Diversity: What a Confederate Heritage Apologist Believes (Part Two)

Here’s how a Confederate heritage apologist blogger (seen here) answered the second of the questions she posed of a fellow Long Islander:

And do you consider it superior, morally or otherwise, to prefer dissimilarity over similarity? That a group of people who are diverse is better — in some ways, in all ways? — than a group of people who are alike? I’m sure you’ve heard the meme, “Diversity is our strength.” Would you say that diversity is always strength, and homogeneity is always a liability?

On an individual basis, I don’t think it is morally superior to prefer either similarity or dissimilarity, they are simply personal preferences. IOW, an east- or west- coaster, or upper midwesterner, who prefers living in areas with large foreign or ethnic subcultures, enjoys a variety of ethnic cuisine, a population that speaks different languages, enjoys different music and entertainment, and accepts varied religious expression, is no better than a Southerner who prefers to live in the South, enjoys his Southern friends and neighbors, loves Southern food, speaks Southern language (yes, we have our own English down here), enjoys Southern music and entertainment, and reveres Southern religious expression, which is overwhelmingly Christian and largely protestant. 

Can any cheerleader for diversity explain to me why a enjoyment of Turkish lamb by a New Yorker is superior, for some reason, to a Southerner’s enjoyment of barbecued pork and ham sammiches?

I don’t believe America is strong because we have worked at ways to incorporate folks from very different backgrounds. In fact, large immigrant groups from other cultures are increasingly not “incorporated” into America. They are in fact encouraged to retain their cultural identities and reject American identity, to scorn their host culture as oppressive, and to try to supplant it with their own imported culture. This diversity is the second greatest cause of the weakening of America; the greatest is the internal moral rot, which is also largely the handiwork of the left and is accomplished mostly by the popular culture, centered around turning children against church and other religious traditions of previous generations.

Once more, we see fear and loathing creeping throughout these questions, as well as a propensity to erect more strawmen.

First, of course, the questioner botches the term “Southerner.” Let’s be honest: she means white Southerners of northwest European descent. Second, note that diversity has shifted from race to region, and assumes that “Southerner,” whatever that is, is an ethnicity. So much for intellectual rigor and consistency.

No one has argued that a person who accepts diversity is “better” than a person who rejects it in their everyday life. How one decides to live their life is up to them. As someone who likes some Turkish food as well as BBQ, I find the culinary debate a bit bizarre (and I don’t think dining choices are a meaningful marker of diversity, although they say something about one’s willingness to try something different). I happen to think that you shut out a lot of humanity from your life if you restrict yourself to circulating around people just like yourself, and I find that diversity enriches my personal experiences. However, I don’t ponder much about superior or inferior cultures; I leave that to Nazis and white supremacists like Flagger favorite Matthew Heimbach. Our questioner seems rather obsessed by such issues.

I’m not sure what makes our questioner an expert on children. I understand that she’s unable to bear children, but she’s not unable to adopt them. One would be interested in learning more about her efforts to protect white children from the world she fears. My own experience is that children don’t start out drawing many lines, and the lines they do draw are rarely racial. They learn to do that from adults.

In short, the questioner’s questions have become ridiculous. They erect strawmen (who argued for the inherent superiority of one form of cuisine over another?). They equate the acceptance of equality and diversity with an effort to destroy white culture, when it might be more accurate to point out that accepting diversity questions white privilege and rejects white supremacy. Finally, as I’ve said before, equating diversity with race seems a rather limited definition, and it’s one the questioner can’t apply consistently, as she veers into region and nationality that betrays a fundamental ignorance about the world around her. Not all southerners are alike … and neither are all folks in Turkey, as anyone who knows something about Turkey can testify (and this includes regional cuisine).

What do you think?

197 thoughts on “Diversity: What a Confederate Heritage Apologist Believes (Part Two)

  1. BParks January 8, 2014 / 6:07 am

    These people seem to hold a misconception that they are part if some pre-ordained pecking order. In looking at Connie’s recent comment asking in essence that ‘if all cultures are equal how come whites were able to push minorities around? Why couldn’t they push back?’ The idea of resources and/opportunities isn’t even taken into consideration by them.

    As a Christian I think that most reasonable folks believe that God created man, and gave him free will. And that man, free from divine intervention, screws his fellow man over. And that God isn’t pleased with that.

    These folks think God not only allowed, but enabled slavery and therefore they get a free pass as do their ancestors because in their eyes diversity is mans concept – while this (racist) pecking order was pre ordained. It shows they are both mentally and spiritually sick.

    Why feel any white guilt when they can simply blame it all on God? And say they are merely submitting to His will.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 8, 2014 / 8:57 am

      Her white supremacist perspective shapes her understanding of the past. She should simply admit it.

      • Douglas January 14, 2014 / 1:07 pm

        I admit mine and embrace it. Is that a good and clear answer?

    • Al Mackey January 8, 2014 / 9:03 am

      In the Antebellum South, many believed that not only did God enable slavery but ordained it and condemned blacks to it. To this day you can find one or two extreme wingnuts who believe that, but I don’t lump my old pal Connie into that category.

    • Jimmy Dick January 8, 2014 / 12:19 pm

      I’m going to assume that reading anything by Jared Diamond such as Guns, Germs, and Steel would be too difficult for her to do.

    • Brad Griffin January 8, 2014 / 12:25 pm

      If God was so against ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacy’ and ‘slavery’ (oh, and the consumption of alcohol), why didn’t God himself just explicitly condemn these things? Why did nineteenth century Yankees have to come up with these ideas?

  2. BParks January 8, 2014 / 9:40 am

    I have had several heated conversations with some of ‘these’ folks who firmly believe that slavery benefitted enslaved blacks because it brought them to Christianity. In other words, the southern slave owner did them all a favor and ultimately saved their souls. Some even believe the native Americans were gifted salvation by the white man in regards to the taking of their land and the destruction of their culture. It’s a pitiful excuse that they have bought in to that justifies the empowerment of one race over another because in their eye these persecuted minorities are ‘better off’ regardless. I have even had people say that we did modern day African-Americans all a favor by forcibly brining their ancestors here because Africa has so many social crisis and political problems today. Talk about a twisted and misguided perspective. Sickening!

    • neukomment January 8, 2014 / 1:51 pm

      Funny how slaveholders didn’t want the Preacher to preach to the slaves about the Exodus… On another point, I do not believe the Bible ever says that just because some good eventually comes out of evil, that the evil is therefor justified and is no longer evil… That these people would imply so, shows the desperateness at rationalizing an institution that defies moral rationality… The issue is not slavery in the Bible. The issue is slavery as it was practiced in the slave holding states specifically. IMHO those are two very different questions.

    • M.D. Blough January 8, 2014 / 3:10 pm

      I’m sure that the people you had to deal with would never entertain the thought that modern Africa’s problems had anything to do with (1) the damage that centuries of the slave trade did to Africa, including robbing it of millions of its young men and women; and (2) the damage that European colonialism did to Africa including the fact that African nations, as they exist today, are artificial creations of European powers cutting across tribal lines arbitrarily and, all too often, putting tribes who have been historically hostile to each other within the same artificial borders. We don’t know how modern Africa would look if its peoples were left to their own devices. They never had the chance.

      • Brad Griffin January 8, 2014 / 11:46 pm

        I’ve considered that argument, but I disagree:

        (1) The Columbian Exchange led to an increase in sub-Saharan Africa’s population in spite of the slave trade. The Green Revolution in modern agriculture has led to an even bigger explosion in Africa’s population. There are now over 1 billion people in Africa and there will be almost 2.4 billion people in Africa forty years from now.

        (2) The most dysfunctional country in Africa, which was recently crowned by Foreign Policy as the single most dysfunctional country in the world, is Somalia which is the most ethnically homogeneous state in sub-Saharan Africa.

        We can make a reasonable guess about what modern Africa would look like today if its people had been left to their own devices. Slavery would certainly still be flourishing there. Cannibalism, which never completely went away, would be more widespread in the Congo. Islam would have continued its advance into Central and Southern Africa out of Zanzibar.

        Africa’s population would only be a fraction of what it is today. There would be no modern conveniences there like cell phones, computers, electricity, automobiles, airplanes, radio, television, etc. It would be full of societies not far removed from the ones described by late 19th century European explorers like Henry Morton Stanley and David Livingstone.

        • Jimmy Dick January 9, 2014 / 9:45 am

          Keep revealing your ignorance. Your lack of knowledge is appalling and based upon the white supremacy concept of the world.

          • Brad Griffin January 10, 2014 / 2:21 am

            My understanding is that slavery came to an end in Haiti in 1794 and white supremacy and colonialism came to an end there in 1804. In Guadeloupe, slavery was abolished in 1794, but was reimposed in 1802 and lasted for several more generations until 1848.

            In Guadeloupe, white supremacy and colonialism never really came to an end. Unlike Haiti, Guadeloupe became an overseas department of France in 1946. It is still ruled by France and is represented in the French National Assembly and Senate.

            So, the difference between Haiti and Guadeloupe is this: the LeClerc expedition was a failure, and slavery, colonialism, and white supremacy fell in Haiti, which became an independent country, whereas slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism were restored by the Richepance expedition which succeeded.in Guadeloupe.

            210 years later, Guadeloupe has a per capita income of $21,780 whereas Haiti has a per capita income of $1,300. Freedom failed in Haiti.

          • Douglas January 14, 2014 / 1:13 pm

            Whites are supreme. Are you so stupid that you don’t understand history?

            Some other nut here posted it was because whites had resources. How utter absurd. What a lack of reasoning and logic. Do you think whites were born with all the world’s resources in their hands? Africa is rich in resources. Why couldn’t the natives exploit their resources? Could it be that their culture prefers to sit in jungle huts and scratch put a living?

            How about this. They couldn’t exploit those resources because they simply weren’t evolved enough to develop a wheel.

            The only ones with power to depose whites even now are more whites. That is exactly what is happening. When we all devolve into third world cesspools, your children and grandchildren will recognize you for the idiots you are if they survive at all.

          • Joseph Andrews June 14, 2014 / 4:33 am

            This is not an argument. U are unable to refute his comments, so u attack him personally. Are u a teacher?

          • Christopher Shelley June 15, 2014 / 10:12 am

            I make it a point to never argue with racists. Since racism is inherently irrational, racists have nothing worth refuting–they have no facts, merely assertions. And bloody stupid assertions at that.

          • Joseph Andrews June 15, 2014 / 5:57 pm

            Christopher – Is this because you find it difficult to refute them? Your position – You racists are wrong cause I said so…

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 15, 2014 / 8:52 pm

            From this Aussie poster elsewhere:

            Great show August. I had no idea of this side of Hitler. I have listen to this several times now, as I do with all of your podcasts as there is so much information to take in. He is truly a great man and we need a revision of history so we can talk freely about AH. I live in Australia so I can discuss this, cautiously, with colleagues. Thank you!!!!

            http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/2012/10/17/leon-degrelle-on-the-enigma-of-hitler/

            Good bye.

          • Christopher Shelley June 16, 2014 / 10:11 am

            No, it’s because arguing with racists is like arguing with people who don’t believe in Evolution–no amount of actual scientific information penetrates.

            There’s no such thing as “race”. Scientists continue to show this. Sure, there are traits, but no-one could tell what “race” I am by looking at my DNA. Can’t be done. So if one’s worldview is based on the idea that there are different races, that worldview is just flat wrong. Any argument based on race, then, is by definition irrational. And I make it a point to not waste my time by arguing with the irrational.

            However, racism does indeed exist. And characters like you who perpetuate racism, and the staggering pain and suffering caused by racism, deserve to be shunned, not entertained. I’ve already wasted more time on your sorry ass than I can afford.

      • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 5:16 am

        They had the chance for millennia BEFORE the arrival of whites. What did they accomplish? Zilch.

      • Joseph Andrews June 14, 2014 / 4:25 am

        I’m not sure robbing millions of young men from Africa had any impact. Look at Detroit.. also, I don’t see many wanting to return. Note also that none today, have any experience of slavery. It’s just a typical victim argument to justify lack of performance.

        • M.D. Blough June 14, 2014 / 9:44 am

          Race-base chattel slavery existed in this country for nearly 250 years. Our own version of apartheid, Jim Crow de jure segregation existed for another century. Practices such as redlining, deed restrictions, etc imposed de facto segregation and exclusion from many benefits continued discrimination even where de jure segregation did not exist. To pretend that did not shape what it means to be of African ancestry in this country is willful ignorance of history. What you describe is not “typical victim argument”. What your arguments represent are the rantings of one who sees the privileges that discrimination provided to white English-speaking males, particularly ones who are Protestant, as his entitlement and resents having to share with anyone else.

          • Jimmy Dick June 14, 2014 / 9:03 pm

            They just want to believe in their shallow white supremacist version of history. Half the time it is the same person under a new name. There is no point in arguing with them. It is like the saying from Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.” They are desperate to believe in something that gives them power so they make up history to suit that illusion. We can waste our time trying to prove them wrong or just go on teaching actual history and how historians work to our students. I just don’t have time to waste on these fools any more.

          • Joseph Andrews June 15, 2014 / 7:10 pm

            Again, I have to say you are simply perpetuating the victim culture that, in your mind explains away lack of performance of many in America, Africa and Haiti. It’s not their fault, white people oppressed them with their evil (yet invisible) “White Privilege” and this shapes their behaviour. You keep clutching at historical events, some, 100’s of years in the past to buttress your position. Your premise is that today as we speak, evil white Protestants are hiding around every corner seething with white privilege, just waiting to place the heal of our Jackboot on the necks of black and brown people to rob them of their land and resources, and for people like me to be critical or judgmental of their lack of performance, is really a deeply felt irrational racism. Now, I’m no academic with the renowned intellect of some of the great thinkers of our times such as Jimmy Dicks, but I simply think you have a profound dislike of white people. You mentioned we had chattel slavery which is “Our” version of apartheid. Who are you referring to when you say “Our”. I gather you mean White people? My six year old daughter is white living in Sydney Australia. She is responsible for 250 years of slavery? She is as guilty as the next white person of Jim Crow de jure segregation? You are simply lumping all white people together and we all must take responsibility cause of our skin colour. It appears you are quite good at discriminating yourself. Would the world be better place if white people did not exist?

            I think you could sum up your position by simply saying “I hate white people”

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 15, 2014 / 8:53 pm

            And you apparently hate everyone else. Good bye.

    • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:39 am

      You’re an idiot! Whites did not “take” Native “American” land (America only came into existence because of whites). When Columbus discovered the New World, there were only approximately a million aboriginals in N. America (who, some evidence suggests, may have “taken” the land from earlier, whiter inhabitants). They did not have any claim to the entire continent, either legally (only whites in NA even had laws) or morally.

      Lands belong to those who cultivate them, build on them,or otherwise bring them into civilization. A hundred primitives have no moral license to claim the entire landmass of Australia for themselves just because they may have been the first humans to have arrived there. The NA aboriginals did very little of this. They did not build cities, or found nation-states. They lived as small hunter-gather tribes. What was truly, ethically theirs was only such game as they had killed, or personal articles (clothing, arrows, baskets) they had created.

      And yes, if I were black American, I’d be damned glad I was living in a white-majority country instead of Africa. Today’s African-Americans are much better off than if their ancestors had remained in hellish Africa. That’s just plain obvious.

      • Christopher Shelley June 15, 2014 / 10:20 am

        Boy, so wrong on so many fronts. If fact there were at least 20 million people in the Americas when Columbus stumbled onto it. They did, in fact, establish polities and other nation-states. And they farmed (where farming was possible) in ways far more efficient than their European counterparts.

        As far as “laying claim” legally or morally, they had every right European nations had. And if they hadn’t, European nations would not have recognized Indian sovereignty and negotiated treaties with them. But I’m only scratching the surface here.

        This archaic ethnocentric worldview has been discredited for decades now. It would be amusing to me were it not so destructive.

      • Jimmy Dick June 15, 2014 / 1:12 pm

        Apparently you’re using history books written by children a century ago. The evidence rejects everything you just said. That’s the problem with facts and beliefs. Facts prove something to be true. Beliefs do nothing.
        “They did not build cities.” De Soto’s journals say otherwise. The primary sources of the whites arriving in North America tell us you don’t know jack about the past. Just another case of white supremacist history.

  3. Mark January 8, 2014 / 11:56 am

    I’m religious myself, and another factor that vexes me is those folks that are so antiquarian that they simply think most ideas from the past must have had some basis in truth. Problem is, some of them didn’t at all. So those who idealize the Victorian age simply don’t realize that this period also spawned some of the more ghastly and misguided ideological falsehoods.

    BTW, Jefferson had to argue for the vindication of his fellow Americans against then current European theories of biological impotence and decay in the New World. That is something to throw at the antiquarians. I like to ask them if they think maybe there was some truth to that.

  4. BParks January 8, 2014 / 11:59 am

    Chastain also added that: “If white Christian culture is acknowledged, its loftiness will be exhibited, perhaps even reinforced, which is the very opposite of what the elites want.” The textbook definition of loftiness is “arrogantly or condescendingly superior in manner” so it appears that she believes white Christians to be “superior in manner”. That’s all the proof we need honey – and as a white Christian, I am totally offended toby your self-proclaimed superiority. You’re the one that is inferior, with your utter lack of decency as a human being!

  5. Jimmy Dick January 8, 2014 / 12:12 pm

    If anyone is rejecting being American it is the person who considers being Southern more important than being American. First of all, the entire Southern thing is based on a lie. This person is refusing to be American so that they can be something else. So for this person to complain about others not assimilating is extremely hypocritical.

    Another important issue this person overlooks is that Southerners are composed of multiple ethnic and national backgrounds. This person obviously rejects that idea and any who are not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They are lumping all whites into the same group. This is wrong. Multiple nationalities settled the American colonies so this person obviously rejects part of history in favor of one that is false in order to create a mythical southern identity.

    This whole thing comes down to a small group of people who prefer ancestor worship and a false past as security blankets against a reality that is bypassing them.

  6. Brad Griffin January 8, 2014 / 12:33 pm

    Sub-Saharan Africa was doing reasonably well under colonialism in the early twentieth century. The second half of the twentieth century – the period after freedom and democracy – was when countries like Ghana, Congo, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe went to hell.

