Monday, December 27, 2021

The Biggest Lie of Critical Race Theory

“We are the only people brought to America as non-immigrants. We were brought against our will and in chains.” This is a common mantra of advocates of Critical Race Theory and the Black Lives Matter movements. The argument pervades much of the forced attendance and reading of CRT Trainings in corporate America, within the American educational system, and with all branches of the U.S. government. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent spreading this story to virtually everyone in American society today with the result that this belief is an accepted truth. It’s an old tactic. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels once argued, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The same charge can easily be made about current CRT advocates who claim Blacks were the only people brought to America in chains or against their will. In times past, when an accurate portrayal of colonial history was taught in our schools, children were familiar with the stories of countless individuals of white skin who were brought to our shores against their will — often in chains. Their stories are yet available in the works of authors such as Robert Louis Stevenson and Daniel Defoe, court records on both sides of the Atlantic, old movies such as “Captain Blood” and “Moll Flanders,” Acts of Parliament, and within the journals and letters of countless victims.

    To begin, let’s first understand that the origins of white European slavery by Muslims and “people of color” preceded the arrival of African servants in Jamestown in 1619 by centuries. Muslim Berbers from North Africa conquered Spain in the 8th century. Following this success, North African slave raiders sacked villages as far north as Ireland and England to obtain white slaves. In 846 A.D Rome was sacked by Muslim armies who exacted tribute and slaves. The city’s massive walls, popular with tourists today, were built as a defense against African Muslim slave raiders who repeatedly launched raids in the area. For over a thousand years, Christians of Mediterranean Italy, France, and Greece feared enslavement by raiders from North Africa. Nor was this the only area where massive numbers of whites were enslaved by what today are called “people of color.” The word slave itself derives from the millions of Slavic men and women who were bought and sold over a millennium. Above the Black Sea, the Crimean Khanate is thought to have enslaved an estimated 2 million people. In a single massive raid in 1769, over 20,000 Slavs were seized and sold.1  For centuries, white Christian villagers in the Greek Islands and the Balkans were required to pay the devshirme — a tax in the form of their own children to non-white Muslim overlords. Across the Atlantic, even Americans were not immune from slave attacks. Barbary Coast pirates successfully preyed upon American shipping during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, enslaving men and women during both our colonial and early national periods. Unfortunately, American history textbooks today seldom mention or place slavery in the context of world events taking place in Europe, Africa, and the Near East before or during the Exploration Period. 

    Prior to the recent claims of “white privilege” — which now dominates American race relations and which denies whites can ever be seen as victims — novels such as “Kidnapped” and “Moll Flanders” were popular books in America’s schools. These works by Robert Louis Stevenson and Daniel Defoe were based upon the real-life experiences of countless English, Scottish and Irish victims of 17th and 18th-century human trafficking operations. Kidnapping (also known as “spiriting”) was a huge industry in the British Isles at the time and it brought untold thousands of children and impoverished adults to the English colonies. One incident involving 4-year-old Adam Smith almost robbed the Scottish Enlightenment of its greatest thinker in 1727. Had he not been rescued from a spirit gang by an observant relative, the future author of The Wealth of Nations would likely have been shipped off to America as a slave laborer in the Chesapeake tobacco fields and capitalism would have lost its most ardent advocate. Spiriting was so common at this time that Parliament actually passed a law in 1618 permitting the capture and enslavement of 8-year-old boys and girls to help with a labor shortage in early Virginia.  Later, the Transportation Law of 1718 codified the practice of arresting and sending vagrants and criminals to Britain’s North American colonies. It is never mentioned today that the death rates of such children transported to Jamestown were abysmal. Of 100 children transported to Jamestown in 1619 and others sent the next year, only 12 were still alive for the census taken there in 1625.

     The practice of spiriting individuals against their will to the colonies continued unabated for well over 150 years. “In 1670, William Haverland, John Steward, William Thiene, Robert Bayley, and Mark Collins were each individually charged with spiriting hundreds of people yearly (up to the astonishing number of 800) to Barbados, Jamaica, and Virginia.” None of the men were prosecuted.3  Perhaps the best example of a white English child being sold into slavery was that of James Annesley, heir to five aristocratic titles, who was kidnapped at age 12 and shipped off from Dublin to America in 1725.

     Shiploads containing this type of human cargo continued until 1774. 

     Sadly, few personal records exist of those who were kidnapped in the British Isles and who were shipped off as white slaves to America. Historians rely heavily upon articles in English papers, which serve as the main sources of information. These notices mostly involved upper-class children or those who were rescued when kidnappers were caught. As kidnapping was a misdemeanor offense, it was not only very common but also highly profitable. Frequent attempts to pass stronger legislation routinely failed in Parliament because aristocrats wanted to be rid of indigent children. Moreover, just as some African chiefs grew rich in the sale of captured slaves for the transatlantic crossing, wealthy English aristocrats also benefited from acting behind the scenes. Some judges were even paid for each child they condemned to slavery. In the year 1670 alone, an estimated ten thousand whites were kidnapped from England and shipped to Britain’s North American and Caribbean colonies.5  Unlike the meticulous boat records kept by Atlantic slave ship captains, it’s hard to know exactly how many white children were enslaved and sent to the colonies. As most of the children were poor vagabonds whose absence did not elicit concern — indeed, laws encouraged their removal — estimates of their numbers are hard to come by. The practice often occurred privately between ship captains and spirit gangs for hundreds of years. It is worth noting that England similarly continued using “press gangs” to enslave English men for the needs of the British navy well into the early nineteenth century. This practice, extended to kidnapping American seamen from U.S. merchant ships, later served as a major cause of the War of 1812.

     It must be remembered that huge numbers of destitute men, women, and children flooded into English cities as a result of Britain’s Enclosure Movement in the 17th and 18th centuries. This was the age of the “dismal economists” like Thomas Malthus and David Riccardo who advocated against giving any aid to the poor because they would simply have more children resulting in even greater poverty! Riccardo’s “Iron Law of Wages” argued the poor should never be paid more than subsistence wages. At a time in England when social class meant everything, little help was offered to the indigent. Indifference to the poor — who comprised one-third to one-half of the British population — led to two other large groups being expatriated to America against their will. The first were indigent persons guilty of no crime and the second were those convicted of petty crimes.  

     All too often, for much of the colonial era, Britain’s poorest subjects were simply coerced or cajoled into slavery. Poor households receiving public assistance that had new children born into the family were told to turn older children over “for transportation” or be cut off from welfare. Faced with such a choice, many parents condemned their own children to live as slaves in America. Similarly, conditions in England’s poor houses were so miserable that often a majority of those living there died from disease, being overworked, or from malnourishment. Faced with such a life, some residents were coerced into signing themselves into slavery in America. 

     A third group that was sent unwillingly to the New World were criminals. British court records document that over 50,000 British criminals were sentenced to years of slavery in America. James Oglethorpe even founded the colony of Georgia as a penal colony for this very purpose. The shipping of convicts to America took place early in the 17th century and was given greater impetus after Parliament enacted the Transportation Law of 1718. In Land of the Free: Criminal transportation to America, R. J. Clarke notes: 

     Not many people know that between 1718 and 1775 over 52,000 convicts were transported from the British Isles to America, mainly to Maryland and Virginia, to be sold as slaves to the highest bidder. It is reckoned that transported convicts made up a quarter of the British immigrants to colonial America in the 18th century . . . According to the vicar of Wendover, transportation served the purpose of ‘draining the Nation of its offensive Rubbish’. 6

Their trip across the Atlantic was one of great misery and often death. Even in the 1770s, when conditions had been improved for the convicts, testimony revealed the sordid nature of the transportation business.

Duncan Campbell, the transportation contractor for ships leaving London during the final years of transportation to America, told a House of Commons committee that, by the time they had reached America, ‘rather more than a Seventh Part of the Felons died, many of the Gaol Fever, but more of the Small Pox’.

          Although it was in the captains’ interest to make sure the convicts survived the voyage so they could receive their share of the sale proceeds, the convicts on board ship in many cases were treated worse than slaves. The captains had more reasons for trying to make sure the slaves survived. The death of a slave was a more material loss than the death of a convict. Slaves commanded a much higher price. Slaves were more attractive to potential buyers than convicts. They were more trustworthy as they didn’t have a criminal record. . .

Once the ships arrived at their destination, the convicts were lined up on deck to be inspected by potential buyers. Any convicts who were left over after the sale were sold in bulk at a cheap price to dealers who were known as soul-drivers. The soul-drivers chained the convicts together and herded them inland to the backcountry like oxen or sheep. They sold the convicts singly or in groups as they passed each settlement. This method meant that small planters and farmers who were unable to travel to the ports where the convict auctions took place were still able to buy convict workers . . . 

