who are these individuals in his field? What objections do they have of his work that would lay waste to his bona fides? In what particular areas do they view him as being "untrustworthy"?

    Please also NOTICE that Szijártó was critiquing a different work (Dead Certainties), NOT the source I provided (Rough Crossings). Here is Schama discussing that book, which is in the category of general non-fiction.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?193232-1/rough-crossings-britain-slaves-american-revolution

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)'s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama's work that counters this assertion? Is his work overall trustworthy? If not, how and why from your perspective? More importantly, would you contend that there are "invented elements" in the narrative? Explain, please, why or why not.

    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work.

    I included a 500 word excerpt which seemed like plenty of context to me.

    Since making isolated demands for rigor seems to be one of your favorite moves these days, let’s include another link to this:
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    Regarding the rest of your comment. The specific issue was about Schama being untrustworthy. Providing evidence of a tendency to embellish history with unknowables seems sufficient to me for supporting that assertion.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @syonredux
    The CQ (Corvinus Question): Is he a parody account? Or is he simply very stupid ?For example, note this Corvinus Posting:

    Correlation does not equal causation. At least from this statistic, more white people by the numbers are impoverished.

    African American Poverty Rate: 20.8% (8.9 million people)–Percentage of African Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    Hispanic Poverty Rate: 17.6% (10.5 million people)–Percentage of Hispanics who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    White Poverty Rate: 8.1% (15.7 million people)–Percentage of non-Hispanic Whites who fell below the poverty line in 2018
     

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/deaths-of-despair-case-deatons-book-on-the-white-death/#comment-3881619

    Does Corvinus really not understand percentages? Can someone be that dumb? Or is this further evidence that he's a parody account, a higher-effort version of Tiny Duck?

    , @Corvinus
    "I included a 500 word excerpt which seemed like plenty of context to me."

    You neglected to take into account the author's thesis.

    "Since making isolated demands for rigor seems to be one of your favorite moves these days..."

    The proper characterization is repeatedly requesting that a person back up their assertions. Would that also mean that the authors who cite Schama's work or review his work are perhaps also untrustworthy? Why?

    "Providing evidence of a tendency to embellish history with unknowables seems sufficient to me for supporting that assertion."

    Except it appears that was not the conclusion drawn from the author. Where is the exact language that lends itself to the supposition that the author believes Schama to be, as you put it, untrustworthy?
  185. @Corvinus
    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work. Your selection comes from a larger piece by a historian (István M. Szijártó) who investigated narrative tools, including the use of fictitious elements, in historical scholarship. That author concludes that the "sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives."

    ...


    As we have seen in the first sections of this essay, neither their subject matter nor their methods offer readers a clear guidance if they wish to distinguish texts produced by history and those by literature. Mixing real and fictitious elements on the one hand (the way Rosenstone, Schama, Demos or Bisha do) and the use of narrative techniques to enforce their ideas when writing the history of a specific subject on the other (as the historians of the revolt in the Vendée do), suggests the basic similarity of historical and literary texts. However, Schama’s text on the counter-revolution in the Vendée points to a significant difference.

    It is not only, as Koselleck argued, that historians are not allowed to contradict their primary sources (those accepted as reliable by the scholarly community), but more than that, they may force historians to change their original outlook: they can essentially act as co-authors. Though texts usually distinguished as literary and historical narratives may be seen as different colours of the same spectrum, historians as authors have an actual advantage over writers of fiction, as is manifested by Schama’s narrative on the Vendée: the weight of their sources may persuade them to change their initial positions. In this way history, but only good history, can be distinguished from literature, despite the fact that both mix real and fictitious elements and use the same narrative techniques.
     

    It would seem to me that Szijártó is acknowledging the relevance and legitimacy of Schama's work and others who employ these literary techniques. On that basis, one could reasonably conclude Szijártó is SUPPORTING Schama's endeavor and is NOT questioning Schama's robust historical scholarship nor his level of trustworthiness. Here is a 1991 review of "Dead Certainties".

