<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 width="100%">
<TD>[I TRIED REMOVING PHOTOS AND HTML BUT IT DID NOT FIX PAGE WIDTH PROBLEM] Documenting ugly history</ECUSA-PAGE-ING>
Film describes Northern family’s role in promoting and profiting from slavery</ECUSA-AUTHOR><ECUSA-DATE-POSTED></ECUSA-DATE-POSTED></TD></TR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 width=1 align=left><T>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 align=left><T>
<TD>Family member Dain Perry and others at Assin Manso, Ghana, where captured Africans were brought for a last bath.
(Photos by Amishadal Sackitey)</TD></TR></T></T></TABLE><BR clear=all>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 align=left><T>
<TD>Family member Elly Hale and Abiko Eghagha converse at Cape Coast Town Hall.
(Photos by Amishadal Sackitey)</TD></TR></T></T></TABLE></TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 width=1 align=left><T>
<TD></TD></TR></T></T></TABLE> Northerners like to think they bear less guilt than Southerners for our nation’s ugly history with slavery and the slave trade. They are dead wrong, according to Katrina Browne, a committed Episcopalian from Boston.
Browne learned that the hard way. Now she’s spreading the word to compatriots, North and South, in a manner she hopes will help to heal what she describes as our country’s greatest wound.
Brown, 37, has created a documentary film to tell the story of her ancestors from New England, to spell out the legacy white Americans have inherited from the history of slavery.
The DeWolf family of Rhode Island was the largest slave-trading family in early America. More than 10,000 Africans – kidnapped, chained, beaten – made the hellish middle passage across the Atlantic in the holds of DeWolf-owned ships. Over the course of three generations, from 1769 to 1820, 47 of these ships made runs, building trade and the family’s fortune.
Katrina Browne is refusing to side-step that unsavory history. Instead she is facing it head on in a very public way … with her 80-minute feature film, five years in the making. She hopes Traces of the Trade eventually will be seen on PBS television.
Browne, who has a master’s degree in theology and wrote her thesis on film and democratic dialogue, needs another $100,000 to complete the final editing. In the meantime, she will show the almost-complete film to bishops and deputies at General Convention in Columbus. When Executive Council members issued the invitation in April, she accepted readily as a means to support proposed resolutions on reparations and apologies for slavery.
The film, subtitled “A Story from the Deep North,” presents an unsettling view of a wealthy family and a complicit community. It exposes a government that allowed its own laws – inadequate and overdue though they were – to be broken with impunity.
“The slave trade was illegal for most of the time the DeWolfs and other Rhode Islanders were practicing it,” says Browne. “The DeWolfs secured a political favor from none other than President Thomas Jefferson whose campaign they had supported.” That favor meant a customs official always was absent when DeWolf ships sailed into or out of the harbor.
To tell the family story, Browne invited relatives to join her on a journey of discovery, one that would retrace their ancestors’ steps. Out of 200 relatives she contacted, nine said “yes.” Those nine descendents, ages 32 to 71, traveled together to the original homes and factories in Rhode Island, to the family’s former holdings and sugar plantations in Cuba and to the slave forts of Ghana in West Africa. Then they returned to Boston and recounted their experiences to Charles Ogletree, law professor at Harvard Law School and leader of a legal team pursuing reparations for African Americans.
Browne’s camera caught it all -- emotion, argument, guilt, remorse and talk of atonement. “There is nothing like going to the slave forts in Ghana to make this as real as it can possibly be,” she says. “When we were there … in the dungeons of Cape Coast Castle, the camera light battery died. Suddenly we were in pitch blackness. Instinctively we wanted to get out of there.
“It occurred to me to have us not leave, to stay. So we all stayed. 10 minutes … 15 … in the complete blackness. I am claustrophobic. I was completely overcome … knowing what that space was, was just the closest experience I had of the just total, total horror.”
Traces of the Trade confronts viewers with their own family history. “It is particularly important that the Episcopal Church be on the cutting edge of this,” says Dain Perry, Katrina’s cousin and one of the nine who made the journey. “It was the Episcopal Church that was condoning slavery. We were the dominant denomination in early America, and we did not stand up against slavery and, in fact, ministers had slaves.”
Perry, of the Diocese of Massachusetts, has taken the film to schools and groups and led the conversations that followed. There is initial resistance, he says, but the film helps people “go down into the depths and talk … It is very real. In New England, audiences show “surprise and disappointment … to hear of New England’s involvement.”
He says he encountered disbelief and embarrassment when talk turned to the wealth created on the backs of slaves by textile mills in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.
