Today in history: November 18, 1803 - The Battle of Vertières the last major battle of the Haitian Revolution is fought leading to the establishment of the Republic of Haiti the first Black republic in the Western Hemisphere The battle delivered the final blow to the French attempt to re-institute slavery as they had done in the other parts of the Caribbean This decisive blow was a major loss for France and it’s colonial empire The Haitian Revolution helped inspire slave rebellions in the United States and British colonies and struck deep fear in the minds of the slaveholders and colonizers

Hattie McDaniel

Halle Berry made headlines in 2002 when she became the first African-American to win an Academy Award for Best Actress, for her role in Monster’s Ball. Yet this didn’t seem that unusual at a time only a few years removed from the election of the first black U.S. president. It was much more of a shock in 1940 when Hattie McDaniel became the first black person to win an Oscar. Ironically, McDaniel’s Oscar-winning performance as the character Mammy in Gone With the Wind was not universally viewed as a great achievement by blacks at the time; many criticized her appearance in a film sympathetic to the view of slaveholders. It wasn’t the only irony surrounding McDaniel’s award — in keeping with segregation protocols at the time, McDaniel sat at a blacks-only table during the Oscar ceremony. Although McDaniel is best remembered for her GWTW performance, she appeared in more than 80 other films during the 1930s and 1940s. She is also regarded as the first black woman to sing on radio in the United States. Fittingly, she has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, honoring both her singing and film careers.

Image: Hattie McDaniel in 1941.

Watch on

The South Has Risen Again… in Brazil — Meet the “Confederados”

No one has determined how many Americans immigrated to Brazil in the years following the end of the American Civil War. As noted in unpublished research, Betty Antunes de Oliveira found in port records of Rio de Janeiro that some 20,000 Americans entered Brazil from 1865 to 1885. Other researchers have estimated the number at 10,000. An unknown number returned to the United States when conditions in the southern US improved. Most immigrants adopted Brazilian citizenship

In the east of Brazil, two hours away from Sao Paulo, there’s a small community that has a direct blood link with people from the southern United States. They call themselves “Confederados”. Families with last names like Thomas, Strong or Williamson are living proof of the American emigration from Brazil that started after the Civil War. They left the devastation in the southern states to start over in Brazil, which was still a slaveholder nation. The Americans brought with them their expertise in farming, especially cotton, and helped start an agricultural revolution in Brazil. The descendants of these first immigrants are very proud of their roots and while they display the confederate flag proudly, they insist they are not racist and they denounce slavery.

The descendants foster a connection with their history through the Associação Descendência Americana (American Descendants Association), a descendant organization dedicated to preserving their unique mixed culture.

The lost colony of the Confederacy By Eugene C. Harter


noqualmsaboutit said:

Just recently found out Francis Scott Key, who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner was a slaveholder. He was also a lawyer and avid defender of slavery. This saddens me but at the same time does not surprise me. I’m in the military so every time this song plays I have to stand at attention.

marksonushistoryproject said:

Do you think Americans have lived up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of independence?

Not even the Founding Fathers themselves lived up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, as many were slaveholders who didn’t believe in universal suffrage and women’s rights. So I don’t think America has lived up to the ideals of the Declaration, but that’s partly because there was little way to when the document was inherently hypocritical. As for Americans some have lived up to the ideals and others haven’t - abolitionists who fought for the end of slavery, female suffragettes and civil rights protestors were all embodying the principles of universal liberty. However unfortunately there were, and continue to be, many who seem to stand opposed to the full realisation of the freedom set out in the Declaration.

But as I see that your blog is a project based on this very question I’ll open it up to the floor so you get more answers. What does everyone else think, have Americans lived up to the ideals of the Declaration of independence?

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America

 by Gerald Horne 

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown

, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.  

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.

[book link

[E]ven if Americans became serious about emulating the citizen militias of the ancient republics in order to avoid creating a standing army, Hamilton’s own principles would exclude the possibility because of the “peculiar institution” that made the ancient militias possible, namely, slavery. What the devotees of citizen militias sometimes forgot was that the ancient republics relied on slaves to provide their citizens with enough leisure to train and to fight. For America to have had true citizen militias rather than the pallid versions found in the states, slavery would have had to become more pervasive. Not coincidentally, the strongest proponents of citizen militias in America - Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, John Taylor, etc. - generally came from the slaveholding South. Slavery, however, was morally repugnant to Hamilton. He also believed that America’s slaves, like the helots in ancient Sparta, constituted an Achilles heel. During the Revolutionary War, he accurately predicted that Great Britain would exploit America’s vulnerable southern flank by issuing proclamations that promised freedom to American slaves who escaped and joined the Loyalist side, and he singled out Virginia for being “incumbered by a numerous body of slaves bound by all the laws of injured humanity to hate their Masters.” Hamilton would express similar concerns during the Quasi-War with France. Thus, to the extent that effective citizen militias required a substantial slave population, prudence and justice precluded relying on them for the nation’s defense.
—  Michael Chan, Aristotle and Hamilton on Commerce and Statesmanship
Moirail Needed ( Gamzee / Karkat )

It was a damn good thing that Gamzee had decided to rent Karkat a while ago. Now that he was coming back down off sopor, hopefully not cold turkey, he’d be irritable again. Part of him still didn’t understand why Karkat and Jane got mad at him, he was just trying to make them happy.

