The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts

Monday, May 1, 2017

Trump: Dissolving Into An Embarrassing Empty Presidential Suit (Interviews From Hell)

No automatic alt text available.

I believe it safe to state: " No American President has ever exhibited such classless behavior on camera and while in the Oval Office."

The full 23-minute interview.

Last Saturday night while the most Americans took part in watching the Washington Correspondents Dinner, Trump delivered one of the most pathetic rally performances in US History. Since you probably have a perspective on the Dinner event and Trump's pathetic rally we will focus a couple of pieces of feedback regarding Trump's Harrisburg, PA. event. 

Reagan Era Republican official David Gergen on Trump's rally performance

From a Saturday night disgust fest to a Sunday morning interview to this morning and a journey into US racism, bigotry and signaling to White Americans.

Talking Point Memo

Trump Knows Jack about Andrew Jackson. SAD!

I see this morning President Trump isn’t sure why the Civil War happened. In line with your standard Trumpian militant ignorance, he assumes that since he isn’t sure what happened that “people” aren’t sure either. In fact, they haven’t even asked the question. “People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?” As I’ve noted, President Trump is not only wildly ignorant. But, utterly unaware of the scope of his ignorance, he assumes everyone else is as ignorant as he is and frequently preens with new learnings that either everyone knew or in other cases are just completely wrong.

But I want to zero in on Trump’s comments about Andrew Jackson and the Civil War. Under Steve Bannon’s tutelage, Trump has embraced Jackson as the “nationalist” progenitor of his presidency. But here he shows he doesn’t know the first thing about Jackson. And the ignorance is of more than historians’ concern.

Here’s what Trump said in an interview with Salena Zito.
“I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.'”
Pundits are noting that Jackson left the White House in 1837 and died in 1845, 24 and 16 years before the outbreak of the Civil War. But the Civil War actually wasn’t so far from Jackson’s own time, indeed during the years of his own presidency. The final months of Jackson’s first term as president saw what historians refer to as the Nullification Crisis. In critical ways, it was a dry run for the Civil War. The notional trigger of the crisis was a tariff law which was generally opposed in the Southern states. But the real issue was the authority of the national government, whether states or groups of states could block federal laws or even secede from the union, and ultimately the security of slavery.

The originator of these doctrines and driver of the crisis was one of the great political stars of the early 19th century, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. At first an ardent nationalist, Calhoun had drifted in an increasingly sectional direction and had developed a series of theories which held that states could ‘nullify’ federal laws and in fact secede from the Union. South Carolina’s decision to nullify the tariff law triggered the crisis. But that crisis reverberated throughout the country and provoked divisions in all the Southern states which anticipated on critical fronts the debates over the Civil War.

Trump imagines that Jackson, despite being a “very tough person” would have worked things out because he was “really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.'”

Well, not exactly.

Jackson tended to personalize political conflict. But the Nullification Crisis cut to the core of one of his central beliefs: the inviolability of the federal union. Today we hear ‘nationalism’ used as a byword for xenophobia, racism and militarism. Jackson had his mix of each. But Jackson thought the crisis, what Calhoun was doing could not have been more important. He actually wanted to march an army down to South Carolina and hang Calhoun. To the extent Jackson knew about the Civil War and was “really angry” about it, he was really angry at the Southern planter aristocrats who would later start the Civil War. He was ready to go to war in 1832-33 to vindicate the union and popular democracy – two concepts that to him were basically inseparable. In other words, if we take Trump’s comments on their own terms he’s completely wrong. Jackson thought the issue couldn’t be more important and he was ready to go to war and crush the nullifiers.

We should note here that for Jackson, one of the key elements of ‘nationalism’ was his belief that popular democracy spoke most clearly when the nation spoke as a nation, not as separate polities in individual states.

The crisis was eventually resolved when South Carolina backed down and this resolution was helped along with a de facto compromise tied to tariff reduction. But the crisis spurred lengthy and fractious debates in Southern legislatures which mirrored the key questions that were to roil the country for the next quarter century. Slavery and its security in a country where the population of the non-slave holding states was growing more rapidly than the Southern ones was always a looming issue, even though support or opposition to slavery as such only came up at the margins of the debate.