Browne says she hopes her film will become a catalyst for dialogue and education. With the help of Zena Link, a seminarian at Episcopal Divinity School, where Browne is given an office and production space, she plans screenings for civic associations, race-dialogue groups, museums, historical societies, congregations and schools. She says she hopes the documentary will help to publicize the coming bicentennial of the abolition of the slave trade.
“Thomas Jefferson signed the law on March 2, 1807. It went into effect on Jan. 1, 1808. We are coming up on that,” says Browne. In England, where slavery also was abolished in 1807, “a coalition of religious organizations is using this bicentennial as an opportunity to organize around ending slavery [in the world] today.”
Browne says she wants people in the United States to do the same. “I really think the Episcopal Church could take a leadership role … by having a really deeply intentional process.” She points to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Truth Commission in South Africa as the model.
“A process would naturally be grounded in spirit and faith and commitment to do the work of the soul that is really needed. God willing, an effort like that could send a message to the rest of the country and invite all Americans to do similar work.”
To learn more about Katrina Browne’s film or assist with its production, visit http://www.tracesofthetrade.org/, call Ebb Pod Productions at 617-349-001 or e-mail KBrowne@TracesoftheTrade.org. </TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>
Edited by: nelson
Though we know what they say is very truth. It appears the motive is to give the Yankees a bunch of “White” guilt. I know Yankees have been accusing the South of “racism” and being responsible for the blacks and claiming to be better than the “racism” South, but I fear that what is going on now is just expanding of get Whitey. This could be being pushed in order to get “reparations!”
This poor woman is off her rocker of course. No need to get upset by the actions of such people. Actually, I feel sorry for her. Some relative should do whatever they have to, to have her put in a mental institution.
TheEpiscapal church is dying on the vine and such insane people as this woman have crawled out from under rocks and taken it over in its death throws.
Yet another "black focus" radio program on public radio is as I write being dedicated to the fact of millennia of black Africans enslaving and trafficking each other. Their rationale is not expressed as damage control (which I believe it is) but a further push for reparations........with the new twist that these talking mouths want even today's black Africans to pay!
I disagree with those who say that reparations are something that could actually come to fruition. And at times like this, they can be a useful, unintentionally amusing political football. [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]
Edited by: nelson
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9164 The article linked to here gets into the importation and enslavement of Children into the UK. Interestedly, the Asian slave children were put to work in sweatshops, while the Africans were used as domestic servants, and the East European children were used to beg and steal.
The book mentioned on the first page of this thread is now spicily reviewed in the Washington Post. I learned this, too, via SHNV, and the correspondent appears related to the book's author! [img]smileys/smiley32.gif[/img]
The last paragraph shown here is one of the pithiest I've ever handled on any subject!
<DIV>New book </DIV>
<DIV>From: firstname.lastname@example.org </DIV>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rticle/2006/06 /08/AR2006060801350.html?referrer=emailarticle </DIV>
Hereâ€™s a review in the Washington Post of the book that blows the lid off yankee slave trading, and the writing of the constitution. The greedy merchants of Newport, Rhode Island were made wealthier from slavery than any plantation owners. And it's the northerners who made sure slavery wasn't outlawed when our country was formed.</DIV>
<DIV>Check out the title.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074...f=pd_kar_gw_1/ 104-0024900-8051174?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=2831 55</DIV>
<H2>How a family in the New England slave trade came to grips with the moral issues.</H2>
SONS OF PROVIDENCE
The Brown Brothers, the Slave Trade, and the American Revolution
By Charles Rappleye
Simon & Schuster. 400 pp. $27
In the winter of 1770, the Brown brothers of Providence won a spirited contest among various Rhode Island interests for the honor of establishing the colony's first college. They chose to locate it on Prospect Hill, "with the town of Providence laid out below, and all the broad reach of Narragansett Bay in view to the south." It was called Rhode Island College, and it held its classes in "the largest building in Rhode Island, with dimensions of 150 by 46 feet, five stories high, and all enclosed in brick" -- a considerable feat of construction when one considers that most of Providence at the time consisted of modest single-family wooden houses.
That great building was then called the College Edifice. Now it is University Hall, the principal administrative center of Brown University, the name given to Rhode Island College in 1804 in recognition of the Brown family's support and generosity. It is, of course, a very different institution now, but its indebtedness to the Browns remains great. So, too, does the ambiguity of the Browns' legacy because some of their fortune's roots are less than honorable.