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/simon-schama/dead-certainties/


    "Here Schama (Citizens, 1989, etc.; History/Harvard) compellingly re-creates two historic deaths, both linked to the Parkman dynasty of Boston, by these contrasting re-creations and explores "the teasing gap separating a lived event and its subsequent narration." The first narrative is of the death of General James Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham during the historic Battle of Quebec. Relying on much primary source material, Schama tersely narrates the death of Wolfe from three perspectives; that of an eyewitness, that of fashionable painter Benjamin West (whose portrayal of Wolfe's death was less influenced by a concern for verisimilitude than by a desire to emulate classical models), and that of historian Francis Parkman (who, the author shows, tended to invest Wolfe with his own nervous sensibility and high-strung qualities). Then comes the story of a more obscure death — the alleged murder of George Parkman, uncle of the historian, at the hands of George Parkman's friend and debtor, George Webster. Here, forsaking reliance on historical documentation for a looser, more novelistic approach, Schama tells how Parkman hounded the hapless Webster over some debts, how Parkman disappeared, and how a man who detested Webster discovered the grisly remains of a corpse in the cellar of the medical school in which Webster taught. The agonizing tale of the trial, conviction, and execution of Webster reveals how the judicial process compelled acceptance of one of the competing versions of the truth. Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science."
     
    I imagine that Schama does have his detractors even if he has been nationally and internationally renowned for his scholarship. Who are these individuals in his field? What objections do they have of his work that would lay waste to his bona fides? In what particular areas do they view him as being "untrustworthy"?

    Please also NOTICE that Szijártó was critiquing a different work (Dead Certainties), NOT the source I provided (Rough Crossings). Here is Schama discussing that book, which is in the category of general non-fiction.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?193232-1/rough-crossings-britain-slaves-american-revolution

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)'s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama's work that counters this assertion? Is his work overall trustworthy? If not, how and why from your perspective? More importantly, would you contend that there are "invented elements" in the narrative? Explain, please, why or why not.

    Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science.”

    “[C]reative invention”…….In other words, making stuff up……

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)’s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama’s work that counters this assertion?

    Here’s one:

    But the news that the British troops would liberate their blacks, then give them weapons and their blessing to use them on their masters, persuaded many into thinking that perhaps the militant patriots were right? It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.

    Note the wording: “summer and autumn of 1775.” Dunmore’s Proclamation was issued on Nov. 7, 1775, by which point the autumn was nearly over…..And Dunmore’s Proclamation was a last-ditch effort by a governor who had lost control over the colony:

    Lacking in diplomatic skills, Dunmore tried to govern without consulting the House of Burgesses of the Colonial Assembly for more than a year, which exacerbated an already tense situation.[5]

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech delivered at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia’s militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor’s wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.

    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor’s Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against “a certain Patrick Henry… and a Number of deluded Followers” who had organised “an Independent Company… and put themselves in a Posture of War.”[7]

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.

    However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity.

    “[F]lourish?” By this point, Dunmore was a governor in name only, issuing proclamations from a warship.And Lord Campbell’s position in North Carolina was even worse:

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

    Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery.

    “[F]irst and foremost?” This is sheer nonsense on Schama’s part.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”

    Rutledge again…….As I noted above, there’s a reason why he gets a kill-quote. It’s called scarcity of evidence.

    Here’s an article by an actual expert on the topic of slavery in Anglo-America:

    On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

    At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

    I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

    More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “[C]reative invention”…….In other words, making stuff up……"

    I did not state nor imply that the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the Thirteen Colonies went to war. Nor is the author "making anything up". That is YOUR characterization. The fact of the matter is that the author's work refutes the assertion that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” You simply choose not to believe him.

    Here is the "actual historian" you cited. Ponder her thoughts.