    • Jimmy Dick January 8, 2014 / 6:05 pm

      Do you realize just how stupid you sound when I read that? You don’t know jack shit about history at all and are just running your dumbass mouth. Get your cracker head out of your cracker ass and start learning.
      Did the African Diaspora cause many of the problems? Did colonization cause these problems? Was white rule good for Africa? When the colonies “ended” the Cold War was in motion and that caused even more problems but you wouldn’t know anything about that because it doesn’t fit in with your ignorance.
      Before you even consider posting again, go get some history books and learn something other than what conservative dumbasses jabber about on talk radio. Study African history and then come back here and post. Until then don’t waste anyone’s time with your ignorance.

      • Brad Griffin January 9, 2014 / 12:16 am

        I have studied African history:

        (1) The most prosperous and advanced country in sub-Saharan Africa is South Africa which was the most extensively colonized by Europeans. The most backward areas of sub-Saharan Africa are places like Chad and Ethiopia where the European footprint was the smallest and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was non-existent.

        (2) As I said above, sub-Saharan Africa was more peaceful and advanced faster in the early twentieth century under European colonialism than at any previous or subsequent point in history. It was Europe and Asia that were devastated by WW1 and WW2.

        In the late twentieth century, Europe and Asia were mostly at peace and sub-Saharan Africa entered a downward spiral. Freedom and independence inflicted more damage on sub-Saharan Africa, not just on the people themselves, but also on Africa’s vast wildlife reserves (which had been set up by Europeans under colonialism), than the Vietnam War on Vietnam, WW2 on Japan, and the Korean War on South Korea.

        (3) The Cold War was fought most intensely in Vietnam and Korea, not sub-Saharan Africa. Its biggest effect in sub-Saharan Africa was the sprint towards decolonization. African countries were given their independence. The Left got what it wanted when Africans like Robert Mugabe and Kwame Nkrumah took over in Zimbabwe and Ghana.

        (4) As for the African diaspora, Barbados is one of the most successful black countries in the world. It is also happens to be the oldest New World slave society which was the model for the spread of slavery through the Caribbean and the Deep South.

        If the Haitian Revolution had been defeated, Saint-Domingue may have turned out like Guadeloupe or Martinique where slavery came to an end generations later and white supremacy and colonialism continued through most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

        • Jimmy Dick January 9, 2014 / 9:48 am

          You have not studied history. You don’t know jack about history. What you are saying here is based upon white supremacist beliefs that have no basis in reality. You lack a grasp of context which is deliberate because you are trying to advance a racist belief system that has no bearing in historical reality. Basically what you have typed here is white ignorance and I really hope that no one falls for your lies.
          Thank God I have classes starting Monday and I can teach actual history to students instead of these lies from white supremacists like you.

          • Brad Griffin January 10, 2014 / 2:58 am

            The historical reality of Haiti, now in the 210th year of free society, and Liberia, now also in the 167th year of freedom, and Detroit, MI after 40 years of black rule, and Birmingham, AL after 35 years of black rule, illustrate the merit of my “racist belief system.”

            The U.S. nuked Japan twice and dropped over 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam including napalm and Agent Orange. We inflicted less damage on Japan and Vietnam than freedom and equality inflicted on the places mentioned above.

            Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) used to feed much of the African continent. Now that it is “Zimbabwe” under Robert Mugabe, it can’t even feed its own people. There is enough farmland in southern Congo alone to feed everyone in Africa. The Congo also has 1/6th of the world’s hydroelectric power potential and mineral resources that dwarf those of almost every European country with the exception of Russia.

            If sub-Saharan Africa weren’t so ineptly mismanaged, it could rise to the level of North America or Australia. The people who live there are the main reason why that hasn’t happened.

          • Jimmy Dick January 10, 2014 / 3:25 pm

            And once again your ignorance is revealed because you do not address the issues that took place in those countries over time. No need to worry. I and the other teachers here will make sure that none of the racist and evil history people like you try to tell people stands up under the scrutiny of the truth. You see one thing and make interpretations while ignoring everything else that went on before.

            The problem is people like you screwed up those countries with your racist and evil concepts and then left them hanging when you abandoned them. Then you try to avoid all the blame like the hypocritical assholes you are. Fortunately, all you can do is whine because you and your racist scumbag buddies are in no position to do anything but whine.

          • Brad Griffin January 11, 2014 / 1:49 pm

            Oh really?

            Please explain something for me: if the US or France or some other country screwed up Haiti, how is it that the average per capita income is so much higher in Puerto Rico, which is an actual US territory, or Guadeloupe and Martinique, which unlike Haiti remained a part of the French Empire and were incorporated into France itself?

            If it was “slavery” that “screwed up those countries,” how is it that Barbados, the first slave society in the New World, which became the model for the expansion of slavery in the Caribbean and American South, is one of the most successful black countries in the world, whereas Liberia after 167 years of freedom is one of the world’s top ten failed states? The most successful black countries in the Americas are the ones that are most affected by European influence in the form of tourism and offshore banking. The poorest black countries are places like Niger and Chad where the European impact was the smallest.

            Ethiopia, which was only briefly conquered by the Italians under Mussolini, is hands down one of the most backward states in sub-Saharan Africa, whereas South Africa – where white supremacy and colonialism had by far the greatest impact – is the most prosperous country in the region. How is it that countries like the Congo and Ghana were able to advance under white supremacy and colonialism while they collapsed into utter ruin under freedom and democracy?

            No country in sub-Saharan Africa was more affected by US imperialism than Japan, which was firebombed and nuked during WW2, or Vietnam, where we dropped 7 million tons of explosives and killed hundreds of thousands of people, or Korea which was partitioned and where we fought the Korean War. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Ireland were British colonies far longer than any country in Sub-Saharan Africa.

            Did the British screw up Sierra Leone which they founded as a colony as a dumping ground for freed slaves? Did they screw up Africa by abolishing slavery there? Why isn’t Hawaii reeling after a century of US imperialism?

            The reason Haiti is so much more backward than other country in the Caribbean is because that is the place where freedom and self government has been given its longest trial. In the smaller islands in the eastern Caribbean (or in the postwar American South), there wasn’t enough land for blacks to opt out of the plantation system, so they continued to work for the landowners and those countries are relatively better off today as a result.

          • Jimmy Dick January 11, 2014 / 5:38 pm

            And once again, the racist version of history is shown which of course is a simplistic and completely erroneous version. You forgot where the US exploited Haiti for generations using military force so that American companies could profit from a low wage totalitarian system. That was white power against black people for white monetary gain.

            The same thing went on in the African colonies but of course you ignore the parts of history that show the racism because it doesn’t fit in with your simple minded belief system. White power held back those countries and then continued to exploit them in the name of freedom by propping up totalitarian governments.

            You should request your money back from Auburn University because if what you spew out is what they taught you as history then they don’t know anything about history. I think though that if we checked with the history department at Auburn we would find that you didn’t learn your version of history at Auburn. It is just made up by you and the rest of the racism scumbags.

            But then you don’t teach history. I do. So your version goes into the trashcan while real history gets taught to American students of all races so we can continue to build a diverse America. Your treasonous kind can only lie about things. Slowly, but surely we’re educating Americans who reject your filth.

          • M.D. Blough January 11, 2014 / 9:37 pm

            There is also the isolation of Haiti by the United States from the beginning. The US did not recognize Haiti as a nation until 1862, nearly 60 years after Haiti declared its independence, even though France recognized its erstwhile colony’s independence in 1825. Fear of appearing to endorse slave revolts played a role but there was also a fear by Southerners in the US government that they might have to literally rub shoulders with blacks representing Haiti at various receptions in the U.S. capital, especially diplomatic ones, if the US recognized Haiti.

          • Brad Griffin January 12, 2014 / 10:19 am

            The US didn’t recognize Communist China for 30 years or the Soviet Union for nearly 15 years. In spite of this, Americans continued to trade with China and the Soviet Union throughout this period, and the same was true of Haiti in the antebellum era. China is now the world’s largest trading nation and will soon become the largest economy on earth.

            Haiti’s precipitous decline had nothing to do with American foreign policy. It had everything to do with the triumph of radicalism: abolition, the free labor system, black power, independence, land redistribution, and so on. The difference between Haiti and the US South is that white supremacy remained intact after abolition in 1865 while in Haiti the French population was exterminated by Jean-Jacques Dessalines.

          • Brad Griffin January 12, 2014 / 10:50 am

            Jimmy,

            I must have *forgot* that because it simply isn’t true. Unlike the rest of the Caribbean, foreigners weren’t allowed to own land in Haiti from independence in 1804 until the Haitian constitution was changed during the US occupation in 1918.

            By that time, Haiti had long degenerated into its present Fourth World condition. Sir Spenser St. John wrote “Hayti, or the Black Republic” in 1884. Hesketh Prichard published “Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Haiti in 1901.”

            In the nineteenth century, there was LESS foreign exploitation in Haiti than in any other place in the Caribbean. Blacks were MORE empowered in Haiti than anywhere else in the Western hemisphere. There were no foreign troops in Haiti from 1804 until US marines arrived in 1915.

            Contrast Haiti with Guadeloupe and Martinique where 1.) white supremacy was restored, 2.) colonialism was restored, and 3.) where slavery was restored and lasted until 1848. Because the LeClerc expedition failed whereas the Richepance expedition was a success, Guadeloupe and Martinique took a different path and remained a part of the French Empire.

            As for US exploitation and investment, Americans built their “Sugar Empire” in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Hawaii, not Haiti. It was Puerto Rico, not Haiti, which became a US territory and where US political and economic institutions were transplanted. The same thing happened in Hawaii which eventually became a US state.

            Low wage industries? What industries are you referring to? The textile industry? Yankees moved their low wage textile plants to Dixie during the Jim Crow era and to places like South Korea and Taiwan after the Second World War. South Korea, Vietnam and Singapore have had authoritarian rulers, but none of them turned out anything like Haiti.

            There’s actually a simple explanation for Haiti’s terminal decline: slavery and the plantation system had been the cause of Saint-Domingue’s fabulous wealth, and when slavery was abolished there, the sugar industry simply moved to Cuba because free labor couldn’t compete with slave labor. Similarly, the coffee industry moved to Brazil in the nineteenth century.

            Free blacks in Haiti refused to work on the plantations. After the French were exterminated, Haitians squatted on land in the countryside and effectively seized control of it, which is why Haiti degenerated into extreme rural poverty and backwardness while White landowners in the eastern Caribbean remained in control of the land and their labor force like White Southerners.

          • Jimmy Dick January 12, 2014 / 7:10 pm

            Learn some history, Brad. Try reading an autobiography of Chesty Puller and his service in Haiti. You’ve ran your mouth enough with your lies. Domination of Caribbean trade by America is what wrecked a lot of Haiti’s economic progress along with European domination. You’re just going to have to forget the racist version of history. It doesn’t hold up under scrutiny unless of course you only work with the “facts” put forth by you which have been shown to be extremely manipulated to support the white supremacist conclusions.
            Too bad you wasted your time at Auburn. Better stick to the white supremacists blogs if you want people to believe your lies.

          • Rob Baker January 12, 2014 / 10:41 pm

            In the nineteenth century, there was LESS foreign exploitation in Haiti than in any other place in the Caribbean. Blacks were MORE empowered in Haiti than anywhere else in the Western hemisphere. There were no foreign troops in Haiti from 1804 until US marines arrived in 1915.

            In 1825, the French sent an invasion fleet to reconquer the island. This resulted in a treaty where France recognized Haiti, but Haiti had to pay France 150 million francs (plus interest). The forced payment hurt Haiti’s economy for years. This added to the pain of economic isolation from other countries. (Paul Farmer and Jonathan Kozol (2006). The uses of Haiti (3 ed.). Common Courage Press.)

            Your economic points ignore two obvious factors:

            1. Your premise of wealth is a free for all where immoral behavior is tolerated for economic gain. Sugar cane plantation owners expanded their empire in the Caribbean through slave labor. Political maneuvers by economically tied white southerners led to economic isolation from Haiti. This kept Haiti’s free labor from competing at all with slave labor.

            2. Colonial holdings have a different economic system than individual nation states. For example, you continually bring up Guadalupe. It is true that its economy is strong today; but that economy is based primarily around tourism with large federal subsidies from it’s “mother country”, France.

            Haiti’s current economic problems are both internal and external.

            External:

            France’s colonial contribution
            International Boycott
            French debt, 1838
            U.S. Occupation
            U.S. aid packages post-WWII

            Internal:

            Slave-like labor systems
            The Wealthy Elite
            Human Rights Violations used for oppression

            Note: All of the internal issues have their roots in the French colonial period.

          • Brad Griffin January 13, 2014 / 2:40 am

            Jimmy,

            You have failed to point out my “lies”:

            1.) First, you claimed that the US exploited Haiti for generations, but Haiti was the ONLY place in the entire Caribbean where foreigners were legally forbidden to own property. From 1804 until 1918, Americans weren’t allowed to own property in Haiti until the constitution was changed during the US occupation.

            US investors were far more active in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic during this period and especially after the Spanish-American War. Hawaii also came under direct US rule and Americans overhauled and dominated the sugar industry in all of these places.

            In stark contrast, Haiti was an unparalleled experiment in black power. There was LESS foreign influence and MORE black power in Haiti from 1804 until 1915 than anywhere else in the Caribbean and later on even in sub-Saharan Africa itself.

            2.) Second, the US hardly *dominated* Haiti’s trade in the 19th century. It’s true that Haitian trade in TROPICAL COMMODITIES was *dominated*, but it was by Haiti’s slave labor competitors in Cuba and Brazil who took over the sugar and coffee industries. Tobacco was grown in the Upper South and Cuba. The indigo industry moved to the East Indies.

            The abolition of slavery was also a boon to sugar industry in the British West Indies. Abolition later had the same paralyzing effect in Jamaica that it had in Haiti. Like Haiti, Jamaica also sunk into Third World rural squalor as blacks abandoned the plantations for the countryside. Cuba and Brazil boomed as a result.

            3.) In the Caribbean, European Empires dominated every other country in the region WITH THE EXCEPTION of Haiti: the Spanish West Indies, the Dutch West Indies, the French Indies, the British West Indies. the Danish West Indies.

            After the Spanish-American War, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic came under American influence. Unlike Haiti, Guadeloupe and Martinique remained a part of the French Empire and were later incorporated into France itself.

            4.) If slavery, white supremacy, colonialism, and European and American influence were the cause of Haiti’s backwardness, then Guadeloupe and Martinique, or Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, or Barbados and the Bahamas should be much worse off today than Haiti because all of those things in some combination lasted much longer there.

            In particular, Barbados should be the most miserable black country in the world because it was the original slave society, the model for the spread of slavery across the entire Caribbean and the Deep South. Instead, Barbados is one of the most successful black countries in the world because it benefited the most from the legacy of slavery.

            In Haiti, somewhere around 75 percent of the blacks who were living there were born in Africa and only recently transported there when the Haitian Revolution erupted. The authentic culture of West Africa, which is manifested in voodoo and cannibalism, was preserved in Haiti while it went extinct among the creoles of Barbados and the Leeward Islands who were civilized by centuries of British rule.

            5.) To sum things up here, freedom failed in Haiti: slavery was replaced by abolition, white supremacy was replaced by black supremacy, colonialism was replaced by independence, monarchy was replaced by a republic, white power was replaced by black power, and Europe’s culture was jettisoned and Africa’s culture was institutionalized.

            Elsewhere in the Caribbean, the reverse was true: slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism were restored in Haiti’s sister colonies, Guadeloupe and Martinique, while Puerto Rico became a US territory and Barbados remained a British colony. 210 years later, Haiti is an unmitigated disaster like its sister republic, Liberia.

          • Brad Griffin January 13, 2014 / 3:58 am

            Rob,

            1.) Saint-Domingue’s colonial wealth was based on three things: slave labor, the plantation complex, and the export of tropical commodities, sugar and coffee. The Haitian Revolution ended slave labor and physically destroyed the sugar industry in Haiti.

            Haitians themselves discouraged foreign investment by exterminating the French population and banning Europeans from owning property in the “Republic of Haiti.” So what happened was that French planters, who were now excluded from Haiti, shifted their operations to Louisiana, Cuba, Jamaica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Mauritius and Réunion.

            Combine this with the fact that Haitians were averse to plantation labor and squatted on small plots in the countryside, where they shifted from capital intensive agriculture to subsistence farming and Haiti’s plunge into Third World rural squalor makes sense.

            2.) The US didn’t diplomatically recognize Haiti until the Lincoln administration. It hardly follows though that the US and European countries didn’t trade with Haiti during the antebellum era. In 1819, Haiti under King Henri Christophe exported 1,200,000 pounds of raw sugar, 15,500,000 pounds of coffee, and 2,000,000 pounds of cotton.

            If Haiti was economically isolated by the US and Europe, why did coffee production in Haiti rise from 15 million pounds in 1819 to 81 million pounds in 1849? How is it that Haiti was able to export more coffee – let’s remember, to the US and Europe – while sugar, indigo, and cotton production collapsed during the same period?

            It’s because Haitians were harvesting more WILD coffee beans growing among the ruins of the colonial era plantations!

            3.) Yes, I agree: Guadeloupe and Martinique have both BENEFITED from their colonial relationship with France. In contrast, Haiti has SUFFERED by severing that connection. Undoubtedly, Puerto Rico would be far worse off today without US social welfare spending on everything from healthcare to foodstamps.

            4.) French troops never landed in Haiti in 1825. Haiti was the only place in the entire Caribbean that WAS NOT under European or American rule from 1804 until 1915.

            5.) The infamous public indemnity was later reduced from 150 million to 60 million francs. Haiti’s public debt can’t explain its precipitous economic decline though:

            – First, it was Jean Pierre Boyer who negotiated the debt, and Boyer agreed to it because he didn’t consider it an unreasonable burden at the time. In 1824, Haiti was exporting 24 million pounds of raw sugar. This was significantly down from the 93 million pounds that was exported by the French colonial government in 1789.

            – Second, it was reasonable for Boyer to assume that Haiti’s exports could return to their level during the colonial era after peace and diplomatic recognition was achieved with France.

            – Third, the value of Saint-Domingue’s exports under French colonial rule in 1789 had been 205 million francs, which is why a 60 million franc indemnity did seem so foreboding.

