rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward. as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism". notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth. presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.
but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we. we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.
after all, slavery was our invention, right? well no. but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right? well, no again. ok ok, but whites were the only ones who owned slaves in america, right? well, not quite. ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right? um, no. but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it? nope. well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that. wrong again bozo.
let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?
slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations. people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves. and in some parts of the world, it still exists today. according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):
The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.
Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.
Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.
that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks. that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process. nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.
while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved. according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders. from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:
"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."
isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites? muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery. did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting. but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself. muslims take slaves now and they did then.
black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves. i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other. personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.
in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today. i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument. but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we?
a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america. i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.
back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves. mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber. in the article he sites several references to support his writings. an excerpt from the article is here:
The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.
In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson". anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave. check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:
"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.
Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'
Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)
and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis. the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support:
In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”
i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it. perhaps i need to hire an editor or something. this is information that everyone in this country should know. i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it. i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too. lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.
in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home. when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?
does anyone out there know?