The question is flawed. These people who so steeped in -and- wedded to the idea that the U.S. is inherently racist that they would go so far as to tear down statues of Frederick Douglass, and vandalize other statues including known abolitionists cannot be reasoned with. They are poisoned beyond reproach. There is not one syllable of this audio book which is for them. That is not why I worked to create this audio book. That is a waste of time in total, be it words in a book, spoken word, paintings, picture, movies, video games, nor any other medium.
It's for the rest who are still reasonable. And in particular, it's for conservatives.
There are a great number of Americans around who do not want to believe their country is inherently racist. That is who this work is for.
The challenge is this:
Despite not wanting to believe the country is racist, the rest who are not poisoned have no idea where to look for the facts that will inform them that their gut instinct is correct - the country is not racist.
THAT is the target audience. Not permanently poisoned bigots, and yes, they are bigoted. It would be absolutely a waste of time to take this audio book over to DU.
Now, the real question is: Why do these people who do not want to believe that the U.S. is inherently racist not know where to look? The obvious answer: The propagandizing schools don't teach it or anything like it. That's a gimme, we all know that answer, we all know the schools are cramming in CRT as fast as they can. The schools leave every young citizen unprepared on purpose, so that we cannot have a way to find out. Or a way to teach others.
We need tools to teach these people. That's what the audio book is for. It's a tool, to make up for the time we have lost.
No. That's an incorrect way to say it. It's a tool to make up for the time that the progressives have stolen from us by making it impossible to get around their obstacles.
Don't waste your time on some leftist. What I would say is, go talk with your next door neighbor or talk with your friend in church.
And that's why the audio is free in the public domain. No cost $$.
Does the book have a benign explanation for the clause in Article IV, Section 2 (of the original Constitution) that begins: “No person held to Service for Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation herein, be discharged from such Service or Labour . . .”
If so, it will go a long way in doing what you seek to do.
They have been programmed. Some by Academia-liars and some by media-liars.
Unless you can get a hold of the programming tools, you cannot easily re-program them.
There are a great number of Americans around who do not want to believe their country is inherently racist.
This is an issue that I don't believe should receive a lot of thought or focus. On the list of things that are important in making the present better, this is a long ways from the top.
The entire racism issue is just a tool to get Congressional power because that's where the money is.
Looking at the civil war, and looking at the modern American spending policies, I finally realized it's always about money.
The liberal government sucking parasites are just using the "racism" tool because it works. It's been working since the civil war. Prior to that the North was just as racist as the South, but when they saw an advantage to pretending they weren't racist, they embraced it.
And it's been part of the tactics to gain power ever since.
That 10% which comprises the black vote in this nation is the difference between winning power and funneling money out to their allies and cronies, or being cut off from the streams of taxpayer/government money.
They aren't going to stop. It's how their bread is buttered.
Consider;
All that statue pulling is what/ two? three? years old, right ?
NONE were put in storage (MAYBE a few) and the issue has died down, probably not to resurface for at LEAST two or three years, and by THAT time . . . .
The issue is destroy EVERY element about individual liberty and freedom America.
The good, the bad, the ugly AND the beautiful.
We're not as white as we were and EVERY invader is dark skinned with black hair.
The study of husbandry is a pretty good place to start thinking about America in ten short years.
I don't want to sound ungrateful, but we can deal with quotes here.
Somewhere I have a collection of Founders' quotes to refer to when an occasion calls for them.
Naturally, I'm interested to learn if there are others I didn't know that could prove helpful in various discussions.
So, if you have a point to make and want to post quotes supporting you point, we'll take a look at them and see what we think of them, beginning with: are they genuine and do they fit with what else we know about that particular founder?
[ProgressingAmerica #1] An historical research respecting the opinions of the founders of the republic on negroes as slaves, as citizens, and as soldiers. Read before the Massachusetts histor[i]cal soceity, August 14, 1862.
It was first produced in pamphlet form and excerpts from the pamphlet were read before the Massachusetts Historical Society. It was later expanded to book length based on the author's existing research material.
[ProgressingAmerica #21] Despite not wanting to believe the country is racist, the rest who are not poisoned have no idea where to look for the facts that will inform them that their gut instinct is correct - the country is not racist.
How do selective quotes from centuries ago speak to the state of racism today?
At the Framing, all 13 states undeniably embraced the lawfulness of slavery in the United States. "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." That provision, known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, was ratified by all thirteen original states, and remained the law of the land for over seventy years.
Perhaps it is worth noting that pages 3-18 of the book focus on the views of Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Chief Justice Taney, Justice McLean, Justice Curtis, Judge Gaston, George Bancroft, and Edward Everett, establishing a relation to the Civil War. Considering that cast of characters, it is interesting that it omits Abraham Lincoln.