Like many other wealthy New Englanders of their time, the Browns were in the slave trade. That this trade flourished in New England is perhaps the dirtiest secret of a region that has spent much of the past two centuries lecturing the rest of the country about slavery, racial discrimination and other practices of which New England feigns innocence. The Browns were not in the trade as heavily as many of the great families of Newport, 30 miles to the south on Narragansett Bay. But not merely did they deal in slaves, they owned them; their treatment of their human chattel may have been somewhat more humane than that of plantation owners in the South, but their servants were slaves all the same. Though Moses Brown, an enthusiastic convert to Quakerism, freed his own slaves in 1773, his brother John never got over his belief "that the true course to wealth lay through Africa." He "willingly assumed the mantle of spokesman for slaving interests" as abolitionist sentiment began to rise in Rhode Island.
All of this is reported by Charles Rappleye, a freelance journalist and editor whose previous book (written with Ed Becker, a private detective) was All-American Mafioso: The Johnny Rosselli Story . The leap from the Mafia to colonial New England is a long one, but Rappleye makes it with style. He is a diligent researcher (who has difficulty letting go of what he finds, hence this book's excessive length) and a fair-minded, unjudgmental chronicler of the Browns' complicated story. Unsurprisingly, his sympathies gravitate toward Moses, the brother whose conscience and moral acuity eventually made him one of New England's most ardent and effective opponents of slavery. He also gives full due to John, the rougher and more driven of the two men but, in some ways, the more interesting.
John was born in 1736, Moses two years later. Their father, James, was well established in Providence; indeed, by the time the boys were born, the Browns were the leading family of Providence, chiefly because of their various nautical activities. After James's death in 1751, the boys were raised by their uncle Obadiah. "Records show that between 1748 and 1760, Obadiah and his nephews owned outright or jointly more than sixty vessels. . . . While the slave trade was never its primary concern, the family firm maintained an active interest in that line of business," and the boys came to maturity taking it for granted. In the mid-1760s, when John, Moses and their brother Joseph invested in a slave ship sailing out of Newport called Sally, "each signed on to this venture individually, and as equal partners."
There was nothing unusual about this. What was unusual was that less than a decade later, Moses had a revelation: "I saw my slaves with my spiritual eyes plainly as I see you now, and it was given to me as clearly to understand that the sacrifice that was called for of my hand was to give them their liberty." He offered his slaves generous terms of release, including use of his own land. Rappleye writes:
"As obvious a moral affront as slavery appears today, there was no consensus on the evils inherent to slavery at the time Moses freed his slaves in 1773. Opposition to slavery was, in fact, espoused by a tiny minority, controversial even among the Quakers, and considered heretical by theologians and political thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. In the West Indies in particular, but also in North and South America, slavery was the engine that drove the mercantile empires of Europe. The institution was as old as time -- finding explicit sanction in the Bible, and in the glory days of Greece and Rome -- and had flourished, in its modern form, for two hundred years. It appeared, in the eighteenth century, as universal and immutable as human nature"...........
This from the SHNF blog room -- looks like thefull 9 yards here on the so-called Emancipation Proclamation. I'm trying to rack up all the basic facts and history so people will look to ANU.ORG as THE information station.
THE GENERALLY MISUNDERSTOOD EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
The Gray Book,
by the Sons Of Confederate Veterans, General Hqs,
Box 5164, Southern Station,
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, C. S. A.
There is no document so little read or so misunderstood as the Emancipation Proclamation—
there is no subject so entirely misstated as Lincoln’s connection with, and attitude toward, freeing the negro.
Lincoln, who never freed a slave, is called "The Emancipator", while The Emancipation Proclamation, a war measure of the sternest description, holding within its possibilities an untold measure of woe for the South, is almost universally hailed as a great "humanitarian" document!
To those who wish to know the truth, attention is directed to these several points especially–the document is self-styled "a war measure; it not only did not free a single slave (this was done long afterward by Congressional action and the 13<SUP>th</SUP> amendment) but it expressly and particularly continued to hold in bondage the only slaves it could have freed, viz., those in country held by Federal armies and under the jurisdiction of the United States government; intended as a war measure to demoralize the South and destroy the morale of Southern armies is a pointed hint at servile insurrection in paragraph third from the last in the proclamation of January 1<SUP>st</SUP> , 1863.
Attention is also called to Lincoln’s attitude toward freeing the negro, as clearly expressed by him in a letter to Horace Greeley, just prior to issuing the proclamation.
This letter, inserted below, is copied faithfully from the files of the New York Tribune now in the Congressional Library. It most abundantly speaks for itself. In it Lincoln makes use of expressions which entirely dispose of any claim that he was waging war to free the slaves and which confound those who so persistently misrepresent the causes of the war between the states.
"My paramount object," he says, "in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not, either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I believe it helps to save the Union"
This letter and the terms and restrictions of the Proclamation itself show beyond any doubt the entirely war-like purpose of the proclamation and the entire absence of any humanitarian element either in Lincoln’s purposes in promulgating it or in the provisions of the instrument itself.
Lincoln’s Letter to Greeley (from Vol 22 New York Tribune, August 25, 1862, page 4, column 3, on file in Congressional Library) with a few preliminary and non-essential sentences omitted.
Executive Mansion, Washington,
August 22, 1862.
"Hon. Horace Greeley:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the constitution. The sooner the National authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be "the Union it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount (object to) those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forebear, I forebear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free.
Here follows the preliminary proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862, and then afterward the "Emancipation Proclamation" itself, exempting from its provisions all those in territory held by Federal arms and under jurisdiction of the U. S. government.
By the President of the United States of America.
I,. Abraham Lincoln, President of The United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief af (sic) the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States and each of the States and the people thereof in which States that relation is or may be suspended or distributed.
That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States, and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their consent upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will be continued.
That on the 1<SUP>st</SUP> day of January, A. D. 1863 all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any act or acts they may make for their actual freedom.
That the Executive will on the 1<SUP>st</SUP> day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States.
That attention is hereby called to an act of Congress entitled "An act to make an additional article of war," approved March 13, 1862, and which act is in the words and figure following: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the Army of the United States, and shall be obeyed and observed as such:
Art–– All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor who may have escapes from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who should be found guilty by a court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and after its passage." Also the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled "An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following:
Sec. 9. And be it further enacted that all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the Government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army, and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the Government of the United States, and all slaves of such persons found on (or) being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war and shall be forever free of their servitude and not again held as slaves.
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, that no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia from any other State shall be delivered up or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty except for crime or some offense against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretense whatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any such person to the claimant on pain of being dismissed from the service." And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce within their respective spheres of the act and sections above recited.
And the Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion shall, upon the restoration of the constitutional relation between the United States and their respective States and people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed, be compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this 22d day of September, A. D. 1862 and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.
By The President:
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
Taken from"A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789 - 1897, published by authority of Congress by James D. Richardson, a Representative from the State Of Tennessee, Volume VI, Page 96.
(This is the one that really flew to the outside world and was published)
By the President of the United States of America.
Whereas on the 22d day of September, A. D.1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1<SUP>st</SUP> day of January, A. D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
That the Executive will on the 1<SUP>st</SUP> day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designated the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and Government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1<SUP>st</SUP> day of January, A. D.1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are now and henceforward shall be free, and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that in all cases when allowed they labor faithfully for reasonable wages
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. (Seal) Done at the city of Washington, on this 1<SUP>st</SUP> day of January, A. D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President:
William H. Seward, Secretary of State
Taken from "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789 - 1897, published by authority of Congress by James D. Richardson, a Representative from the State of Tennessee, Volume VI, Page 157."
</DIV>Edited by: nelson
Peter Faneuil of Boston made a fortune on the slave trade. That's where the money came from to build Faneuil Hall.
"Most of the prominent New England merchants had ties to the slave trade and made vast fortunes from it. Peter Faneuil inherited a huge fortune, which had been made from the slave trade, and he increased his wealth through further slave trade involvement. His gift of Faneuil Hall to Boston is evidence of the wealth he made from the slave trade."
The greatest threat to freedom is not foreign governments. It is our own.
Inthe Asbury Park Press yesterday, they ran a story about this reparations malarky. I wrote a letter to the editor in response. We'll see if they publish it.
I included all our ideas on the topic and that I thought Affirmative Actionwas reparations.That poor girl, Katrina Browne should be committed to a mental hospital. I also put in that little point of Professor Ogletree of Harvard(He was included in the APP article) being a plagiarist.
In reality, affirmative action is a type of “reparations” That the rich make the working and middle class Whites pay so the rich egalitarians can feel better than the working and middle class Whites. To Blacks no amount of “reparations” will do, so they will always demand more from Whites for saving them from their African brethrens . And feeling and clothing and sheltering them for so many years and even teaching them trades but blacks still want more and more.
Yesterday, the Asbury Park Press called me and confirmed that they got my letter and that they're going to print it.
