One of the things that is not discussed in this drama about slavery is the fact that both blacks and whites were on both sides of that issue. It's generally presented as evil whites enslaving blacks, and good whites and blacks promoting abolition. I believe that it's that way, because it would force blacks to look at their own dirty linen before bashing whites for an institution that they played a vital role in creating. Of course, whites took advantage of that system as well, but when it was introduced to America, slavery was "normal." It had been around for thousands of years, and it wasn't until the founding fathers took on the ideas of the rights of man, and wrote, "we hold these truths to be self evident...," that the idea of slavery took on a different cast. So, we can't judge those folks too harshly, even though what they did then is anathema today. It's also interesting that, immediately after the Revolution, many slave holders freed their slaves, adding to the population of blacks who'd never been enslaved, having been indentured servants early on. Another thing that's never discussed is the fact that the industrial revolution played a decisive role in the elimination of slavery because, rather than extracting wealth from the earth, as is common in agrarian culture, the driver was extraction of wealth from ideas. This was completely incompatible with a slave culture: you can't force someone to think. Thus, capitalism and the industrial revolution were the practical implementers of the ideas of the rights of man. You can also notice that every society that's attempted to impose slavery in an industrial environment failed. Just note Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as examples. One final thing. The first countries to outlaw slavery, England and the US, are the ones that are the most pilloried about slavery, even in the face of the fact that there are counties TODAY that are still engaged in that institution, and nothing is said about them, not even by a crazy street preacher. It suggests that the two countries most responsible for capitalism and the promotion of the rights of man are held to a different standard than anyone else. Where's the justice in that? It can make one think that it's not slavery that's on trial, but capitalism and the rights of man.

I swear...none of my Swedish "Johnson" relatives ever had slaves, a few Englishmen in the wood pile, but no slaves...Laughing

Been there, read that...took me a while to shed the the thought of it.

That is part of the progressive mystique...

As some have mentioned here...we shouldn't go nuts with this type of thing...I only celebrate this one case because woodie is the one that rekindled the whole thing. Names and code of arms mean nothing in the big picture.

Ain't it the truth! And I went to a high school which bears his name, and, although I didn't know about his racism then, I never did think all that much of him. I understood for a long time that he pushed theLeague of Nations, which to me was a forerunner of the U.N., which Ayn Rand quite rightly denounced and called a "cit-
adel of global hypocrisy".

Correct again...my friend.

There are only 3 mutually exclusive cultures in the world: hunter-gatherer; agrarian; industrial. Hunter-gatherer culture is defined by foraging and hunting big game, and living off the land. Agrarian culture is defined by extraction of wealth from the earth. That's why every third world society is dominated by agriculture, mining and fishing, and that's where the concept of property rights and inheritance rights in land originated. Industrial culture is defined by extraction of wealth from ideas. That's why, only in industrial societies, do you have intellectual property, along with its protections, viz., patents, trademarks, copyrights, universal education, capital markets, etc. Notice that each of these cultures have the same look and feel around the world. We'd all be more comfortable in London, Paris, Berlin or Tokyo than we'd be in Africa, Latin America or parts of Asia. It's also important to realize that these cultures are mutually exclusive, which means that only one of them can prevail in any geographic area. As it turns out, hunter-gatherer is trumped by agrarian, and agrarian is trumped by industrial. If we look at things from this perspective, then there is no black culture or white culture or any other ethnic culture. There's only hunter-gatherer, agrarian or industrial. The problem with Obama and his ilk is that they're attempting to impose an agrarian culture on an industrial one, and are "surprised" when things don't work, especially when they should have known better. For their stupidity to have persisted for what's now a century can only be blamed on hubris and a complete unwillingness to admit that they made a bad mistake; one cannot conclude otherwise.

I think the objectionable part of your "culture" formulation is that you appear to be lumping together voluntary belief systems (e.g. islamic, socialist) which anyone can join with or withdraw from with non-voluntary characteristics (e.g. black) as to which nobody can join by any means other than birth and from which nobody can withdraw. Unless, of course, you mean to be denigrating the entitlement culture which is voluntary and which is not exclusively black. If that is so, then why title the culture as "black"?

It's our duty to point these things out in spite of the back lash...if they say your a racist then just repeat the "strangest secret" by Nightingale..."You become what you think about most of the time".

It's also important to point out that It's not ok to accept pagan bicameral barbaric practices that disempowers or physically harms another in this day and age.

Nice piece of history...thanks

Many of which couldn't let them free because of the law...such was the case with Jefferson as he inherited his fathers slaves. But make no mistake, there were plenty that were free and engaged in our independence. Check it out sometime at wallbuilders.com
Yes, it's the past, but I do celebrate This One because it acknowledges the blame squarely where it belonged.