After the passing of the Act, transportation became the main punishment at the courts’ disposal. From May 1718 to the outbreak of the American War of Independence in 1775, over 70 percent of those who were found guilty at the Old Bailey were sentenced to be transported, compared with less than one percent in the period from 1700 to March 1718. 7

     Not surprisingly, Britain’s North American colonies resisted British attempts to send convicts as slaves to their shores. Ben Franklin was among those who resented Britain’s emptying its jails by sending criminals to America.  He suggested that America should export rattlesnakes to England in return. He said that the British practice was ‘an insult and contempt, the cruellest perhaps that ever one people offered another; and would not be equal’d even by emptying their jakes on our tables’. Britain, moreover, would get the better of the trade, “… without equal Risque of the Inconvenien-cies and Dangers, For the Rattle-Snake gives Warning before he attempts his Mischief; which the Convict does not.”8

     A fourth source of white slaves who were brought to Britain’s North American colonies were those tens of thousands of Irish and Scottish Catholics who were subject to the deportation orders by England’s Protestant Puritan government. Beginning in the 1630s but especially following the failed Irish revolt of 1641, England’s Protestant dictator, Oliver Cromwell, subjugated the Irish with a devastating series of repressive measures. Ireland’s Catholic population was disposed of their lands and an estimated one-fourth of the island’s population perished from war, famine, and disease. Cromwell sought to depopulate the island through means of ethnic cleansing — by removing Catholics to the British sugar islands of Barbados, Jamaica, to other possessions in the Lesser Antilles, and to New England — and replacing them with Protestants. As a result, over 100,000 Irish men, women, and children were thus sent off as slaves to Britain’s colonies in the New World.9   By 1655, over half the white population of Barbados were white slaves. 

     A fifth class of white slaves shipped to the colonies were English political prisoners. The famous Hollywood actor, Errol Flynn, became an established star with his 1935 role as one such slave in the classic film Captain Blood.  Shipping political prisoners as slaves to Britain’s North American colonies was a common punishment meted out to the losers in England’s many wars. “Of the Scottish troops captured at the Battle of Worcester more than 600 were shipped to Virginia as slaves in 1651. The rebels of 1666 were sent as slaves to the colonies as were the Monmouth rebels of 1685 and the Jacobites of the rising of 1715.”10  

     Often, social justice historians describe such persons as ‘temporary’ slaves who were released after ten or twenty years. Most of these political prisoners, however, died in slavery due to the harsh conditions they were subjected to. “Of 1300 Cavaliers enslaved in Barbados almost all of them died in slavery.”11  This practice was continued by England as late as 1746.

     Most current textbooks describe indentured servitude as generally a temporary period of forced labor where individuals voluntarily negotiated contracts with masters before their embarking to America. This view, however, neglects the huge number of “servants” who were involuntarily sent as slave laborers to the colonies. Within this group were not only criminals and political prisoners, but vagrants, indigents, religious dissenters, and lewd persons. Often, these ‘undesirables’ had little or nothing to say about the terms of their service or the conditions under which they were to labor. As a result, they are more correctly described as slaves. Even for those who voluntarily placed themselves in temporary servitude to others, the practice was replete with abuse and exploitation. The great mass of Britain’s poor was condemned to work either as ‘wage slaves’ in the early industrial factories and mines of Britain or were given the opportunity to sign on as indentured servants to work on plantations in America. Mostly illiterate, they found verbal promises not realized in either the contract or practice. “Before the American Revolution, it was the primary conduit by which European migrants arrived in North America and the Caribbean” and there were “plenty of ways” in which passage to the English colonies was anything but voluntary.”12   According to estimates, “…between one-half and two-thirds of all white immigrants to the British colonies between the Puritan migration of the 1630s and the Revolution came under indenture.”13  Moreover, abuse of these servants was common both before and after their arrival in America. Women servants who were sold, for example, were not allowed to marry or become pregnant during periods of service. Knowing this, some masters deliberately impregnated female servants so as to add years of labor to their service. Worse, bastard children out of wedlock were forced to serve for a period of 31 years of labor! This odious practice continued in Virginia until 1765 when the legislature reduced the period to a mere 21 years of age for boys and 18 years for girls.14  True, the children of Black female slaves were condemned to a life of slavery, but we must remember that this was still the norm for many whites seized during this same time by North African and Eastern European Muslims.

     A sixth group of “voluntary” servant-slaves was the large number of German family groups that came to America so destitute that ship captains literally sold them as slaves to the highest bidder upon their arrival. Called “redemptioners” for their original hope of having the cost of their passage paid by relatives or friends in Pennsylvania, most sadly discovered that there was no such relief. As a result, they ended up being confined on ships below deck in Philadelphia for weeks until they could be sold. Family units were routinely broken up as a result. Few personal accounts of the tens of thousands of such emigrants survive. Jacob Mittleberger’s description and advice to his fellow Germans to “stay home” is one such account. He described the many injustices the families experienced in their journey and how families were separated for life upon their arrival in Pennsylvania.  

         Many parents must sell and trade away their children like so many head of cattle; … because, on account of their great poverty, most of these families after reaching the land are separated from each other and sold far away from each other, the young and the old. And the saddest of all this is that parents must generally give away their minor children without receiving a compensation for them; inasmuch as such children never see or meet their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters again . . . 15 

     What can be taken away from an accurate understanding of colonial labor today? 

     First, there is a need for the truth to be told — both in our schools and in the culture at large. It should be recognized that white slavery formed the basis of Black slavery in America. The hated “fugitive slave laws” which are mentioned in all history texts today were first based upon the capture of runaway white slaves. For several decades in the early 1600s, the same laws applied to persons of both races. The current trend is to say that African slavery began in 1619 when a Dutch ship sold a few Africans as laborers to the English settlers at Jamestown. In reality, their status was no different from the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who were sold as involuntary indentured servants at this same time. We should be clear about the status of these first Africans in Virginia.  They were involuntary indentured servants—just like many of the whites who arrived there that decade. Some of those Africans—Anthony Johnson being the most famous—went on to own both white and black servants themselves. Legally, Blacks were able to own whites as laborers until 1670 when a law was passed preventing their owning “Christians.”16  And it wasn’t until 1662 that biological and racial slavery became codified in Virginia law—43 years after their first arrival at Jamestown. If BLM advocates and Hannah Nicole-Jones of the 1619 Project wish to include the Africans who arrived in 1619 as slaves, then history books should similarly account for the vast numbers of whites who were involuntarily transported to Britain’s American colonies as slaves, too. 

     A second truth is non-whites have a much longer history of enslaving whites than white Europeans have of enslaving “people of color.” North African, Arab, and Turkish armies were engaged in enslaving Europeans from the 8th until the 19th century! This lengthy record is rarely mentioned in any American history textbook today. Nor are Native Americans immune from the institution of slavery. They also enslaved whites — just as they enslaved one another. Although most books today make clear that Columbus enslaved Native Americans, few mention the fact that Native American Carib cannibalism and Aztec and Inca human sacrifice influenced how Europeans came to view the indigenous people of the Americas.  

     A third lesson from the study of this period is the fact that until the American Revolution outlawed a titled nobility of aristocrats and ensured religious freedom, the world was rife with class, religious, ethnic, and racial privilege. BLM advocates who today think in terms of only race ignore the fact that world history is synonymous with class, gender, racial, ethnic, and religious distinctions. Despite the practice of slavery in the southern states, after the Revolution America led the world in extending democratic practices and in ending class privilege. Even as North African Muslims and others in Africa and Asia openly practiced slavery, many Americans helped lead the attack upon the institution of slavery and we stationed our navy off the coast of Africa to help stop the trade. History records that African chiefs were not happy with American and British attempts to stop the practice. A simple question is to ask BLM activists to identify the Harriett Beecher Stowe’s or any of the numerous white anti-slavery societies amongst the Bantu, Ibo, or the other African societies in Africa at this time. History, of course, does not record abolitionist societies among Africans, Arabs, Mayans, Turks, Muslims, Han Chinese, or Hindus. Moreover, in those rare cases in America today where individuals are charged with the crime of enslaving others, it’s always a person of color whose contemporary culture still sees nothing wrong with the institution.17  The truth is that virtually every major society in the world in 1800 was much more undemocratic and much more racist, sexist, and classist than the United States. This fact is rarely mentioned in our history textbooks today and is never acknowledged by BLM activists and their allies. Much is made of England’s end of slavery in 1833, but few sources point out that the British East India Company was exempt from the law, thereby permitting over ten million slaves to exist without respite in that British colony. When this fact is taken into account, America’s success in abolishing slavery should be given much greater credence.

     Fourth – it is vitally important to recognize that only white Americans fought a devastating war that saw the loss of 750,000 deaths to free people of another race from slavery.18 Slave rebellions are common throughout history, but the American Civil War marked the first and possibly the only time a people fought a war to free another people of a different race from bondage! Through deliberate omission, few books ever make this distinction known to readers. 