    "We often imagine that the Founding Fathers lived during an era in which they could not envision ending slavery. But during and after the American Revolution, both allies and antagonists of the Patriots, as well as some Patriots themselves, pointed out the paradox of their claims to be fighting against their own enslavement as they continued to hold Africans in bondage. There was a growing movement toward emancipation and it is not unreasonable to think more could have been done to stop slavery. These critics were not simply wartime propagandists, but were part of what had been a century of increasing activism against slavery. Indeed, the 18th Century antislavery movement, international in composition and marked by gradual approaches to ending slavery, led to emancipation in the northern states, as well as the closing of the international slave trade. And the American Revolution itself inspired the Haitian Revolution, which in turn inspired other Caribbean slave societies to throw off their European enslavers."
     
  186. @res

    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work.
     
    I included a 500 word excerpt which seemed like plenty of context to me.

    Since making isolated demands for rigor seems to be one of your favorite moves these days, let's include another link to this:
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    Regarding the rest of your comment. The specific issue was about Schama being untrustworthy. Providing evidence of a tendency to embellish history with unknowables seems sufficient to me for supporting that assertion.

    The CQ (Corvinus Question): Is he a parody account? Or is he simply very stupid ?For example, note this Corvinus Posting:

    Correlation does not equal causation. At least from this statistic, more white people by the numbers are impoverished.

    African American Poverty Rate: 20.8% (8.9 million people)–Percentage of African Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    Hispanic Poverty Rate: 17.6% (10.5 million people)–Percentage of Hispanics who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    White Poverty Rate: 8.1% (15.7 million people)–Percentage of non-Hispanic Whites who fell below the poverty line in 2018

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/deaths-of-despair-case-deatons-book-on-the-white-death/#comment-3881619

    Does Corvinus really not understand percentages? Can someone be that dumb? Or is this further evidence that he’s a parody account, a higher-effort version of Tiny Duck?

  187. @res

    You neglected to provide the requisite context to the quotation in light of the overall work.
     
    I included a 500 word excerpt which seemed like plenty of context to me.

    Since making isolated demands for rigor seems to be one of your favorite moves these days, let's include another link to this:
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    Regarding the rest of your comment. The specific issue was about Schama being untrustworthy. Providing evidence of a tendency to embellish history with unknowables seems sufficient to me for supporting that assertion.

    “I included a 500 word excerpt which seemed like plenty of context to me.”

    You neglected to take into account the author’s thesis.

    “Since making isolated demands for rigor seems to be one of your favorite moves these days…”

    The proper characterization is repeatedly requesting that a person back up their assertions. Would that also mean that the authors who cite Schama’s work or review his work are perhaps also untrustworthy? Why?

    “Providing evidence of a tendency to embellish history with unknowables seems sufficient to me for supporting that assertion.”

    Except it appears that was not the conclusion drawn from the author. Where is the exact language that lends itself to the supposition that the author believes Schama to be, as you put it, untrustworthy?

  188. @syonredux

    Schama laces together the two narratives with an insightful meditation on the essential elusiveness of historical truth and on the need for creative invention in historical scholarship and writing. An imaginative, spellbinding work that reminds us that history is more art than science.”
     
    "[C]reative invention".......In other words, making stuff up......

    Recall that XYZ (no Mr.)’s statement was “So do not keep telling the viewing audience the Revolutionary War had much to do with slaves.”

    So what specific objections do you have of Schama’s work that counters this assertion?
     
    Here's one:

    But the news that the British troops would liberate their blacks, then give them weapons and their blessing to use them on their masters, persuaded many into thinking that perhaps the militant patriots were right? It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue.
     
    Note the wording: "summer and autumn of 1775." Dunmore's Proclamation was issued on Nov. 7, 1775, by which point the autumn was nearly over.....And Dunmore's Proclamation was a last-ditch effort by a governor who had lost control over the colony:

    Lacking in diplomatic skills, Dunmore tried to govern without consulting the House of Burgesses of the Colonial Assembly for more than a year, which exacerbated an already tense situation.[5]
     

    When Dunmore finally convened the Colonial Assembly in March 1773, which was the only way he could deal with fiscal issues to financially support his war through additional taxation, the burgesses instead first resolved to form a committee of correspondence to communicate their continued concerns about the Townshend Acts and Gaspee Affair to Great Britain. Dunmore immediately postponed the Assembly. Many of burgesses gathered a short distance away at the Raleigh Tavern and continued discussing their problems with the new taxes, perceived corruption and lack of representation in England. When Dunmore reconvened the Assembly in 1774, the burgesses passed a resolution declaring 1 June 1774 a day of fasting and prayer in Virginia. In response, Dunmore dissolved the House.
     