What also came out of those debates was the growing salience of key aspects of Calhoun’s thought for many Southern political elites. Specifically how political minorities, in reality elite political or sectional minorities, could protect themselves and their property in an increasingly democratic polity. I don’t want to get too deep into it but Calhoun was developing a theory of what called ‘concurrent majorities’ in which different groups in society would need to sign off, as it were, on major government actions. So for instance, sure there’s democracy. But we Southerners or we planters don’t just get thrown into the national vote count. We’re a distinct group and on big decisions, we need to sign off as a group. Or we’ll leave. For Calhoun, the key groups were Southern whites and more specifically slaveholders.

Most of the key players in this period had died or passed from the political stage by 1861. But not all of them. The Jacksonians who were most vociferous in their support of Jackson’s unionism tended to be staunch unionists when the South thrust the country into Civil War in 1861, even in a number of cases where they were Southerners or from border states. The Blair family of Maryland is a noteworthy example.

I mention all this to note that the issues raised by the Nullification Crisis were not wholly alien to ones that roil American politics today: particularly, whether groups that lose out in democratic politics need to or get special rights to protect themselves against democratic majorities. I would argue this basic question is again at the center of our politics – majorities versus groups who want protections from democracy, whether this is aggressive gerrymandering, voter suppression or the voices we now here so frequently that it’s just not fair that California, for instance, has so many people.

Jackson’s historical reputation has taken quite a beating in recent years and for some very good reasons. He was a slaveholder. He presided over the expulsion of Indian tribes from the Southeast in his second term. He was a convinced racist, though this did not greatly distinguish him from the great majority of white Americans at the time, certainly for white Southerners. He has also become known for his militarism. But this is an incomplete picture. Most of the public image of Jackson today, at least in the public arena is driven by the writing of Walter Russell Meade, whose grasp of the man and the period is, I would argue, rather thin and presentist. It’s this Jackson – militarist, unilateralist, authoritarian and nationalist that Bannon is in love with and through Bannon has become Trump’s favorite President.

But history is complex. There’s another dimension to Jackson – one rooted in his devotion to the federal union above all else and his belief in popular democracy (albeit one in which only white men were included) both of which he rightly saw threatened by what Calhoun and his supporters represented.

Trump’s claim in this interview that the Civil War didn’t need to happen and could have been worked out is rooted in Southern pro-slavery revisionism (and its descendent, contemporary neo-Confederacy) and more recently in the intellectuals who were and are the seedbed of what we now call the alt-right. Both Jackson and Calhoun were slaveholders. But slavery and Southern sectionalism were Calhoun’s guidestars. The crisis of the early 1830s was his effort to draw a line, a bastardized constitutional line to protect slavery and Southern power in what he accurately believed was an inevitable conflict. On this front, in addition to his narrow misunderstanding of Jackson’s feelings ‘about the Civil War’, Trump is far more in the Calhounite tradition than the Jacksonian one. Indeed, it’s from the descendants of Calhounism that Trump draws his greatest political punch.


Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of

Monday, June 29, 2015

Fox News Contributor: Civil War Was Not About Slavery!

“You'd be Much Happier at Home with a Husband and Children”

Image added via The Pardu

What follows is class Fox News and it is as disgusting and vile as it comes.

Re Post via ...
If You Only News...