            – Fourth, the value of Haiti’s exports had declined from 205 million francs in 1789 to 22 million francs in 1824 by the time the deal with France was struck. Thus, the debt to France can’t explain the decline in Haiti’s exports from 1804 to 1824 because it didn’t exist yet.

            – Haiti’s sugar industry collapsed between 1824 and 1850. It went from exporting 93 million pounds of sugar in 1789 to 2.5 million pounds under Boyer in 1824 to NOTHING in 1950. Cuban competition CRUSHED Haitian sugar.

            In sum, Haiti’s current problems are merely an extension of its swift descent in the early 19th century into crushing, rural Third World poverty and backwardness, and that was caused by the demise of slavery, the plantation system, and the export of tropical commodities, which had been the pillars of its colonial prosperity.

            Haitians themselves made the decision to exterminate the French population and ban foreigners from owning property in Haiti. Haitians themselves made the choice to abandon capital intensive agriculture for primitive subsistence agriculture. Haitians ruled themselves with little outside interference from 1804 until 1915.

            Black power is the reason why Haiti is Haiti, and why no other country in the region is nearly as dysfunctional as Haiti, even though the rest of the Caribbean has a shared history of slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism. The longevity of colonialism and white supremacy explain why other Caribbean countries are so much better off than Haiti.

          • Rob Baker January 13, 2014 / 12:21 pm

            – Brad

            1.) You are excluding other economic factors that do not fit your paradigm. If you’ll notice, I cited an inclusive external and internal problem.

            2.) I’m confused as to how Haiti “destroyed it’s sugar cane industry”, when it is exporting 1,200,000 lbs. That is an interesting point you are arguing. Trade between the U.S. and Haiti was unofficially closed in 1805 and officially shut down in 1806. Though trading did exist on small levels, it was always U.S. dominated in that U.S. ships could call on Haiti but Haitian ships were not allowed in U.S. ports. These actions further devastated the Haitian economy, already wrecked from 12 years of war.

            If Haiti was economically isolated by the US and Europe, why did coffee production in Haiti rise from 15 million pounds in 1819 to 81 million pounds in 1849? How is it that Haiti was able to export more coffee – let’s remember, to the US and Europe – while sugar, indigo, and cotton production collapsed during the same period?

            You are talking out both sides of your mouth. How can you argue that Haiti is such a failure, while at the same time asserting that they had economic prosperity via exportation during their era of economic isolation?

            After the aforementioned treaty with France in 1825, Haiti was allowed to export coffee to continental Europe. Yet, economic exportation never accelerated as per population growth leading to more serious economic problems.You routinely leave out other economic factors when dealing with exports. The over production of Brazilian coffee in the 19th century contributed to economic issues in Haiti despite the abundance of its number one export, coffee. The fact that Haiti had to maintain a large military, justified by the rebellions in the D.R., French invasion and Spanish invasion , also put a drain on the economy. So again, war debt + economic isolation + debt payments to France + large standing army due to justified threat of invasion are all irrefutable issues brought on by outside powers which hurt the economy of Haiti. (The Economic History of the Caribbean Since the Napoleonic Wars By Victor Bulmer-Thomas)

            3.) Haiti “suffered” by severing their economic connection because, as previously mentioned, those other powers economically ruined Haiti through various means. Asserting Puerto Rico is better off is purely conjecture. You simply do not know. Nor can you predict the foreign policy of stronger powers towards the PR, which would dictate its level of prosperity.

            4.) Sorry that was a generalization. It was however “gun boat diplomacy”. France forced Haiti into economic debt in 1825. Although there was no colonial rule, holding a nation at such tremendous debt for so many years creates subjugation by an external force.

            5.) The infamous debt was reduced, but interest still drove the overall payment up 90 million. And it is routinely cited as worsening the perpetual debt that further weakened Haiti’s economy.

            – First, – you are basing your conclusions on France’s perceived maximum subsidy that they thought Haiti could pay.

            – Second, Based on what?

            – Third, demonstrating the stupidity of such a deal. Why would the French assume the same type of economy existed in Haiti?

            – Fourth, I already explained this. Haiti does not exist in a vacuum. It’s exports are dependent on prices in the world market. Much like you evaluate when comparing sugar cane, but forget any other time.

            – Because Haiti ceased sugar cane production on the commercial scale used during the colonial age. They opted for peasant raised cane, and maintained low level economic exportation. Even after U.S. intervention and capital investment, the Sugar Cane industry still did not prosper. (Same source as above)

            In sum, Haiti’s current problems are merely an extension of its swift descent in the early 19th century into crushing, rural Third World poverty and backwardness, and that was caused by the demise of slavery, the plantation system, and the export of tropical commodities, which had been the pillars of its colonial prosperity.

            Thanks for that gross generalization that promotes your “white power” ideology, but does little to actually explain Haiti’s current economic situation.

            Haitians themselves made the decision to exterminate the French population and ban foreigners from owning property in Haiti. Haitians themselves made the choice to abandon capital intensive agriculture for primitive subsistence agriculture. Haitians ruled themselves with little outside interference from 1804 until 1915.

            Again, wrong, given their economic exportation and external debt.

            Black power is the reason why Haiti is Haiti, and why no other country in the region is nearly as dysfunctional as Haiti, even though the rest of the Caribbean has a shared history of slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism. The longevity of colonialism and white supremacy explain why other Caribbean countries are so much better off than Haiti.

            Proving yet again your preconceived notions block out objective investigation. One of the many internal issues that Haiti faced as an emerging nation was the political rivalry between two class and caste systems: Black People and Mulattoes. Also, other colonial powers experienced different avenues towards freedom which included emancipation and decolonization. So really, it is the violent actions by nations fearful of black uprisings of people they hold in subjugation that leads to such economic disparity.

          • Brad Griffin January 13, 2014 / 10:39 pm

            Re: Rob

            1.) That’s because there are no other economic factors. The numbers explain everything:

            This isn’t hard to figure out. In 1789, Saint-Domingue exported roughly 94 million pounds of raw sugar, 47 million pounds of refined white sugar, 77 million pounds of coffee, 76 million pounds of cotton, and 7 million pounds of indigo. In 1789, Saint-Domingue’s combined exports were worth around 205 million francs.

            Saint-Domingue’s prosperity was due to the export of these valuable commodities. In turn, the export of these commodities was made possible by a form of capital intensive agriculture based on slave labor and the plantation system, which were the two pillars of the colonial economy.

            France’s colonial contribution? No, Saint-Dominigue was the wealthiest colony in the world under French colonialism.

            International boycott? There was never an international boycott of Haiti which continued to export sugar, coffee, and cotton in the early nineteenth century.

            French debt, 1838? By the time Boyer negotiated Haiti’s debt deal in 1824, Haiti had ceased to export refined white sugar, raw sugar production had plunged from 94 million pounds to 2.5 million pounds, coffee production had sunk from 76 million pounds to 30 million pounds, cotton production had sunk from 77 million pounds to 3 million pounds. Haiti’s economic collapse was going on long before the debt deal was struck.

            US occupation? As the Sir Spenser St. John and Hesketh Prichard books show, Haiti had become what we would recognize as Haiti long before the US occupation in 1915.

            US aid packages post-World War II? So billions of dollars in humanitarian spending ruined Haiti? That’s nonsense.

            Slave labor-like systems? Saint-Domingue’s economy relied on slave labor. Whether you like it or not, that economy was capable of generating fantastic wealth.

            The Wealthy Elite? There isn’t a country in the region which doesn’t have “a wealthy elite.” The US has “a wealthy elite.” So what? Saint-Dominigue had a wealthy elite and it was thriving until the Haitian Revolution.

            “Human Rights Violations”? Meaningless. Saint-Domingue’s economy was fabulously productive and created enormous wealth. Predictably, the destruction of that system and its replacement by the inferior “free labor system” was an economic catastrophe.

          • Brad Griffin January 13, 2014 / 11:41 pm

            Re; Rob

            2.) Very simple.

            Once again, the numbers explain everything: in 1789, Haiti exported 94 million pounds of raw sugar and 47 million pounds of white sugar.

            In 1801, Haiti exported 8 million pounds of raw sugar and 18 million pounds of white sugar under Toussaint L’ouverature.

            In 1819, Haiti exported ONLY 1 million pounds of raw sugar under King Henri Christophe.

            In 1824, Haiti exported ONLY 2.5 million pounds of raw sugar under President Boyer..

            By 1850, sugar had ceased to be an article of export in Haiti.

            How can I say that Haiti had destroyed its sugarcane industry? Because, Haiti under freedom was exporting only 1 PERCENT of the raw sugar in 1819 that it had exported in 1789 and 0 percent of the refined white sugar that had been its golden goose. By 1819, there had been a 99 percent to 100 percent decline in the Haitian sugar industry!

            As the export records show, foreigners were still willing to buy Haitian sugar, coffee, and cotton throughout this period. The problem was that Haiti was simply unable to produce these commodities at colonial era levels and that was because without the compulsion of slavery, Haitians refused to work on the plantations. They preferred to squat on marginal land in the countryside, multiply their numbers, and engage in primitive African subsistence agriculture.

            Is there a paradox in the rise of Haitian coffee exports between 1824 and 1850? No, this proves that there was no foreign barrier to Haitian exports. The rise in Haitian coffee exports was due to harvesting wild coffee beans from the wreckage of ruined colonial era plantations. The coffee industry shifted to Minas Gerais in southern Brazil because wild Haitian coffee produced by free labor was hopelessly inferior to Brazilian coffee produced by slave labor.

            Haiti’s military spending can’t be justified by any lingering French military threat. The LeClerc expedition had proven that the cost of retaking Haiti was far greater than any economic benefit that could be derived from the colony. What’s more, there was no benefit to France (or anyone else for that matter) in recolonizing such a ruined country which by that point produced so little, especially when French sugar production had already shifted elsewhere – Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Réunion – and had long exceeded Saint-Domingue’s historic peak level of production.

            4.) That’s absurd.

            Puerto Rico and Hawaii were hardly ruined by the US occupation. Neither was Guadeloupe and Martinique where slavery, colonialism, and white supremacy continued to exist long after their demise in Haiti. There’s also the British Caribbean, particularly Barbados, which remained under British colonial rule until the mid-twentieth century.

            Haiti’s economy collapsed because ex-slaves were unwilling to work on the plantations. They preferred to pursue the “Haitian Dream” of primitive African subsistence agriculture while their enslaved counterparts in Cuba and Brazil were taking over and modernizing the sugar and coffee industries which had been its economic lifeblood.

            5.) The debt had little to do with Haiti’s economic collapse – there had already been a 99 percent to 100 percent decline in the sugar industry before 1824.

            As I showed you above, Haiti’s colonial exports in 1789 were worth 205 million francs. If Haiti had been able to return to the colonial level of production, it could have paid off its national debt quite easily. Both France and Haiti were looking back on the example of Saint-Domingue during the colonial era in the debt negotiations.

            The US modernized the sugar industry in Cuba, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic after 1898.

            6.) No, I am quite sure the 99 percent decline in sugar production before 1824 and the shift from European capital intensive agriculture to primitive African subsistence agriculture is the real reason why Haiti descended into a Fourth World level of poverty. There’s absolutely no reason why anyone should expect the latter type of economy to be as productive as the one that formerly existed there.

            7.) In 1995, Haiti’s exports when adjusted for inflation were worth less than the value of Saint-Domingue’s exports in 1788 after a 205 years of freedom. In fact, colonial Saint-Domingue had used the waterwheel and flume to grind sugarcane, but Haiti had retrograded so far that this Roman level of technology had been forgotten there by the 1990s.

            8.) Finally, every other European colonial power – the Spanish, the Dutch, the British – put down slave revolts in the Caribbean. Slave revolts were put down in the United States, too. With the exception of Haiti, slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism endured much longer elsewhere in the Caribbean.

            No other country in the Caribbean is nearly as bad off as Haiti is in the 21st century. The only thing that makes Haiti unique – slavery, colonialism, and white supremacy were the rule everywhere else – is that its “experiment” with freedom and self government has lasted so much longer than anywhere else.

            What would Detroit look like after 210 years of black rule? Probably something like Haiti or Liberia, its sister republic, which is arguably even worse off after being torn apart by the likes of “General Butt Naked” and “General Mosquito Spray.”

          • Brad Griffin January 14, 2014 / 3:35 am

            Re: Rob

            The following excerpts are taken from Laurent DuBois’ “Haiti: The Aftershocks of History” on pages 137-138:

            “The Haitian Revolution didn’t halt the trading, and even created new opportunities for commerce. The United States was where Toussaint Louverture bought most of his guns and ammunition, which eventually enabled his army to defeat LeClerc.”

            ^^ The US sold Haiti the weapons it used to win its independence from France.

            :In the first year after Haiti’s declaration of independence, no fewer than forty ships sailed between Haiti and the United States. …

            Although French envoys, smarting from the loss of Saint-Domingue, pressured the US government in 1806 into prohibiting trade with Haiti, the law was repealed in less than three years, and the embargo was never taken very seriously by merchants. By the 1820s, Haiti’s exports to the United States were worth more than two million dollars per year (the equivalent of more than $30 million today), and Haiti was providing one-third of all the coffee consumed in the United States. Haiti brought in a steady stream of imports as well, making it among the top ten US trading partners, just behind Germany and ahead of Brazil. Because Haiti was the only independent country in the Caribbean with the rest of the region under the control of European empires that restricted trade,, it was the one place US merchants could trade freely,m and they took full advantage of the opportunity.”

            ^^ So, it turns out there was no US economic blockade on Haiti – quite the opposite, it was the rest of the Caribbean where US merchants faced trade barriers.

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 7:20 am

            Brad,

            I’m sorry but as soon as you mentioned numbers in your first sentence I stopped reading and began skimming for citations. I have routinely included the source of my information. You are not. Given your references in other comments on this thread, I think you need to start posting citations for your information before I take your comments seriously. All I can see from your jumbled numbers is you teasing out variables in order to fit your agenda.

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 7:35 am

            -Brad

            Btw, your argument about Haiti being rich during colonialism and poor after is ridiculous. Rich for who? It certainly was not rich for the natives or the slaves of Haiti. It was rich for the French government and the land aristocracy. The economies of a colony held under the system of mercantilism by a mother country vs the economy of a free and independent state are completely different things. The fact that you are comparing the two as some sort of statement of productivity of white vs black rule demonstrates that you really do not know what you are talking about.

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 12:25 pm

            Re: Brad

            “Haiti: The Aftershocks of History”

            So, you make an argument that the reason for failure in Haiti is due to black power. To make this argument, you cite a book which argues that the divide between the urban and rural class, and the dominance of the light skinned mulatto elite are pivotal factors in Haiti’s hardships. (Something I already cited from other material)

            As well as my aforementioned issues of: France’s exploitation in 1825 putting the country into perpetual debt; and the U.S. exploitation of peasantry land.

            If you want to keep beating the horse on sources as to whether or not the United States’ official boycott, and subsequent U.S. trade-at will policy, be my guest. But this book really doesn’t make your case. Instead, you’ve taken a secondary source, taken facts out of context, and applied them to your bigoted worldview.

          • Brad Griffin January 14, 2014 / 2:52 pm

            Re: Rob

            1.) DuBois is undoubtedly referring to the massacre of the mulattoes under Emperor Faustin I Soulouque.whose reign was an utter disaster. DuBois glosses over it in the book, but Spenser St. John and other sources describes what happened at length.

            I don’t take that argument very seriously because, well, there are mulattoes in literally every other Caribbean country, especially the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, which are far more racially mixed than Haiti, and neither of those countries turned out that way.

            2.) As I pointed out above, there was already a 99 percent decline in the Haitian sugar industry BEFORE the debt agreement with France in 1824, so the debt couldn’t possibly be the cause of the collapse of Haiti’s export sector. I also pointed out to you that Haiti could have easily paid off the debt too if its export sector hadn’t collapsed.

            3.) There was never a US embargo on Haitian exports. You made that up. There was a meaningless law which was passed in 1806 as a sop to the French, which was ignored and repealed a few year later. Haiti was one of America’s larger trading partners in the early republic.

          • Brad Griffin January 14, 2014 / 3:02 pm

            Re: Rob

            1.) How is it ridiculous? Under French colonialism, Haiti was the richest, most productive, most intensely cultivated spot in the entire world. While you might object to slavery on moral grounds, there is no doubt that the plantation complex produced fabulous wealth, or that the demise of that system and the shift to subsistence agriculture is what sunk the Haitian economy.

            2.) Can we compare the two?

            Why not? The abolitionists themselves were certain at the time that “free labor” was vastly superior to “slave labor.” It didn’t matter that the swift decline of Haiti under freedom showed otherwise, or that the “free labor” experiment in Sierra Leone had been an unmitigated disaster, or that the British Caribbean, too, had sunk into Haitian-style poverty and backwardness after the abolition of slavery there.

            I know the “Civil War” is your little area of expertise. Well, the example of Haiti more than anything else is why Southern planters were certain that abolition would bring about economic ruin, and guess what, they were right about that too.

          • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 5:14 am

            I have literally never encountered such an idiot. Nothing you wrote above is true. Haiti is a rathole because it’s been ruled by blacks for 2 centuries. Look at Rhodesia. Look at South Africa post-apartheid. Look at the rest of Africa. Look at America. Blacks cannot build or even sustain advanced civilization. That is due not only to scientifically established low IQ,but also pathological criminality. Why are blacks so criminal? And why are their crimes characterized by such terrible cruelty? You need to spend some quality time around the beautifully behaved black underclass.

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 11:42 am

            I’m sure you think so.

          • M.D. Blough January 14, 2014 / 6:15 pm

            No wonder you failed to cite your source in the first place. DeBow was an aggressive proponent of slavery to the point that he campaigned for the reopening of the African slave trade and he used his publication to advance those views. It was no simple agricultural journal. He hardly is an objective source. Also, in your praise for the wealth production of slave labor in the Caribbean sugar plantations did you factor in the conditions under which those slaves labored? According to the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool England;

            >>The plantation relied almost solely on an imported enslaved workforce, and became an agricultural factory concentrating on one profitable crop for sale. Enslaved Africans were forced to engage in a variety of laborious activities, all of them back-breaking. The work in the fields was gruelling, with long hours spent in the hot sun, supervised by overseers who were quick to use the whip. Tasks ranged from clearing land, planting cane, and harvesting canes by hand, to manuring and weeding. The plantation relied on an imported enslaved workforce, rather than family labour, and became an agricultural factory concentrating on one profitable crop for sale.

            Inside the plantation works, the conditions were often worse, especially the heat of the boiling house. Additionally, the hours were long, especially at harvest time. The death rate on the plantations was high, a result of overwork, poor nutrition and work conditions, brutality and disease. Many plantation owners preferred to import new slaves rather than providing the means and conditions for the survival of their existing slaves. Until the Amelioration Act was passed in 1798, which forced planters to improve conditions for enslaved workers, many owners simply replaced the casualties by importing more slaves from West Africa.

            (Bridenaugh and Bridenaugh 1972, 266; Edwards 1793 II, 118)<<http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/archaeology/caribbean/

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 6:39 pm

            Gracias.

            Wow, what an objective secondary source…. The De Bow’s review was known to be pro-South, pro-Secessionist and pro-slavery as a response to abolitionism. Did you bother to cross examine the information founded here?

          • Joseph Andrews June 15, 2014 / 12:58 am

            Jimmy….address his points. Why have u not refuted one point.

          • Dan January 14, 2014 / 5:42 am

            You teach? Jesus!

            You can barely deal with logic. Griffin has won by default.

            Also have you noticed that your black students are chronic no shows? Chronic bad writers? Chronic in class sleepers?

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 11:46 am

            Dan (obviously that is the handle of a coward too afraid to use his real name)

            I teach in a plurality school. My biggest turds: Privileged white kids, poor blacks. At least those with the poor socioeconomic status have an excuse.

            Best students? Asians, Middle Easterners, and school club whites.

          • The Flyer January 14, 2014 / 2:17 pm

            Well then “teacher”, why don’t you tell us your point of view and see if you can actually refute what Brad is saying, instead of the usual (and tiresome) cries of “white supremacy…wwhhhhaaaaaa!”?

          • Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 6:28 pm

            You mean besides my responses which are cited?

          • The Flyer January 14, 2014 / 10:02 pm

            I was referring to Jimmy Dick. You know, the so-called “teacher” who’s only rebuttal to Brad’s facts and citations is a piece of (long debunked) Judeo-Marxist tripe like “Guns Germs And Steel”. Oh, and of course sputtering RACIST!!!!

          • Rob Baker January 15, 2014 / 9:46 am

            Guns, Jerms and Steel is not a marxist approach to history. It is a geographical one. Thanks for playing.

          • Elgar January 14, 2014 / 7:13 pm

            Gee professor, you sure haven’t demonstrated your knowledge of the topic. This Brad here is taking you to school.

          • Joseph Andrews June 14, 2014 / 4:51 am

            jimmy…you’re a teacher? Brad has given u several clear points on colonisation, and the positive affects on Africa. Why cant u refute him? I’m worried.

      • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:42 am

        You are a brainwashed fool. Brad Griffin is historically correct. The horrors came to Africa AFTER the white man ALLOWED himself to be booted out. The high point of Africa was its time under European colonialism. Exactly the same pattern will follow (indeed, has been set in motion) in South Africa. A lovely country I visited in 1983. Today, the rape capital of the world. What changed? White rule replaced by black.

      • Dan January 14, 2014 / 5:37 am

        That is not an argument. Griffin, even if you disagree actually provided facts that fit a narrative. All you can do is hurl insults.

        You lost every exchange against a very well prepared opponent.

        Colonialism brought technical advancement to Africa, just as it did when Graeco-Roman civilization spread to Gaul, Britain, Ireland (at least the religion) and Germany. As soon as places like Somalia or Congo get themselves in trouble they ask for American and European assistance and expertise.

        Additionally you promote cross cultural exchanges as a GOOD and then hypocritically dismiss demonstrable advances brought by white contact with Subsaharan blacks. You can’t pretend Europeans brought medicine and technology to Africa that had never existed there and only emphasize the violent Imperial conquest.

      • Jack ryan January 14, 2014 / 10:40 am

        Are you arguing that Blacks in Liberia, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalian are now living better lives than 50 years ago when Whites were mostly running politics, education, economics?

        In case you haven’t noticed, Muslims are reimposing slavery on Blacks in places like Mali. It got so bad, Neo Colonial French military forces intervened in Mali. Local Blacks seemed happy, waved French flags.

        • Jimmy Dick January 14, 2014 / 11:22 am

          More racist rants by the same guy? The word context just means nothing to this guy.

          • Tina January 15, 2014 / 6:43 pm

            The only word you can come up with, is ‘racist’. These guys know their Haiti history ten times better than you do.

            So all you can do is accuse. They’re kickin’ your ass. Go ahead and teach your lies in the communist classroom

          • Joseph Andrews June 14, 2014 / 4:55 am

            Jimmy, are u really teacher? Have u been to university? Dont mean to be offensive, just curiouser.

          • Joseph Andrews June 15, 2014 / 5:38 pm

            Hi Jimmy. Any chance you could stop posting. Let us sort this out. I think Brad has made his point to you quite effectively. if you have anything other than “you don’t know shit” to contribute then come on back.

            Hi Rob – Why have you not refuted Griffin’s points? He has countered each of your attempts. All you have done is attacked his source as biased. Your team then provided equally biased material from a museum in England on Slavery. You are attacking the man and NOT the argument. It should not matter what his motivations are, his arguments should stand or fall on there own merit. This discussion is truly the most interesting I’ve ever read on this subject. Three brain washed 60’s Anti-White academics from the left, against a man armed with nothing but facts and a quest for the truth. Your best rebuttal is “shut up your a racist” This is gold!!!! We need to share this with the world.

          • Jimmy Dick June 15, 2014 / 7:23 pm

            What point is there to refute? A history constructed from the hatred of black people? Or just a history that is obviously constructed from a narrow minded point of view that everyone else rejects except the people that racists?
            When you want to present some real history that is constructed from real sources from all points of view then maybe people will listen to you. Until then, they will just sigh and move on to something else.
            But then again, who are you? Just another faceless wannabe who is not a historian nor anybody of any consequence. When you learn how to interpret history come back. Until then, just keep whining.

      • Douglas January 14, 2014 / 1:15 pm

        And apparently you do?

  7. Patrick Young January 8, 2014 / 5:50 pm

    I don’t know if the Heritage advocate recognizes this, but countries and regions that welcome diversity are stronger in many ways because of it. As Alabama found out when it passed laws viewed as hostile to immigrants, multinational businesses and research projects started avoiding the state because job creators, particularly those in the creative sector, don’t want to invest in diversity-resistant places.

    Perhaps there was a day when a small white community could prosper in isolation from the world’s variety. That day is over.

    • Brad Griffin January 9, 2014 / 12:36 am

      Really?

      So what you are saying is that KIA has pulled out of Georgia and Mercedes, Airbus, Toyota, and Hyundai have pulled out of Alabama and BMW has pulled out of South Carolina? In reality, it is California, Michigan, Illinois, and New York which are shedding middle class jobs.

      There’s more foreign investment in the South than any other region of the United States because of right-to-work laws, lower taxes, and cooperative state governments. South Carolina, which passed a similar Arizona-style immigration law, had more job creation by foreign owned companies than other state in 2012.

      http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20131220/BUSINESS/312200062/S-C-named-top-state-foreign-direct-investment

      “Diversity” is thriving in Northern cities like Detroit and Camden.

      • Al Mackey January 9, 2014 / 9:38 am

        What makes you say Camden, NJ is a diverse community? What makes you believe that diversity is a cause for problems in Camden, NJ?

        • Brad Griffin January 10, 2014 / 2:27 am

          Camden, NJ is 48 percent black and 47 percent Hispanic – it’s the perfect microcosm of the sort of “diversity” that the Left would like to foster in every city in America. We found out last month that 3 students in Camden had “college ready” SAT scores in 2013.

          • Al Mackey January 10, 2014 / 12:45 pm

            So your definition of diversity is two nonwhite/non-Anglo ethnic/racial groups predominating. How diverse is that? When the shipyards closed in the 1960s and industry left the city, thus depriving it of a huge tax base as well as good-paying jobs, is that the fault of “diversity?” Without the money to attract, hire, or retain good teachers or to provide more than the minimum, is there any wonder education in the city is lagging? How is that due to “diversity?”

          • Brad Griffin January 10, 2014 / 6:09 pm

            Blacks and Hispanics are the two biggest minority groups in America. These are the two groups that liberals promote above all others while talking about the wonders of “diversity.” They are almost equally represented (with a smattering of Asians) in the utopia that is Camden, NJ

            Vallejo and Stockton, CA are 2 out of 3 of the most “diverse” cities in America. Both Vallejo and Stockton have filed for bankruptcy. Los Angeles, a city which is even more “diverse” than Camden, NJ, is “a city in decline” according to a recent report.

            http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-report-los-angeles-budget-20140107,0,2124833.story

            Pittsburgh survived the collapse of the steel industry without becoming another Detroit or Camden. It is now ranked as one of the best metro areas to live in America. Both Detroit and Birmingham, which also went through deindustrialization, are surrounded by some of the wealthiest suburbs in America whose economies reoriented toward other industries.

            Camden is also surrounded by wealthy suburbs which are populated by people who used to live there. The people who inherited Camden (or Memphis, Birmingham, Detroit, North Philadelphia, or Chicago’s Southside) and their capacity to generate economic growth along with “good-paying jobs” and a large tax base is the real problem.

            BTW, an average of $2,000 more is spent on non-White students than White students in the Northeast. The average per pupil spending in the Birmingham City School system is higher than the average level of per pupil spending in most of Birmingham’s suburbs.

          • Al Mackey January 10, 2014 / 10:11 pm

            So then you’re using an invalid definition of “diversity” to criticize diversity. Since you’re using an invalid definition of “diversity,” then your assessment of what cities are “diverse” is problematic. So we’re probably better off sticking with Camden. Camden is indeed surrounded by suburbs, and many of the folks who used to live in Camden moved to those suburbs. For the most part, it’s their kids who are living in those suburbs now. But I digress. How would you suggest people generate economic growth when the industry that was there is gone? In Pittsburgh, the steel industry collapsed after the shipyards in Camden shut down, and Pittsburgh learned from what Camden and other cities went through, changing from a reliance on steel to a great increase in the health care industry. How would one compare the diversity of Pittsburgh with the diversity of Camden, using a valid definition of diversity? I maintain Pittsburgh is a much more diverse city than Camden. Your statistic on per-pupil spending is not on point, since it concerns the entire Northeast, and is not limited to Camden. Your trying to compare Birmingham spending with spending for the entire Northeast is an invalid comparison, since you’re comparing a city with a region consisting of several different states.

          • M.D. Blough January 10, 2014 / 10:38 pm

            I lived and worked in the Pittsburgh area during the collapse of the steel industry which to a large extent also devastate coal production in the area. Many mines, particularly in the areas around Pittsburgh, were “captive” mines owned by steel companies and in existence only to provide cokeable coal for the mills. When the mills closed, the mines closed. The loss of these wages not only hurt the mill workers and miners but businesses all over the area where those wages were spent. I dealt with it first hand. In the late 1970s-early 1980s I was working as an attorney first for the Compensation (workers’ compensation, Federal Black Lung, etc) of what was then District Five of the UMWA and then for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Employment Security in Pittsburgh, where, among other duties, I handled cases in Bankruptcy Court in which employers owed the UC Fund unpaid taxes. Even where some limited mill production remained, steel companies appealed their real estate assessments and had them drastically reduced. In other cases, companies went out of business. Cities like Braddock and Sharon were devastated, losing most of their tax revenue.

            The educational and health care (increasingly dominated by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) centers have been in existence all along.

          • Brad Griffin January 11, 2014 / 2:01 pm

            I’m using the Left’s preferred definition of diversity which is the alleged positive benefits that accrue from the presence of large numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics. In Camden, NJ, the long awaited multiculturalist utopia has been realized, and African-Americans and Hispanics are almost equally represented in the city’s population.

            It’s a myth that the problems of Camden, Detroit, or Birmingham were caused by deindustrialization. All three cities are surrounded by thriving suburbs which have moved on to other industries. In Birmingham, it is healthcare, finance, and telecommunications. The abysmal Birmingham City School system is one of the best financed public school systems in Alabama because of the take from one of the highest local sales tax in America.

            You said above that there isn’t “the money to attract, hire, or retain good teachers.” In response, I pointed out that the average level of per capita spending on non-White students in the Northeast is almost $2,000 dollars more than the average per capita spending on White students. The dismal state of Washington, DC’s public schools should be sufficient to show that no amount of per pupil spending is sufficient to fix the problem.

          • Al Mackey January 11, 2014 / 9:48 pm

            You’re using a caricature–a strawman. You are not using “the Left’s preferred definition.” That’s either a lie or you have no idea at all what it means. Camden is a city whose decline I know very well, having been there for it. It was the loss of industry combined with the racism to not bring more jobs into the city that caused its fall. Your using the Northeast to make an argument about specific places merely shows you’re clueless about statistics as well. We shouldn’t be surprised, though. It takes a special lack of intellect to be a racist in today’s world.

          • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:58 am

            Nonsense. My best friend is from New Jersey (another elite college grad). He’s from a white area near Newark; dad owns property in Newark. Newark, Camden – biggest ratholes in NJ. hmmm… what do they have in common? hmmm …

            Why can’t you pathetic white progressives ever grow up? Isn’t the constant “doublethink” incredibly tiresome?

          • Joseph Andrews June 15, 2014 / 5:49 pm

            Oh my God, Brad is destroying you one by one. Your rebuttal is “it mealy shows your clueless” ?? Your argument is to hurl insults ?? You can’t actually refute and show his statistics/points are wrong, you just assert that they are? . This is Gold!!! Patrick Young – Destroyed , Jimmy Dicks – Destroyed, Al Mackey – Destroyed, M.D. Blough – Destroyed, Rob Baker – Destroyed.

          • Thelibertylamp January 11, 2014 / 5:36 pm

            Yeah, Bradley, because a 2011 report from a right wing propaganda policy group (Brookings Institution) says so….

          • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:59 am

            WHOA!! Brooking Institution … “rightwing”? Haha, tripped up, fool!

          • Al Mackey January 11, 2014 / 9:54 pm

            From the story: “… the 87 percent white population of greater Pittsburgh — Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington and Westmoreland counties … ”

            So they are combining figures not just from the city, but also from the county in which the city is located plus six other counties.

            The “study” has no credibility at all.

          • Brad Griffin January 12, 2014 / 8:43 pm

            Umm no.

            It is commonplace to compare metro areas to other metro areas – a metro area doesn’t include just its central city. It also includes the surrounding suburbs and counties. In Alabama, the Birmingham-Hoover metropolitan area includes Jefferson, Bibb, Walker, Shelby, Blount, St. Clair, Chilton and Jefferson County, not just Birmingham.

          • Al Mackey January 13, 2014 / 11:48 am

            Umm, yes.

            “It is commonplace to compare metro areas to other metro areas”

            Pick one, then. You’re comparing the city of Camden and the city of Detroit with the Pittsburgh Metro Area. You can’t even do what you claim is “commonplace.” If you want to compare the equivalent of the “metro area” of Camden [since Camden is actually part of the metro area of Philadelphia], you’ll have to include all of Camden County, at least, which includes the thriving suburbs of Cherry Hill, Haddonfield, Haddon Heights, Barrington, Runnemede, Bellmawr,Vorhees, Lindenwold, Clementon, Glendora, Runnemede, and Gibbsboro, plus other suburban places like Pennsauken, Westmont, Collingswood, and Berlin, not to mention Maple Shade, Gloucester City, Gloucester Township, and plenty of other places. And that’s only Camden County. We could expand it to Gloucester County, Burlington County, and Atlantic County.

          • Patrick Young January 12, 2014 / 7:13 am

            I am sure that when white supremacists think diversity, they think Camden. For the rest of us, a city like, let’s say, New York City might be the place to visit to soak in the variety of cultures.

            Camden is a deindustrialized city that was once heavily reliant on a single employer building ships. When that employer went bankrupt when I was young, roughly half of the city’s jobs went away. The people left behind were typically people who could not get out. Camden has 77,000 people.

            New York City, which you may be familiar with, has 8 million people. It’s demographics are as follows:

            White 44%
            Hispanic 28%
            Black 25%
            Asian 12%

            37% are immigrants.

            Diverse communities are not monocultural, obviously, but they typically are don’t follow binary lines either. They are areas welcoming to real racial, ethnic, religious (and irreligious), sexual orientation, and other differences. They are also places where the different communities are not walled off from one another, but where people of different backgrounds come together in an intellectual creative ferment that creates new syntheses.

            All the jobs based on foreign investment in a state like South Carolina would fit into a couple of Manhattan blocks.

            Diversity does not lead to division or dysfunction, as the white supremacist vision would have it. For instance, two of our least diverse states have the second and third highest murder rates:
            Miss 7.4
            Alabama 7.1

            New York State’s murder rate is only 3.5

            New York City typically ranks among the lowest big city murder rates in the country, and that murder rate has been going down as immigrants have increased their share of the city’s population.

          • Brad Griffin January 12, 2014 / 9:57 pm

            1.) New York City has reached a Third World level of inequality. It holds the title as the single most unequal place in the United States:

            http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/wealth-gap-widest-new-york-city-article-1.1460454

            The cause is not hard to figure out. New York has a gentrified, financialized economy that is driven by Wall Street. At the same time, it is an immigrant magnet for low skilled workers from the slums of the Third World, who have no prospect of ever rising to the top in such a society, which is why so much crushing poverty coexists alongside fabulous wealth.

            2.) As I said above, Vallejo-Fairfield holds the title as being the most “diverse” metropolitan area in the United States. Stockton is the third most diverse. Both Vallejo and Stockton have filed for municipal bankruptcy.

            3.) Mississippi and Alabama are the first and sixth blackest states in America. What’s the cause of the violence in those states?

            Of course, it is the black population that resides in some of the blackest large cities in America like Birmingham, Montgomery, and Jackson, which is also the cause of 55.5 percent of the homicide in New York City. Throw in Hispanics and 89.3 percent of the murder in New York City can by explained by the wonders of “diversity.”

            4.) Remember the nonsense you posted above about Arizona-style immigration laws chasing off direct foreign investment? South Carolina and Alabama are first and second among states (Georgia is sixth) in the United States in direct foreign investment:

            http://sccommerce.com/news/press-releases/south-carolina-leads-nation-jobs-tied-foreign-investment

            “Presently, there are more than 1,200 operations of foreign-owned companies located in the state, employing more than 100,000 South Carolinians, according to Commerce data. Since January 2011, the state has recruited $6.7 billion in capital investment from foreign-owned companies, with German, Japanese, French and Chinese firms representing the highest investors. More than 15,600 jobs associated with foreign firms have been recruited to South Carolina during that time.”

            New York state isn’t even in the Top Ten. In fact, there’s a new United Van Lines migration study out which shows that South Carolina is second among inbound states while New Jersey, Illinois and New York were the top three states that were losing population/

            5.) There’s a reason why New York City has such a low murder rate: the tough “stop-and-frisk” anti-crime policy that was implemented by Guiliani and Bloomberg, which has been heavily criticized for “racial profiling,” and which de Blasio has pledged to overthrow.

            Detroit had a similar policy, it was called STRESS (Stop The Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets), before Coleman Young was elected mayor on a platform of dismantling it.

          • Patrick Young January 13, 2014 / 7:32 am

            Brad posted:
            _______________________________________
            “4.) Remember the nonsense you posted above about Arizona-style immigration laws chasing off direct foreign investment? South Carolina and Alabama are first and second among states (Georgia is sixth) in the United States in direct foreign investment:

            http://sccommerce.com/news/press-releases/south-carolina-leads-nation-jobs-tied-foreign-investment

            “Presently, there are more than 1,200 operations of foreign-owned companies located in the state, employing more than 100,000 South Carolinians, according to Commerce data. Since January 2011, the state has recruited $6.7 billion in capital investment from foreign-owned companies, with German, Japanese, French and Chinese firms representing the highest investors. More than 15,600 jobs associated with foreign firms have been recruited to South Carolina during that time.”
            _______________________________________

            To give you a sense of the quality of research he is employing in his white supremacist tirades, that is nothing more than a press release from the State of South Carolina’s business promotion department. I could probably get similar press releases from Camden.

          • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 5:06 am

            Good stuff, Brad! Though you are way too polite to these fools. You need to recognize who can be reached with truth, and who has a commitment to closed-mindedness. These “whites” are lost to our race. Their maladapted genomes will eventually interbreed and disappear from the white fold.

            The task of the white preservationist is to reach out to those of our kinsmen who are truly persuadable. The day is late, night approaches, we must marshall our resources to exert the biggest impact.

          • Dan January 14, 2014 / 5:45 am

            What other definition of diversity can there be? It’s just another word for no whites.

    • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:45 am

      Completely incorrect. The least diverse areas of white lands always score highest on “happiness” studies. Trayvon Martin, Willie Horton, Barack, MS-13, etc – can’t imagine why.

      Just let our people go. We do not want diversity. We want to live among ourselves alone, in the nation our white forefathers founded and built.

      • Brooks D. Simpson January 14, 2014 / 11:07 am

        Of course, slavery had something to do with the nation your white forefathers built. Actually, the slaves did much of the building.

        Your people are free to go. They can leave at any time. You might want to inquire whether Greenland’s available.

    • Jack ryan January 14, 2014 / 10:44 am

      Idiotic nonsense.

      The Japanese build their auto manufacturing plants in homogeneous parts of the South to escape multicultural anarchy, underclass crime, educational failures.

      Is anybody investing in Iraq or the Central African Republic where there is religious sectarian bloodshed, tribal hatreds?

  8. Carmichael January 8, 2014 / 7:52 pm

    Isn’t Jared Diamond a white male of Northwest European descent? Wasn’t he educated at segregated schools by white males of Northwest European ancestry? And as I look over at the photos of all those who post here, isn’t every person white? It seems as if whites do quite well indeed when left to their own devices (just consider the genius it took to land on the moon). But everyone is also afraid to admit it. As for the Native American Indians, as a population, they were basically a rootless band of illiterate, troglodytic vagabonds. Accordingly, they were an impediment to the nascent industrial and technological genius that characterized 19th century America.

    • BParks January 9, 2014 / 12:52 am

      Now we have two new white supremacists commenting here? Brooks you need to change out the fly paper for mousetraps. We have rats!

      • Thelibertylamp January 12, 2014 / 1:04 am

        It could be Alex Carmichael, a white supremacist from the NY/NJ area. He is part of the American 3rd Positionists aka the “Freedom Party”

    • Al Mackey January 9, 2014 / 6:23 am

      Looks like Austin/Caldwell/Sara Lee/ et al. has a new nom de plume.

    • John Foskett January 9, 2014 / 8:15 am

      Is this sarcasm or parody?

      “As for the Native American Indians, as a population, they were basically a rootless band of illiterate, troglodytic vagabonds.”

      If not, it’s ignorant verbal sewage.

    • Al Mackey January 9, 2014 / 10:15 am

      Can you show that the schools Jared Diamond attended were segregated, as in had rules against admission of minority students? Can you provide names, photographs, and backgrounds of all of Diamond’s professors to show they were all white males of Northwest European ancestry?

      Can you verify that African-Americans made no contributions to NASA’s Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo programs?

      Don’t forget Robert Shurney, who designed the tires for the lunar rover. Also, don’t forget Vance Marchbanks, who developed the method for monitoring astronaut vital signs inflight. Or George Carruthers who built the camera used on the moon during the Apollo 16 mission.

      • Rob Baker January 9, 2014 / 3:53 pm

        What a fascinating argument in deed. It shows up on Connie’s blog and now here, coincidence? No.

        Oh yea, Jared Diamond. The staunch segregationist. Who spent his field studies in New Guinea

  9. Carmichael January 9, 2014 / 11:04 pm

    Looks like I may have upset some of the white folk here. Neverthless I entered “Apollo 11 Engineers” into the google engine then clicked on “Images”. Below is the link. Go ahead, count the all the African-American faces. And don’t be shy, shout ’em right out when you see ’em. Then for more fun, I googled the faculty for the department of Aeronautics at the U.S Air Force Academy. That link is also below. Again, don’t be shy, just shout right out when you see an African-American face. Robert Shurney…gimme a flippin break.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+11+engineers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=cIrPUvv2IOmqsAS0moHwCw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=896

    http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfan/faculty%20and%20staff/faculty%20and%20staff.cfm

    • Al Mackey January 10, 2014 / 12:55 pm

      Thanks for putting the superficiality of your understanding on display for all to see. So you think the only people who were responsible for the success of the Apollo program were engineers for Apollo 11. Nobody made any contributions to the Mercury or Gemini programs, nobody made any contributions prior to Apollo 11 in the Apollo program, nobody made any contributions in the Surveyor program, the Ranger program, or the numerous satellite programs. And only NASA is responsible. No other companies were involved in the programs. North American didn’t manufacture the Command Module. Grumman didn’t manufacture the Lunar Module. Boeing, North American, and Douglas didn’t build the Saturn series of rockets. Nobody else manufactured the Redstone rocket, the Atlas, the Titan, the Delta, or any of the other series of rockets used to launch satellites and probes.

      And of all those companies and working groups, none of them had contributions by African-Americans. That’s your position.

      Do you see why nobody takes you seriously?

      • Jimmy Dick January 10, 2014 / 3:32 pm

        Come on, Al. You know that the simple minds of people with little brains can’t be expected to think beyond what they can see. That’s why none of them are historians. They couldn’t handle college, let alone even dream about grad school. They barely made it past the eighth grade and were fortunate that schools just passed them along to get rid of them. They need a racist government to support them and subordinate other races to them because they can’t make it on their own. That’s the whole point behind white supremacy.

        • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:49 am

          Oh really? Please describe your Ivy League university, and I will mine, douchebag. Then tell me what JD/MBA program you attended. White nationalists come in all varieties, but some are among the smartest persons you will ever meet. Here’s a test for you: do you consider the Teleprompter King (Obama) “brillliant”, or a mediocrity (who wisely refuses to release his grades and test scores)?

          • Jimmy Dick January 14, 2014 / 11:19 am

            You merely illustrate your own ignorance. Racism is pure ignorance. Some people just have to have power over others and will go to any lengths to secure it. For them equality is to be avoided because a level playing field means they don’t get automatic advantages to maintain superiority.

          • Rudel January 14, 2014 / 6:47 pm

            Dick, 90% of your arguments are ad hominem.

        • Douglas January 14, 2014 / 1:17 pm

          Hey Dick, i am a college graduate and well versed in history. Care to try a subject smarta$$?

          Why don’t you argue the pints with facts since you indicate you are so knowledgeable. Name calling shows your own lack of knowledge.

          • Jimmy Dick January 14, 2014 / 5:00 pm

            I don’t argue with pints. I drink them. But we’ve already seen what you call facts and there is no point in having a discussion when your facts are erroneous. You’ve made up a bunch of names to make your opinion seem validated and it like your knowledge is not. You’ve been shot down repeatedly in this blog alone by many people. Getting the last word in does not prove a thing and saying something over and over isn’t helping you either. We’ve seen that done and people begin to ignore you after a while. So that’s what I’m going to do.

            Bye!

      • Dan January 14, 2014 / 5:51 am

        African Americans were hostile to the Apollo programme.

        Have you heard “whitey’s on the moon”? This is a typical example of the attitude prevalent at the time. Blacks were far more interested in welfare policy than the moon shot. Still are.

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 14, 2014 / 11:04 am

          Dan, please pick one name to post under. I think some folks would prefer your “I M Klewliss” screen name.

          • Al Mackey January 14, 2014 / 11:12 am

            It would be accurate, anyway. It looks like the Convention of Idiotic Racists has let out and the inmates are off their meds.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 14, 2014 / 11:35 am

            And yet the silence of Chastain and the Flaggers on these issues speaks loudly as to what they believe. Billy Bearden’s been silent after evidence surfaced that Matthew Heimbach was not a stranger to him, and good old BR/B’s scampering for what passes for the hills in Anniston, Alabama. You won’t see Chastain post a series of blog posts denouncing what Griffin and co. espouse.

      • Dan January 14, 2014 / 6:22 am

        You have to dig pretty deep to find such contributions. If Werner Von Braun had such men on his staff they would have become household names. The thing is most politically organized blacks were HOSTILE to spending money on space exploration. Ralph Abernathy even showed up a a launch to protest said launch. He must have keenly felt the humiliation of watching “whitey on the moon.”

    • Susan January 10, 2014 / 3:16 pm

      Thanks for the link it was an inspirational story even if you posted it sarcastically. I’m having trouble with the video on the link you gave. http://www.examiner.com/article/engineering-societies-help-to-focus-on-math-and-science-for-students-pbc
      Not sure if my computer is acting up or if its the video. I can get the audio for it over here,
      http://long-island.newsday.com/search/apollo-engineer-science-not-about-being-a-geek-1.4106366?
      is anyone else having trouble watching the video?

        • Al Mackey January 10, 2014 / 10:16 pm

          Well, that can’t be, Susan. He’s not on the few pictures that Austin/Carmichael/Caldwell/Sara Lee/et al. had from which he deduced there were no African-American engineers in the Apollo program. This video must have been made by Yankee liberals. 😉

          • Susan January 11, 2014 / 1:19 am

            It’s right near the top of the google search that Mr Carmichael shared a link to. It’s why I was confused by his sarcasm. Unless perhaps Mr Carmichael has figured out a way to turn on the Jim Crow settings on google, that’s the setting that sorts all the black people to the back of the list I do believe.

  10. Carmichael January 12, 2014 / 10:08 pm

    Here’s link to the Cal Tech Department of Physic faculty. Not a single African-American. Not a single one. Who, exactly, are you people trying to kid?

    http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/facresearch.html

    PS- Wanna compare Haiti, to, oh say, Finland with respect to literacy rates and poverty rates? Again who are you people trying to kid?

    • Susan January 13, 2014 / 1:18 am

      So tell me a bit more about yourself and what the confederate flag means to you. I hear a lot of slogans like, “heritage not hate” clearly you have a different interpretation. I’m assuming by your comments you are going to tell me slavery was a good thing or something along those lines.

      • Douglas January 14, 2014 / 1:22 pm

        Slavery was not a good thing because it took good jobs away from white people who needed them and replaced this with very cheap labor. This is what is happening today.

        Slavery was practiced throughout the world against many races. When are we going to be able to get past that history and move on.

        If white America is, or more accurately was, so wonderful, why are all these third world people fleeing here?

    • Al Mackey January 13, 2014 / 8:22 am

      Let’s compare literacy rates in Finland with whites in Mississippi or Appalachia. Let’s correlate them with poverty rates and education spending priorities.

      • Rob Baker January 13, 2014 / 12:24 pm

        Easy on the Appalachia comments. One can easily argue that those rates are due to the internal colonization of the area by the Commercial United States.

        • Al Mackey January 13, 2014 / 7:57 pm

          Factors other than the race or ethnic background of the individuals, which was my point. Finland, by the way, has a literacy rate of 100%, which is above the literacy rate for whites in the US.

          • I M Klewliss January 14, 2014 / 7:00 am

            Finland, I’ve been there. It is ethnically homogenous. There are Swedes, Sami, Russ and Finns. They are one of the last remaining pockets of whiteness left on earth. Their high flying academic ratings PROVE to some extent that whites ought to have homogenous states with strong border enforcement.

          • Al Mackey January 14, 2014 / 11:07 am

            Interesting screen name. Makes me think you’re saying those things to discredit the people who actually do hold the beliefs you’re espousing. I’m okay with that, though they discredit themselves already.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 14, 2014 / 11:10 am

            I love it when people post under multiple screen names in an effort to make you believe they are double or triple your numbers. You would think someone arguing in favor of white supremacy wouldn’t do something so stupid … if anything, according to the Chastain model, if you are superior, you must be inferior, and so it goes with some recent commenters.

          • Al Mackey January 14, 2014 / 11:13 am

            Definitely inferior.

      • Dan January 14, 2014 / 5:47 am

        Well, go ahead then. What are you waiting for? big talk. No data.

  11. Carmichael January 13, 2014 / 7:37 pm

    Let’s compare literacy rates in Finland with literacy rates of blacks in Mississippi or Harlem. Then let’s correlate them with crime rates in the respective regions where the these populations live.

    PS. Wanna see a list of Nobel Laureates in Physics and count the Whites, and then count the African-Americans on that list? Well, do ya?

    • Al Mackey January 14, 2014 / 6:25 am

      And let’s correlate it with the quality of schools in Harlem and Mississippi, historically lower quality for African-American students than for white students. Poor spending on education for African-Americans, caused by racism, led to poor education for African-Americans. It’s interesting when racists create a condition and then blame others for the condition they created.

      • Carmichael January 14, 2014 / 8:29 pm

        Oh dear, dear, dear, there’s that charge of “racism” again. I have already provided a link to the Faculty page for the Department of Aeronautics at the US Air Force Academy. Not a single African-American. Below is a link to the Faculty in the Department of Computer Science at the USAFA. As always, just shout right out when you see a black face. Is the Air Force a racist institution? Or do Caucasians have superior intelligence?

        http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfcs/dfcs/faculty.cfm

        PS- I’ll post a link for a list Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Biology. and Economics later.

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 1:38 am

          I don’t think so. As I’ve said, I’m bringing this line of ranting to an end.

        • Al Mackey January 15, 2014 / 6:38 am

          Only stupid people like you think that false dichotomy fallacy of yours explains things, only a stupid person like you would think one academic department represents the totality of even one school, and only a stupid racist like you would claim any race has superior intelligence.

  12. Carmichael January 13, 2014 / 9:48 pm

    By the way, is the Finn literacy rate of 100% above the literacy rates for blacks in the U.S.? And I know it is above the 52% literacy for Haitian blacks.

    • Leon Haller January 14, 2014 / 4:53 am

      Why argue with fools? The issue of interracial IQ differences is literally over. There is no more debate among the knowledgeable. The really interesting issue is why so many whites are so easily (self?-) duped. What is the origin of their emotional commitment (pathology?) to racial egalitarianism? That is a matter requiring great and careful study.

  13. BillyTheKid January 14, 2014 / 3:34 am

    ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  14. Dan January 14, 2014 / 6:10 am

    I’ll chuck a spanner in the works.

    It’s preposterous. The most advanced state in Africa is the one longest ruled by whites: South Africa. This was the state ruled by Apartheid with millions of whites manning the technical and scientific posts. The least advanced had barely seen whites.

    Now that the state the Afrikaners built is dismantled South Africa is slipping into oblivion. The clown show at Mandela’s funeral with the fake deaf signer illustrates the decline.

  15. Douglas January 14, 2014 / 1:25 pm

    Careful there Dan. We have the great historian Dick who will spout some great history lesson showing how your are wrong. Or maybe he will simply stop by and say you are ignorant.

  16. Porter January 14, 2014 / 2:29 pm

    The racist BParks snidely said: Some even believe the native Americans were gifted salvation by the white man in regards to the taking of their land and the destruction of their culture.

    Of course they were gifted salvation. Diversity is a strength. Whites brought the native Americans diversity and multiculturalism. And as progressive Barbara Spectre stated, “Without transformation (to a multicultural society) Europe will not survive.” So to for the native Americans. We whites helped them to survive. Just as Ms. Spectre and her kind is now trying to to help us.

    Any who talk of native Americans and the alleged “Taking of ‘their’ land
    and destruction of ‘their’ culture” is nothing more than a bigoted supremacist.

  17. John Talbert January 14, 2014 / 4:30 pm

    I have never seen such a horrifying example of people so unwilling to admit to the truth. When somebody goes and researches two posts worth of irrefutable evidence, and then the opposing team replies with, “Uh, it’s white’s faults because, because, whites are racist!” That’s pretty much more or less the continued repeated phrase, and once again it’s reprehensible. Which is laughable because y’all think you’re so much more superior to *gasp* racisssts. There is absolutely nothing left to say about the pathetic actions of “Progressives”.

      • John Talbert January 14, 2014 / 9:03 pm

        @ Mr. Brooks D. Simpson
        You assuredly can not be serious. It is absolute pointless to show you the truth if you are not willing to spend the slight amount of time to read posts prior to mine. Of which those posts that did consist of factual evidence would be evidence for my claims, nevertheless I will throw you the proverbial bone and surmise a bit. Anyways for a proper constructive argument, I will summarize in short what the above historical facts show. Which is that the black race is far inferior to the white race, and one could go as far as stating that as a whole blacks are the bottom of our species gene pool due to lack of cultural achievements and therefore intelligence.
        Anymore than that would be an abject waste of time. You have a nice night anyways as although I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, there is always hope that you will change your mind.

  18. Scott Mollett January 14, 2014 / 6:38 pm

    I would be willing to bet all you diversity lovers live in places full of white people. I live in LA CA and the Mexican immigrants have ruined this place. We are turning into a cesspool and only one thing has changed. I don’t blame them because I know that none of them own the Spanish language Radio and television stations that tell them not to assimilate. The hostile elite in the USA has used their control of media to brainwash white people who do not live in diverse areas. We who live here no the truth. The TV is the vector that disburses the anti white pathogen. Calling whites aware of the problems involved in multi-cult ignorant is like calling the pot calling the kettle black. If diversity is so great how come we have all these laws punishing people if they do not go along? How come we have white flight from every place diversity rears its ugly head?

    All of you stupid whites are one violent crime away from joining us. HAHAHAHA Turn of your TV’s you morons they have polluted your minds. White children will simply not be safe if we don’t stop this madness

    All of you sicken me.

  19. Rob Baker January 14, 2014 / 7:43 pm

    Re: Brad

    1.) DuBois is undoubtedly referring to the massacre of the mulattoes under Emperor Faustin I Soulouque.whose reign was an utter disaster. DuBois glosses over it in the book, but Spenser St. John and other sources describes what happened at length.

    The cultural rift between the elitist mullato and black Haitian population is not something that disappeared over night. It is a circular problem existing throughout the 19th century but I digress. You are jumping forward to the late 1840s during the “Second Empire.” The split in class association between the upper elite mulatto class and the black Haitian lower class persisted from the onset.

    I don’t take that argument very seriously because, well, there are mulattoes in literally every other Caribbean country, especially the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, which are far more racially mixed than Haiti, and neither of those countries turned out that way.

    I think it is amazing that you compare countries, that were colonized by different countries, and expect to see strong parallels on success rates. Each country faced different social and geographical conditions. They all have different cultural developments. To lump them all together is an extreme generalization that ignores finer details.

    As I pointed out above, there was already a 99 percent decline in the Haitian sugar industry BEFORE the debt agreement with France in 1824, so the debt couldn’t possibly be the cause of the collapse of Haiti’s export sector. I also pointed out to you that Haiti could have easily paid off the debt too if its export sector hadn’t collapsed.

    I didn’t say a collapse in the export sector, I said a collapse in the economy. Haiti experimented short term with maintaining a commercial plantation system. This is something the elite and Mulatto class advocated. It fell through. Instead Haiti moved on to small scale peasant farming. After the land distribution, the Elite class focused on Urban activities. (Smucker, Glenn R. “Social Structure”. A Country Study: Haiti) To compare the colonial age economy to the post-revolution economy in Haiti is truly asinine as the two economies did not function in the same manner. Colonial Haiti operated under the rules of mercantilism benefiting France. Barbaric use of the slave system facilitated large scale plantations, thus the results: large crop exportation and large slave importation. Post-revolution Haiti became its own state in the 19th century and in doing such developed an economy radically different than that of the 18th century. Haiti rejected commercial agriculture in its previous form. This immediate switch coupled with their difficulties in securing national recognition and paying inordinate amounts of debt to France (and the banks in which they got loans to sustain) played radical roles in developing a perpetual debt cycle.

    3.) There was never a US embargo on Haitian exports. You made that up. There was a meaningless law which was passed in 1806 as a sop to the French, which was ignored and repealed a few year later. Haiti was one of America’s larger trading partners in the early republic.

    I see. So I made up a law which, in reality, turned out to be a “meaningless law” (asserting that I did not actually ,m’ake [it] up’). The embargo law passed in 1806 saw Democratic-Republican entities in the slave based South opposing the “free trade” arguments of the merchant North. Regardless of their differences, the embargo law passed along party lines. This is not to say that merchant companies did not attempt to disobey. The law was not “repealed”, it expired in 1809 (although the official end date of the law was 1810). It failed out of frustration with Jefferson, not because of a new wish to trade with Haiti. In reality, by this time other islands were far more prosperous to trade with. (A Proslavery Foreign Policy: Haitian-American Relations During the Early ..p.131) It was during this time, btw, that Haiti transferred large lands to peasant hands, realizing that commercial farming had failed. Unfortunately, this is also when Haiti was divided up into two kingdoms (more evidence of the mulatto v. black split). This effectively limited Haiti to trade to the market of Great Britain, which they could not compete with due to the slave labor. This furthered the decline of Haitian imports and import prices. (The Economic History of the Caribbean Since the Napoleonic Wars By Victor Bulmer-Thomas, p. 163)

    1.) How is it ridiculous? Under French colonialism, Haiti was the richest, most productive, most intensely cultivated spot in the entire world. While you might object to slavery on moral grounds, there is no doubt that the plantation complex produced fabulous wealth, or that the demise of that system and the shift to subsistence agriculture is what sunk the Haitian economy.

    Again, wealth for who? It certainly did not generate wealth for the people of Haiti (except of course for the rich elites who maintained the planter class). If wealth is measured in exploitation, you win I guess. Congrats.

    Why not? The abolitionists themselves were certain at the time that “free labor” was vastly superior to “slave labor.” It didn’t matter that the swift decline of Haiti under freedom showed otherwise, or that the “free labor” experiment in Sierra Leone had been an unmitigated disaster, or that the British Caribbean, too, had sunk into Haitian-style poverty and backwardness after the abolition of slavery there.

    Well for starters we are not abolitionists fighting a cause, we are people living in the 21st century bound to objective thought….well, at least some of us are. Secondly, to argue that Haiti “declined” is on its on value a false generalization. The revolution that took place was not carried out by the elite, but by the exploited worker. The economy post revolution was entirely new in structure and make-up. As I have already pointed out using diverse sources, numerous factors led to this new economy never being able to prosper.

    I know the “Civil War” is your little area of expertise. Well, the example of Haiti more than anything else is why Southern planters were certain that abolition would bring about economic ruin, and guess what, they were right about that too.

    I’m sure you think so.

      • Rob Baker January 15, 2014 / 5:40 am

        I wasn’t referring to the figures…was I?

    • Brad Griffin January 14, 2014 / 10:55 pm

      Re: Rob

      The cultural rift between the elitist mullato and black Haitian population is not something that disappeared over night. It is a circular problem existing throughout the 19th century but I digress. You are jumping forward to the late 1840s during the “Second Empire.” The split in class association between the upper elite mulatto class and the black Haitian lower class persisted from the onset.

      That’s true.

      I never said otherwise. Even during the Haitian Revolution, the mulattoes and the blacks were often at odds with each other, but the problem culminated during the destructive reign of Emperor Faustin I Soulouque who ordered the massacre of the mulattoes.

      Haiti wasn’t the only place in Caribbean with racial tensions though. Among other places, blacks and mulattoes also existed in Jamaica, Cuba, Guadeloupe and Martinique, but unlike Haiti, the general government there wasn’t in the hands of the blacks or the mulattoes. It was under the control of Whites like in New Orleans, and consequently, there wasn’t any equivalent of “Emperor Soulouque” to damage their development.

      I think it is amazing that you compare countries, that were colonized by different countries, and expect to see strong parallels on success rates. Each country faced different social and geographical conditions. They all have different cultural developments. To lump them all together is an extreme generalization that ignores finer details.

      Guadeloupe and Martinique were also colonized by France. The slaves who were brought to those colonies came from the same African ports as the ones who went to Haiti. The same tropical commodities, sugar and coffee, were grown by French planters in the eastern Caribbean.

      In Guadeloupe and Martinique, slavery, white supremacy and colonialism also existed there … just like in Haiti, but unlike Haiti, the Richepance expedition succeeded (and Guadeloupe was reconquered) while the LeClerc expedition was a failure. It was a historical turning point!

      In Guadeloupe and Martinique, slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism were restored – slavery would last there until 1848, and white supremacy and colonialism never really went away, as both islands were eventually incorporated into France like Louisiana which was incorporated into the United States. In Haiti, the Haitian Revolution succeeded, and Haiti became an independent country where abolition, black supremacy, and self government were allowed to triumph.

      It’s true that the culture of Haiti and Guadeloupe and Martinique diverged. That’s because something like 70 percent of the slaves in Haiti were born in Africa. They preserved their West African culture there, but other colonies lost touch with that heritage after the abolition of the slave trade. When slavery was abolished in Guadeloupe and Martinique (and Barbados and the British West Indies), the majority of the blacks there had been born in the Caribbean.

      I agree that Haiti’s “development” was totally different … it was different because the blacks in Haiti were free, and were responsible for ruling themselves, and preserved their own African culture, and the mismanagement of their country two centuries by incompetent and corrupt rulers produced the unique disaster that is modern Haiti.

      I didn’t say a collapse in the export sector, I said a collapse in the economy. Haiti experimented short term with maintaining a commercial plantation system. This is something the elite and Mulatto class advocated. It fell through.

      It’s true that Toussaint L’ouverture, Dessalines, and Henri Christophe used compulsion to keep the “cultivators” working for a time on the sugar plantations. That’s the only reason why Haiti continued to export sugar even to the small extent it was able to do so.

      Instead Haiti moved on to small scale peasant farming. After the land distribution, the Elite class focused on Urban activities. (Smucker, Glenn R. “Social Structure”. A Country Study: Haiti) To compare the colonial age economy to the post-revolution economy in Haiti is truly asinine as the two economies did not function in the same manner.

      That has been my point all along!

      Because of the abolition of slavery and the triumph of freedom, Haitians were able to abandon capital intensive agriculture for primitive subsistence farming. The plantation complex died in Haiti and along with it died the export of the huge quantities of sugar, coffee, indigo, and cotton that had made Saint-Domingue such a wealthy colony.

      Why is it “asinine” to compare Haiti under freedom in the early 19th century with Cuba which was booming under slavery? It’s obvious that the sugar and coffee boom in Haiti was caused by the destruction of the plantation complex in Saint-Domingue.

      Colonial Haiti operated under the rules of mercantilism benefiting France. Barbaric use of the slave system facilitated large scale plantations, thus the results: large crop exportation and large slave importation. Post-revolution Haiti became its own state in the 19th century and in doing such developed an economy radically different than that of the 18th century. Haiti rejected commercial agriculture in its previous form.

      In other words, Haiti effectively entered the Dark Ages after 1804: the most complex and capital intensive agriculture in the world collapsed and was replaced by primitive African subsistence farming. Yeah, the economy was “radically different.” Haiti went from being the richest colony in the world to the poorest place in the Western hemisphere.

      This immediate switch coupled with their difficulties in securing national recognition and paying inordinate amounts of debt to France (and the banks in which they got loans to sustain) played radical roles in developing a perpetual debt cycle.

      Why didn’t foreign countries recognize Haiti? It was because Jean-Jacques Dessalines first action was to exterminate the French population of the island. As for the debt Haiti contracted, it could have easily paid it off had it rebuilt its plantation economy, but instead Haitians created their “radically different” economy, which is the reason why it sunk to the level where it is still stuck at today.

      I see. So I made up a law which, in reality, turned out to be a “meaningless law” (asserting that I did not actually ,m’ake [it] up’). The embargo law passed in 1806 saw Democratic-Republican entities in the slave based South opposing the “free trade” arguments of the merchant North. Regardless of their differences, the embargo law passed along party lines. This is not to say that merchant companies did not attempt to disobey. The law was not “repealed”, it expired in 1809 (although the official end date of the law was 1810). It failed out of frustration with Jefferson, not because of a new wish to trade with Haiti. In reality, by this time other islands were far more prosperous to trade with. (A Proslavery Foreign Policy: Haitian-American Relations During the Early ..p.131)

      1.) Yes, there were other islands which were far more prosperous to trade with by that time because Haiti’s sugar industry had collapsed.

      2.) The American embargo, which was ignored anyway, which is why the law was meaningless, isn’t the reason why Haiti’s economy collapsed.

      It was during this time, btw, that Haiti transferred large lands to peasant hands, realizing that commercial farming had failed. Unfortunately, this is also when Haiti was divided up into two kingdoms (more evidence of the mulatto v. black split). This effectively limited Haiti to trade to the market of Great Britain, which they could not compete with due to the slave labor. This furthered the decline of Haitian imports and import prices. (The Economic History of the Caribbean Since the Napoleonic Wars By Victor Bulmer-Thomas, p. 163)

      1.) As I have said all along, the “free labor” system couldn’t compete with slave labor – Haitians refused to work on the plantations, and when they couldn’t be compelled to do so anymore by force, the export based economy collapsed.

      2.) Commercial farming didn’t fail … the exact opposite happened in Guadeloupe and Martinique, where commercial farming recovered from the chaos of the French Revolution, and ultimately exceeded Saint-Domingue’s peak level production. No, it was Haitians who uniquely failed because of their unique circumstances of being a free country.

      3.) Why was Haiti divided for almost twenty years until it was reunified under Jean-Pierre Boyer? Why not Cuba? Why not Puerto Rico? It was because Haiti alone had embarked on the project of self-government.

      Again, wealth for who? It certainly did not generate wealth for the people of Haiti (except of course for the rich elites who maintained the planter class). If wealth is measured in exploitation, you win I guess. Congrats.

      Haiti’s poverty was a consequence of the triumph of abolition, black power, self government and the switch to subsistence farming. It was the wealthiest colony in the world before those condition prevailed and almost certainly would have stayed way had the Haitian Revolution failed like it did in Guadeloupe.

      Well for starters we are not abolitionists fighting a cause, we are people living in the 21st century bound to objective thought….well, at least some of us are. Secondly, to argue that Haiti “declined” is on its on value a false generalization.

      Objectively, the economic decline of Haiti which occurred in parallel to the economic boom in Cuba and Guadeloupe and Martinique was caused by freedom. Similarly, the swift decline of Jamaica after freedom illustrates the true cause of Haiti’s misfortunes.

      The revolution that took place was not carried out by the elite, but by the exploited worker. The economy post revolution was entirely new in structure and make-up. As I have already pointed out using diverse sources, numerous factors led to this new economy never being able to prosper.

      Yeah, I agree.

      It was like entering the Dark Ages. A complex agricultural system which generated enormous wealth collapsed and was replaced by hopelessly inferior subsistence agriculture which predictably resulted in crushing poverty like it has elsewhere throughout history.

      I’m sure you think so.

      Indeed.

      The ultimate fate of the Mississippi Delta was on display in Haiti which is why Mississippi seceded in order to avoid that fate.

      • Rob Baker January 15, 2014 / 9:43 am

        I never said otherwise. Even during the Haitian Revolution, the mulattoes and the blacks were often at odds with each other, but the problem culminated during the destructive reign of Emperor Faustin I Soulouque who ordered the massacre of the mulattoes.

        No, but you routinely ignore it, opting instead to look at race inferiority over class structure. Where is your citation that the problem “culminated under his reign?” Also, it has already been explained numerous times that this class struggle, in addition to the embargoes, debt, etc. lead to economic instability that was not over.

        Haiti wasn’t the only place in Caribbean with racial tensions though. Among other places, blacks and mulattoes also existed in Jamaica, Cuba, Guadeloupe and Martinique, but unlike Haiti, the general government there wasn’t in the hands of the blacks or the mulattoes. It was under the control of Whites like in New Orleans, and consequently, there wasn’t any equivalent of “Emperor Soulouque” to damage their development.

        Again you are comparing numerous cultures across the board as if they all exist in a vacuum. I really don’t have time to break down each and every culture you are generalizing, but I will say that when the deep South expanded into the New Orleans area, they were appalled at the liberality at which the French allowed blacks to live.

        Guadeloupe and Martinique were also colonized by France. The slaves who were brought to those colonies came from the same African ports as the ones who went to Haiti. The same tropical commodities, sugar and coffee, were grown by French planters in the eastern Caribbean.

        1.) Guadalupe is a horrible comparison. It changed hands between France, Britain and slaves a few times. Their cultural development is a thesis in its own right.
        2.) Martinique as well is a different situation. The settlement of the island was by the Huguenot French, adjusting the cultural dynamic. There were many years of fighting among the French and the prominent native entities, further complicating the cultural dynamic. Indentured servitude existed for a time, and the dropping sugar prices in the early 1800s caused the French to end slavery on the island. This is in addition to the island being operated by the British for a time being.

        Culture does not exist in a vacuum. It simply does not fit your paradigm of white v. black.

        In Guadeloupe and Martinique, slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism were restored – slavery would last there until 1848, and white supremacy and colonialism never really went away, as both islands were eventually incorporated into France like Louisiana which was incorporated into the United States. In Haiti, the Haitian Revolution succeeded, and Haiti became an independent country where abolition, black supremacy, and self government were allowed to triumph.

        You highlight a key factor which you consistently overlook to make another white supremacist argument. The Haitian revolution was won, dramatically re-engineering its economy from one of mercantilism to a self determined one. It’s easy to claim a rival slave colonies economic power when you ignore the fact that it was a colony and not a free nation.

        It’s true that the culture of Haiti and Guadeloupe and Martinique diverged. That’s because something like 70 percent of the slaves in Haiti were born in Africa. They preserved their West African culture there, but other colonies lost touch with that heritage after the abolition of the slave trade. When slavery was abolished in Guadeloupe and Martinique (and Barbados and the British West Indies), the majority of the blacks there had been born in the Caribbean.

        An incorrect assumption from the get go. Take for example that the predominant religion of Haiti is one of European descent and not the stereotyped Voodoo. Cultural blending of African and European influence further proving that the Africa culture is not stagnant.

        I agree that Haiti’s “development” was totally different … it was different because the blacks in Haiti were free, and were responsible for ruling themselves, and preserved their own African culture, and the mismanagement of their country two centuries by incompetent and corrupt rulers produced the unique disaster that is modern Haiti.

        I disagree. As I have stated, which I cited as well, numerous factors besides internal factors lead to their economic demise. Many of the internal class struggles are hang overs from the French colonial era. If they attempted to preserve African culture, they did a poor job of it as illustrated by their Roman Catholicism.

        It’s true that Toussaint L’ouverture, Dessalines, and Henri Christophe used compulsion to keep the “cultivators” working for a time on the sugar plantations. That’s the only reason why Haiti continued to export sugar even to the small extent it was able to do so.

        It is true, but as already cited, the sugar prices in the world market decreased dramatically. That stagnation of price, along with trading restrictions, caused exportation to retract vs the growing population.

        That has been my point all along!

        No it hasn’t. You routinely ignore the abrupt change in the type of economy.

        Because of the abolition of slavery and the triumph of freedom, Haitians were able to abandon capital intensive agriculture for primitive subsistence farming. The plantation complex died in Haiti and along with it died the export of the huge quantities of sugar, coffee, indigo, and cotton that had made Saint-Domingue such a wealthy colony.

        True, but, your original argument on the situation is because of their inferiority. Which is not accurate.

        Why is it “asinine” to compare Haiti under freedom in the early 19th century with Cuba which was booming under slavery? It’s obvious that the sugar and coffee boom in Haiti was caused by the destruction of the plantation complex in Saint-Domingue.

        It is asinine because you are comparing two different economies as equal entities which they are not. One is a colony, one is a state. The economic engineering of both are not comparable as one exists for the benefit of another while the other exists for the benefit of itself. Another thing you are forgetting is the economic boom sustained by Cuba is due in part to the American abandonment of Haiti as a primary trading partner, turning instead to slave controlled Cuba. This was out of white supremacist fear of a slave revolt modeled on the Haitian one. There was also fear in the book already cited, that Cuba might suffer the same fate causing America to shut down trade with Cuba and having a slave sanctuary 90 miles from the South.

        In other words, Haiti effectively entered the Dark Ages after 1804: the most complex and capital intensive agriculture in the world collapsed and was replaced by primitive African subsistence farming. Yeah, the economy was “radically different.” Haiti went from being the richest colony in the world to the poorest place in the Western hemisphere.

        Since the Dark Ages is an inaccurate term in itself, how do I take your statement seriously? The “Dark Ages”, or Middle Ages, reverted to a manorial system of serf farming that benefited the vassals over the serfs. And yet again, you fail to understand the difference: France went from owning the richest colony in their economic empire, Haiti, (in which Haiti’s main population did not see benefits) to an independent Haiti attempting to establish it’s own economy. A difficult situation for any emerging nation when it cannot obtain credit or substantiate its own currency in the world market.

        Why didn’t foreign countries recognize Haiti? It was because Jean-Jacques Dessalines first action was to exterminate the French population of the island. As for the debt Haiti contracted, it could have easily paid it off had it rebuilt its plantation economy, but instead Haitians created their “radically different” economy, which is the reason why it sunk to the level where it is still stuck at today.

        No, as I have previously stated (with citations), and as you also said, Haiti did attempt to reestablishing commercial plantations. Those went under due to dropping sugar prices, obstructions to free trade and domestic strife among the elite class.

        1.) Yes, there were other islands which were far more prosperous to trade with by that time because Haiti’s sugar industry had collapsed.

        And because white supremacist ideology reigned, resulting in free trade with those colonies as opposed to the Black Nation that had revolted against such notions.

        2.) The American embargo, which was ignored anyway, which is why the law was meaningless, isn’t the reason why Haiti’s economy collapsed.

        That’s funny because virtually every historian, economist, and political scientist (including all that I cited and the one you cited) argue that it is, at the very least, part of Haiti’s early economic development.

        1.) As I have said all along, the “free labor” system couldn’t compete with slave labor – Haitians refused to work on the plantations, and when they couldn’t be compelled to do so anymore by force, the export based economy collapsed.

        A race based slave system could out compete free nations. Your argument is basically, that it is okay to enslave human beings as long as there is productivity….interesting. What if the roles were reversed?

        2.) Commercial farming didn’t fail … the exact opposite happened in Guadeloupe and Martinique, where commercial farming recovered from the chaos of the French Revolution, and ultimately exceeded Saint-Domingue’s peak level production. No, it was Haitians who uniquely failed because of their unique circumstances of being a free country.

        Commercial farming did fail for the Haitians for numerous reasons. That is what I wrote and in context that is how it reads. Due to numerous factors, Haitians turned away from commercial farming. I also cited my source.

        3.) Why was Haiti divided for almost twenty years until it was reunified under Jean-Pierre Boyer? Why not Cuba? Why not Puerto Rico? It was because Haiti alone had embarked on the project of self-government.

        Already explained with citations. The competing class structure left in Haiti after the revolution between mulattoes and blacks. This, in addition to other factors already mentioned, lead to such a situation. The reason the other colonies did not have such issues is because they were under foreign jurisdiction in which only revolution would disrupt government function. Self-government is a messy thing especially post-revolution. Look at France.

        Haiti’s poverty was a consequence of the triumph of abolition, black power, self government and the switch to subsistence farming. It was the wealthiest colony in the world before those condition prevailed and almost certainly would have stayed way had the Haitian Revolution failed like it did in Guadeloupe.

        Key word there being “colony.” Please cite a legitimate source that argues the “blackness” of Haiti caused their economic situation.

        Objectively, the economic decline of Haiti which occurred in parallel to the economic boom in Cuba and Guadeloupe and Martinique was caused by freedom. Similarly, the swift decline of Jamaica after freedom illustrates the true cause of Haiti’s misfortunes.

        Or perhaps it is actually the white supremacist governments turning to those other colonies out of fear of the revolution spreading….at least, that what those white supremacists of the time thought. Jamaica? Great, we are adding another former colony with a distinct cultural history. One that changed hands from Spanish rule to British rule. A country that after independence saw economic growth by 6% annually for a decade or so, thanks primarily due to the outside world trading and investing with Jamaica. A country which felt the hand of the economic downturn in the 1970s in which the drop in prosperity lead to issues of class division among urban poor and the elite class. Jamaica’s economic problems are however not defined by their race:

        1.) Decline in tourism: 1/10 of the islanders employment
        2.) Exports: main exports (bauxite and alumina) are dipping
        3.) Deficit: large lower class, small middle class, Only about 3,000 of 65,000 pay taxes as the government gives break to industry: tourism pay a 5% rate.
        4.) Because of deficit, and the dwindling foreign gains, they borrow accumulated more deficit.
        5.) The government cut taxes on foreign hotels, hurting local ones.
        6.) Bureaucracy hurts the private sector
        7.) Your claim is a generalization. They saw immediate growth, then dwindling growth after the 1990s. The issue is the speed of that growth.

        (http://www.economist.com/node/21559348)

        It was like entering the Dark Ages. A complex agricultural system which generated enormous wealth collapsed and was replaced by hopelessly inferior subsistence agriculture which predictably resulted in crushing poverty like it has elsewhere throughout history.

        It’s hilarious you’re making these comparative arguments to tie in the manorial economic system of the middle ages, to the slave economic system under mercantilism in the 1600-1700’s, to a 19th century nation’s self determined economic system. Let’s try this again. Haiti tried commercial farming, it failed for numerous reasons: The outside world’s refusal to trade with them in the manner once held (preferring instead to go to slave colonies), the government changeover, and the former slave peasantry’s refusal to farm in such a manner again. This lead them to a yeomanesque farming system (you know, like Thomas Jefferson advocated and greater Appalachia lived on for decades during the colonial and early republic periods. Their blackness, did not play a role.

        The ultimate fate of the Mississippi Delta was on display in Haiti which is why Mississippi seceded in order to avoid that fate.

        That’s funny, the never referenced Haiti in their Declaration of Secession. But the real threat, was that they would lose the slaves, and then the possibility that white supremacy would end as a social order.

        Note: This is the last time I’m replying. This is such a circular argument. You are citing “Blackness”, ignoring numerous economic and social factors; all in which you have posted a source for numbers, and a loose statement out of context. Try using objective history, rather than talking points. I am arguing numerous economic, social and cultural factors with citations.

  20. Samantha January 15, 2014 / 9:23 am

    The uncontrolled anger displayed by Mr. Mackey is a little frightening; it seems almost violent. And after all that name-calling (which Mr. Simpson obviously would not permit if the roles were reversed) the point still stands. Indeed, I went to not just one USAFA faculty page, (Mr. Mackey falsely claims that the exclusion of African-American faculty is limited one department), but several. And among the faculty in the Department of Aeronautics, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering, I did not see even one African-American. So the question as to why African-Americans are excluded from these very prestigious teaching positions at the USAFA is very much worth asking. Indeed, if racism is not the answer, it seems very obvious that the inherent intellecutal limitations of Afrian-Americans is a very viable alternative explanation.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 10:24 am

      “Intellecutal”? Ahem.

      Have you thought of other possible explanations such as issues of access, educational opportunity, or financial support? Just wondering whether everything is so easily reduced to a claim for white superiority for you.

    • Al Mackey January 15, 2014 / 12:17 pm

      Only stupid people like you think their being correctly labeled as stupid is “almost violent” and “uncontrolled anger.” But, as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

      Your reading comprehension is as poor as ever. You only provided one department and so I commented on what you provided, as you made your claim based on that one department.

      Interesting that I didn’t see any faculty photos for Mathematics and Chemistry beyond the department heads, and in the case of Chemistry the Deputy Department Head. The Physics Department has a group photo that is very difficult to tell for sure but it looks like it has an African-American woman near the center. http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfp/joining_faculty.cfm . Biology has no faculty photographs. So you’re a liar as well as being stupid.

      Civil and Environmental Engineering has no faculty photographs. Electrical and Computer Engineering has no faculty photos except for the department head. Engineering Mechanics has no faculty photos except for the department head. Systems Engineering has no faculty photos.

      Behavioral Sciences has an African-American faculty member. Economics and Geosciences has no faculty photos except for the department head. Law has no faculty photos except for the department head. Management has what appears to be two African-Americans on the faculty. Political Science has not faculty photos except for the department head.

      You still adhere to the false dichotomy fallacy of before. That’s because stupid people like you don’t know any better and can’t fathom there could be any other factors involved.

      What is obvious is your own intellectual and ethical limitations.

  21. Porter January 15, 2014 / 12:21 pm

    While these exchanges often reveal some interesting historical data, ultimately few perspectives are altered. Pro-whites continue to want a place in this world for their children. While anti-whites, like Simpson, continue to robotically intone “racist supremacist.” The gulf is unbridgeable and speaks to the desperate need for separation.

    But here too the anti-whites can not be placated. Because if we separate, somewhere in the misty future a white infant will be born into a white family. And that child will be raised in a safe, nurturing white community. And that’s simply a future too terrible for them to imagine.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 12:39 pm

      You can always act on your desire and separate. No one’s stopping you from leaving the United States. Say goodbye to your old Kentucky home.

      Be as good as your word.

  22. Porter January 15, 2014 / 1:18 pm

    As disingenuous as always. Me leave my home it squawks. And perhaps decamp to Europe, where others of its kind will gather the baton to defecate in programmed synchronicity: “racist supremacist racist supremacist racist supremacist” ad infinitum.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 1:25 pm

      I’m sure you feel that way. Tell me: since you admit to being a white supremacist, why are you embarrassed to be reminded of it?

      Maybe you need to invest in a good hood and robe so we’ll know what you believe but not who you are.

  23. Porter January 15, 2014 / 2:07 pm

    You’re sure I feel what way? That anywhere whites go, there will be anti-whites like yourself telling them they have no right to their own habitat? And applying that principle to precisely no other group. Is this the “feeling” of which you are so certain? If so, please take this opportunity to deny its validity.

    since you admit to being a white supremacist…buy a hood…point and shriek…it’s a witch etc…

    Of course I admitted to nothing, though that’s not relevant as to why you persist in these incantations. You do so because you view them as talismans. And you do so not without good reason. For years now, anti-whites have been able to thwart every natural defensive reaction from whites to their dispossession by simply invoking your shamanic spell: “Racist! Supremacist!” And whites shrink away to be continually replaced.

    As this thread comically illuminates through profligacy of usage, your kind believes the power of this ritual to be wholly intact. I assure you it is not. Fewer and fewer whites are recoiling from this hoary effluvia. More and more are seeing it (and you) as what they are: unprincipled tools of their enemies.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 2:59 pm

      Make up your mind as to what you believe. After all, you’re sure what other people think. You can’t be surprised to find that other people treat you as you treat them.

      I guess you are afraid to admit to what you believe. That’s understandable. After all, you are afraid to identify yourself.

      • Porter January 15, 2014 / 3:18 pm

        Another vacuous response. Though I commend what must have been the tremendous mental exertion required to eschew “Racist! Supremacist!”

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 7:31 pm

          I consider the source of this evaluation. The unnamed, cowardly source.🙂

          • Porter January 15, 2014 / 9:40 pm

            My 2:07 comment made several points. You addressed none of them. “Vacuous” is a charitable assessment.

            Also some comments about this equally repetitive “give us your name” shtick:

            The positions presented here, and logic from which they are derived, stand or fall on their own merits. I don’t care if your name is Brooks Simpson or if your acolyte below is named Thelibertylamp. I am debating ideas and little inclined to our families vacationing together. So don’t worry about my name and don’t ask for my phone number.

            But it’s relevant to know why you sound like Rainman counting down to Wapner. Your name, your name, I definitely need your name. We both know. Anti-whites are ascendant. You are the regime. Being openly pro-white ends a career. Being openly anti-white begins a lecture circuit. You know no harm will come from your anti-white expressions. So you brazenly make them while imagining yourself as a Profile in Courage.

            So spare us all the coquettish “how about your name, big fella?” And try, as your faculties permit, to address the points your opponents make.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 10:02 pm

            Yawn. Just another pompous profile in cowardice.

            I see no need to address your comments. That may frustrate you. Too bad.

            Nighty-night.

      • Thelibertylamp January 15, 2014 / 3:48 pm

        Anyone who uses the term “anti-white” is a white supremacist. If you don’t believe and buy into the white people are superior crap then you are “anti-white” in their crazy minds.

        They act like two yr olds who are not given their way, and then think the world is against them, and it’s time to stamp their feet and throw a tantrum.

        The whole white supremacist movement is nothing more than mentally stunted adults stuck in the terrible twos.

        • Porter January 15, 2014 / 8:58 pm

          FYI: You are an unnamed cowardly source.

          • Thelibertylamp January 15, 2014 / 11:03 pm

            Porter- u mad?

  24. I M Klewliss January 15, 2014 / 2:39 pm

    This professor of history character, why do you use Ad Hom so much?

  25. John Talbert January 15, 2014 / 4:09 pm

    @ Brooks D. Simpson
    I would appreciate an updated rebuttal to Mr. Porter as it appears lacking in taste. Rob Baker’s dialogue with Brad Griffin is much more impressive as there is actually a comparable back in forth. After all if we are to call names at each other it should at the very least be entertaining. If not I would like your thoughts on Mr. Porter’s term talisman and if you believe this is an applicable term, or that the term racist, supremacist is overused or not. Also I would question why you wish for white “racists” to move out of their homes so as to join people that think similar to them.
    After all if we white “racists” are truly evil then it is only because we promote old Western thought that promotes white people which will in turn help every other race, rather than newer Multicultural thought that wishes for whites to loose their culture to the other races which has been shown to hamper whites and the other races. To add on to your theory that whites should simply leave their homes and find their own country, it could be said that was in part what the South did in secession, since it split from the “old” country the U.S. and became a new nation. If what is to happen to racially conscience white dominant countries everywhere is to be an example then one could say that it would be dangerous to do so because your side refuses to let them live in peace. Also there is the topic of polarization to contend with as we witness more people choosing sides, of which Mr. Porter mentioned. I think this is fully fair as you wish for others to tell you of their beliefs and then seemingly hold your own views to yourself.

  26. T January 15, 2014 / 6:58 pm

    I commend the white nationalists on this site: they are far more knowledgeable than the ‘professors’ Dick and Brooks

    • Jimmy Dick January 15, 2014 / 8:21 pm

      They have? What is your measuring stick? The white racist version of history which has been ridiculed pretty good for its lack of context? Or the white racist version that lies about its facts? Either way, the only thing the white supremacists have done on this blog is show how pathetic they are as well as how cowardly they are. I showed this stuff to my students and they had a good laugh at the ignorant racists.

      Rob has absolutely shredded you racists to pieces but you too damn stupid to even understand it. You cling to a fantasy and dream of white superiority while ignoring reality. I really feel sorry for you.

      • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 10:08 pm

        This comment demonstrates the usefulness of posting such comments, even if only for a while. But we have now reached the point of diminishing returns. Having given fair warning, and thus having given people time to make what passes for closing statements, that’s all she wrote.

  27. Carmichael January 15, 2014 / 7:02 pm

    I must say I positively delight in watching Mackey scramble hysterically to find an African-American faculty member at the USAFA. But the dishonesty is breathtaking. So desperate is he to fond one, that he misidentifies a Caucasian redhead as an African-American. So to repeat, in the Departments of Aeronautics, Physics, Mathematics, Electrical Engineering, Chemistry and Computer Science there is not a single African-American faculty member. But don’t feel so bad, as the USAF is notoriously racist. Go ahead at take a look at the Officers of the elite “Thunderbirds”. There is one, and only one Officer among the team, and he is, hilariously, the “Public Relations” Officer. He hands out fliers and pamphlets and stuff. So really, who are you trying to kid with your vapid and meaningless screeches of “diversity”. The Air Force does just fine as a haven for brilliant Caucasians.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 15, 2014 / 10:11 pm

      I suspect Al knows a bit more about the Air Force than you do.

      • Al Mackey January 16, 2014 / 7:17 am

        There must be some award for ignorance that “Carmichael” is trying to win. I think this exercise has proven an undeniable truth of life: racists are fundamentally stupid and ugly people.

  28. Scott Mollett January 16, 2014 / 12:03 am

    I guess no one wants to answer my questions.
    Again if your ideas are so great why do you need laws to back them up?
    If your ideas are so great why is there white flight out of every place diversity rears its head? Are all these people who flee diversity so their families will be safer just white supremacists?

    You people are losing ground daily. I have been a pro white advocate for a decade or so and just a few years ago I was a lone voice in the wilderness. Go to the LA Times website and read the comments on any story about immigration and see how bad you are losing. A few years ago my comments were attacked to no end. I have now increased my vitriol by several times and now I get thumbs up to comments clearly stating that the USA was built by whites for whites and any white person for non white legal immigration hates their own kids. The Times will no longer allow posts with my real name on them because they hate the fact that people are responding favorably to my message. I now regularly see other peoples comments aping mine.

    The great white awakening is firmly upon us and you people are now the dinosaurs. We will soon have a McCarthy moment where some notable white will ask people like you if you have no decency. At that point the tide will turn and whites will band together in a pro white nationalist political party and take our nation back from the globalist hostile elite that has subverted our republic.

    You can count on that.

  29. Brad Griffin January 16, 2014 / 1:17 am

    No, but you routinely ignore it, opting instead to look at race inferiority over class structure. Where is your citation that the problem “culminated under his reign?” Also, it has already been explained numerous times that this class struggle, in addition to the embargoes, debt, etc. lead to economic instability that was not over.

    Let’s specifically address the conflict between the blacks and mulattoes in Haiti which you are calling the “class structure.”

    In colonial Saint-Domingue, there were three racial castes: 1.) the Whites who controlled the government and economy, 2.) the mulattoes, and the masses of blacks who were slaves on the plantations. After the Haitian Revolution, Jean-Jacques Dessalines exterminated the White population and banned foreigners from owning property in independent Haiti under the Haitian Constitution.

    Do you know the story of how Haiti’s flag was created? During the conflict with the French, Dessalines ripped the white out of the French tricolor and stitched the red and blue back together to symbolize the new Haiti where blacks and mulattoes would rule the country …. WITHOUT the Whites.

    So, that’s how the “class structure” in independent Haiti was created. Please note that this peculiar “class structure” DID NOT EXIST anywhere else in the Caribbean. It was caused by the unique success of the Haitian Revolution which created an independent black state where black supremacy prevailed.

    Elsewhere, the Whites remained firmly in charge (such as in Louisiana), and kept a lid on tensions among their racial subalterns. While there were blacks and mulattoes on literally every other island in the Caribbean, Haiti was the only place where blacks and mulattoes squabbled over control of the state. After the assassination of Dessalines in 1806, Haiti was divided until it was reunified under Jean-Pierre Boyer in 1820, and much later Emperor Faustin I Soulouque would order the massacre and expulsion of the mulattoes during his ignominious reign in the 1850s.

    It’s true that racial tension between the blacks and mulattoes led to political instability in independent Haiti, but it is also that was simply an effect of abolition and the demise of white supremacy. The expulsion of the Whites from Haiti is what destabilized the country relative to neighboring islands in the Caribbean.

    Again you are comparing numerous cultures across the board as if they all exist in a vacuum. I really don’t have time to break down each and every culture you are generalizing, but I will say that when the deep South expanded into the New Orleans area, they were appalled at the liberality at which the French allowed blacks to live.

    A comparative perspective sheds greater light on Haiti’s dysfunction: the squabbling between blacks and mulattoes over power in Haiti, and all the devastation that caused in the nineteenth century was held in check elsewhere by the continued existence of colonialism and white supremacy. Likewise, it had been held in check by the French colonial government in Saint-Domingue.

    Guadalupe is a horrible comparison. It changed hands between France, Britain and slaves a few times. Their cultural development is a thesis in its own right.

    Guadeloupe is a horrible comparison … for your argument.

    Like Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe during the French Revolution also went through a British invasion, the (temporary) abolition of slavery, a brief period of autonomy, and a French military reconquest by the Richepance expedition. Capital intensive agriculture in Guadeloupe entered a Haitian-style downward spiral:

    “Between 1790 and 1799, the total surface farmed on the island of Guadeloupe decreased dramatically, from 51,279 hectares to 18,469. Here, cotton was hardest hit, despite the increase in the number of plantations: after a rapid expansion in the 1780s, there were 8,766 hectares in 1790 and only 2,214 in 1799, a drop of 75 percent. Overall production of coffee decreased as well, though not as markedly: the number of hectares dropped from 8,607 in 1790 to 5,281 in 1799 (61 percent). And the amount of land cultivated in sugar decreased from 22,620 hectares in 1790 to 7,288 in 1799 (68 percent).” Dubois, A Colony of Citizens, p.214

    Unlike Haiti, the Richepance expedition succeeded in reconquering Guadeloupe, and white supremacy, slavery, and colonialism were restored there. Predictably, the plantation economy rebounded, and sugar production in Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Réunion exceeded Saint-Domingue’s peak level of production by the 1820s.

    The same thing would have happened in Haiti … if the Haitian Revolution had failed, and the French had reconquered Saint-Domingue like their other Caribbean possessions, but instead, abolition, black supremacy, independence, and subsistence agriculture triumphed when LeClerc was defeated, which was fortunately averted in Guadeloupe by Richepance’s victory.

    Martinique as well is a different situation. The settlement of the island was by the Huguenot French, adjusting the cultural dynamic. There were many years of fighting among the French and the prominent native entities, further complicating the cultural dynamic. Indentured servitude existed for a time, and the dropping sugar prices in the early 1800s caused the French to end slavery on the island. This is in addition to the island being operated by the British for a time being.

    No, Martinique was a typical example of the spread of the plantation complex through the Leeward and Windward Islands. The Carib Indians obstructed the French in Martinique and Guadeloupe and and the British in Antigua, Dominica, and St. Lucia. St. Kitts was colonized by French and British settlers and the fighting between them hindered the development of that island.

    So what? Indentured servitude was pioneered in Barbados. There were indentured servants in the British Leeward Islands and Virginia. The French, British, Dutch, Spanish, and the Portuguese all created slave societies in the Caribbean and on the mainland of South America. The British and French fought over control of Tobago and Trinidad didn’t come under British rule until 1802.

    The only significant difference between Haiti and Guadeloupe and Martinique is that Haiti has a much larger total land area. Because of its more favorable geography, the French were able to cultivate sugar, coffee, indigo and cotton (and other tropical commodities) there on a much larger scale and produce more wealth with the same slave labor system that was in place on their other islands.

    The reduction in the price of sugar in the early nineteenth century was caused by 1.) the emergence of Cuba and 2.) the opening of new land to sugar production in the Indian Ocean and South America.  It was the destruction of the sugar industry in Saint-Dominque which caused the economic boom in Cuba. Finally, slavery was abolished in Martinique and Guadeloupe after the proclamation of the Second Republic in 1848, which was the second time France’s flirtation with republicanism caused the demise of slavery in its colonies.

    Culture does not exist in a vacuum. It simply does not fit your paradigm of white v. black.

    Sure it does.

    In 1820, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion were producing more sugar than Saint-Domingue at its height. Sugar production was booming in Cuba and Jamaica. Even in Trinidad, which was only opened up after 1802, sugar production was booming at that time. The only reason that the sugar industry collapsed in Haiti is because the free negro could only be compelled through force to work on the sugar plantations. In Haiti, sugarcane was cultivated to produce cheap rum, which was used to keep the idle population in a drunken stupor!

    You highlight a key factor which you consistently overlook to make another white supremacist argument. The Haitian revolution was won, dramatically re-engineering its economy from one of mercantilism to a self determined one. It’s easy to claim a rival slave colonies economic power when you ignore the fact that it was a colony and not a free nation.

    No one disputes that the Haitian economy was “reengineered” after independence: specifically, independent and self-determined Haiti shifted from slave-based capital intensive agriculture on plantations to primitive subsistence agriculture, which is why Haiti plummeted into poverty while sugar production was booming and doubling every decade across the Windward Passage in Cuba. Freedom failed.

    An incorrect assumption from the get go. Take for example that the predominant religion of Haiti is one of European descent and not the stereotyped Voodoo. Cultural blending of African and European influence further proving that the Africa culture is not stagnant.

    I will defer to Spenser St. John’s chapter on “Religion, Education, and Justice” in Hayti, or the Black Republic which describes “Catholicism” was it was practiced by Haitians in the early 19th century. The Vatican was the last power in the world to recognize the Haitian government and Roman Catholic priests were shocked by what they discovered there in the 1860s.

    I disagree. As I have stated, which I cited as well, numerous factors besides internal factors lead to their economic demise. Many of the internal class struggles are hang overs from the French colonial era. If they attempted to preserve African culture, they did a poor job of it as illustrated by their Roman Catholicism.

    This is false.

    The conflict between blacks and mulattoes was held in check during the French colonial era by the Whites – the extermination and expulsion of the Whites was the will of independent Haiti. The “Roman Catholicism” of Haitians was a joke. There is nothing “Catholic” about, for example, the widespread practice of polygamy or voodoo rights.

    It is true, but as already cited, the sugar prices in the world market decreased dramatically. That stagnation of price, along with trading restrictions, caused exportation to retract vs the growing population.

    Why didn’t exports contract in Cuba? Why not in Guadeloupe, Martinique, Jamaica, Barbados or the Leeward Islands? The answer, of course, is that the blacks in those islands were still slaves, which is why sugarcane wasn’t being processed into rum for domestic consumption.

    No it hasn’t. You routinely ignore the abrupt change in the type of economy.

    The “abrupt change” in the economy was caused by abolition, black power, independence, and black supremacy. Its dramatic reversal in Guadeloupe after the French reconquest clearly shows that was the cause.

    True, but, your original argument on the situation is because of their inferiority. Which is not accurate.

    I haven’t said anything about “inferiority. I simply said it was the result of freedom and self-government. They used their “freedom” to create an economy more suited to their tastes and capacities.

    It is asinine because you are comparing two different economies as equal entities which they are not. One is a colony, one is a state. The economic engineering of both are not comparable as one exists for the benefit of another while the other exists for the benefit of itself. Another thing you are forgetting is the economic boom sustained by Cuba is due in part to the American abandonment of Haiti as a primary trading partner, turning instead to slave controlled Cuba. This was out of white supremacist fear of a slave revolt modeled on the Haitian one. There was also fear in the book already cited, that Cuba might suffer the same fate causing America to shut down trade with Cuba and having a slave sanctuary 90 miles from the South.

    Here’s a book that I own which compares Cuba and Louisiana after abolition:

    http://www.amazon.com/Degrees-Freedom-Louisiana-after-Slavery/dp/0674027590

    There’s no reason why we can’t compare the economy of Haiti with neighboring islands in the same time period. Comparative politics is a field of political science. As for the US, Haiti was one of our largest trading partners, and we sold them the guns which they used to win their independence. We have already seen that it was the rest of the Caribbean (places like Guadeloupe and Martinique), not Haiti, which was sealed off behind European mercantilist trade barriers.

    Since the Dark Ages is an inaccurate term in itself, how do I take your statement seriously? The “Dark Ages”, or Middle Ages, reverted to a manorial system of serf farming that benefited the vassals over the serfs. And yet again, you fail to understand the difference: France went from owning the richest colony in their economic empire, Haiti, (in which Haiti’s main population did not see benefits) to an independent Haiti attempting to establish it’s own economy. A difficult situation for any emerging nation when it cannot obtain credit or substantiate its own currency in the world market.

    The “Dark Ages” analogy is warranted because the collapse of the plantation complex and civilization in Haiti, and the regression to primitive African subsistence agriculture, is comparable to the collapse of the Roman economy in Western Europe. In “The Fall of Rome: And The End of Civilization,” Bryan-Ward Perkins analyzes the decline in things like housing and manufactured goods in the post-Roman era. It is reminiscent of Haitians living in squalid mud huts and eating bananas over open fires in the ruins of colonial era mansions.

    No, as I have previously stated (with citations), and as you also said, Haiti did attempt to reestablishing commercial plantations. Those went under due to dropping sugar prices, obstructions to free trade and domestic strife among the elite class.

    This is false:

    1.) In the 1820s, Haiti was reunified under President Boyer, and the squabbling between the blacks and mulattoes subsided for a few decades.

    2.) In the 1820s, sugar production was exploding to the west of Haiti in Cuba and Jamaica, as well as in South America and the eastern Caribbean.

    3.) It was the rest of the Caribbean, not Haiti, whose trade policies were subordinated to European mercantilist trade barriers.

    The reason Haiti failed to reestablish commercial sugar plantations is simply because the free negro couldn’t be compelled to do so without resort to force.

    And because white supremacist ideology reigned, resulting in free trade with those colonies as opposed to the Black Nation that had revolted against such notions.

    False, again.

    There was “free trade” with Haiti, an independent country, and only with the British Caribbean after the 1840s.

    That’s funny because virtually every historian, economist, and political scientist (including all that I cited and the one you cited) argue that it is, at the very least, part of Haiti’s early economic development.

    No, Laurent DuBois clearly said that the embargo was repealed and was ineffective anyway.

    A race based slave system could out compete free nations. Your argument is basically, that it is okay to enslave human beings as long as there is productivity….interesting. What if the roles were reversed?

    My argument is that abolition, black power, independence, and the shift to subsistence farming is responsible for creating the unparalleled poverty and backwardness of modern Haiti.

    Commercial farming did fail for the Haitians for numerous reasons. That is what I wrote and in context that is how it reads. Due to numerous factors, Haitians turned away from commercial farming. I also cited my source.

    Even Laurent DuBois admits that the so-called “counter-plantation system (i.e., the shift to primitive subsistence farming) is the reason why the commercial sugar industry failed in Haiti.

    Already explained with citations. The competing class structure left in Haiti after the revolution between mulattoes and blacks. This, in addition to other factors already mentioned, lead to such a situation.

    The only reason there was “such a situation” to begin with was the collapse of white supremacy and colonialism.

    The reason the other colonies did not have such issues is because they were under foreign jurisdiction in which only revolution would disrupt government function. Self-government is a messy thing especially post-revolution. Look at France.

    Good for them. None of those countries turned out anything like Haiti. Not even Cuba or North Korea under communism is as bad off as Haiti under freedom and equality.

    Look at France? Okay, after being a battlefield in the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, and two world wars in the twentieth century, France is light years better off than Haiti in 2014.

    Key word there being “colony.” Please cite a legitimate source that argues the “blackness” of Haiti caused their economic situation.

    Sir Spenser St. John’s Hayti, or the Black Republic describes this at length.

    Or perhaps it is actually the white supremacist governments turning to those other colonies out of fear of the revolution spreading….at least, that what those white supremacists of the time thought. Jamaica? Great, we are adding another former colony with a distinct cultural history.

    Here’s an excerpt from Stephen Drescher’s The Mighty Experiment: Free Labor vs. Slave Labor in British Emancipation:

    “Wilson’s checklist consisted of a set of experiments that might be contested for one “definitional” reason or another. His final case, however, must have been the one that really caught the attention of the House of Commons. By their own immediate avowal, it bowled over its bankers, West Indians, and abolitionists alike. Wilson selected an example whose economic success was universally recognized from one end of the world to the other. Subsequent historians have verified that impression. By 1850, “its per capita output must have ranked among the top half dozen of the world’s nations,” 65 percent above that of Jamaica.

    Wilson’s pièce de résistance was, of course, the island of Cuba. “Let the House,” thundered the editor of the Economist, “compare those under the British Crown with Cuba or Porto Rico: there was a material difference between the social position of the inhabitants.” In Cuba, both English and Spanish families avoided the perils of absenteeism. There was no need to look only at its economic growth, in sugar or coffee exports. The signs of contingent economic development were everywhere. Cuba had no fewer than 800 miles of railway, the great symbol of modernity and progress, whereas there were only 1200 miles of railroad in the British colonies combined. Cuba was purchasing the latest British machinery for increasing the efficiency of production and transportation. The British colonies were also admonished to follow Cuba’s stringent regulations against vagrancy and squatting – the test of a “civilized and cultivated society.”

    The West Indian who replied to Wilson confessed that he was devastated by Wilson’s argument. He heard the British government’s spokesman wax eloquent on the magnificent prosperity of Cuba, saying, “See what slavery has done!” and then he heard the same speaker point to the distressed British Caribbean, saying, “Behold the result of freedom.” To what conclusion should the House of Commons come if all Wilson’s statistics on bridges, buildings, and railways pointed to the accomplishments of slave labor? Even those unconnected with the West Indies noted that an argument for the superiority of free labor based on the dynamism of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Louisiana was a peculiar message to the slaveholders of the New World. Eventually, even a free trader from Lancashire reminded Wilson that there was a free labor experiment in progress. If the experiment failed commercially, no other country would imitate Britain’s example.” …

    “Embittered protectionist Tories, who had no hope of repealing the Corn Laws, took rhetorical delight in comparing the devastated sugar colonies to the government’s earlier predictions of emerging prosperity. Benjamin Disraeli found West Indian distress a convenient stick with which to beat the free trade Whigs. The great experiment, the greatest blunder in the history of the English people, had simultaneously ruined the British colonies, encouraged the African slave trade, and revealed “the quackery of economic science!”

    Let’s try this again. Haiti tried commercial farming, it failed for numerous reasons: The outside world’s refusal to trade with them in the manner once held (preferring instead to go to slave colonies), the government changeover, and the former slave peasantry’s refusal to farm in such a manner again.

    If the “outside world” refused to trade with Haiti in the manner once held, how is it that cacao and dyewood became such important exports in the nineteenth century? How did Haiti continue to export coffee? No, the nature of Haiti’s exports show that Haitians abjured sugarcane, but continued to export dyewood and coffee simply because they rejected the arduous labor that sugarcane required.

    This lead them to a yeomanesque farming system (you know, like Thomas Jefferson advocated and greater Appalachia lived on for decades during the colonial and early republic periods. Their blackness, did not play a role.

    Even the poorest parts of Greater Appalachia are nowhere near as poor and dysfunctional as Haiti.

    That’s funny, the never referenced Haiti in their Declaration of Secession. But the real threat, was that they would lose the slaves, and then the possibility that white supremacy would end as a social order.

    No, they feared that slavery would be abolished, and the result would be that the South would slip into the same sort of poverty that had already enveloped the British and French Caribbean.

    Note: This is the last time I’m replying. This is such a circular argument. You are citing “Blackness”, ignoring numerous economic and social factors; all in which you have posted a source for numbers, and a loose statement out of context. Try using objective history, rather than talking points. I am arguing numerous economic, social and cultural factors with citations.

    These “numerous economic and social factors” ultimately reduce to one thing – the free negro, his talent for self-government, and his capacity to generate economic growth. Compare Port-au-Prince in Haiti to Kinshasa in the Demoocratic Republic of Congo, separated by the Atlantic Ocean, and 200 years of history.

    The apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree:

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 16, 2014 / 4:26 pm

      I’ve allowed this through because it is a documented argument … but, as I’ve said, this blog is moving on. You may continue this on your blog. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s