    The burgesses again reconvened as the Second Virginia Convention and elected delegates to the Continental Congress. Dunmore issued a proclamation against electing delegates to the Congress, but failed to take serious action.[6] In March 1775, Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech delivered at St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond helped convince delegates to approve a resolution calling for armed resistance.[7]
     

    In the face of rising unrest in the colony, Dunmore sought to deprive Virginia's militia of military supplies. Dunmore gave the key to the Williamsburg magazine to Lieutenant Henry Colins, commander of HMS Magdalen, and ordered him to remove the powder, provoking what became known as the Gunpowder Incident. On the night of 20 April 1775, royal marines loaded fifteen half-barrels of powder into the governor's wagon, intent on transporting it down the Quarterpath Road to the James River and the British warship. Local militia rallied, and word of the incident spread across the colony.
     

    The Hanover militia, led by Patrick Henry, arrived outside of Williamsburg on 3 May. That same day, Dunmore evacuated his family from the Governor's Palace to his hunting lodge, Porto Bello in nearby York County.[8] On 6 May, Dunmore issued a proclamation against "a certain Patrick Henry... and a Number of deluded Followers" who had organised "an Independent Company... and put themselves in a Posture of War."[7]
     

    Dunmore threatened to impose martial law, and eventually retreated to Porto Bello to join his family. Dislodged by the Virginia rebels and wounded in the leg,[9] on 8 June, Dunmore took refuge on the British warship HMS Fowey in the York River.
     

    However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity.
     
    "[F]lourish?" By this point, Dunmore was a governor in name only, issuing proclamations from a warship.And Lord Campbell's position in North Carolina was even worse:

    Governor Campbell soon realized he could no longer reside and govern in safety in Charleston. Intimidation from Patriots resulted in public hangings, assaults, and business/home raids of suspected Loyalists. One home raided included that of Henry Laurens, who would go on to become the third President of the Second Continental Congress. Patriots were not afraid to intimidate or attack British officials, and several officials even fled the city to escape further persecution.

    In 1775, Campbell fled his home at 34 Meeting Street in Charleston on a British warship, HMS Tamar, and returned to England. His departure marked the beginning of revolution in South Carolina and the end of British imperial rule over the colony.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Campbell

    Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery.
     
    "[F]irst and foremost?" This is sheer nonsense on Schama's part.

    Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
     
    Rutledge again.......As I noted above, there's a reason why he gets a kill-quote. It's called scarcity of evidence.


    Here's an article by an actual expert on the topic of slavery in Anglo-America:

    On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

     


    At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”
     

    I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

     


    More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition.
     
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248

    “[C]reative invention”…….In other words, making stuff up……”

    I did not state nor imply that the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the Thirteen Colonies went to war. Nor is the author “making anything up”. That is YOUR characterization. The fact of the matter is that the author’s work refutes the assertion that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” You simply choose not to believe him.

    Here is the “actual historian” you cited. Ponder her thoughts.

    “We often imagine that the Founding Fathers lived during an era in which they could not envision ending slavery. But during and after the American Revolution, both allies and antagonists of the Patriots, as well as some Patriots themselves, pointed out the paradox of their claims to be fighting against their own enslavement as they continued to hold Africans in bondage. There was a growing movement toward emancipation and it is not unreasonable to think more could have been done to stop slavery. These critics were not simply wartime propagandists, but were part of what had been a century of increasing activism against slavery. Indeed, the 18th Century antislavery movement, international in composition and marked by gradual approaches to ending slavery, led to emancipation in the northern states, as well as the closing of the international slave trade. And the American Revolution itself inspired the Haitian Revolution, which in turn inspired other Caribbean slave societies to throw off their European enslavers.”