Apparently, the Civil War was not fought over slavery. That’s an absolute fact if you believe Fox News contributor Gavin McInnes. The Civil War was not about slavery, so the Confederate flag is not a racist symbol. It’s time to get over it, and accept the fact that it was all about states’ rights, so the Confederate flag is just a flag.
McInnes tweeted reasons that we should keep the Confederate flag up, and told his audience to Google the Civil War to learn the truth:
Gavin McInnes Tweet 1Gavin McInnes Tweet 2Some people actually followed his advice, and the response is hilarious:
Gavin McInnes Response 1
Gavin McInnes Response 2Gavin McInnes Response 3Gavin McInnes Response 4Gavin McInnes Response 5
It’s true that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights. Slavery, however, was the primary states’ rights issue on which the South decided to secede. In addition to the people above (among many others), Politifact also followed McInnes’ advice and Googled “causes of the Civil War.” They said:
The first hit was which told us, ‘The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.’
That’s just one site, however. Others that Politifact looked up said…pretty much the same thing. The primary economic difference between the North and the South was slavery. There were social differences between the North and South, primarily regarding slavery. And so forth.
They acknowledge, as we do, that the Internet may be flawed, so they contacted some Civil War experts to try to get to the bottom of this. Was the Civil War fought over slavery, or not? According to Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia, South Carolina’s declaration of secession was all about slavery.
Stephanie McCurry, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania, said that Mississippi’s declaration also revolves around slavery.
McInnes didn’t stop with just these two tweets, though. He posted a whole list of tweets as to why we should continue to fly the Confederate flag, so it’s not totally surprising that he would think the Civil War was not about slavery. Politifact, however, quite correctly points out that he made an absolute fool of himself when he told his audience to Google reasons behind the Civil War. He’s a racist tool, and nothing more.

Featured image by Edward Stojakovic. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

Fox News continues its onslaught against civility and humanity within our borders. Sadly, millions follow the network and via their support feed the networks bottom dwelling business model.

Politifact addressed the Fox News "actor" and rated his comment as ....

Pants on Fire!
McInnes"The Civil War wasn't about slavery."
— Gavin McInnes on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015 in a tweet
Pants on Fire!

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Eric Wattree: "Beneath The Spin"

Cross posted from The Wattree Chronicle

An Irrefutable Truth About the GOP

An Irrefutable Truth About the GOP

A gentleman by the name of James W. Lewis recently commented  no my article,"Who’s In the ‘Dark,’ the Black Community, or Dr. Ben Carson?" In his comment he posed a question which under ordinary circumstances would seem to be very reasonable, and one that seems to currently be on the mind of a surprising number of younger Black people. He asked the following:

"There’s one thing that has always bothered me about black folks. We constantly battle trying to prove we’re not all the same, especially what’s portrayed on television. We come from a variety of backgrounds, and our unique upbringings shape our beliefs, including political beliefs. If that’s the case, why do we ALL have to be Democrat (or even Independent)? The Democratic Party was once pro-slavery with obviously no, to very little African American support. The shift began in the 1940s with FDR’s New Deal. African Americans have been generally pro-Democrat ever since. If African Americans can change the face of the Democratic party, can’t the same be said for the Republican party?"

So James, in a word, no.

People often suggest that I tend to advocate for the Democratic Party over the GOP.   In response to that, first, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not a Democrat, and I haven’t been since my early twenties. I’m a independent progressive thinker, as oppose to a liberal or conservative. There is a difference.

Liberals and conservatives are both ideologues, and as such, tend to be different sides of the same coin. They both have a propensity to give ideology priority over unadulterated truth. So when truth fails to conform to their particular ideological position, they both have a tendency to try to bend and contort the truth in order to mold it into a more comfortable fit within their political philosophy.

Progressives, on the other hand, are non-ideological. We believe in following truth wherever it leads and regardless to who’s ox it gores. Truth is our only constituent, so we tend to look upon the political landscape as though we’re observing an ant farm, rather than from a partisan perspective.

At this point it must be granted, however, that progressives do generally come down on the liberal side of the ledger, but there’s a reason for that, and since we believe in truth, that reason should be obvious. The current Republican Party has become a refuge for scoundrels for some, and a refuge from reality for many others. So while I’m not advocating FOR the Democratic Party, I routinely and vociferously advocate AGAINST the Republican Party with my every keystroke, because the current GOP is filled to the brim with some of the most dangerously malevolent people in this country.

Simply ask yourself, when was the last time a party had to, literally, hide their last president and vice president during an election? Granted, I’m not a historian, but I can’t think of another time in our history. But the Republican Party had to do it twice - in both the 2008 and 2012 elections - and with good reason.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent their entire eight-year reign enriching their cronies. In addition, during their time in office they didn’t do one solitary thing to help the America, or the American people, and that’s been the Republican record for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS. The GOP has a clear and irrefutable one hundred year record of swindling the American people, which I clearly lay out in the following link. 