     Fifth – it should be noted that all the areas in the world today that tolerate slavery and caste oppression are populated by non-whites. Today, 400 million Indian Dalit’s face conditions remarkably similar to that of slavery in India. Popularly known as “Untouchables,” they are condemned to lives of drudgery and discrimination within their own nation. As a result of Indians bringing caste prejudices with them to the United States, legislation against caste discrimination has recently been added by some states to the list of protections covered under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Perhaps not surprisingly, African and Haitian immigrants are sometimes convicted in the U.S. for their enslavement and oppression of fellow immigrants. (see footnote 17) Mexican and Asian cartels are also well known for their human trafficking and enslavement of persons of their own race in America today. In contemporary Africa, an estimated nine million slaves suffer under harsh conditions. White churchgoers and American anti-slavery societies today continue their historic effort to purchase and free Black African slaves from their Black and Arab oppressors. Whites apparently are no longer enslaving persons of other races, but other races continue the practice of slavery within our culture as well as their own. Much of this abysmal record of oppression, of course, is never covered by the mainstream media because it doesn’t fit in with their penchant of looking everywhere for examples of white racism and supremacy.

      A sixth takeaway from an accurate appraisal of America’s past is the help it would bring to fostering an honest discussion of race in America today. It does little to deliberately distort history when it is more accurate to illustrate similar experiences between racial groups. For example, an honest discussion of race relations today should note that our nation not only helped lead the world in ending class privilege and slavery but in the effort to provide equal opportunity for all. To accomplish this, a white majority culture passed laws allowing for legal discrimination against all white males through means of affirmative action. This legal discrimination has continued for over 60 years and it seems likely will always be the norm in America. Unfortunately, by today’s woke standards, Slavic immigrants whose ancestors suffered from oppression and slavery for centuries longer than the U.S. tolerated Black slavery are today viewed as oppressors and they continue to face oppression and discrimination by the very color of their skin. 

     Seventh, European whites should receive credit for not only ending slavery throughout the world but in ending racial discrimination. This legacy is without parallel. Where in history has an aristocratic or upper class or racial group discriminated against itself to help the less fortunate? Rather than celebrate our unique historical contributions toward equality for all, however, today’s Progressives and social justice warriors refuse to acknowledge such measures. As a result, skeptics of their motives might see their intent, not as an attempt to accurately portray the past, but rather as one to destroy our system of government and replace it with a more authoritarian one. It would appear that they are largely succeeding in this.19  

     American ideals and founding documents have served to continually move our system of government toward ways that provide equal opportunity for all. Whether it is called the “American Dream” or some other name, our nation continues to draw millions of people of color to our shores – legally and illegally. The world knows that America is not a racist nation. Having come so far to provide equality to all citizens, we cannot tolerate the Left’s current attempts to reinstitute racial segregation or force all individuals into racial groups as either “victims” or “oppressors.” This is especially so when the Left bases its claims upon false historical narratives.  

     “Facts are stubborn things,” John Adams once argued. The average family income of Indian Americans now exceeds the average income of whites by over $50,000.20  Nigerian family income and that of many other groups of “people of color” also exceeds the average income of Americans of English and Irish descent.  Entire industries – whether its Mexican trafficking cartels or Chinese entrepreneurs helping pregnant women to have their babies born within the United States – have made fortunes off the “American Dream.” 

     It is only when all groups — especially the activists within Black Lives Matter and racial hucksters such as Ibram Kendi and Robin DeAngelo — accept the true nature of America’s past and present that any real American racial healing can occur.

Footnotes

1  Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slavery#Slavic_Slaves. 
     Accessed 12-20-2021.
2  Michael A. Hoffman II. They Were White and They Were Slaves (The
    Independent History and Research Company, 1992), 73.   See also Anna Suranyi 
   “link" p 147.)
3  Anna Suranyi. "Indenture, Servitude and Spiriting: Seventeenth Century English
    Penal Policy and ‘Superfluous’ Populations", Downloaded from: Brill.com 
    12/25/2021.
4 Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Annesley, Accessed 12-20-2021.
5  Edward Channing. History of the United States, vol. 2, p. 369.
6  R.J. Clarke, The Land of the Free: Criminal Transportation to America (The
    History Press) From: https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/the-land-of-the-
    free-criminal-transportation-to-america/ .
7   Ibid. 
8  Salmon, Emily. "Convict Labor during the Colonial Period" Encyclopedia
    Virginia
. Virginia Humanities, (14 Dec. 2020). Web. 22 Dec. 2021
9  Hoffman, 62.
10  Ibid. 68.
11  Ibid. 69.
12  Timothy J. Shannon. “A ‘Wicked Commerce’: Consent, Coercion, and
      Kidnapping in Aberdeen’s Servant Trade.” The William and Mary Quarterly 74,
      no. 3 (2017): 437–66. https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.74.3.0437.
13  Abbot Emerson Smith, Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict
      Labor in America, 1607-1776
(Chapel Hill, 1947), p. 336.
14  Hoffman, 89.
15  Gottlieb Mittelberger, Journey to Pennsylvania in the Year 1750, trans. Carl
      Theo Eben (Philadelphia, John Jos McVey, 1898), 25–31.
16   Hoffman, 39-40.
17   Kay, Jennifer. “Fear, Shame Fosters Silence around Haitian Child Servitude in
       US,” WTVA-TV Miami: October 17, 2007.  See also: Thomas Lifson. “Son of
       Legendary Marxist African Independence Leader Se’kou Toure Convicted of
       Enslaving a Girl in Texas” (American Thinker: Jan. 14, 2019). Of Black
       Somali immigrants trafficking Minnesota girls as sex-slaves across the
       nation see Allie Shah. “3 Twin Cities Somalis Guilty of Sex Trafficking” (Star
       Tribune: Minneapolis, May 4, 2012).
18  Jennie Cohen. “Civil War Deadlier than Previously Thought?”
       https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-deadlier-than-previously-thought.
19.  For an examination of the communist influences within the Black Lives Matter
       group see Joshua Washington, “BLM — A Righteous Cause or Communism in
       a Black Face?” American Thinker, October 6, 2020.
20.  Zaid Jilani. “The Indian American Dream: Putting Family and Education First,
       Indians Rise,” Institute for Family Studies, December 17, 2021.
21.  Parker Beauregard. “Median Income by Ethnicity Disproves White Privilege,”
       American Thinker, September 17, 2020. Americans of English and Scottish
       descent are actually ranked near the bottom of the list—85th and 77th out of 98
       ethnicities. 

To download a WORD document file of the above click "HERE."
____  
Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, FL 
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com.

Friday, December 17, 2021

Where is the “Squad’s Outrage?”

Recently an Egyptian court sentenced 80-year-old academic scholar, Dr. Ahmed Abdu’ Maher, to five years in prison for his honest commentary on the Islamic conquest of Egypt and the Christian Middle East. Dr. Maher was found guilty of reciting ancient Christian and Arab sources of the conquest that described events in the 7th and 8th centuries as pillage, slavery, slaughter, and discrimination by Arab Muslim invaders who established iron-clad control over Christian areas. Under today's Islamic blasphemy laws, even the reciting of authentic Arab sources, which accurately—but negatively—portray the carnage of such early Islamic conquests can result in imprisonment. 

Dr. Maher first brought condemnation upon himself in 2017 when he asked Muslim critics of President Trump’s “Muslim ban” to consider the act in light of Islam’s own history. President Trump halted immigration from a minority of Muslim countries that were on the government’s list of nations embracing terrorism. The Islamic conquests of Egypt and the Middle East and even current Islamic doctrine, however, call for bringing “enlightenment” to infidels through jihad. The reasoning of Dr. Maher has been revealed thanks to a posted translation by Raymond Ibrahim: 

Friends, in regards to … Donald Trump, we wanted to ask our brothers … a question: if this man … were to coerce, through the power of arms, the greater majority of Muslims living in America … to become Christians, or pay jizya, otherwise he takes over their homes, kills their men and enslaves their women and girls, and sells them on slave markets; if he were to do all this, would he be considered a racist and a terrorist or not? … So I wonder O sheikh, O leader of this or that Islamic center in NY, would you like to see this done to your wife and daughter?  Would you—this or that sheikh—accept that this be done to your children?  That your daughter goes to this fighter [as a slave], your son to this fighter, a fifth [of booty] goes to the caliph and so forth?  I mean, isn’t this what you refer to as the Sharia of Allah? …  So let’s think about things in an effort to discern what’s right and what’s wrong.

Dr. Maher’s continued depiction of past events has now earned him what is tantamount to a death sentence in prison. Our question to Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep.Rashida Tlaib, and other Muslim leaders in America is simply this: will you officially protest this unjust decision of an Egyptian court? Will you ask President Biden and the State Department to do the same? In light of your continued portrayal of this nation as imperialistic, racist, and Islamaphobic—can you be counted on to defend the rights of this 80-year-old historian with the same passion you’ve defended the rioters, looters, and arsonists who helped pillage and destroy many of our nation’s cities over the last several years?    

____  
Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, FL 
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com.

This editorial was published in American Thinker and may be accessed "HERE".

Monday, December 13, 2021

For San Francisco and California, "The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost!"

    As the racist minister of Barack and Michelle Obama—Jeeremiah Wright—graphically proclaimed to his crowed Black Liberation Theology church in Chicago some years ago when he decried American foreign policy, “The chickens are coming home to roost!” The repeated nightly attacks upon multiple businesses in the San Francisco Bay area are simply the logical consequences of that city’s Progressive Left policies. Since 1964 the city has not had a Republican mayor, and a progression of ultra-liberal ordinances and Progressive liberals have pretty much turned the once-beautiful city into a third world Soddom and Gemorrah. The untreated mentally ill and drug-induced addicts are everywhere—generally left to fend for themselves on the streets. Public vagrancy is a menace. Laws against public urination and defecation have been done away with, making the city a real health risk. As a sanctuary city, local ordinances have made it impossible for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest criminals who have committed all types of felonies upon the law abiding citizens who pay the taxes there. Students at Berkeley and other liberal post-secondary routinely call for defunding the police. Its prosecuting attorney, Chesa Boudin—the son of Weather Underground terrorists who left three police officers dead from a heist in 1981—has refused to prosecute career criminals and repeat offenders. In the hope that the city can still be saved, he is now facing a recall election by outraged citizens. 
     The city’s decline cannot be attributed, as some claim, to the harmful effects of Covid. In 2015 there were 60,491 complaints to police, but only 125 people were arrested.  “The city took 25,899 reports of car break-ins in 2015,” The San Francisco Chronicle reports. This represented a 77 percent increase over the five years beginning in 2010. 
     Even liberals seem to have had enough! For years, The Atlantic has warned visitors to the city were seeing hundreds of rental cars broken into and cameras, luggage, passports, and personal items stolen by ‘smash and grab’ thieves. The New York Times reports, “Recent data from the F.B.I. show that San Francisco has the highest per-capita property crime rate of the nation’s top 50 cities.” In 1919 Edelman Intelligence reported in a poll that 63% of California millennials now wish to leave the state. CNBC also ranks the state 48th in cost of doing business, which may be why thousands of firms are leaving California for friendlier locales. In 2016, McKinsey Global Institute reported that half of California households cannot afford the cost of housing in their local market. 
     As a never-ending list of Progressive policies continues to rock the city and state, more and more Americans have come to the realization that almost all of the injuries are self-inflicted. Will things turn around in the Bay City? As more and more sane people pack up and leave for Red State America, the best guess is that things will only get worse.   

____  
Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, FL 
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com.
 

Monday, November 22, 2021

The Trials of Dr. Ossian Sweet & Kyle Rittenhouse

Regardless of the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, it was certain that America would once again be attacked as the most racist nation in history.  Had Rittenhouse been found guilty, it would confirm the worst about America. If innocent, America-haters would claim the decision constituted clear evidence of a racist white power structure that continues to oppress minorities.  Our nation could only lose—regardless of the fate of Mr. Rittenhouse.

     It appears today that Black Lives Matter activists, socialists, Antifa anarchists, and race-baiting hucksters like Joy Reid and Representative Cori Bush seem to hold all the cards. In any event—regardless of facts, the character of the individuals involved, or decisions by our judicial or law-enforcement authorities—in the end, the only thing that matters is whether a Leftist goal is upheld. And usually, regardless of outcome, American institutions and ‘whites’ are always to be found ‘guilty as charged.’ So it was once again with the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Among the numerous false claims associated with the 17 year old defendant were: that he was a ‘white supremacist’ who had been influenced by skinhead-type racists, that he had an illegal firearm, that he crossed state borders for the sole purpose of the pursuing vigilante justice and to hunt down those who were lawfully exercising their right to protest the unjust “murder’ of Jacob Blake, and that he stalked and then deliberately murdered his victims. 

     Prominent Democratic leaders--Jerry Nadler, Bill deBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, and even the vice-president and president—have referred to the trial’s outcome in disappointing and racial terms.  Many persons have referred to the shootings as a ‘racist’ act of ‘white supremacy.’ These claims persist, despite the fact that of the four persons who attacked Rittenhouse, his shots only struck his white assailants. A Black career criminal [Maurice Freeland] who kicked him in the head while he was down, escaped without harm. While scores of critics have wrongly charged Rittenhouse with illegal possession of a firearm, few Americans know that it was Gaige Grosscreutz--who pointed his sidearm at the teenager before being shot in the arm--who was the one illegally carrying a firearm that night. 

      While it's easy to expose the falsehoods of such racial hucksters, it may be more revealing to compare their claim that American has always supported white supremacy to the facts associated with the 1925-1926 trials of Dr. Ossian Sweet’s family and friends.  Dr. Sweet was an African-American doctor who purchased a home in a predominantly white working-class neighborhood in Detroit in 1925. As he moved his family into the home, a white mob gathered to protest across the street for at least two nights. Despite a police presence, angry agitators in the mob threatened violence against the family. The first night of protest passed without much actual violence, but an alarmed Dr. Sweet brought male friends and relatives into the house along with ten firearms to defend it the next day. He was aware that similar white mobs had chased two other black families from their homes in white neighborhoods only months before and, with their help, he was determined to defend his property and remain in the home. 

     After dusk on the second night, a mob once again gathered across the street from the Sweet residence. Soon, while Mrs. Sweet was preparing dinner for the 10 men, rocks were heard being thrown upon the roof of the house. Dr. Sweet shut off the lights and the men took positions at windows on the second floor. After two windows were broken, shots rang out from the ten armed Black men inside the home. Two white men were hit. One man was wounded in the leg and the other, Leon Breiner, was fatally wounded by a shot in his back. Mr. Breiner was not part of the mob in the street in front of the Sweet home and had at the time been talking to neighbors on the front porch of a home across the street. The police now immediately dispersed the crowd and arrested Dr. Sweet, his wife, and the nine other Black males. All eleven—including Mrs. Sweet—were charged with the murder of Mr. Breiner.  

     There were two trials involving Dr. Sweet and his accomplices—both before all-white male juries. In preparing for the first trial, the NAACP retained America’s most famous attorney—Clarence Darrow—to lead the defense. Before that first trial, three of the eleven defendants had charges against them dropped. At the trial’s conclusion, the first jury—despite a majority favoring “not guilty”—could not reach a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Darrow’s call for separate trials for the defendants was then accepted and the first of the second trial cases—that of Dr. Sweet’s younger brother, Henry—took place in 1926. As expected, Darrow’s eloquent and successful defense of Henry Sweet’s actions to defend his older brother’s property against a white mob made legal history. During Henry’s defense, Darrow repeatedly contrasted his education, personal reputation, and good character—along with the other members of the Sweet family—with the less educated and rough nature of several witnesses from the mob. 

        One of Darrow’s most effective arguments was leveled against the police who were present. One speaker reminded the mob that allowing the Sweet family to remain in the neighborhood would result in everyone’s property value being reduced. He reminded them that Dr. Sweet had been told he wasn’t welcome in the area and yet he moved into the home anyway. It was now time for the "neighbors" to take matters into their own hands to resolve the matter. Stones were beginning to be thrown against the roof of the house at this point. “Why was he not arrested?” Darrow asked the jury. “Gentlemen, that man stood there and harangued a mob and urged them to violence and crime in the presence of the officers of this city, and nothing was done about it!”  To the prosecutor’s claim that Breiner had been shot on the porch of a neighbor’s home, Darrow retorted, “If he had remained at home, it [his being shot] would not have happened.” To the prosecution’s argument that no shots had been fired at the mob the night before, Darrow reasoned events during the second night were worse. Sweet and his supporters had waited until windows were broken before firing, Darrow argued, and the Black men were rightfully defending themselves from a real danger to their lives.  He went on:

Let me tell you what you must do, gentlemen. It is fine for lawyers to say, naively, that nothing happened. No foot was set upon that ground; as if you had to put your foot on the premises. You might put your hand on. The foot isn’t sacred. No foot was set upon their home. No shot was fired, nothing except that the house was stoned and windows broken; and an angry crowd was outside seeking their destruction. That is all. That is all, gentlemen. I say that no American citizen, unless he is black, need wait until an angry mob sets foot upon his premises before he kills. I say that no free man need wait to see just how far an aggressor will go before he takes life.
      … Every man’s home is his castle, which even the King may not enter. Every man has a right to kill to defend himself or his family, or others . . . 
       So far as that branch of the case is concerned, there is only one thing that this jury has a right to consider, and that is whether the defendants acted in honest fear of danger. That is all.
     … I appeal to you, gentlemen, to do your part to save the honor of this city, to save its reputation, to save yours, to save its name, and to save the poor colored people who can not save themselves. 
      … Why, I can remember when the early statesmen of Michigan cared for the colored man and when they embodied the rights of the colored men in the constitution and statutes. I can remember when they laid the foundation that made it possible for a man of any color or any religion, or any creed, to own his home wherever he could find a man to sell it. I remember when civil rights laws were passed that gave the Negro the right to go where the white man went and as he went. There are some men who seem to think those laws were wrong. I do not. Wrong or not, it is the law, and if you were black you would protest with every fiber of your body your right to live. 
       Michigan used to protect the rights of colored people. There were not many of them here, but they have come in the last few years, and with them has come prejudice. Then, too, the southern white man has followed his black slave. But that isn’t all. Black labor has come in competition with white. Prejudices have been created where there was no prejudice before. We have listened to the siren song that we are a superior race and have superior rights, and that the black man has none. 
       It is a new idea in Detroit that a colored man’s home can be torn down about his head because he is black. 
      …   This case is about to end, gentlemen. To them, it is life. Not one of their color sits on this jury. Their fate is in the hands of twelve whites. Their eyes are fixed on you, their hearts go out to you, and their hopes hang on your verdict.
            This is all. I ask you, on behalf of this defendant, on behalf of these helpless ones who turn to you, and more than that,--on behalf of this great state, and this great city which must face this problem, and face it fairly,--I ask you, in the name of progress and of the human race, to return a verdict of not guilty in this case!

