One of the less well known aspects of the history of slavery is how many and how often non-whites owned and traded slaves in early America. Free black slave holders could be found at one time or another “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” historian R. Halliburton Jr. observed. That black people bought and sold other black people raises “vexing questions” for 21st-century Americans like African-American writer Henry Louis Gates Jr., who writes that it betrays class divisions that have always existed within the black community. For others, it’s an excuse to deflect the shared blame for the institution of slavery in America away from white people.
In the latter vein, “9 Facts About Slavery They Don’t Want You to Know” lays out a mixture of true, false and misleading historical claims. We’ll address each one in turn below:
The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
Possibly true. The wording of the statement is important. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court.
A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”
North Carolina’s largest slave holder in 1860 was a black plantation owner named William Ellison.
False. William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina (not North Carolina). According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as “Ellerson”), he owned 63 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina, but far from the largest overall slave holder in the state.
American Indians owned thousands of black slaves.
True. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of black slaves at the turn of the 19th century for Slate magazine in January 2016:
Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19th century began.) “Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life,” Miles told me. “When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves.” If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations.
In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves.
Approximately true, according to historian R. Halliburton Jr.:
There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.
Many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate.
Somewhat true. There were exceptions, but generally speaking — especially after 1750, by which time slave codes had been entered into the law books in most of the American colonies — black slaves were not legally permitted to own property or businesses. From the Oxford Companion to American Law (2002):
Under these early codes, slaves had virtually no legal rights IN most areas they could be executed for crimes that were not capital offenses for whites. Their testimony was restricted in legal cases and could not be used either for or against whites. Trials of slaves were usually by special courts. Slaves could not own property, move about without consent of their owners, or legally marry.
Brutal black-on-black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years.
True, in the sense that the phenomenon of human beings enslaving other human beings goes back thousands of years, but not just among blacks, and not just in Africa.
Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from black slave owners.
Sort of true. Historian Steven Mintz describes the situation more accurately in the introduction to his book African-American Voices: A Documentary Reader, 1619-1877:
Apologists for the African slave trade long argued that European traders did not enslave anyone: they simply purchased Africans who had already been enslaved and who otherwise would have been put to death. Thus, apologists claimed, the slave trade actually saved lives. Such claims represent a gross distortion of the facts. Some independent slave merchants did in fact stage raids on unprotected African villages and kidnap and enslave Africans. Most professional slave traders, however, set up bases along the west African coast where they purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on the west African coast.
Yet to simply say that Europeans purchased people who had already been enslaved seriously distorts historical reality. While there had been a slave trade within Africa prior to the arrival of Europeans, the massive European demand for slaves and the introduction of firearms radically transformed west and central African society. A growing number of Africans were enslaved for petty debts or minor criminal or religious offenses or following unprovoked raids on unprotected villages. An increasing number of religious wars broke out with the goal of capturing slaves. European weapons made it easier to capture slaves.
Slavery was common for thousands of years.
True, as noted above — though how “common” slavery has been and what the specific nature of that slavery was has varied according to time and place.
White people ended legal chattel slavery.
It’s rather self-serving to claim that “white people” ended legal chattel slavery in the United States (much less ended chattel slavery, period), given that the overwhelming majority of blacks in the U.S. could not vote, could not run for political office, and, in every other way conceivable, were excluded from institutional power. Moreover, even as some white people were laboring to put an end to slavery, many others were fighting to preserve it.
Slavery was eliminated in America via the efforts of people of various ethnicities, including Caucasians, who took up the banner of the abolitionist movement. The names of the white leaders of that movement tend to be better known than those of the black leaders, among whom were David Walker, Frederick Douglass, Dred Scott, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Nat Turner, and many others. When Congress passed (and the states ratified) the 13th Amendment in 1865, it was the culmination of many years of work by that multi-racial movement.
Editor’s note: For those who are wondering about the retro title of this black history series, please take a moment to learn about historian Joel A. Rogers, author of the 1934 book 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, to whom these “amazing facts” are an homage.
(The Root) — 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro No. 21: Did black people own slaves? If so, why?
One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black “masters” were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?
The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them — motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people “as an act of exploitation,” primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did. The evidence shows that, unfortunately, both things are true. The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: “The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property.” But, he admits, “There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status.”