I'll ;let you know when it appears and if there's a reaction and what it is pro or con.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/...s/us_emirates_ child_jockeys Lawsuit has been file in the USA alleging that some Arabs enslaved Pakistani and Bangladeshi boys to be camel jockeys. What business is it of the USA what these sovereign countries do? Most likely, what we have here is one group of nonwhites enslaving another group of nonwhites irregardless that both groups might be in the broad sense classified as Caucasians they still are, most likely, not in our definition White. If nonwhites enslave Whites anywhere in the world, especially as is happening currently with Slavic women, it is our racial duty, every bit as much as it is their nation’s duty, to protect and rescue them using extreme force if necessary, but our government is not at all interested in the enslavement of Whites by nonwhites. The only time that nonwhites enslaving nonwhites becomes our business is when they do it in our lands, which they shouldn’t be permitted into it in the first places but that is another matter. We have no business in a fight between two groups of nonwhites about a matter that happen in their own lands!
Originally Posted by Michael
"We ahhhh the worrrrrrrrld".............
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2006/paradise_full.asp Slavery or indentured servitude in a U.S. Commonwealth! Basically, it is a highly spun piece blaming the Republicans and praising the Democrats but all spin aside both parties are heavily into to this new "slavery" which is covered-up with the word "immigration" and its’ opponents are called "racist". The hypocrisy over slavery and "racism" shown by the elite in this country is staggering. Verbally they condemn the slavery of the past but it is possible that more slaves and indentured servants are being imported today than at the height of the legal slave trade. It may be illegal but the laws are seldom enforced, so de facto it is allowed and likely even encouraged and endorsed by the elite. Though, not all nonwhites who immigrate to this country come as slaves or slave masters, but many do. Rather, we want to admit it or not nonwhite immigration is in large part importation of slaves. This is one reason that the elites are so ecstatic about it. Rather, or not they are outright slaves or indentured servants as mention above or people paid substandard wages or gypped and not paid at all but by the government (welfare), makes very little difference they are still a slave class. When the elites can no longer control them they bump them onto society to support sand import new less uppity slaves and chaos comes to society.
Outasite, Michael!!!! Please, Gang, always include at least a title and first paragraph -- only takes a second to copy and paste. That way, once the link dies, people will be able to find the article in other places it's been posted. Sometimes the title changes as it travels -- thus the need for a smattering of the text. The more text one puts here the easier that search will be, and the less necessary.
We're building a PERMANENT archive/arsenal of history here as it happens -- not to mention as it's happened in the course of the last 10 or 20 thousand years. A library neatly arranged in politically incorrect subject headings for your ongiong long-term reference, mine, and that of every school child or college youth connected with us. Right?
Nationalist culture is enduring -- it's not ephemeral, throwaway, dependent on fad or ashion, not even just a pile of useful or informative chat, though that's part of it. We're here to stay because truth is real !
It's a shame what's happened to the shape of this page -- you have to copy and paste texte from here to read it somewhere else. Let's add to it so it spills over into a fresh new one.
Edited by: nelson
One must wonder how the poor can afford to pay thousands of dollars in some cases for smugglers to smuggle them across the border? Some are into criminal activities, but others are selling themselves to enter the country. If someone very poor pays thousands of dollars to get across the border you know something very suspect is going on. One wonders how long before the human smugglers (slavers) will start preventing the illegal immigrants from crossing the border on their own or has that already been done in places?
How will the egalitarians bring back slavery? Despite all their protest otherwise these egalitarians are importing (allowing in) these nonwhites as a slave class to serve them. One big problem that is being encountered is that these egalitarians do not want to take care of their own slaves so they let the government do it in the forum of welfare. We are at the early stages of the reintroduction of nonwhite slavery into this country. It will not be called slavery or indenture servitude but given a "kinder" "gentler" name that will mean slave. A technique will be found to formalize and "legalize" this new slavery despite the fact that "slavery" will still be considered illegal. This is the major disagreement between separatist and supremacist, which many egalitarians are in their hearts. The races must be separated or the egalitarian supremacist will reintroduce slavery under a new name, and expect society to pay the bill.
From SHNV just now.
Re: Forgotten slaves
To: email@example.com </DIV>
I have a wonderful book entitled Far From the Shamrock Shore from which comes the quote â€śCaptains would often sell such men (Irish and Scottish "immigrants") in auctions like those for African slaves. The Irish were bought in groups and marched off to work on plantations." These were the lucky ones. The ones sent to Van Dieman's land (Australia) were literally hooked up to plows and worked like oxen or horses. I really don't understand how it is that only blacks in the years 1861-1865 were slaves. Odd thing that. </DIV>
The powers that be only care about the black slaves. Interesting point is that since the black slaves were expensive they were, generally, treated better than White or other color slaves. I have read how horribly the Irish slaves were treated.
Here is a link to the enslavement of the Irish. http://www.kavanaghfamily.com/articl...0030618jfc.htm
There is lots of information online about the enslavement of the Irish just put "Irish slaves" into a search engine.