      After Henry’s acquittal, the prosecuting attorney dropped all charges against the remaining seven defendants. 
      America today routinely looks upon the 1920s as one of the most racist periods in history. Tremendous changes were taking place within our nation demographically, socially, politically, and economically. Membership in the Ku Klux Klan increased due to its campaign to sell itself as a patriotic organization that would protect the Christian and Eurocentric character of the nation from the millions of poverty-stricken Catholic immigrants now coming from Eastern and Southern Europe. Jim Crow laws segregated the races in Southern states and public property rights permitted businesses and individuals to practice racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and economic discrimination. As a result, one’s group identity in the 1920s grew as strong if not stronger than one’s national identity—a period not unlike our nation today.  
       Like the Sweet Trials, the Rittenhouse Trial will make history. A comparison of the societal changes since the times of the two cases gives an indication of the vast changes that have taken place in America over the last 100 years.  In 1920 our nation had a 90% white European population. Today, whites comprise a minority of citizens and Hispanics have replaced African-Americans as our largest minority group. In 1920, we had unlimited immigration from Europe. Today our nation is flooded by a seemingly unending wave of immigrants at a southern border that no longer exists. In 1920, most immigrants were screened at Ellis Island and Angel Island so that the infirm, sick, or disabled would not be a burden on local governments. Today, when the Border Patrol performs chiefly baby-sitting and transportation services for immigrants, many arrivals are not even tested for highly contagious diseases such as Covid or tuberculosis. In 1920, it was necessary for immigrants to have individuals within the United States agree to sponsor and support them until they found employment. There were no federal programs to assist them and all those proven to be criminals were returned to their native lands. Today, many urban centers under Democratic control safely operate as sanctuary cities, openly defying federal laws to protect those illegally in our nation—even those who have been charged with or convicted of serious crimes. Moreover, a plethora of government and private programs target benefits to immigrants, even those in the nation illegally or who have no means of supporting themselves.  
            In 1920, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males dominated all institutions through both custom and law. Today, and since affirmative action in the 1960s, white males have been systematically discriminated against for the benefit of women and most minorities. In 1920, Black males were stereotyped in Jim-Crow advertising as having mostly comic, subservient, or negative personalities. Today, an entire generation of white males has been depicted in countless television ads the same way. Compared to Black males, Madison Avenue doesn't depict white males in anywhere near their ratio in the population. Moreover, the current trend is to generally portray Blacks and females in positions of authority over white males—who now constitute modern-day Jim Crow characters. In 1920, the achievements of Black males—with notable exceptions such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, and Langston Hughes—were absent from our literature and history books.  Today, it is common for all whites to be regularly portrayed in governmental, corporate and educational ‘diversity workshops,’ and on social media platforms as “oppressors” of minorities who led lives of unearned “privilege.”   
     Despite Democratic President Wilson’s expansion of racial segregation to the federal government in the years prior to 1920, neither it nor the nation’s schools and colleges portrayed one racial group as superior or inferior to another. Today, the federal government—through its adoption of Critical Race Theory principles and workshops—supports the demonization of all whites for their ‘negative’ and ‘oppressive’ past. Our Constitution and legal system prohibit the punishment and stigmatization of children for the sins of their parents. Critical Race Theory, however, has no such restriction. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the truly revolutionary nature of the legal precedent established by the 1957 Brown v Board Supreme Court case.  The Court broke legal precedent by allowing sociologists to testify and submit sociological—not legal—evidence to the pernicious influences of Jim Crow segregationist laws upon African-Americans. Hearing that young Black girls preferred white dolls over Black ones helped override the legal precedent of “separate but equal.”  Today, it is increasingly common for whites to portray themselves as minorities to advance their careers or be accepted into college. One recent study revealed 34% of white applicants lied about being minorities on college applications. Eighty-five percent of those who did, felt it helped them be accepted. That the stigmatization of racial roles has now been reversed in the nation is silently acknowledged by most observant individuals today.
      Following decades of permitting voluntary racial segregation on college campuses for such things as graduation ceremonies, dorm facilities, and cultural programs, it has become second nature for our nation to accept minority-imposed racial segregation. Black students are allowed to refuse to share dorm rooms with whites although the reverse is unheard of. Today, Black Lives Matter extremists so ardently believe in the nefarious nature of ‘white privilege’ that—despite over half a century of racially based affirmative action programs—they argue it is necessary to enact legal measures to further discriminate against whites. Few were surprised years ago when employment ads for the historic Broadway show, Hamilton, publicly stated no-white males needed to apply. [White females were welcome to audition, but no white males.] The Black producer had to be reminded he actually couldn’t put such an ad into ‘print.’ Today, BLM calls for "racially positive" hiring practices to permit Blacks to be legally preferred over whites such as the producer of Hamilton wished.* Rather than supporting a color-blind society as Justice Harlan and Dr. King described and a majority of Americans came to believe since the 1960s, BLM activists now call for a "color-conscious" society that guarantees "equity" through institutionalized discrimination against whites. 
      The list of societal changes since the Sweets trial could easily be added to.
      An examination of the trials themselves may further help to illustrate the vast sea of change that has taken place in America since 1925. Both cases involved threatening mobs. In both cases, police were accused of ‘standing down’ and permitting violence. Both cases had racial tensions occurring before the fatal shootings. In each incident, the defendants used a ‘self-defense’ legal argument against a charge of murder. In both, an aroused media kept public sentiments aflame. Here, the similarities end.  What's really revealing are the differences between the cases:
While a white mob gathered to expel Blacks from a white neighborhood in Detroit, these were relatively non-destructive assemblies compared to widespread damage inflicted upon private property by the Kenosha Black Lives Matter activists and their allies.
Not one white person in the mob outside the Sweet resident stepped upon the Doctor’s property, but some rocks were thrown at his house, breaking two windows. In Kenosha, mobs deliberately trespassed, shoplifted from, and burned down entire businesses destroying the lives of many innocent people and causing millions of dollars damage. 
While stones were thrown against the home of Dr. Sweet causing him to feel the need to shoot into the mob, he and his family suffered no physical harm. Kyle Rittenhouse, however, was chased down the street by a mob that kicked him and struck him repeatedly. He was taunted with verbal death threats, had to physically struggle with others to retain possession of his firearm, and had a gun pointed at his face before shooting one assailant. 
Dr. Sweet was charged with the murder of an innocent bystander who was shot in the back while standing on the porch of a neighbor across the street. Kyle Rittenhouse was personally threatened by those he shot. None of his four aggressors were innocent bystanders.
Despite the nation’s ‘intolerance’ in the 1920s and fears of anti-black Detroit mobs in 1925, the all-white male jury that declared Henry Sweet innocent of murder openly posed for a news photograph and their names were public information. The Rittenhouse jury had their faces and identities hidden to protect them from pro-Black Lives Matter activists who were already resorting to threats against them, their families, and their property. Jury intimidation was not a problem in 1925 but was a serious problem in Kenosha. This fact alone causes one to wonder which era harbored more racial intolerance and intimidation against the lives of innocent persons.
The media was mostly favorable to the outcome of the Sweet verdict in 1926. Even Mrs. Breiner’s civil case against the Sweet family failed. (So much for her ‘white privilege.')  As we’ve seen above, however, many national journalists, politicians, pundits, and celebrities decried the racism of the Rittenhouse judge and jury. Calls for violence against white privilege, white racism, and white oppression continued unabated in social media platforms that reached millions. Several days after the trial it appears one activist deliberately drove his car into a Wisconsin Christmas parade comprised of small children, killing five persons and injuring scores of others. Incredibly, a Democratic activist and BLM supporter, Mary Lemanski,  taunted Kyle Rittenhouse supporters in social media tweets about the incident. 
Whereas corporations controlled by whites bestowed hundreds of millions of dollars upon Black Lives Matter leaders and protestors—some of whom deliberately called for and participated in the burning of numerous cities during the time of the Rittenhouse shootings--efforts to fund the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse on sites such as Go-Fund-Me met with censorship and outright bans. 
Prominent politicians such as Vice-President Harris, Hollywood celebrities, and corporate matching fund campaigns openly solicited money and posted bail for those persons arrested for attacking police officers, committing acts of arson, or who were charged with committing major felonies during the summer riots of 1920. In the Rittenhouse case, however, individuals were sometimes fired for simply making private donations to his defense fund. One such person was Lt. William Kelly of the Norfolk Police Department, who was fired for making a $25 dollar anonymous donation to Kyle’s defense team. 

