What Jamaican Maroons and the Founding Fathers have in common

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

Full title: What Jamaican Maroons and the Founding Fathers have in common: When fighting a superpower, it is not possible to free every single person We live in an age were now even the most fringe of arguments, the idea of reparations, is a widespread part of presidential elections. The problem with this is that if the progressives had any consistency they would be demanding that Britain pay reparations to American blacks. The Founding Fathers didn't bring all of these slaves here. King George did. All three of them. Queen Anne did. King William did. Queen Mary did. King James did. And so too did King Charles. The Founders even called the Brits on it in their writings. But the facts don't matter anyways - not to progressives. They are only interested in reparations because it would divide the country even more. In division, the progressives find power.

What does this all have to do with Jamaican Maroons? During the time of Britain's slave trade, one of their primary destinations was the island of Jamaica. The entire history of Jamaica over the last 500 years is one big letter F and letter U toward the British crown. Just follow the bouncing ball. After the Conquistadores wiped out the local tribes, the island was primarily hispanic. So how is it that left wing Wikipedia states that Jamaica is over 90% black? How did all of those blacks get there? Did the tribes bring the blacks to Jamaica? Did the Founding Fathers do this? Did the Conquistadores bring all of those blacks to Jamaica? Who did this?

Britain did. Britain took the island over in between 1650-1660, depending on which books you read. During this time, the English deported most of those who were still favorable to the Spanish crown, thus making Jamaica a white island. Then came Britain's slave ships. The rest is history. Except for one thing. The Maroons. The Maroons where escaped slaves, who make their way toward uninhabited parts of the island.

The Maroons have a lot of similarity with the Founders in the context of three things: Fighting against Britain for freedom, serfdom under a tyrant, and not being able to achieve full emancipation after battle. Britain fought the Maroons on and off from 1728 to basically the early 1800s. During this time, one of their leaders Cudjoe proved to be quite formidable. After some years of war and mounting costs, the war against the Maroons reached a sort of a stalemate, and Cudjoe and the British came to an agreement and a treaty.

One article of this treaty, the Maroons gained freedom for themselves, but didn't gain freedom for all people. Neglecting the rest of the blacks.

That sound familiar? One article of faith among progressive propagandists is that the Founders gained freedom for themselves, but didn't gain freedom for all people. Neglecting the rest of the blacks.

You see! That proves it. Not everybody was freed, so the Maroons are racists. No, wait.... No wait. I'm getting my propaganda confused here. It's the Founders who were racists for not freeing everybody. Hmm. Why is it that history always disproves the progressives?

At this time and for the next century, Britain was a super power. Of course the Founders couldn't free every last person. Neither could the Maroons. Even after admitting one of two things: stalemate(Cudjoe) or defeat(Yorktown). When dealing with a super power, you just can't always get everything you want. That's reality. Because what if the super power decides to come back? This is a significant question. Britain was not the "good super power" that America has been since becoming one.

What if the super power comes back?

[ProgressingAmerica]

Emancipation would've been delayed by decades or may not have even happened at all.

The only reason Dunmore proclaimed in the first place was for tactical reasons. It wasn't because of something rooted in compassion or right reason. They hoped that a promise of freedom for slaves would gave Britain a brand new instant new army to work with.

No colonists rebelling means no Dunmore Proclamation. Without the Dunmore Proclamation setting the ball in motion, the whole thing likely falls apart and Wilberforce gets deported to Australia. Perhaps the Brits would've made him into Napoleon's neighbor at Elba or Saint Helena island. It is worth noting that the Proclamation's ultimate hypocrisy is that the British brought all those slaves to North America in the first place.

As I originally wrote, it's not like Britain was the equivalent of America today. All things equal, they had much more in common with another "evil empire" we've heard about. Minus the gulags. Well, I guess I couldn't even say that because they did use Spain's concentration camp idea in the Boer war, now didn't they?

[Weirdad]

Great post, “Jamaican good articles” on your blog, thanks! (too obvious)

I recommend everyone actually read it and think it through.

All the posts here bouncing around really helped me too, thanks all.

This type of article is like “MMA Training” for readers, where we get a new technique to use to attack or fend off another new body part, sometimes a stealthy body part, of the progressive beast.

It is ammunition for argument (fighting) to support a position and influence others.

The body we are fighting has a lot of limbs that are not always obvious, and they are vulnerable and when controlled affect the entire progressive beast.

Reading these posts is so often a workout that pays off later.

Your comment summarized all this well, “Progressive narratives are actually very easy to debunk. The only hard part is knowing where to look.”