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,” Halliburton wrote.
Perhaps the most insidious or desperate attempt to defend the right of black people to own slaves was the statement made on the eve of the Civil War by a group of free people of color in New Orleans, offering their services to the Confederacy, in part because they were fearful for their own enslavement: “The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815.”
These guys were, to put it bluntly, opportunists par excellence: As Noah Andre Trudeau and James G. Hollandsworth Jr. explain, once the war broke out, some of these same black men formed 14 companies of a militia composed of 440 men and were organized by the governor in May 1861 into “the Native Guards, Louisiana,” swearing to fight to defend the Confederacy. Although given no combat role, the Guards — reaching a peak of 1,000 volunteers — became the first Civil War unit to appoint black officers.
When New Orleans fell in late April 1862 to the Union, about 10 percent of these men, not missing a beat, now formed the Native Guard/Corps d’Afrique to defend the Union. Joel A. Rogers noted this phenomenon in his 100 Amazing Facts: “The Negro slave-holders, like the white ones, fought to keep their chattels in the Civil War.” Rogers also notes that some black men, including those in New Orleans at the outbreak of the War, “fought to perpetuate slavery.”
How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, ” ‘The Known World’ of Free Black Slaveholders,” Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson’s statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.
Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?
It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924’s Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, “The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators.”
Moreover, Woodson explains, “Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms.” In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That’s the good news.
But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that “it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes.” Woodson himself notes that a “small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner.” And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, “Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops ‘pay’ than they were in treating their slaves humanely.” For these black slaveholders, he concludes, “there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege.” In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.
Who Were These Black Slave Owners?
If we were compiling a “Rogues Gallery of Black History,” the following free black slaveholders would be in it:
John Carruthers Stanly — born a slave in Craven County, N.C., the son of an Igbo mother and her master, John Wright Stanly — became an extraordinarily successful barber and speculator in real estate in New Bern. As Loren Schweninger points out in Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915, by the early 1820s, Stanly owned three plantations and 163 slaves, and even hired three white overseers to manage his property! He fathered six children with a slave woman named Kitty, and he eventually freed them. Stanly lost his estate when a loan for $14,962 he had co-signed with his white half brother, John, came due. After his brother’s stroke, the loan was Stanly’s sole responsibility, and he was unable to pay it.
William Ellison’s fascinating story is told by Michael Johnson and James L. Roark in their book, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. At his death on the eve of the Civil War, Ellison was wealthier than nine out of 10 white people in South Carolina. He was born in 1790 as a slave on a plantation in the Fairfield District of the state, far up country from Charleston. In 1816, at the age of 26, he bought his own freedom, and soon bought his wife and their child. In 1822, he opened his own cotton gin, and soon became quite wealthy. By his death in 1860, he owned 900 acres of land and 63 slaves. Not one of his slaves was allowed to purchase his or her own freedom.
Louisiana, as we have seen, was its own bizarre world of color, class, caste and slavery. By 1830, in Louisiana, several black people there owned a large number of slaves, including the following: In Pointe Coupee Parish alone, Sophie Delhonde owned 38 slaves; Lefroix Decuire owned 59 slaves; Antoine Decuire owned 70 slaves; Leandre Severin owned 60 slaves; and Victor Duperon owned 10. In St. John the Baptist Parish, Victoire Deslondes owned 52 slaves; in Plaquemine Brule, Martin Donatto owned 75 slaves; in Bayou Teche, Jean B. Muillion owned 52 slaves; Martin Lenormand in St. Martin Parish owned 44 slaves; Verret Polen in West Baton Rouge Parish owned 69 slaves; Francis Jerod in Washita Parish owned 33 slaves; and Cecee McCarty in the Upper Suburbs of New Orleans owned 32 slaves. Incredibly, the 13 members of the Metoyer family in Natchitoches Parish — including Nicolas Augustin Metoyer, pictured — collectively owned 215 slaves.
Antoine Dubuclet and his wife Claire Pollard owned more than 70 slaves in Iberville Parish when they married. According to Thomas Clarkin, by 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, they owned 100 slaves, worth $94,700. During Reconstruction, he became the state’s first black treasurer, serving between 1868 and 1878.
