The thing that strikes me the most about this article is that at no time are the Founding Fathers cast as racist. Now the obvious response to this is that the article is about white servitude, how could such a casting possibly take place - but there's more than that. On the last page of this article(page 40), the second-last paragraph opens with this following line:
American history and American historians have not been kind to the memory of the poor white founding fathers.
Of this article, I think that it is in its totality a trial balloon. Realistically, this article says more about progressivism than it does about white servitude/slavery. In the 1960's, the progressives wanted to denigrate the memory of the Founders but they didn't know which way to go. The progressives were completely done with hearing how great the Founders were, and all hands were on deck to get the job done. The author of this article, Lerone Bennett, Jr., took the position that every one of the Founders were nothing but slave owners and didn't care who they hurt - white people, black people, red people, doesn't matter. Obviously in the year 2015, we know which narrative the progressives ultimately ended up with. But it is interesting that he brings white indentured servitude to the forefront, in all its ugliness.
Where we are at in 2015, white slavery has been erased, red slavery has been erased, and the British have been erased from the equation in the history books as well(As far as the progressives are concerned, America might as well have been founded in 1620 or even earlier. British? What British? There were never any British here, and they certainly didn't have any slaves. The Spaniards and the Dutch, the French? No slaves there either. Evil Americans did this, blame America!) - and now in 2015 all we see in the history books is black slavery - that was the ultimate triumphant narrative of progressivism in this instance. You can see the erasure of the British right in this very article. In the third paragraph, he points out that white slavery lasted for two hundred years in America. Where are the British at? In the fourth paragraph he even calls the colonies "American colonies". There were no "American colonies", and by the time the Revolutionary War happened, they were no longer colonies but towns which were members of their certain states. The concept of an "American colony" is entirely fictitious, but it must be created in order to carry the narrative forward.
See how this works? See how progressivism develops its narratives? See how words are aggressively used to "make progress" from point to point to point?
I think that this narrative at the end of the 1960's - that the Founders were nothing but a bunch of slave owners developed into a coverup of the totality of slavery and into a narrative that the only slavery that existed was black slavery, and there it is: Racist Founding Fathers. That's how progressives work, they "make progress". One person builds a small framework, the next person comes along and makes changes and tinkers with it, and someone else will tweak it again later down the line. One thing you can see, is that with the line "the poor white founding fathers", the narrative is being pushed forward into a racial narrative, but it is still developing. It may not have been racial at all before this. But you would have to necessarily cover up red slavery, and necessarily cover up white slavery in order to make this narrative in its final form a reality as it exists today. People cannot under any circumstances know about red slavery if this agenda is going to work, and they cannot know that French, British, and Spanish colonial powers began and fostered the process. That just cannot be known.
He also points out that few authors were ever intent on exposing white servitude, and points to embarrassment - that they would only prefer to discuss black slavery. This situation makes it easy to push forward the progressives' narrative as we currently have it today. All it takes, is for someone such as this author to come along with a caustic line about the "white founding fathers" - that is, to inject race into it from a poisonous, racialist point of view, and the rest will to some degree develop on its own. To progressives who only look at the surface material and have disdain for individual Liberty and America to begin with, the "white founders" and the black slaves storyline almost writes itself.
This article primarily focuses in on the middle points, however, here is what I would like to know, because all things have a starting point. Who is the mastermind who created this narrative in its final form? There has to be one single person, the first person, who finally broke the ice and called the Founders racist, thus creating the narrative as we know it today. And there are other obvious, important other questions as well.
When did the final narrative get created? Was it in 1971? Was it 1973? Or later?
What college did this mastermind professor teach at that created the final narrative based solely on race, and only based on black vs white? (because it doesn't exist here in this article)
What was the book title where this professor created the final formula? What was the page number? Or was it a speech where this occurred? If it was a book, how popular was the book? Did it have a second or third printing? What was the publishing company?
Was this professor a man or a woman? Did he or she only have a masters degree? Did they have a Ph. D? Was their degree in history? Or was it sociology? Or did they have multiple degrees?
What year was this person born? Is this person still alive?
And what of Lerone Bennett, Jr.? Was he the first to cast the Founders as the "white founders"? Did someone do so before him and thus first develop this narrative into one of a generic racial tone? When did the sole focus of the Founding(among progressives) become slavery? What year? What was the title of that book, or article, or speech? What page number?
We know progressives started losing touch with Liberty at the end of the 1800s/beginning of the 1900's, with the development of their ideology: progressivism. When did they start trying to pry apart Liberty and the Founders? You would have to necessarily pry apart Liberty and the Founders and throw it away, before you could create a unitary link between the Founders and slavery.
The history books are the key in all of this. How have the history books "progressed" over the decades, from the 30's to the 70's? Perhaps the 20's to the 70's. Perhaps the 30's to the 80's? When did the British stop being slave owners?(In this narrative that the progressives created, it was not 1833) When did the British disappear from the equation altogether? The progressives are so hell-bent on creating a false narrative with this, that somehow Americans colonized the east coast before the nation of America even existed!
Which history book publishing houses were the most complicit in helping along the creation and "progress" of this narrative? Was it Pearson? Was it Houghton Mifflin Harcourt? Was it another? Who was the last publishing house holdout to refuse(or at least accept) this poisonous racial narrative? I bet it was Pearson on the front lines pushing it, but that's just my instinct talking.
How and what role did the progressive's non-profit entities play in this, if any? Is the Ford Foundation involved? How about the Carnegie or Rockefeller Foundations?
There are answers to all these questions. We could develop a timeline. We should develop a timeline. There are other questions I have of a similar nature, and the answers to these question will lead to other important questions with valuable, valuable answers. Maybe I missed a question, that should be asked and hopefully at some point answered - thats great, the more eyes looking directly at progressivism the less they can stand it. These people need shadows, they thrive on shadows, which means we need to turn the flash lights on.
I am sure that some will think that I am digging too hard on this, but I don't think so. If you know where something began, if you know who created it, you have a better chance of putting an end to it. And that's the real point.
The "racist Founding Fathers" - they weren't born in the 1700's. It's clear that the "racist Founding Fathers" were born in the 1970's at the hands of pointy headed elitists, and we have a right to know who is responsible for this poison. Maybe, maybe, it was in fact born right at the end of the 1960's and Lerone Bennett Jr. just didn't get the memo. We need to know.
This narrative is only roughly 40 years old, which means it can be tracked and picked apart.
http://tinyurl.com/qbtqxho
No comments:
Post a Comment