Posted on 08/28/2019 3:13:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
The New York Times has begun a major initiative, the "1619 Project," to observe the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe American history so that slavery and the contributions of black Americans explain who we are as a nation. Nikole Hannah-Jones, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine wrote the lead article, "America Wasn't a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One." She writes, "Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different -- it might not be a democracy at all."
There are several challenges one can make about Hannah-Jones's article, but I'm going to focus on the article's most serious error, namely that the nation's founders intended for us to be a democracy. That error is shared by too many Americans. The word democracy appears nowhere in the two most fundamental founding documents of our nation -- the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, declares, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Think about it and ask yourself whether our Pledge of Allegiance says to "the democracy for which it stands" or to "the republic for which it stands." Is Julia Ward Howe's popular Civil War song titled "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
The founders had utter contempt for democracy. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10, that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, delegate Edmund Randolph said, "that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
The U.S. Constitution is replete with anti-majority rule, undemocratic provisions. One provision, heavily criticized, is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections, heavily populated states could not run roughshod over sparsely populated states. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures, to propose an amendment, and requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Part of the reason for having a bicameral Congress is that it places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president, with a veto, can thwart the will of all 535 members of Congress. It takes a two-thirds vote, not just a majority, of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
In addition to not understanding our Constitution, Hannah-Jones's article, like in most discussions of black history, fails to acknowledge that black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind's history. The evidence: If black Americans were thought of as a nation with our own gross domestic product, we'd rank among the 20 wealthiest nations. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, who headed the world's mightiest military. A few black Americans are among the world's wealthiest. Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities.
The significance of this is that in 1865, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed that such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half, if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as importantly, it speaks to the greatness of a nation within which such progress was possible, progress that would have been impossible anywhere else. The challenge before us is how those gains can be extended to a large percentage of black people for whom they appear elusive.
“to observe the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery”
I assume they mean “North American” - since the US really began when the treaty ended the American Revolution (1783) - and 80 years later slavery was outlawed in the Emancipation Proclamation. In 4 years, it will be twice as long (160 years) since we outlawed slavery - and we’ll still hear the same nonsensical excuses as to why certain people can’t flourish in the country that offers the most opportunity to people from around the world.
From 1619 to 1655, while there were blacks in Virginia, they came as indentured servants, not slaves. They were to work for 7 years, and then they were free men, able to go out and acquire their own land on the same terms as anyone else.
In Johnson v. Parker (1655), Johnson successfully argued that his Negro servant, John Casor, should be considered his slave for life. From that point on, there was black slavery in Virginia.
The reason why you don't hear very much about this case, is that Anthony Johnson was black. He was one of the first blacks to arrive in Virginia in 1619.
O God, how I hate these People, the New York slimes. If I had the supernatural power I would incinerate them all to ashes tomorrow
IIRC the FIRST “slave owner” was a black man and the two “slaves” the court let him own were white. I wonder if The NY Times will comment on that?
You’re not the only one that despises the New York Slimes. I do too, but also the Washington Compost and all the left-wing publications.
There is a book by Larry Koger about black slave owners in South Carolina. Enslaving people is not exclusive to any race but it is interesting how common it is in Muslim populated countries. Most important is how the Democrat party has kept the black population in near slavery since the Civil War.
Will they talk about how the white man and woman became enslaved in a public education system that has been held hostage, since desegregation, to the ability of the black people to learn and behave within it?
The New Yuk Slimes?
The writing will undoubtedly be mostly Bullshit. Furgitabutit !
The New Yuk Slimes?
The writing will undoubtedly be mostly Bullshit. Furgitabutit !
Like so many politicians, too stupid to know we don’t have a “democracy”.....it’s a Constitutional Republic.
NY times is total Bullshit.....
“Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all.”
All this time, we have been assured that blacks have been oppressed and denied a voice in this country, so how could this be?
Also, we have been lately assured that immigrants have built this country without any contribution of a native born population and that the country cannot develop further without a flood of more immigrants.
The whole problem with this New York Slimes stories (and that is what they are just “stories”) is that there was slavery in North America BEFORE 1619!
Native Americans were taken as slaves as early as the 1580’s!
The first slaves in North America were actually brought by the Portuguese who were sailing them to South America, but their ship was pirated away and the cargo was sold to the Caribbean islands!
The New York Slimes attempted to generate a narrative, but their history, their timelines and just about everything in these stories is incorrect or simply lies! They are trying to make black slavery as the “real” start of America, but America was here well before blacks hit these shores! And slavery was here well before blacks hit these shores! They try to make it sound like slavery was an integral part of ALL of America, when in fact, two parts of America (which would later become two individual states) outlawed slavery before we even finished fighting the American Revolution!
I wonder if the NYT will bring up the bank of England and Charleston, and the Rothschilds as the financiers and the Triangular Trade from the north. And of course the Muslim slave Traders along with in unscrupulous tribes that preyed upon each other and sold (or traded) slaves (war prizes) amongst themselves (as a matter of couse) and later to the “Arabs” and it might be a good idea to add Dr Livingston’s observations while he was traveling with a slave column through Africa when he required a modicum of protection when traversing through those more treacherous tribal lands.
It will be interesting to see if the NYT gets some of it right or if they surprise everybody and get it all right. My guess is that it will be yet another agenda driven hit piece
There were/are many many countries involved however, our Marxist school systems today basically teach that America INVENTED the business of slave trading. Which is complete BS.
So they will be talking about the British empire and the Irish they sent here to work as slaves I suppose....along with Obama’s ancestors who rounded up Africans to sell off as slaves.
The devil must be having a grand olde time at the sh!tstorm known as the New York Times ...
re: “So they will be talking about the British empire and the Irish they sent here to work as slaves I suppose....along with Obama’s ancestors who rounded up Africans to sell off as slaves.”
ANd don’t South America and the Incas et al ‘tribes’ that also practiced human sacrifice (besides slavery) ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.