Following the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, critics of the decision like Don Lemon made clear their belief that had Rittenhouse been Black, the outcome would have been different. While they are entitled to their opinions, it seems clear that the 1925 Sweet trial and others like the O.J. case, prove them wrong. Despite a society that catered to white males one hundred years ago, an entirely white male jury decided in favor of a self-defense shooting by Black males against what appeared to be an entirely innocent white man. Today when our society no longer celebrates white males, but degrades them and has discriminated against them for 60 years, Rittenhouse continues to be condemned even after a jury found he had the right to defend himself. 
     Today, it can be argued that the racial norms of society have been reversed from those of 100 years ago. Thankfully, however, the rights of American citizens to defend themselves against a mob have again been vindicated. America’s new class of racists in the likes of LeBron James, Joy Reid, and Don Lemon—rather than condemning our legal system and the Rittenhouse verdict—should see both as triumphs of justice and common sense.   


                               The all white jury that acquitted Henry Sweet.

*  Despite attempting to break the law, the cast of Hamilton later temporarily stopped their performance in order to publicly lecture then Vice-President Pence, his wife, and the audience about the ‘racist’ nature of the Trump-Pence administration.  

____  
Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, FL 
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com. 

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Comments Related to JES "Race in America Series"

Email sent to Jefferson Educational Society Officers—June 20, 2021

MEMO to:

Pat Cuneo, JES Publications Coordinator    cuneo@jeserie.org
Ferki Ferati, President       ferati@jeserie.org
Ben Speggen, Vice President      speggen@jeserie.org

 
RE:  Comments related to “Race in America” Speakers Rashawn Ray & Camille
        Busette by the JES Publications Coordinator and JES Staff


First, congratulations to JES for attempting to provide a platform on race relations in America today. This is a topic that is desperately needed, but one that needs to ensure balance to the various perspectives on the topic. Without ‘balance’ and an examination of alternative viewpoints, we risk alienating and offending a portion of the public that sees such discourse only as a further attempt to spread bias. A biased discussion not only fails to honestly address racial problems thereby making solutions more difficult, it can result in sowing even greater racial discord and animosity in the nation.

    While Drs. Busette and Ray are to be applauded for their work in social justice and exposing examples of systemic racism in our society, it is equally true that many Black intellectuals—beyond their quoted reference to Sen. Tim Scott--disagree with some of their major tenets. In the future, I hope that J.E.S. staff will consider interviewing people who offer an alternative set of facts—individuals such as Larry Elder, Jason Riley, Burgess Owens, Shelby Steele, Candice Owens, Ben Carson, Glenn Lowry, John McWorter, Bob Woodson, or Jason Whitlock. Additionally, the works of investigative reporters such as Heather MacDonald, Chris Rufo and even Charles Murray have provided mountains of evidence that contradict your recent guest’s belief that our nation’s worst problem—to quote our current president—is ‘white supremacy’ and systemic white racism. 

    It was unfortunate for JES that the promotional paragraph to the conversation with Drs. Ray and Busette cited statistics to prove the existence that police brutality and racism against Black citizens was so misleading. Even if the figures were accurate, they were taken completely out of context of other facts. Nor was a source provided for these alarming figures. For example, “Black people are 3.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police when they are not attacking or have a weapon: George Floyd” ignores the fact of Floyd’s violent criminal past and that he repeatedly refused to comply with police requests which contributed to his death. “Black teenagers are 21 times more likely than white teenagers to be killed by police: Tamir Rice and Antwon Rose” totally ignores the overwhelming prevalence of black crime which accounts for the vast majority of police shootings. More importantly, accounting for demographics, a higher percent of unarmed white men than Black men have been killed by aggressive police tactics. Moreover, in one study, the “black officer kills a black felon at a rate more than double the rate at which white and Hispanic officers killed black felons.” Another study revealed that black officers were 67% more likely than their white colleagues to mistakenly shoot an unarmed suspect. Another study revealed that Black officers shoot Black suspects more often than white officers.  Roland Fryer, Harvard researcher, found no racial bias in police interactions with Black males that that police were more likely to use force on white suspects than black.

    To continue with an examination of your introductory preface--“A Black person is killed every 40 hours by police: Jonathan Ferrell and Koryn Gaines” ignores the fact that police officers are much more likely to be killed by Black criminals than the other way around. Heather MacDonald’s research reveals, “The per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops. And an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.”

    “One in every 1,000 Black people are killed by police: Breonna Taylor.” Heather Mac Donald, who has studied the problem for years has concluded, “if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians.”  A study by the National Academy of Sciences reported similar findings.  Another report revealed that Blacks were three times more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by police.  It showed that in approximately 50 million police encounters, there were 14 deaths of unarmed Black men and 8 of these involved the suspect attacking or struggling with the police.  “And, as sobering as these statistics are, they are improvements to the past. These statistics are the reason why from Minneapolis to Los Angeles people are protesting, marching, and rioting.”  Such statements completely ignore the great progress that has been made in police-community relations in recent decades or why officers in most major cities today—both Black and white—are seeking retirement or leaving the profession due to the current state of demagoguery on such matters. Nor does this JES introductory statement comport to other studies that reveal the vast majority of Black inner-city residents do not wish to see a weaker police presence in their communities. Such studies reveal Black residents of inner cities overwhelmingly—86% in a recent Gallup Poll—want the same or even an increased presence in their communities—a fact that runs counter to Dr. Ray’s continual reference in the interview to “over-policing.”

   In light of the above, how is a listener to weigh some of the other comments by your two guests? Dr. Busette’s assertion that the Rodney King trial was—like the George Floyd case—a ‘slam dunk’ ignored the facts surrounding this case. King was pulled over for a just cause, refused to comply with police requests, was high on drugs, and despite being tased, attacked the officers. Dr. Busette also ignored the fact that two other Black males were not abused by the police because they did in fact follow police instructions. The King incident hardly comports to a belief that police, in this case, were racist. Dr. Ray’s belief in ‘equity’ being based upon “how would officers respond if the criminal were white” (the case of Makhia Bryant) is already disproven by the studies cited above that reveal whites are more often shot in police encounters than Blacks. Many listeners would likely not agree with his position that “personal responsibility cannot be considered until all people have an equal ability to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.” Such a statement simply serves as a justification and incitement for utter lawlessness and continued looting (“reparations”) in many of our major cities today.  The result is, of course, businesses fleeing such neighborhoods leaving the residents without services or goods.  (Seventeen CVS stores have recently closed in San Francisco due to non-enforcement of laws against looting.)

   Finally, the repeated comments of both guests that “some people are born with golden, silver, or platinum boots while others don’t even have boots in the first place”—would, if examined fairly—serve as a clear repudiation of their belief that America’s greatest problem is white racism and systemic oppression.  That millions of non-white citizens choose to come to America despite their claim that our nation is racist against persons of color serves as clear evidence that the “American dream” is still alive for all non-white citizens. So do facts concerning average family income in America today. Census statistics reporting average household income by American ethnic group for 2018 revealed that the average income of English Americans ranked 85th out of 98 ethnicities at $47, 663.  The median income of all white households was $65,777. Many minority groups consisting of ‘people of color’ did far better. For example, Indian Americans ($123,453), Taiwanese-Americans ($102,328), Filipino-Americans ($92,328), Iranian-Americans ($75,905), Lebanese-Americans ($75,337), and Ghanaian-Americans ($66,571) all exceeded the income of the average white family. So did Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Pakistanis, Peruvians, and many other non-white ethnic groups. These groups did far better than those identified as English-Americans. Even Haitian-Americans ($47,990) earned one spot higher than white English-Americans ($47,663) in 2018. And the white English-Americans were not alone. Scots-Irish Americans and French Americans also earned less than the average for all white Americans. 

 Once again, thanks to JES for bringing the views of your two guests to the attention of the residents of Erie.  As I stated at the outset, this is perhaps the most important dialogue our nation is currently engaged in—one that goes to the very heart of what America stands for. I trust and hope, therefore, that JES will engage with others who possess the same passion, knowledge, and commitment on this subject, but who may see things slightly different from your two recent guests. To not do so, would be both tragic and prejudicial.

 Yours in the hope that through honest dialogue, we all benefit,

 

Jack Bovee

Erie

Note: if the hyperlinks above do not automatically open, please go to “edit hyperlink” and then copy/paste the link into your browser for all ‘sources.’  And, in the future, please do the courtesy of providing your readers with the source of your statistics when citing such controversial figures in your opening previews.



Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Dr. Ted Thornhill: Wrong Again!