Gamzee had left the common room with Jane, but she wound up having to go do something. Something about baking. Whatever. That left Gamzee waiting in his hive for Karkat to join him, as he had asked him to when he was ready. Gamzee was looking forward to spending the next couple weeks with Karkat, even if it wasn’t consistent and he went back to the slavehold here and there. 

The indigo blood relaxed on the couch in his living room, his usual spot while waiting for slaves to arrive. Not that he really thought of Karkat that way. When Karkat arrived by transportalizer, he would be standing in front of two large wooden doors, both with knockers on them. One with a happy face, one sad.

trying failing to raise one eyebrow

that “anarchist in America” documentary was okay. it was produced in like 1983 and had a hole bunch of cool interviews, with michael Bookhin and some homies of Emma Goldman as well as former miners involved in labor organizating. But, maybe just American anarchism in general, was all about ” liberation of self! personal freedom! don’t let the state or social mores dictate yer lyfe!” 

        which is cool but like…..what about the community? does personal freedom mean freedom to act like a racist dick and pollute the environment?

     Also hella romanticization of “Jeffersonion ( owner of slaves and feudal overlord) ideals” like whatever dead white slaveholding men who made a constitution that denied anyone else the right to vote should not be looked to as a “root of american anarchism”

also 15 minutes of Jello Biafra talking about punk and politics.

Overall rating: ⒶⒶ

In 1845, Frederick Douglass, a fugitive from slavery, joined dozens of white passengers on the British ship Cambria in New York harbor. Somewhere out on the Atlantic, the other passengers discovered that the African American activist in their midst had just published a sensational autobiography. They convinced the captain to host a sort of salon, wherein Douglass would tell them his life story. But when the young black man stood up to talk, a group of Southern slaveholders, on their way to Britain for vacation or business or both, confronted him. Every time Douglass said something about what it was like to be enslaved, they shouted him down: Lies! Lies! Slaves were treated well, insisted the slaveholders; after all, they said, the masters remained financially interested in the health of their human “property”.

A now-withdrawn review written in The Economist about a book on slavery said, “Mr Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery. Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains. This is not history; it is advocacy.” Was this an apology for— or justification of— slavery? Were there any slaveholders who weren’t “villains,” participating, as they did, in an evil institution?

Published on Apr 19, 2014
The historian Peter Kolchin, writing in 1993, noted that until recently historians of slavery concentrated more on the behavior of slaveholders than on slaves. Part of this was related to the fact that most slaveholders were literate and able to leave behind a written record of their perspective. Most slaves were illiterate and unable to create a written record. There were differences among scholars as to whether slavery should be considered a benign or a “harshly exploitive” institution.[42]

Kolchin described the state of historiography in the early 20th century as follows: During the first half of the twentieth century, a major component of this approach was often simply racism, manifest in the belief that blacks were, at best, imitative of whites. Thus Ulrich B. Phillips, the era’s most celebrated and influential expert on slavery, combined a sophisticated portrait of the white planters’ life and behavior with crude passing generalizations about the life and behavior of their black slaves.[42]

Historians James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton described Phillips’ mindset, methodology and influence: His portrayal of blacks as passive, inferior people, whose African origins made them uncivilized, seemed to provide historical evidence for the theories of racial inferiority that supported racial segregation. Drawing evidence exclusively from plantation records, letters, southern newspapers, and other sources reflecting the slaveholder’s point of view, Phillips depicted slave masters who provided for the welfare of their slaves and contended that true affection existed between master and slave.[43]

The racist attitude concerning slaves carried over into the historiography of the Dunning School of Reconstruction era history, which dominated in the early 20th century. Writing in 2005, the historian Eric Foner states: Their account of the era rested, as one member of the Dunning school put it, on the assumption of “negro incapacity.” Finding it impossible to believe that blacks could ever be independent actors on the stage of history, with their own aspirations and motivations, Dunning et al. portrayed African Americans either as “children”, ignorant dupes manipulated by unscrupulous whites, or as savages, their primal passions unleashed by the end of slavery.[44]

Beginning in the 1930s and 1940s, historiography moved away from the “overt” racism of the Phillips era. Historians still emphasized the slave as an object. Whereas Phillips presented the slave as the object of benign attention by the owners, historians such as Kenneth Stampp emphasized the mistreatment and abuse of the slave.[45]

In the portrayal of the slave as victim, the historian Stanley M. Elkins in his 1959 work “Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life” compared the effects of United States slavery to that resulting from the brutality of the Nazi concentration camps. He stated the institution destroyed the will of the slave, creating an “emasculated, docile Sambo” who identified totally with the owner. Elkins’ thesis was challenged by historians. Gradually historians recognized that in addition to the effects of the owner-slave relationship, slaves did not live in a “totally closed environment but rather in one that permitted the emergence of enormous variety and allowed slaves to pursue important relationships with persons other than their master, including those to be found in their families, churches and communities.”[citation needed]

Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman in the 1970s, through their work Time on the Cross, portrayed slaves as having internalized the Protestant work ethic of their owners.[46] In portraying the more benign version of slavery, they also argue in their 1974 book that the material conditions under which the slaves lived and worked compared favorably to those of free workers in the agriculture and industry of the time. (This was also an argument of Southerners during the 19th century.)