Andrew Durnford was a sugar planter and a physician who owned the St. Rosalie plantation, 33 miles south of New Orleans. In the late 1820s, David O. Whitten tells us, he paid $7,000 for seven male slaves, five females and two children. He traveled all the way to Virginia in the 1830s and purchased 24 more. Eventually, he would own 77 slaves. When a fellow Creole slave owner liberated 85 of his slaves and shipped them off to Liberia, Durnford commented that he couldn’t do that, because “self interest is too strongly rooted in the bosom of all that breathes the American atmosphere.”
It would be a mistake to think that large black slaveholders were only men. In 1830, in Louisiana, the aforementioned Madame Antoine Dublucet owned 44 slaves, and Madame Ciprien Ricard owned 35 slaves, Louise Divivier owned 17 slaves, Genevieve Rigobert owned 16 slaves and Rose Lanoix and Caroline Miller both owned 13 slaves, while over in Georgia, Betsey Perry owned 25 slaves. According to Johnson and Roark, the wealthiest black person in Charleston, S.C., in 1860 was Maria Weston, who owned 14 slaves and property valued at more than $40,000, at a time when the average white man earned about $100 a year. (The city’s largest black slaveholders, though, were Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, both of whom owned 84 slaves.)
In Savannah, Ga., between 1823 and 1828, according to Betty Wood‘s Gender, Race, and Rank in a Revolutionary Age, Hannah Leion owned nine slaves, while the largest slaveholder in 1860 was Ciprien Ricard, who had a sugarcane plantation in Louisiana and owned 152 slaves with her son, Pierre — many more that the 35 she owned in 1830. According to economic historian Stanley Engerman, “In Charleston, South Carolina about 42 percent of free blacks owned slaves in 1850, and about 64 percent of these slaveholders were women.” Greed, in other words, was gender-blind.
Why They Owned Slaves
These men and women, from William Stanly to Madame Ciprien Ricard, were among the largest free Negro slaveholders, and their motivations were neither benevolent nor philanthropic. One would be hard-pressed to account for their ownership of such large numbers of slaves except as avaricious, rapacious, acquisitive and predatory.
But lest we romanticize all of those small black slave owners who ostensibly purchased family members only for humanitarian reasons, even in these cases the evidence can be problematic. Halliburton, citing examples from an essay in the North American Review by Calvin Wilson in 1905, presents some hair-raising challenges to the idea that black people who owned their own family members always treated them well:
A free black in Trimble County, Kentucky, ” … sold his own son and daughter South, one for $1,000, the other for $1,200.” … A Maryland father sold his slave children in order to purchase his wife. A Columbus, Georgia, black woman — Dilsey Pope — owned her husband. “He offended her in some way and she sold him … ” Fanny Canady of Louisville, Kentucky, owned her husband Jim — a drunken cobbler — whom she threatened to “sell down the river.” At New Bern, North Carolina, a free black wife and son purchased their slave husband-father. When the newly bought father criticized his son, the son sold him to a slave trader. The son boasted afterward that “the old man had gone to the corn fields about New Orleans where they might learn him some manners.”
Carter Woodson, too, tells us that some of the husbands who purchased their spouses “were not anxious to liberate their wives immediately. They considered it advisable to put them on probation for a few years, and if they did not find them satisfactory they would sell their wives as other slave holders disposed of Negroes.” He then relates the example of a black man, a shoemaker in Charleston, S.C., who purchased his wife for $700. But “on finding her hard to please, he sold her a few months thereafter for $750, gaining $50 by the transaction.”
Most of us will find the news that some black people bought and sold other black people for profit quite distressing, as well we should. But given the long history of class divisions in the black community, which Martin R. Delany as early as the 1850s described as “a nation within a nation,” and given the role of African elites in the long history of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, perhaps we should not be surprised that we can find examples throughout black history of just about every sort of human behavior, from the most noble to the most heinous, that we find in any other people’s history.
The good news, scholars agree, is that by 1860 the number of free blacks owning slaves had markedly decreased from 1830. In fact, Loren Schweninger concludes that by the eve of the Civil War, “the phenomenon of free blacks owning slaves had nearly disappeared” in the Upper South, even if it had not in places such as Louisiana in the Lower South. Nevertheless, it is a very sad aspect of African-American history that slavery sometimes could be a colorblind affair, and that the evil business of owning another human being could manifest itself in both males and females, and in black as well as white.