The publication should be placed in historical perspective, coming on the cusp of changing the reason for the war from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. Also, a copy of Livermore's work was prominently presented to President Lincoln by Charles Sumner and may have influenced Lincoln's decision to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Livermore
In August 1862 Livermore wrote a historical research pamphlet on the opinions of the Founding Fathers of the United States of Negroes as slaves and as free citizens. Charles Sumner, the Republican senator from Massachusetts, presented Abraham Lincoln with a copy of Livermore's pamphlet in November 1862. The research work is thought by some historians to have influenced Lincoln's decision made between the issuance of the preliminary emancipation proclamation on September 22, 1862, and the finalized law decree of the proclamation on January 1, 1863, to include endorsing the use of former slaves as soldiers in the Union Army. Livermore's research goes into detail as to attitudes of the country's Founding Fathers as to slavery showing that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the colonial principal leaders opposing the concept.
While one may readily find accurate quotes to show Washington and Jefferson speaking against the concept of slavery in the abstract; in real life both were slave owners until they died. Neither freed his slaves. Jefferson did free the family of Sally Hemings. While not mentioned by name, Madison was similar.
With the adoption of the Constitution, governance of the District was given exclusively to Congress. From the time the District was created, until the middle of the Civil War, slave trade continued in the District at the pleasure of the Federal Congress.
In the Introduction it is observed that, "In respect to the general subject of slavery, I apprehend he will find very little favorable to the institution among the relics of the great men of that period. Disgust at it was so general, as to be little less than universal. Among slaveholders, the language and hope of putting an end to the evil as soon as possible was on all their tongues; but, alas! it was far from being in all their hearts."
Yea verily, one must be careful to separate what was on their tongues from what was demonstrated by their acts.
When slavery departed in several Northern states, lengthy terms of indentured servitude arose, including up to 99-years. Black Laws were enacted to encourage any manumitted slave to self-deport to somewhere else, and to discourage any freed slave of another state from coming. When a Black invasion was feared in response to abolition, President Lincoln stated, "And in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?" (CW 5:536; 1 Dec 1862). The concept that the Union states could decide whether or not to receive free Blacks seems racist.
All accurate quotations are welcome but there are some legal concerns. Citizenship and natural born citizen have reappeared as glaring subjects of legal nonsense. The legal precedent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause strikes down any and every conflicting law or claim inconsisent with it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The Congress is powerless to add or delete any qualification thereto.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 by Senator Lyman Trumbull, and the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause by Senator Jacob Howard, and the relevant Congressional debate explicitly indicate the authors' intent to include people of all colors. Included are all persons born within the territory of the United States who did not enjoy immunity from the laws of the United States at the time of their birth, irrespective of the citizenship status of the parents.
Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone. Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today. Slavery was eliminated, indentured servitude was eliminated, black laws were eliminated, and someone was doing the eliminating. Denying racism existed at the Founding is to deny the blatantly obvious. But that is not to say the place has not changed in two and a half centuries.
There sure are; because the word “racist” has been weaponized.
We must all now say in unison, even with internet anonymity, that we “denounce racism in the strongest possible terms.”
It hasn't always been that way. As recently as 1977(?) after calling President Ford a racist, civil rights leader Andrew Young said he didn't mean Ford wasn't a good person. When questioned in Congress Young even admitted that he (Young himself) was racist, but that no, that did not disqualify him from becoming United Nations ambassador.
The label racist has become a deadly and valuable poison; it will probably soon be administered for the purpose of destroying the Washington Monument.
Most, if not all, Americans sincerely prefer that Africans were not brought to this country as slaves.
We prefer that Joseph was not sold into slavery by his brothers.
We prefer than Adam had not sinned in the Garden.
But our preferences do not change historical reality. And the reality is that 13 of the original states were slave states. And of those 13, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
That does not mean the good northern states loved slavery; they didn't. The only reason they voted slavery into the Constitution was because it was considered to be in their own economic and political best self-interest.
I do not fault you for wanting to run away from the liberal charge that America is disqualified because of a history of “racism.” But blame shifting to the British empire doesn't seem like a winning strategy considering what was being done with slaves in the colonies, later states, before the Revolutionary War, during the war, and after the war.
And even if you successfully flee the racism charge, the liberal cavalry is going to be hot on your trail with slashing attacks that you are paternalistic, nationalistic, monotheistic, monogamistic, and a homophobic running-dog capitalist.
Do you have a plan to deny all that bad stuff too?