Thus, the GOP has clearly become the domestic enemy of the United States. So to even try to be nonpartisan with this group would constitute colluding with the enemy against the American people.

Am I engaging in a hyperbolic rant? I don’t think so. Let me prove it: Who was the last Republican president who didn’t drag America under a bus? That’s a real brain teaser isn’t it? Now try to name one good thing that the GOP has done for the American people in the last 30 years. Let me answer that for you - Absolutely nothing.

Rush Limbaugh said it out loud,- "I don’t want Obama to be successful" - and as everyone knows, Rush speaks for the Republican Party. Thus, Rush gave the Republican Party their marching orders at the very beginning of President Obama’s administration - that GOP should do everything in its power to prevent America from succeeding, regardless to the level of suffering that the American people had to endure. That is the literal definition of a domestic enemy.

The History of the Republican Party
The modern Republican is a coalition between fiscal conservatives, or big business, and social conservatives, or social bigots. Even though these two factions don’t even like each other, they have one thing in common – they both have a vested interest in undermining Black people.

Big business has a vested interest in not only lowering the standard of living of Black people, but the entire American Middle class in order to become more competitive in the global market against countries who pay their workers less per week, than the average middle-class American spends on lunch per day. And the great American bigot simply hates Black people in general. The most benevolent of them think that Black people should be relegated to shining his shoes.

But it is true that most Black people used to be Republicans immediately after the Civil War up through the Civil Rights Era – Martin Luther King was a Republican. But the Republican Party was different back then. They represented the business community of the North, and the Democrats, or Dixiecrats, represented the farmers of the South. That was one of the reasons for the Civil War. The Civil War wasn't actually about freeing the slaves; it was actually a dispute between the big business Republicans of the North, and the Southern Democrats that represented the farming interests. Black people just happened to benefit from the dispute, and during the industrial revolution big business could use the additional manpower.

But during the Great Depression the two parties began to change their alliances dramatically. After Democrat president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, turned on big business to help the poor and middle class with his "New Deal" for the American people during the Great Depression, working-class people began to gravitate to the Democratic Party. Then during the Civil Rights Era of the sixties when John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson began to support Black civil rights, Black people migrated to the Democratic Party, and southern racists began to move to the Republican Party. So, essentially, a complete shift took place in party alliances.

So when you hear someone from the Republican Party saying that it was the Democrats who kept Black people in slavery and formed the Klan, they’re trying to play on your ignorance of history. A much better way of keeping track of those who victimized Black people is by following political philosophy. It was conservatives who victimized Black people, and those conservatives currently reside in the Republican Party - and as we speak, they’re desperately trying to obstruct our right to vote.

But the Republican Party is currently in a state of turmoil. Every since social conservatives sought out refuge in the GOP subsequent to the Civil Rights Era, there’s been an uneasy alliance between the corporatist conservatives like Mitt Romney, and social bigots like Rick Santorum.

So once again there’s a dispute between the interest of fiscal conservatives, or big business, who benefit from a more practical approach to social policies - and who would love to bring in as many undocumented workers as possible as potential customers, and to lower the cost of wages; and social conservatives, the social bigots - who, if they had their way would send all undocumented workers back to their respective homelands. So a second Civil War is brewing, but this time it’s going on within the Republican Party itself, and it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.

But the bottom line is this - the bigots within the Republican Party hate Black people even more than they do undocumented workers, liberals, and gays; and the corporatists hate the entire poor and middle-class population. You heard Mitt Romney talking to his homies – he thinks nearly half of the American people are scum – Black and White.

Thus, any Black person, regardless to who he or she is, who think that Black people can find a comfortable fit in the churning  cauldron of Republican hatred, bigotry, and self-interest, has got to be a fool - a damn fool.
Eric L. Wattree

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Benjamin T Moore Jr.: Did Slavery Benefit Black People?

Benjamin T Moore Jr

by Benjamin Moore
by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.
Did Slavery actually benefit Black People? This silly narrative resurfaces from time to time, promoted by racist white people whom ironically enough, never seem to say this in the presence of Black people unless they've got security and strength in numbers close at hand. Presupposing this notion indicates not only an ingrained sociopathic racism, it reveals a paucity of historical knowledge and American history in particular. One might just as easily - in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas of course - ask if the Jewish Holocaust benefited the Jews? After all, they got the "Nation of Israel" out of the deal?

A beginning is a very delicate time... well, not really!

As with most atrocities in human history, this one too began with religion... the Catholic Church in particular.
“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.” __Papal Bull from Pope Nicholas V in 1452 known as the Dum Diversas
What the "Dum Diversas" did was usher in a new type of slavery. A type of slavery which had never before been seen in recorded human history. Chattel Slavery. Prior to this, Slaves had rights, they could own property, they could acquire skills or a trade, they knew the date of their release because slavery was not in perpetuity. They could even buy their freedom early if they were talented.
Under the aegis of the "Dum Diversas" once enslaved you were a slave for the rest of your life. You could never again own property. If you were born to parents who were enslaved, you were a slave merely by accident of birth. You were born without a future. Did slavery benefit Black people? Do you think being born into Slavery was a benefit?
One of the attendant myths is that most of the Slaves were sold to the slave traders by other Africans. Did any of this happen? To be sure, it did happen on occasion. However, when you look at the sheer numbers, it becomes immediately clear that the percentage of Slaves captured in battle and sold by other Africans becomes insignificant.
The enslavement of Africans was a booming business. As with all businesses, records were maintained. Profit and loss statements. From capture to being sold at auction was called "The Middle Passage." During the 400+ years that Slavery was practiced in the Americas, by conservative estimates, over 100 million Africans lost their lives. These were Africans who never made it to the auction blocks to live out the rest of their lives under the misery and degradation of Slavery. Africans were considered expendable and replaceable.

Where the Slaves Went
The other thing to understand is, what became The "United States of America," received no more than 4% of the Slaves. The bulk of the Slaves went to South America, the West Indies and a few went to Europe. The lions share of the Slaves went to the West Indies. Why? In a word, "Rum." Slaves were brought in to work the sugar cane plantations. The sugar was used to make Rum. The Rum was sold back in Europe and in the United States. The drug of choice was alcohol in the form of Rum and just as with Cocaine today, the cost in human misery was staggering. Did Slavery benefit Black people? A lot of white people certainly got rich selling the Rum.

The Rum-Slave-Triangle
It was quite common for the slaves working the island sugar cane plantations to simply be worked literally to death. As far as they were concerned, they had an endless supply. No doubt it was the excessively harsh conditions that lead to the Slave revolts and uprisings that eventually led to the liberation which never occurred here. The Slaves in the islands had no choice. They were dead either way.

Slavery in these United States

Haitian Revolution - the beginning of the end of Slavery in the Caribbean
Had it not been for the Haitian Revolution, theLouisiana Purchasenever would have happened. France needed the money to put down the Slaves who'd had enough in Haiti. Thus Napoleon made a deal with Jefferson which amounted to a little less than 3 cents an acre. The Louisiana Purchase solidified what was then only the seed of a notion. It was a concept that came to be known as "Manifest Destiny."

Slaves clearing land for infrastructure expansion
Ask yourself, how did a budding set of colonies, leap forward, catch and surpass the much more mature and established industries of Europe? The simple answer is all the free labor provided by Slaves. The largest cost when it comes to expansion is in building your infrastructure. Your next concern is logistics. How do you supply "civilization" to those people who expand into newly opened territories? They will need food to get started, they will need axe heads, shovels, plows, saws, nails, hammers and a host of other things we rarely consider and take for granted.

Slaves with their children picking cotton.
The only reason the South was so ready to secede from the Union was, because they made heavy use of slave labor. They could always undercut European prices on quality textiles. Because of fear and the mechanisms of oppression and control, Slaves were denied access to educational opportunities. Thus, it was more difficult to make full use of them in the industrialized Northern States. The products of industry created in the North could not compete price wise with the older more mature industrial production in Europe.