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “[C]reative invention”…….In other words, making stuff up……”

    I did not state nor imply that the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the Thirteen Colonies went to war.
     
    But, dear boy, you cited Schama:

    It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue. However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity. Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery.
     

    Nor is the author “making anything up”. That is YOUR characterization.
     
    Stating that the Revolution in the South was about "protect[ing] slavery" counts as making things up in my book. But I have rather high standards....

    The fact of the matter is that the author’s work refutes the assertion that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” You simply choose not to believe him.
     
    Schama talks about the Jewish role in the American Revolution in Rough Crossings? I'm afraid that it's been a while since I flipped through Schama's purple prose. Could you quote some passages on Jews from RC?


    Anyway, as a simple matter of fact, Jews and immigrants (I'm not counting Britons like Paine and Hamilton as immigrants) had very little to do with the American Revolution. This doesn't mean that you can't find some who participated (e.g., Haym Solomon and von Steuben), but one really can't compare their role to the one played by people like John Jay and Benjamin Franklin. The same holds true for slaves. Amerinds were a big issue, though.

    Here is the “actual historian” you cited. Ponder her thoughts.
     
    But I did, dear boy. And she was quite blunt on the subject:

    I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.
     
  189. @Corvinus
    “[C]reative invention”…….In other words, making stuff up……"

    I did not state nor imply that the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the Thirteen Colonies went to war. Nor is the author "making anything up". That is YOUR characterization. The fact of the matter is that the author's work refutes the assertion that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” You simply choose not to believe him.

    Here is the "actual historian" you cited. Ponder her thoughts.


    "We often imagine that the Founding Fathers lived during an era in which they could not envision ending slavery. But during and after the American Revolution, both allies and antagonists of the Patriots, as well as some Patriots themselves, pointed out the paradox of their claims to be fighting against their own enslavement as they continued to hold Africans in bondage. There was a growing movement toward emancipation and it is not unreasonable to think more could have been done to stop slavery. These critics were not simply wartime propagandists, but were part of what had been a century of increasing activism against slavery. Indeed, the 18th Century antislavery movement, international in composition and marked by gradual approaches to ending slavery, led to emancipation in the northern states, as well as the closing of the international slave trade. And the American Revolution itself inspired the Haitian Revolution, which in turn inspired other Caribbean slave societies to throw off their European enslavers."
     

    “[C]reative invention”…….In other words, making stuff up……”

    I did not state nor imply that the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the Thirteen Colonies went to war.

    But, dear boy, you cited Schama:

    It is not too much, then, to say that in the summer and autumn of 1775 the revolution in the South crystallized around this one immense, terrifying issue. However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity. Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery.

    Nor is the author “making anything up”. That is YOUR characterization.

    Stating that the Revolution in the South was about “protect[ing] slavery” counts as making things up in my book. But I have rather high standards….

    The fact of the matter is that the author’s work refutes the assertion that “The Revolutionary War did have little to do with slaves, Indians, Jews, or immigrants.” You simply choose not to believe him.

    Schama talks about the Jewish role in the American Revolution in Rough Crossings? I’m afraid that it’s been a while since I flipped through Schama’s purple prose. Could you quote some passages on Jews from RC?

    Anyway, as a simple matter of fact, Jews and immigrants (I’m not counting Britons like Paine and Hamilton as immigrants) had very little to do with the American Revolution. This doesn’t mean that you can’t find some who participated (e.g., Haym Solomon and von Steuben), but one really can’t compare their role to the one played by people like John Jay and Benjamin Franklin. The same holds true for slaves. Amerinds were a big issue, though.

    Here is the “actual historian” you cited. Ponder her thoughts.

    But I did, dear boy. And she was quite blunt on the subject:

    I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2