Sunday, April 10, 2011

American Negroes Page I: Their Own Country - Why It Din't Happen (1865 to 1964)

  Main Menu Page For All Blogs

                                                                                      Page [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

I.                        Integration As A "Right" 

           Most of us have watched documentaries from the 1960s concerning 'civil rights.'   And while we watched we listened to a narrator tell us the marches, the sit-ins,  the pray-ins,  the protests, etc.,  are about a people (African-Americans) demanding their "equal rights,"  "equal opportunity,"  "freedom now" and "manhood."   And white people in these documentaries are always depicted as the miscreants ... fighting to deny blacks their just rights and pursuits.  The black race, in other words,  was being wronged by white people.   But was the black race really, truly being wronged where and when white people desired racial separation?  After all, wasn't separate living and working arrangements  prior to 1964 completely consistent with American history? And even human history?  In other words,  there is in fact no recorded example of two distinct racial groups sharing in mutual harmony the same political system and living arrangements within one society prior to 1964.  So if racial integration had no basis in American history,  no basis in  legality in American history, and no basis in recorded human history, how is it that white people (white males specifically) were wronging the black race where and when they practiced separation - a color line?     

The fact is, prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, clearly, white people were not wronging the black race by not practicing integration.  Here is what is actually being depicted in the 1960s  'civil-rights'  documentaries:  
  • African-Americans are claiming another people (White Christians) are their cruel oppressor, yet also insist their very "freedom" can only be achieved within that very group
  • African-Americans are demanding the complete nullification of the existence of their race as a distinct people  (i.e. they want  civil rights legislation that forbids the recognition of race, which eliminates them as a distinct people in America).
  • African-Americans claim their very manhood can only be achieved within the structure of another male group.  (also this LINK)                                                             
  • African-Americans want integration - into white male society -  to relinquish all effort among their people to achieve  self-reliance as a distinct people (making them the only people in human history to never achieve this human requirement).
     My friends,  I am not trying to be divisive in any way stating these facts.  What occurred between 1955 and 1964 is simply off the chart in terms of expected human behavior. Human male groups, according to recorded human history,  DO NOT demand to be integrated into another male group (i.e. into another male group's social stratification system).  Allow me to drive home this point with the following anecdote::  The year is 1770. The feared Sioux Indian tribe, their mighty warriors along with their women and children,  march over to another Indian tribe's border, the mighty Crow Indian tribe, and there the Sioux remonstrate against being forced to live separately from the Crow.  They want to hunt on Crow land. They want to eat at the Crow table.  They want their children to learn from the Crow children. They want IN!  "Down with the lines of segregation" the mighty Sioux warriors and their women and children bellow out - being led by their medicine man. The Crow leaders confront the remonstrators and ask what they want - what do they really want. The mighty Sioux warriors claim that all they want is their "freedom," "dignity" and "equality," and the right to achieve "manhood."  And that all this  - the Sioux suddenly decided - could only be achieved in the Crow tribe.  Okay. I won't tax your patience any longer with this nonsense.  It's completely ridiculous. The mighty Sioux warriors never did such a thing.  No Indian tribe ever did such a thing.  In fact, throughout human history no racial group - no male group - had ever demanded to be integrated into another male group - EVER! 1

(Note: A male group consists of males who are located within a contiguously defined geographic area and are similar racially, linguistically and religiously. Without exception, male groups are the primary building blocks  for every  "society/ nation"  in human history i.e. the 'male group' is the creator of the social stratification system, which is the essential construct to a society) 

     Here is what should have happened in the late 50s and early 60s   (i.e. what we all should have witnessed in the 1960s documentaries) if all of human history had been used as the behavioral predictor: The Negro people in America are finally ready.  Almost 100 years - the black race claims - being brutally oppressed, constant racism, bigotry  and a denial of freedom, dignity and manhood, being lynching for sport, or "general purposes," beating them on the streets for the sheer joy of it, forcing them to live in substandard housing, etc., they simply cannot wait any longer to end this brutal oppression. They collectively demand what has numerous  historical precedents when a people suffer like the black race claims they're suffering: a homeland.  This, so after almost 100 years they can achieve the cherished dream of self-determination (i.e. the right to create their own DMG).   A place where true freedom, dignity and manhood could finally be achieved  Where they could finally have the opportunity to be masters of their own destiny...  Well, we are all acutely aware that not only did none of these arguments manifest prior to the compulsory integration act (1964), but the "brutally oppressed" black race actually did the COMPLETE opposite! Why? This incredible and unprecedented act of demanding integration into another male group,  I firmly believe, has to be explained.  For not only was their demand unprecedented in human history but it was also completely illogical, since they were claiming white people were their brutal oppressor.   It simply should not be good enough to attempt to explain away this unprecedented demand by saying that civil rights was/is about the fight for "equality,” "freedom," and "manhood" and that these attributes (for the Negroes) could only be achieved by forcing their Anglo oppressor to allow them integration rights i.e  Compulsory Inclusionism. 

(1) Why didn’t people of African descent in America from 1865 to 1964 ever demand a homeland in America, whereby they could be masters of their own destiny, and create their own DMG - their own society - separate and autonomous from the American DMG?

Note: I want to emphasize that my theoretical outline from here on only concerns pre 1964.    

            First, let's address one of the biggest deceptions in American history:: 
the belief that the civil rights movement was about achieving "freedom" for the Negro people in America.   The black race was in fact free.  In every sense of the word they were a free people. They were free to build their own industries, their own towns & cities (i.e. their own political environment); or colonize a place in America's vast unsettled lands and create their own autonomous living arrangement (e.g. like the Mormons). 


                                                                                             Page II >>CLICK HERE


  1. "There is only ONE male group in all of human history that - on their knees - prayed to god to achieve integration rights into another male group's established society: African-American"

    That sounds racist dude. I'd lose it.

  2. Mr Wolf your a racist idiot with extreme nonsense views...Any intelligent person that's not a racist there self can see through your BS

    1. Wow! The pot calling something else black. What a well-crafted, um, sentence (?). Or was that supposed to be two sentences? I won't go near the poor spelling though.