American Negroes Page I: Their Own Country - Why It Didn'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 (i.e. integration 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 (the black race) 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, that is, is being denied integration rights, and not just being wronged by white people ... white people are deliberately oppressing them.  But was the black race really being wronged and/ or oppressed where and when white people desired racial separation?  After all, separate living and working arrangements prior to 1964 was completely consistent with American history. And even human history.  In other words, prior to 1964 there is in fact no recorded example of two distinct racial groups living in mutual harmony and sharing the same political system and/or living arrangements.1 So if racial integration had no basis in American history, no basis in legality in American history, and no basis in recorded human history,2 how is it that white people were wronging the black race where and when they practiced separation? Well, the plain and simple fact is, and despite what grade school, high school and college texts books insists, white people were obviously not wronging the black race were and when they practiced racial separation. Again, one distinct people living separate from another distinct people was not only the norm in American history but also human history as well.

The black race's so-called 'fight' for justice, freedom, manhood and equality from the late  1950s and early 1960s also produced some very strange inconsistencies in human nature. A few examples : 

• African-Americans are remonstrating for the complete nullification of the existence of their distinctness as a 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 are claiming their very manhood and "freedom" can only be achieved within the structure of another male-group - the very group they are claiming is their oppressor.  (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 (which would make them the only people in human history to never achieve this human requirement). 

• African-Americans claim their children are better off learning among another people's children.
  

     My friends,  I am not trying to be divisive in any way here. No distinct people in human history ever did any of this. Never.  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 short narrative::  The year is 1770. The feared Sioux Indian tribe, their mighty warriors along with their women and children,  march over to the mighty Crow Indian tribe's recognized boundary, 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 all this can only be achieved within the Crow tribe. The Crow tribal leaders, realizing they are wronging the mighty Sioux tribe with their separate living arrangement, relent and bestow across-the-board  integration rights for the Sioux people.  Now does this sound even remotely possible? Of course not.  No Indian tribe would ever do such a thing.  In fact, throughout human history no racial group - no male-group  - had ever demanded to be integrated into another male-group!  Yet, there it was, African-Americans remonstrating for racial integration rights i.e. civil rights, which includes the complete nullification of their existence as a distinct people.3 It shouldn't be happening.

(Note: A male-group consists of males who are located within a contiguously defined geographic area and are similar racially, linguistically and religiously.  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 prerequisite to a society).  

     So, if we base our opinion for predicting human behavior on all of recorded human history, what should we have witnessed in the late 1950s and early 1960s regarding Negro demands?  This:  The Negro people in America, after almost 100 years of being brutally oppressed, facing persistent racism and bigotry directed at them (they claim), and a denial of freedom, dignity and manhood, being lynching for sport, or for "general purposes"  (they claim), beating them on the streets for the sheer joy of it, forcing them to live in substandard housing, exploiting their labor, etc., they simply cannot bear the persecution, the exploitation, the calculated injustices and misery any longer.  So they collectively demand what has numerous and undeniable historical precedents : a homeland.  A homeland, so after almost 100 years of oppression and misery they can finally achieve the cherished dream of self-determination (i.e. the right to create their own Dominate Male Group -  DMG).   A place where true freedom, dignity and manhood can be achieved. Where they can finally have the opportunity to be master of their own destiny.
  
Well, we are all acutely aware that the American Negro never made even the slightest movement toward the goal of achieving self-determination. Indeed, they actually did the COMPLETE opposite!  This incredible and unprecedented act of demanding integration into another male-group, again, a group they are also claiming is their brutal oppressor, I firmly believe, has to be explained. 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 Negro) could only be achieved by forcing their Anglo oppressor to give them integration rights i.e  Compulsory Inclusionism. 

So, 
 
(1) Why didn’t people of African descent in America from 1865 to 1964 demand a homeland in America, whereby they could achieve mastery over 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 and thereby create their own political environment(s); or, with the vast amount of unsettled land in America, they were completely free to colonize a place in America and create their own autonomous living arrangement(s) (e.g. like the Mormons).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Citations:

1.   Blacks did have political seats in state and local legislatures. However, they did not have any control of what legislation was actually made into law. That power rested, in every legislature in America, with white Christian males.

2. Race nullification is not in the US Constitution. Plessy v. Ferg. settled that dilemma in 1896. However, states could create their laws with respect to integration rights for the negro, as consistent with the 10th Amendment. New York, for example, required race-nullification in their states' school system. It should also be noted that presidents Roosevelt (1940) and Kennedy (1961) both issued executive orders forbidding racial discrimination in the federal workforce and government contracts, respectively. Though both were largely unenforceable i.e. white males refused to follow these laws (it was their economic environment - status environment - created by white males and for white males). 

3.  It should also be noted that the 1964 Civil Rights Act nullified white Christians in America as the recognized 'Americans', stripping them of their DMG status as well their identity as a people. Today, the former 'Americans' are now referred to simply by a color: white people.  

                                                                                             Page II >>CLICK HERE