 The following letter was sent to the Ft. Myers News-Press "comments section" following the publication of FGCU Professor Ted Thornhill's guest OP ED attacking Governor DeSantis for his attempt to curtail violent student protests similar to those that resulted in approximately $2 Billion damage to countless cities across America in 2019.  An earlier submission of a more professionally written rebuttal OP ED to Dr. Thornhill was ignored by the News-Press, hence my use of the much abbreviated "comments" section to weigh in on his inane ideas.   (The original OP ED may be accessed here: https://www.news-press.com/get-access/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.news-press.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2021%2F03%2F24%2Fcritical-race-theory-ron-desantis-florida-ted-race-relations-thornhill-fgcu%2F6982525002%2F . )



Thursday, May 20, 2021

Rebuttal to Dr. Brandon T. Jett

The following was written in response to Southwest Florida Colliege history professor Brandon T. Jett's guest editorial opinion in the Ft. Myers News-Press on May 20, 2021.  His editorial--“Colleges and Universities are not sites of liberal indoctrination” -- may be accessed "HERE."     

Dr. Brandon T. Jett’s claim that today’s colleges are “largely” not bastions of liberal indoctrination is so fundamentally off-target that one wonders how the local history professor could have it so wrong.  Jett writes that today’s campus faculty is “as diverse as the communities” they serve is ludicrous and easily disproven.  Study after study has shown college faculty to be overwhelmingly liberal, especially in the humanities. Due to this fact, even liberal professor-researchers such as Jonathan Haidt are alarmed.  Simply Google the phrase “how academia’s liberal bias is hurting research” and many studies will appear, some going back for decades. Nearly all the faculty in many of the fields within the humanities are Leftists. Today, advocates of Critical Race Theory argue we should turn our nation upside down due to the “unconscious bias” of whites, yet 82% of the college faculty in one study revealed “they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate.” This is a conscious bias that Dr. Jett won’t discuss. Nor did he address the fact that “More Than Two-Thirds of Conservative Academics Report Political Bias.” This survey, sent to over 40,000 professors, reported pervasively hostile abuse and discrimination against conservatives.  Some colleges of education are threatening to bestow diplomas upon students who lack ‘woke’ understanding.  Entire classes of freshmen are required to attend “woke” orientations where they indeed indoctrinated to a certain worldview. Dr. Jett knows full well that Howard Zinn’s famously un-American and deliberately leftist book, “A People’s History of the United States,” became one of the most sold volumes in publication history because so many college professors used it as required reading. If colleges were not bastions of indoctrination, why would so many be engaged in shutting down free speech? Why would organizations such as “Campus Reform” or “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [F.I.R.E.] exist? Perhaps Dr. Jett should visit their webpages.
     Dr. Jett claims that “there are strong contingents of conservative faculty” but not in the fields of education, the humanities, or even today in the schools of Business, Engineering or the Sciences — all of which are increasingly coming under the sway of Leftist administrators and faculty. Professor Jett avows that “for every class on economic, social and racial problems, there are courses that explore the moral and ethical foundations of capitalism.” But will these courses have an adequate exposure to the benefits of free-markets or will there be a clearly Marxist bent to them? To answer this requires only an examination of approved and rejected quest lecturers and commencement speakers. Condoleeza Rice, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Ben Shapiro, Mike Pence all banned or heavily protested while race-baiters such as Ibram X. Kendhi, Al Sharpton and Robin D’Angelo, noted terrorists such as Leila Khalid, and self-avowed communists such as Angela Davis are invited and celebrated. Nor does his claim explain why so many of today’s institutions of higher learning have succumbed to the old adage of Jesse Jackson’s chant when he visited Berkeley a generation or two ago, “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho—Western Civilization has got to go!” The once-required “survey” courses in American history and Western Civilization were long ago replaced with Far-Left ‘elective course’ requirements or with newly required “Social Justice” courses.  And as Heather MacDonald has repeatedly made clear, some of the most highly paid and influential college administrators are the Directors of Diversity and Inclusion—virtually none of whom can be viewed as conservative.  Nor does Professor care to comment on the idea of some at Harvard to revoke the degrees that institution has bestowed upon influential conservative graduates. And yet Dr. Jett wants his readers to believe Harvard really does believe in diversity!? 
      Professor Jett’s argument that Governor DeSantis and Byron Donalds did not graduate from Florida’s universities as avowed liberals isn’t convincing evidence such bias doesn’t exist.  That far too many of our students ARE is more evident from the $2 billion in damages caused mostly by leftist college students around the country last summer!

Jack Bovee
Ft. Myers
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa—the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former elementary school principal.  He may be reached at JSBovee@aol.com. 

Monday, May 3, 2021

Letter to JES in Erie Re: "Response to Andrew Roth's Article: "Robert E. Lee-Traitor"

May 3, 2021

MEMORANDUM


TO:    Andrew Roth, PhD.           roth@jeserie.org 

CC:    Ferki Ferati ,   ED.D.          ferati@jeserie.org
          Ben Speggen,  M.A.            speggen@jeserie.org 
          Bill Steger, Erie CWRT     bill.steger1137@gmail.com


RE:    A Response to Andrew Roth’s article: “Robert E. Lee—Traitor?”   

https://www.jeserie.org/uploads/Book%20Notes%20--%20Robert%20E%20Rinderle.pdf 


I always find myself looking forward to the articles written by Jefferson Society Scholar-in-Residence, Dr. Andrew Roth.  His eloquent prose, depth of knowledge, and wide array of interests and expertise make for not only interesting reading, but generally leave the reader more informed about the subject under his examination. Unfortunately, this was not the case with his recent opinion entitled “Robert E. Lee – Traitor?”—a praiseworthy review of Ty Seidule’s book, Robert E. Lee and Me.  Seidule, a former history professor at West Point who was an undergraduate student of Washington and Lee University, visited that campus some years ago to urge the removal of Lee’s name from the school.  The university has been in turmoil ever since. Like Seidule, Dr. Roth fully embraces the “woke culture” of today’s campus. I found it a bit surprising that in his review of Seidule’s book, Dr. Roth had no desire to present a balanced view on the contributions of Lee—a man whom countless American presidents and world leaders have held to be worthy of respect and emulation. Amazingly, Dr. Roth—a former college president—could not find a single word of praise for Lee. He chose instead to link the Confederate general to the solitary individual who—among the hundreds of thousands of persons who descended upon the nation’s capital on January 6th –dared profane Congress for a few hours by carrying a Confederate flag within its sacred halls. Roth deliberately chose not to mention the fact that former WWII Supreme Commander and president Dwight Eisenhower chose to defend his hanging of Lee’s portrait in Abraham Lincoln’s office just down the street for eight long years—an act which I’m sure he thinks was equally profane.

Perhaps it’s Dr. Roth’s long-time association with post-secondary ‘cancel culture’ institutions of higher learning that leads him to lecture, instead of fully educate, his readers about the now mostly forgotten life of Lee. Although Dr. Roth continually reminded his readers that Lee “renounced his oath and fought a war against his country,” there wasn’t much explanation why Lee was held in such high esteem by all Americans on both sides of the Civil War for generations.  This was primarily due to the last five years of Lee’s life—a subject that both Seidule and Roth gloss over.               

None of us should ever be cast in the position of Robert E. Lee—that of having to choose to wage war against his own family, neighbors, and state against the country he already served for decades and for whom he had already risked his life. Dr. Roth conveniently omits the fact that Lee was given the opportunity to command armies for either side and he takes the position of Seidule that Lee really resigned from the army in order to defend and perpetuate slavery. He makes it a point to portray Lee as an unprincipled man who broke his oath and thus deserves the epithet of ‘traitor.’ He writes, “For those who say Lee had no choice but to serve Virginia, Seidule points out that of the eight West Point graduates with Virginia ties, only one fought against the United States. That one was Lee.” 

Lee the only Virginia West Point graduate to do so? Erie County Civil War Roundtable members probably raised their eyebrows at this statement. First, Generals Joseph E. Johnston, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, Jeb Stuart, George Pickett, James Kemper, Jubal Early, George Washington Custis Lee, and Fitzhugh Lee—all Virginians—graduated from West Point and fought for the Confederacy. (This doesn’t count Lewis Armistead, who was famously expelled after breaking a plate over Jubal Early’s head, and others who didn’t rise to the rank of general.)  Another mistake was Dr. Roth’s comment that the Confederate flag known as the “Stars and Bars” was carried into the capitol building on January 6 by that lone transgressor. A minor point, perhaps, but it was the battle flag for Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, not the official Confederate banner known as the “Stars and Bars” that media outlets across the nation flashed repeatedly to viewing audiences that day.  

Dr. Roth wonders why one of the barracks at West Point is named after Lee when all the others are named for generals who served the United States military in combat—a distinction Lee never attained. The reader is left to wonder, along with Professor Seidule who taught there, why a West Point building would still bear his name. Roth neglects to inform the reader that Lee had many distinctions while serving in the U.S. Army. He graduated second in his class without a single demerit. Winfield Scott, commander in the Mexican War said of his service: “Success in the Mexican War was largely due to Robert E. Lee’s skill, valor, and undaunted energy.” Scott considered Lee the best soldier in the army and offered him command of all Union forces in 1861. Lee also served as the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy from 1852-1855. To not name a barracks after Robert E. Lee would be surprising.