10,000 Confederate bodies stretch into the distance. They'd rather die than work their own fields.
People forget that the entire reason for the Civil War had to do with trade tariffs. In order to protect the fledgling manufacturing industries from the predatory trade practices of Europe, the Government of the United States placed tariffs on incoming European industrial products. This levelled the playing field for American manufacturers. Europe in kind did the same thing which affected the price on textiles they were importing from our Southern States. Quite naturally this cut into the profit margins - which were already way out of line due to free labor - of the plantation owners and they went through the roof.

Picketts Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg
The reason they voted to secede was because they believed that they could then negotiate their old profit margins by claiming to no longer be part of these United States. The North disputed and that disagreement led to the Civil War. As the war went on and the body count rose, it became apparent to Abraham Lincoln and others, that the South could continue to fight - logistics - so long as they had a free labor source at home tending their fields, growing their crops and producing the goods and services they needed for their war efforts.
If you actually read the "Emancipation Proclamation," you will note that it only applied to the Slaves in the rebellious Southern States. If you were a Slave in the North, it did not apply to you. Thus the notion that Abraham Lincoln freed the Slaves is specious on it's face. His "Proclamation" applied to States he did not control.

Did Slavery Benefit Black People?

The stacking of human beings as though they were cargo.
One of the common arguments of racist is to compare the standard of living and the lifestyle of African Americans with people in various nations on the African continent. To be sure there is a remarkable difference. However, we need to examine some facts. In 1492 the entire European population was estimated to be at 60 million. Compare this figure to the 100 million Africans who lost their lives during the 400+ years the Atlantic Slave Trade was in business. There were more Africans murdered - never made it into enslavement - than the entire population of Europe. When you add to this slaughter, the number of Africans who actually were sold into Slavery, what we're really talking about is an African genocide. This was the largest holocaust in recorded human history.
There is really only one true resource on this planet. It is the "Human Resource." All the solutions to all our problems ultimately come from the human mind. They are applied through human ingenuity. Every white person who has ever lived in these United States, traces their ancestry back to Europe. You no doubt are familiar with the old time machine paradox? "Could you go back in time and murdered your grandfather before he met your grandmother?" The point acknowledges that if your grandparents never got together, you wouldn't exist.

African children in poverty. Yet some white people say that slavery benefited Black people?
Keep this concept in mind when you're looking at the African Holocaust. There were entire branches of the human family that were extinguished. Some of those minds that were aborted generations before they had the opportunity to be born, may have held the cure to death and ageing. They may have held the solution to a faster than light drive which would make interstellar and intergalactic exploration possible. They may have invented new forms of abundant, efficient clean energy. These marvels are not to be... or if they come may come too late.

Ever hear of "The Real McCoy?" His inventions were so good there were knock-offs.
Even with the racial discrimination that Black people - descendants of Africa - have faced here in America, their contributions have helped to make American society the society we enjoy today.

A few inventions by Black Inventors:

  • air conditioning unit Frederick M. Jones July 12, 1949
  • almanac Benjamin Banneker Approx 1791
  • auto cut-off switch Granville T. Woods January 1, 1839
  • auto fishing device G. Cook May 30, 1899
  • automatic gear shift Richard Spikes February 28, 1932
  • baby buggy W.H. Richardson June 18, 1899
  • bicycle frame L.R. Johnson October 10, 1899
  • biscuit cutter A.P. Ashbourne November 30, 1875
  • blood plasma bag Charles Drew Approx. 1945
  • cellular phone Henry T. Sampson July 6, 1971
  • chamber commode T. Elkins January 3, 1897
  • clothes dryer G. T. Sampson June 6, 1862
  • curtain rod S. R. Scratton November 30, 1889
  • curtain rod support William S. Grant August 4, 1896
  • door knob O. Dorsey December 10, 1878
  • door stop O. Dorsey December 10, 1878
  • dust pan Lawrence P. Ray August 3, 1897
  • egg beater Willie Johnson February 5, 1884
  • electric lampbulb Lewis Latimer March 21, 1882
  • elevator Alexander Miles October 11, 1867
  • eye protector P. Johnson November 2, 1880
  • fire escape ladder J. W. Winters May 7, 1878
  • fire extinguisher T. Marshall October 26, 1872
  • folding bed L. C. Bailey July 18, 1899
  • folding chair Brody & Surgwar June 11, 1889
  • fountain pen W. B. Purvis January 7, 1890
  • furniture caster O. A. Fisher 1878
  • gas mask Garrett Morgan October 13, 1914
  • golf tee T. Grant December 12, 1899
  • guitar Robert F. Flemming, Jr. March 3, 1886
  • hair brush Lydia O. Newman November 15, 18--
  • hand stamp Walter B. Purvis February 27 1883
  • horse shoe J. Ricks March 30, 1885
  • ice cream scooper A. L. Cralle February 2, 1897
  • improv. sugar making Norbet Rillieux December 10, 1846
  • insect-destroyer gun A. C. Richard February 28, 1899
  • ironing board Sarah Boone December 30, 1887
  • key chain F. J. Loudin January 9, 1894
  • lantern Michael C. Harvey August 19, 1884
  • lawn mower L. A. Burr May 19, 1889
  • lawn sprinkler J. W. Smith May 4, 1897
  • lemon squeezer J. Thomas White December 8, 1893
  • lock W. A. Martin July 23, 18--
  • lubricating cup Ellijah McCoy November 15, 1895
  • lunch pail James Robinson 1887
  • mail box Paul L. Downing October 27, 1891
  • mop Thomas W. Stewart June 11, 1893
  • motor Frederick M. Jones June 27, 1939
  • peanut butter George Washington Carver 1896
  • pencil sharpener J. L. Love November 23, 1897
  • phone transmitter Granville T. Woods December 2, 1884
  • record player arm Joseph H. Dickenson January 8, 1819
  • refrigerator J. Standard June 14, 1891
  • riding saddles W. D. Davis October 6, 1895
  • rolling pin John W. Reed 1864
  • shampoo headrest C. O. Bailiff October 11, 1898
  • spark plug Edmond Berger February 2, 1839
  • stethoscope Imhotep Ancient Egypt
  • stove T. A. Carrington July 25, 1876
  • straightening comb Madam C. J. Walker Approx 1905
  • street sweeper Charles B. Brooks March 17, 1890
  • thermostat control Frederick M. Jones February 23, 1960
  • traffic light Garrett Morgan November 20, 1923
  • tricycle M. A. Cherry May 6, 1886
  • tricycle M. A. Cherry May 6, 1886
Did Slavery benefit Black people? It sure benefited white people.  The above list is but a few of the many things invented by Black people that we use every day. You probably are using something invented by a Black person right now. The typewriter for instance is what we call a "foundational invention." Without the typewriter you wouldn't have a computer keyboard. The typewriter had to come first.

What if there had been a European Holocaust?

The further back you prune a branch, the more leaves you remove from the tree. All those secondary and tertiary branches that split off, and the branches that split off from them are removed the closer to the trunk you make your cut.

1912 Ford Model T
If an ancestor of Henry Ford had died or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, they would not exist. Imagine what the world would look like today. If an ancestor of the Wright brothers had been killed, would we have Jet airliners today? Think of some of the people who invented vaccines, or made earth changing discoveries, if their ancestors had been swept up and murdered, what

iPhone 5
would the world look like today?
When you look at Africa, you're looking at a continent that was plundered of it's most precious of all resources, the human resource. The things that Africans may have created and invented that would have benefited the entire planet have now been lost to racist greed and the capitalism of human bondage. We are paying for this today whether you realize it or not. I have listed but a few of the contributions that the descendants of Africa have made to Western Civilization... if we can call it that. Even so, imagine what contributions they might have made had they been treated equally, and had access to the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste. Remember this when some racist fool deigns to open his mouth and spew hate speech with a smile. The answer to the question is, "No, Slavery did not benefit Black people. It benefited white people and in the process may have mortally wounded humanity."
Benjamin Moore | October 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm |