Replies

[Non-Seq #2777] I will point out that it is not I who labeled your hero Lerone Bennett a Marxist-Stalinist, but others.

Ah, yes. You only dredged up junk from your Brigade toilet saying "Marxist" and "Stalinist" but you did not intend to imply to the reader or lurker that -you- either agreed with, endorsed, or had even looked at what was in your cited and linked material. You merely dived into your toilet, wallowed about for a while until you had a mouthful of warm turds of thought, and then climbed out and spit them out here.

As I demonstrated in my #2761 by quoting the relevant material from -your- links, -your- links do not support -your- words that there were "positions that some haver (sic) compared favorably to Marxist policies."

As I demonstrated in my #2761 by quoting the relevant material from -your- links, -your- links do not support -your- continuing words, "and some have calles (sic) Stalinist."

-YOUR- statements were not supported by -YOUR- linked sources. Here is what you claimed, links included.

Here is a link to an Edward Zwick article called "Anti-Imperialist Writings of Edgar Lee Masters" and which details his close association with social liberals like William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. You will note about half way down that Zwick mentions that Masters joined the national committee of the All-American Anti-Imperialist League in 1928. That organization had been founded by the Communist Workers Party three years before.
Lerone Bennett has supported reparations for years, speaking in support of them before the Jet, on PBS, before a National Reparations Convention, positions that some haver compared favorably to Marxist policies, and others have calles Stalinist.
2,716 posted on 10/08/2004 8:08:21 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur

[Non-Seq] And it is not unreasonable to believe that his positions on Lincoln are a result of his belief that a handout is justified.

Bassackwards logic is unreasonable. Unless you can show the impossible, that his position on reparations pre-dated his published position on Lincoln, your position is utter bullshit. In February 1968, Ebony published Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremecist? by Lerone Bennett, Jr. That was the precursor to Forced Into Glory. That is 36 years ago, when the issue of reparations was unheard of.

It is so far back, the responses were like this, quoting from the preface to Forced Into Glory.

The New York Times and other newspapers published condemnatory editorials, and varied columnists suggested that the Republic was in danger. To meet this threat, assorted historians and freelance writers were rushed forward to the front lines to write articles proving that I was a Black Power Militant and that Abraham Lincoln always loved colored people in his own way. In an incredible article in the New York Times, called "Was Lincoln a Honky?" Herbert Mitgang said ti was racist to say that Lincoln was a racist because he opposed Black citizenship and equal rights and -- Lincoln's words -- "the niggers and white people ... marrying together."

When challenged to name so much as -one- Black author who is deemed acceptable and authoritative, in addition to all the White elitist sources given by The Brigade to talk about Black history, The Brigade came up with John Hope Franklin as that one authoritative Black author/historian.

Source: Ten Reasons: A Response to David Horowitz by Robert Chrisman and Ernest Allen, Jr.

Ernest Allen, Jr. is Professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Robert Chrisman is Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, The Black Scholar (April 2, 2001)

All the material was quoted from John Hope Franklin by Allen and Chrisman.

http://www.umass.edu/afroam/hor.html
All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery. All blacks had no rights that they could claim as their own. All whites, including the vast majority who had no slaves, were not only encouraged but authorized to exercise dominion over all slaves, thereby adding strength to the system of control.
If David Horowitz had read James D. DeBow's "The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non-slaveholder," he would not have blundered into the fantasy of claiming that no single group benefited from slavery. Planters did, of course. New York merchants did, of course. Even poor whites benefited from the legal advantage they enjoyed over all blacks as well as from the psychological advantage of having a group beneath them."
Most living Americans do have a connection with slavery. They have inherited the preferential advantage, if they are white, or the loathsome disadvantage, if they are black; and those positions are virtually as alive today as they were in the 19th century. The pattern of housing, the discrimination in employment, the resistance to equal opportunity in education, the racial profiling, the inequities in the administration of justice, the low expectation of blacks in the discharge of duties assigned to them, the widespread belief that blacks have physical prowess but little intellectual capacities and the widespread opposition to affirmative action, as if that had not been enjoyed by whites for three centuries, all indicate that the vestiges of slavery are still with us.
And as long as there are pro-slavery protagonists among us, hiding behind such absurdities as "we are all in this together" or "it hurts me as much as it hurts you" or "slavery benefited you as much as it benefited me," we will suffer from the inability to confront the tragic legacies of slavery and deal with them in a forthright and constructive manner.
Most important, we must never fall victim to some scheme designed to create a controversy among potential allies in order to divide them and, at the same time, exploit them for its own special purpose.
And as historian John Hope Franklin remarked on the legacy of slavery for black education: "laws enacted by states forbade the teaching of blacks any means of acquiring knowledge-including the alphabet-which is the legacy of disadvantage of educational privatization and discrimination experienced by African Americans in 2001."