Dr. Roth—along with Ty Seidule—also wonders “why are we honoring people who sought to destroy the United States of America and the ideals for which it stands?” They both seem to forget Lee’s stated words in his letter of resignation from the Army that except in the defense of his own state he was forever laying down his sword. Rather than break his oath, Lee and countless other Southerners resigned. Moreover, secession was still thought of as constitutional by many scholars in Lee’s day—another fact omitted by Seidule and Roth. The nation had several times before toyed with the idea of secession—once with the demands of the New England Confederation and again during the Nullification Crisis. Although Lee personally opposed secession as he did slavery, it was Lincoln’s call for Virginia to furnish troops to invade the South and the threat of Northern invasion that finally forced Lee and Virginia into officially joining the Confederacy. Dr. Roth conveniently omits all this as well as the fact Lee was no longer under his oath to protect the United States from invasion. Rather, the threat to Lee was the United States. 

Dr. Roth, like Seidule and so many adherents of Critical Race Theory today, would have us believe that “racism is the virus in the American dirt, infecting everything and everyone.” He is greatly offended by Lee—who worked to “destroy the United States.”  I’ll assume his liberal credentials never permitted him to inform his readers of the seventy-plus odd occasions that race-baiter Al Sharpton visited the White House to see then president Barack Obama. [When Rudy Giuliani spoke out about this and was attacked with four Pinocchio’s from the Washington Post for being reckless with the charge, even the Post had to print a correction and admit Giuliani was right.]  Nor will we probably find any criticism from Dr. Roth of president Obama for proudly posing with—then covering up—his cozy portrait with the well-known racist and anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan. Did the former college president object to the many times President Obama had meetings with Jihadist-linked individuals at the White House? Today, persons in the know within the nation’s Beltway confirm Barack’s influence within the Biden administration is a primary reason our nation is once again moving away from our strongest ally in the middle east and cozying up again with Iran. With such reasoning, should Roth’s and Seidule’s criticism of Lee be extended to our former president?

Dr. Roth further describes Ty Seidule as being ‘vaguely aware’ of Virginia’s racist past and the South’s racial lynching record. What he and so many other liberals today omit, however, is mention that over one-fourth of those lynched in the South were white. These were mostly white Republicans who defended Negro rights during the time when Democrats reinstated white Democratic Party rule in the South. Although the U.S. Senate apologized in 2005 for not enacting the anti-lynching legislation 100 years earlier, the Democratic Party has yet to do so. It was a Republican Congressman, Leonidas Dyer, who first introduced anti-lynching legislation in 1918. It was a Republican president, Warren Harding, who first spoke in favor of the bill. In 1920 the Republican Party Platform endorsed an anti-lynching bill—something FDR openly opposed, despite Eleanor’s being in favor of it. Through these decades, Southern Democrats used the filibuster to kill all attempts to make lynching a federal crime. It wasn’t as needed that the Senate apologize for slavery as it was that Democrats apologize. Perhaps we can look forward to seeing Dr. Roth using his personal influence with the Democratic Party to now correct this historical omission. Personally, I think it’s not such a bad idea to have today’s Democratic Party apologize for both its racial lynching of Blacks as well as its political lynching of whites. 

Still another egregious error of Dr. Roth lies in his belief that any criticism of Robert E. Lee and Me  must naturally come from the “nethermost regions of the internet” or that it might reside in one of Tucker Carlson’s “replacement rants.” (Interestingly, Dr. Roth is silent as to his own personal theory why our current president has refused to enforce current immigration law or why two separate Latin American presidents blame Biden—not Trump—for the current border crisis.)  According to Dr. Roth, anyone attacking Seidule must have the “nerve to overtly defend racism.”  Really?  How about two other fellow Washington and Lee University students who—like Ty Seidule—now hold doctorates in the history profession? In their short YOUTUBE video, “Defending Lee and Rebutting Seidule,” professors Al Eckes and Neely Young attack Seidule’s book on many different fronts. They confront Seidule’s claim that Lee committed treason as “nonsense.” Dr. Young states, “When offered command of the Union army, he [Lee] declined saying, ‘I look upon secession as anarchy. If I own the 4 million of slaves of the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union, but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?’ ” Dr. Eckes continues, “On a number of occasions before the war, Lee described it as a moral evil. There are numerous statements on the record for Lee that he did not resign from the army to perpetuate slavery, but instead to defend his native state.”

The two historians argue that Seidule’s claims “are not proven by the historical record. . . . In every case where it was demonstrated that [Washington College] students acted badly, Lee reacted swiftly and appropriately either through suspension, expulsion or allowing a student to withdraw. He also cooperated fully with local and federal authorities and encouraged them to do their job. According to David Cox in his book, The Religious Life of Robert E. Lee, “his influence helped dissipate one lynch mob aimed at a black man and another aimed at a white. Lee specifically condemned bad behavior and on several occasions forbade students from participating in demonstrations or acts of violence.”

According to Young and Eckes, Seidule “largely ignores or minimizes Lee’s efforts to promote national reconciliation and better education after becoming president of Washington College.  These were the primary reasons that so many leaders, north and south, honored Robert E Lee—individuals as different as General Grant and Booker T. Washington praised lee for his contributions to peace and national reconciliation.”  When Congress ordered the southern states to submit new constitutions to Congress, Lee announced it was “the duty of the southern people to accept the situation fully.” When other Confederate leaders either talked of or actually did move abroad, Lee urged them to remain in their native states and work toward reconciliation. Among the thousands who wrote to Lee asking for his advice after the war was an embittered Confederate widow. He replied, “Abandon your animosities and make your sons Americans.” This is seen in countless letters from Lee in the period of time 1865-1870.  

In defending Lee, the two professors cite the historical record to refute Seidule’s claims. To conclude, they argue Seidule is just as wrong as the “Lost Cause” historians who attempted to disguise the role of slavery as a cause of the Civil War. The new historians like Seidule incorrectly argue that everything was a result of slavery. They denigrate the economic differences between the sections, the Constitutional questions over secession, and sectional arguments over a strict v loose interpretation of the powers of Congress. Their belief that the underlying framework of 10th Amendment and that state’s rights played no role in secession is as wrong as saying that slavery was the only cause of war.  Seidule—and professor Roth--operate in the narrow tunnel of ‘presentism.’  Eckes concludes: “It seems to me that much of Seidule’s narrative is based upon a hasty reading of several authors, especially Elizabeth Pryor’s book [Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Personal Papers]. . . . This book does not display the hand of an experienced Civil War era researcher. In attacking Lee’s reputation, Seidule embraces the woke history of racial justice as the central theme in American history. . . .  Thus, he does not successfully attack the real reasons for honoring President Lee in 1870—his contributions to national reconciliation and education in the South.”

Professors Eckes and Neely are correct to point out that Seidule almost totally ignores the last five years of Lee’s life. What’s even less well known is the fact that Lee’s example has served our nation at times even after his death in 1870. For example, when LBJ urged Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reminded Southerners of the legacy and personal example of Robert E. Lee.  He remarked to his fellow southerners, “If we are to heal our history and make this nation whole…opportunity must know no color line. Robert E Lee…a great leader of the South—and I assume no modern-day leader would question him or challenge him—Robert E. Lee counseled us well when he told us to cast off our animosities and raise our sons to be Americans.” 

When the nation was terribly divided during years of conflict in Vietnam, it turned to Lee again. When Lee’s lost Oath of Allegiance to the United States—dated after the war in 1866—was discovered in the National Archives in the last years of the Vietnam War, a national movement to posthumously restore his citizenship took our nation by storm. A bill was quickly passed by both Houses of Congress (nearly unanimously) and was eagerly signed into law by President Gerald Ford.  Not long afterward President Carter pardoned and restored civil rights to an estimated 400,000 Vietnam War draft dodgers in a similar spirit of “national reconciliation.” 

Once again it appears, Lee’s personal life story closely mirrors our own. Today, America is almost as divided as it was 160 years ago when a tragic Civil War destroyed half the nation and took an estimated 750,000 lives. Robert E. Lee’s personal efforts to reconcile the division in our nation at that time won him the praise of countless U.S. Presidents and world leaders and he continually serves as a future example to us all. Lee’s Christian faith guided all his actions; his desire to mend fences and not tear them down, find workable compromises, forgive his enemies, not harbor resentments from the past—all this and more serve as sound examples for Americans today. 

This past year saw countless monuments to America’s heroes desecrated and destroyed on college campuses across the north—just as mobs were simultaneously destroying memorials to Confederate soldiers throughout the South. College cancel culture saw monuments to Lincoln, Grant, Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, Wm McKinley, and countless others—including abolitionists—attacked and destroyed. Given Dr. Roth’s and Ty Seidule’s call to remove Lee’s name from barracks and schools, perhaps the City of Erie should revisit and remove the name of Anthony Wayne from the street, park, and school that bear his name. After all, it could be argued that our own local celebrity was even guilty of prospering under slavery than Robert E. Lee.  

Jack Bovee
Erie, PA
Email:   jsbovee@aol.com


Disney's Diabolical Delusion DeliberatelyFuels Racism

Disney—the once-great corporation that was universally admired in the 1950s and 1960s is today deliberately working to help fuel racism amon...