As always, you can find more “Amazing Facts About the Negro” on The Root, and check back each week as we count to 100.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research at Harvard University. He is also the editor-in-chief of The Root. Follow him onTwitter.
Sadly, racism is very much alive in America — among influential black Americans.
It was very much on display Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial where prominent black activists gathered a few days ahead of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I have a dream” speech in order to advance their careers by pretending to care about the state of race relations in the nation today.
Instead of simply using the opportunity to honor the work of his father in a dignified way, King’s son, Martin Luther King III, cheapened it by attempting to stir up racial hatred. He said the Trayvon Martin killing last year, ruled by a jury to be a justifiable homicide in which race played no role, shows that America is a deeply racist country.
“The task is not done, the journey is not complete,” he said. “The vision preached by my father a half-century ago was that his four little children would no longer live in a nation where they would judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
“However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother and father remind us that, far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one’s character,” King said, throwing in a pitch to repeal “stand your ground” self-defense laws, which had no bearing on the Martin case.
King is not alone among black leaders in trying to leverage the Martin killing for political purposes and self-advancement. Pseudo-intellectuals like Georgetown’s Michael Eric Dyson said after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin that it would be a good thing for more white children to be murdered so Americans could better understand racism.
These people have become rich and famous by vilifying white people and the American system, claiming blacks are persecuted and discriminated against, and asserting that there is an invisible conspiracy of white supremacists preventing black people from becoming successful. Not everything they do or say is actually racist in any meaningful sense, but they routinely say things that conservatives would be pilloried for had they said them about people of a different race.
The weekend celebration would have been worthwhile as a historical commemoration, but activists like King and Al Sharpton decided to ruin the event by turning it into a call to action. The leaders on the weekend were largely race industry profiteers and poverty pimps, not sincere celebrants marking a solemn occasion. They rallied against evils that no longer exist.
And they ignored the evils that do exist.
As Colin Flaherty, author of White Girl Bleed A Lot, has documented, black-on-white violence has become increasingly commonplace in recent years, despite the best efforts of the media, politicians, and left-wing activists to ignore it or deny its existence. America’s major urban centers, cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, have been plagued by black race riots in recent years. Few people know about these often deadly melees because they rarely get reported.
Just a few days ago, 88-year-old World War II veteran Delbert Belton was allegedly beaten to death by blacks in Spokane. Before that 23-year-old Australian college student Chris Lane was shot to death in Oklahoma allegedly by young black males out of boredom. Before that, blacks allegedly killed nurse David Santucci in Memphis.
Before that, blacks in Minnesota allegedly beat Ray Widstrand so brutally that he suffered permanent brain damage, and in Missouri a black mob allegedly hit a hot dog vendor in the head with a hammer. This weekend a black mob allegedly assaulted a police officer with a baseball bat, leaving him with a fractured skull. A few months ago two young black men in Georgia allegedly killed 13-month-old Antonio West in front of his mother during an attempted robbery.
No doubt some politicians and journalists deny the existence of all this racially motivated violence in a misguided effort to protect blacks who in the past suffered from racial discrimination and the ravages of slavery. They see reports of black violence as reinforcing negative stereotypes and setting back race relations.
But members of today’s civil rights establishment don’t have that excuse available to them. They aren’t interested in solving or even acknowledging the problems of the black community because they profit so handsomely from them. They see turmoil in black neighborhoods as opportunities to promote change.
Speakers at the weekend rally seemed blissfully ignorant of the fact that America has come a long way since 1963 when Democratic President John F. Kennedy and congressional Democrats worked together to block civil rights legislation. Yet people like Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.), who got so worked up during his speech Saturday it seemed he might hurt himself, continue to act as if the whole country is even now run by racist Democrats George Wallace and Bull Connor.
It is as if the civil rights revolution never happened and Jim Crow is still making the lives of black Americans miserable. The unspoken premise of all these self-serving rants is that America somehow owes blacks for past injustices even though most Americans today weren’t even alive in 1963.
Martin Luther King III isn’t even the worst offender among the race hustlers, most of whom skipped the event at the Lincoln Memorial.
Here is Frontpage’s Top 10 List:
1) Al Sharpton.
Provolieve civil rights
A TV show host at MSNBC despite his inability to speak proper English or at times, to formulate coherent thoughts, Sharpton has largely managed to escape his past. Founder of the National Action Network, he helped to incite anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights, New York in 1991. He uses the word “cracker” to refer to various white people, has ties to the criminal underworld, and participated in the infamous racially charged Tawana Brawley hoax and incited black anti-Semites against a Jewish business establishment in Harlem in 1995. He appeared on the late Morton Downey’s television program and publicly used an anti-gay slur, calling an audience member “a punk faggot!” He even tried to win the Democratic Party presidential nod in 2004.
His widespread acceptance as a legitimate spokesman for the black community by the rest of the media and the Obama administration has allowed Sharpton to supplant Jesse Jackson Sr. as America’s foremost retail race hustler. He was publicly embraced by Obama cabinet members, including Attorney General Eric Holder and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, at his group’s convention in Washington, D.C. last year.
Some liberal journalists are tiring of him, though. Last week Margaret Carlson lamented the declining quality of leadership in today’s so-called civil rights movement. “We’ve gone from Martin Luther King to the Reverend Al Sharpton, and as a leader, as he is trying to be this weekend, it’s very dispiriting.”
2) Barack Obama.
U.S. president who rarely fails to inject race into a political fight, no matter how inappropriate.
Barack Obama has long regarded America as a deeply flawed, profoundly racist country. He has attacked the Constitution as an outmoded, obsolete document written by white men. He has called opponents of affirmative action racists. In 1995, Obama made reference to a hypothetical “white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children for them to go to school.”
He even famously threw his own white grandmother under the bus, suggesting she harbored racial animosity. “She is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.” [emphasis added]
While at Harvard Law School Obama defended racist law professor Derrick Bell, the creator of critical race theory. Bell was notoriously anti-white and believed America has a hopelessly racist country. Obama described Bell as someone who spoke “the truth.” Obama later taught courses about America’s “Institutional Racism” at the University of Chicago Law School.
When a friend of his, a black Harvard professor, was arrested in Cambridge, Mass., without examining the facts Obama said the police “acted stupidly.” After Trayvon Martin was killed last year, Obama injected race into the matter by saying if he had a soon he’d look like Martin.
The above list is not exhaustive.
3) Michelle Obama.
First Lady who only stopped being ashamed of her country when it began to support her husband.
First Lady Michelle Obama has had greater difficulty concealing her hatred of America than her husband has had. She regards America as a racist, sexist, homophobic nation, declaring in 2008, after the American public began warming to her husband’s presidential campaign, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country…”
A beneficiary of affirmative action, Mrs. Obama was a member of the board of a radical, racist group called Third World Center while studying at Princeton. She was also admitted to Harvard Law School, given preference because of her skin color. In law school she embraced critical race theory, an intellectual movement whose adherent federal Judge Richard Posner has described as the “lunatic core” of “radical legal egalitarianism.”
4) Eric Holder.
U.S. attorney general, who hates conservatives and doesn’t believe in enforcing civil rights laws when white people are victims.
As attorney general, Eric Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members who openly brandished weapons at a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 in order to intimidate white voters. He also refuses to enforce electoral integrity laws and fights voter ID laws because he alleges they discriminate against minorities. He supports affirmative action programs, which by definition, of course, are racist because they discriminate against white Americans.
Holder has called America “essentially a nation of cowards,” because most Americans don’t share his radical left-wing multiculturalists views on race. “[W]e, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable…. [T]his nation has still not come to grips with its racial past …”
Holder calls conservatives “defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities.” They “put the environment at risk for the sake of unproven economic theories, to play to the fears of our citizens, and not to their hopes, and to return the nation to a time that in fact never existed.” The hallmarks of the “conservative agenda” include “social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer.”
5) Oprah Winfrey.
Billionaire media entrepreneur, beloved by her largely white following, but who can’t stop resenting white people.
A longtime Obama idolator, Oprah Winfrey was instrumental in the president’s rise. She invited Obama on her TV show to promote one of his books and promoted him relentlessly.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, Winfrey insists on blaming the killing of Trayvon Martin on racial animosity. “To me, it’s ridiculous to look at that case and not to think that race was involved,” she said.
She also likened the killing of Martin to the brutal 1955 murder of 14-year-old black Emmett Till. “In my mind, same thing,” she said. Till was kidnapped by two white men in Mississippi who beat him, gouged out one of his eyes, shot him in the head, and dumped his body into a river. His death helped to galvanize the early civil rights movement.
6) James Cone.
Founder of black liberation theology.
James Cone is the father of it all. We can only wonder how many people have been killed by followers of black liberation theology, which Cone invented. Cone was a Professor of Systematic Theology at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He regards America as an irredeemably racist nation.
“What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love,” Cone wrote.
A more sophisticated version of Louis Farrakhan, Cone blames whites for, well, everything bad. “This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”
Jeremiah Wright and other radical church leaders believe in black liberation theology, an Afrocentrist mix of Christianity, Marxism, and anti-white racial bigotry. Cone claims that “black values” –whatever those may be– are superior to American values.
7) Martin Luther King III.
One of the leaders of a civil rights movement that long ago outlived its usefulness.
As already described above, at the Saturday rally King described the killing of Trayvon Martin as racially motivated, even though that claim was ultimately rejected by police and the jury. Apparently following the advice of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, who taught that action itself is more important than having real issues to campaign on, King urged action. “This is not the time for nostalgic commemoration,” King added. “Nor is this the time for self-congratulation. The task is not done. The journey is not complete. We can and we must do more.”
Of course, King has been dining out on his father’s hard work for decades. He has frequently been criticized by his own allies for laziness. In 2001 the Southern Christian Leadership Conference suspended King as president out of concern he was neglecting his duties at the group founded by his father. He was a Fulton County, Ga., commissioner until his deadbeat ways became public knowledge, leading to his electoral defeat in 1993. He owed the federal government more than $200,000 in back taxes and fines.
8) Cornel West.
Best-selling author and superstar professor whose image manages to outshine his dreary intellectual mediocrity.
Cornel West, who describes himself as a “non-Marxist socialist,” was an adviser on President Obama’s 2008 campaign team. He wrote in his book Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism, that the U.S. is under the control of racist, patriarchal, authoritarian fundamentalists. He supports black liberation theology, the same set of radical, anti-American beliefs preached by Obama’s longtime Jew-hating pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
9) Louis Farrakhan.
Leader of a hateful Islamic cult.
There are few groups in American society that Louis Farrakhan, who ought to be under constant FBI surveillance, does not hate. The legendary anti-Semite, who says the U.S. government has long been conspiring against blacks, developed a strong dislike for Malcolm X in the 1960s because he believed X was too moderate. Farrakhan refers to Caucasians as “white devils” and Jews as “bloodsuckers.”
In 1984 after a black Washington Post reporter named Milton Coleman publicly revealed that then-presidential candidate Jesse Jackson Sr. had referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown,” Farrakhan told Coleman: “One day soon we will punish you with death.” He regarded Coleman as a race traitor.
The problem isn’t so much that leftists explicitly embrace Farrakhan. Few do, perhaps because they view him as an embarrassing cartoon. It’s not often that you’ll see mainstream broadcasters give him air time. The problem is that leftists refuse to denounce Farrakhan and his poisonous ideas.
10) Alice Walker.
Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist and bleeding heart who adores cop killers and Fidel Castro.
When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, Walker endorsed him. “He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.”
Walker is a supporter of convicted, unrepentant cop killer Mumia abu Jamal and compares Israel to Nazi Germany. Describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, she uses words and phrases such as “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “crimes against humanity,” and “cruelty and diabolical torture.”
In 2002, Walker appeared in a documentary film about Fidel Castro. She was quoted saying “What’s not to like about the man? If Fidel could dance, he’d be perfect!”
Following the 9/11 attacks, Walker urged that “love” be used against the terrorist perpetrators. “In a war on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will either be left alive, while thousands of impoverished, frightened people are bombed into oblivion around him, or he will be killed in a bombing attack for which he seems quite prepared. But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love.”
These 10 public figures for the most part do not suffer any consequences for their racism or their cynical use of race for political purposes.
If Martin Luther King were alive today, would he defend these 10 people and everything they do?
All Original Content Copyright ©2017 hnewswire.com All Rights Reserved.