Mexicanist historians meet world. John Coatsworth (Columbia U), Antonio García de León (UNAM), John Tutino (Georgetown U). American slaveholding capitalism cannot be understood without Mexican-American War and silver. (at Oriental Institute- University of Chicago)

anonymous said:

Fun fact: First slaveholder (not just indentured servants, but permanent slaves) in the Colonies was Anthony Johnson. A black guy. He actually caused the court ruling that allowed slavery.

Oh I know, I’m baiting this idiot into setting me up to lay that smackdown. 

Of Fire and Blood | Closed RP |

Slavery had been Illegal  in the land of Westeros for thousands of years. If one was caught with the inhumane act, they would be executed at once. However, this did not stop others with this vile act. Whenever if it was for money or for pleasure, slavery still reeked in the shadows of the great continent. 

Toris, or Taurys, as his slaveholder said, was one of the few slaves that remained in Westeros. As a prisoner of war, he was stripped apart his name and his former house that he served, House Stark into a person filled with fear and own doubt. For several years, he moved from place to place with his holder, for his holder feared the law and the dire consequences. 

Today, His holder had told him of a person with high honor will take him far away and be the permanent servant. Of course, Toris did not object. If he would be taken away from his holder, then he would at least find some peace.  With orders from the holder, he took off the dirty rags that hung loosely from his own body to exchange for a white tunic, fastened with leather belts and brushed his hair from a ratted, disgusting mess to smooth strands.

The holder burst into Toris’ room and grabbed him by the wrists for him to come out of the chamber. Fearing punishment, he obeyed his holder and looked away as his hands and feet were chained together, giving little movement as he shuffled obediently towards the outdoors, where he was going to be taken away. 

"You will be good today, Taurys.." The holder whispered into his ear, his alcoholic and rotten breath searing into Toris’ ears. "Your new home is one of the richest in the land, and your master is nothing short of a pure warrior. So don’t try to run away like you always do." Toris nodded in agreement and his eyes tried to shift away from seeing the holder. Before the holder could react, a thunder of hooves can be heard.

Appearing to the both of them were two knights, and hooded stranger. While the knights had brown horses, the hooded stranger rode a white one, adorned with gold armor and jewels. “Good afternoon to ye!” He spoke towards the hooded one. “I got your request and given you the best worker in all of the lands, sir!” his voice echoed as the other got off his horse, his red and purple cape covering his whole body and face. Toris could only watch as the stranger came to him closer and closer. 

ANTICHRIST WATCH: Possible future applications - Microchip implant (human)

Theoretically, a GPS-enabled chip could one day make it possible for individuals to be physically located by latitude, longitude, altitude, speed, and direction of movement. Such implantable GPS devices are not technically feasible at this time. However, if widely deployed at some future point, implantable GPS devices could conceivably allow authorities to locate missing persons and/or fugitives and those who fled from a crime scene. Critics contend, however, that the technology could lead to political repression as governments could use implants to track and persecute human rights activists, labor activists, civil dissidents, and political opponents; criminals and domestic abusers could use them to stalk and harass their victims; slaveholders could use them to prevent captives from escaping; and child abusers could use them to locate and abduct children.

Another suggested application for a tracking implant, discussed in 2008 by the legislature of Indonesia’s Irian Jaya would be to monitor the activities of persons infected with HIV, aimed at reducing their chances of infecting other people.[10][11] The microchipping section was not, however, included into the final version of the provincial HIV/AIDS Handling bylaw passed by the legislature in December 2008. With current technology this would not be workable anyway, since there is no implantable device on the market with GPS tracking capability.

Since modern payment methods rely upon RFID/NFC, it is thought that implantable microchips, if they were to ever become popular in use, would form a part of the cashless society. Verichip implants have already been used in nightclubs such as the Baja club for such a purpose, allowing patrons to purchase drinks with their implantable microchip.

from Blogger

Sep 18 1850 United States Congress Passes Fugitive Slave Act
The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slaveholding interests and Northern Free-Soilers.

This was one of the most controversial acts of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a ‘slave power conspiracy’. It declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters.

White rural communities that house prisons wind up with more people in state legislatures representing them, while poor communities of color lose representatives because it appears their population has declined. This policy is disturbingly reminiscent of the three-fifths clause in the original Constitution, which enhanced the political clout of slaveholding states by including 60 percent of slaves in the population base for calculating Congressional seats and electoral votes, even though they could not vote.
—  Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness