- 08 Jun 2021 12:00
#15176246
"Michael Anthony Hoffman II (born January 2, 1957)[1] is an American author. He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist[1][2] and by the Anti-Defamation League (among other sources), as a Holocaust denier and antisemite"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II
They were not slaves...
Time on the Cross is different. As luck would have it, I've read British and a translated German historian on why slavery ended. That was my first experience of how diverse historical interpretation can be. I am going to provide a link to a review by economic historians about Time on the Cross. But the substantive parts are not the issue here. The review is just to set the context of how historians see the work. Slavery may have been profitable, but it was also a great wrong, and a complete betrayal of the principles on which the country was founded.
https://eh.net/book_reviews/time-on-the-cross-the-economics-of-american-negro-slavery/
I am not a fan of reparations, but I doubt they are unconstitutional, they have withstood legal challenges before...
What I do advocate is good policy. Which, at heart, is simple. Good schools, adequate social services, access to basic health care for everyone. And the right to vote, of course.
The Resister wrote:
I will start you off with two primary sources. The first is a book entitled Time on the Cross - the Economics of American Negro Slavery (and its accompanying supplemental Volume Time on the Cross subtitled Evidence and Methods). It was written by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, both university professors. Another book I can refer you to is They Were White and They Were Slaves - The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael A. Hoffman.
If you become serious, start there and I will be more than glad to keep adding to the mountains of evidence that debunks most of the multicultural cow manure being spread by advocates of the NEW WORLD ORDER. The key is putting perspective to history and accepting reality.
Good, bad, or indifferent society chooses slavery. Consider that most Americans accept the income tax knowing full well that it is illegal, immoral, indefensible, reprehensible, unconstitutional, AND it was a plank out of the Communist Manifesto illegally put into our own Constitution. It enslaves the people, but the masses choose to honor it as if it were the word of God. Show an American a Bible and they will laugh at you. Show them an IRS agent, and they will tremble in their boots.
Americans get too hung up on brooding over American slavery and if you challenge the institution of slavery, you will be accused of "racism." It is acceptable in every country on the globe except the United States. Yet the fact is, the United States never legalized slavery; they were not the biggest importer of slaves; slaves in the United States were treated better than any other country that enslaved Black people. Yet, the United States is the ONLY country being pursued over a policy that has been illegal in the United States for 156 years. The states were the first in modern history with half of the states outlawing slavery BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.
As a purely legal issue, it would be unconstitutional for Black people to seek reparations from white people on the basis of their skin. It would equally be unconstitutional to hold the federal government accountable for a practice that they did not legalize, but rather phased out at the ratification of the Constitution. It would be ridiculous to bring suit against the individual states since over half of them made the practice illegal before the ratification of the Constitution. Never do the liberals who harp on the subject talk about going after the line of families and corporations that owned the slave ships and benefit off the slaves. Blacks don't want to hold their own brethren accountable for selling them. The leadership of Black leaders only seeks to punish the Whites on a false presupposition. And we want to sweep the enslavement of the Irish under the rug as if it never happened.
In the 1650s the Irish were being enslaved by the thousands (over a hundred thousand) by the same people engaged in enslaving and importing Blacks to America, yet nobody is mad at the fallen super-power that made that a legal enterprise. The facts are, Irish were enslaved in the colonies; they were shipped to the West Indies, Jamaica and Barbados by the same slavers that brought Blacks to the colonies. In early America, Blacks and Cherokee Indians owned Irish slaves. Modernists don't want to admit that Blacks weren't the first nor were they treated the worse. You should check out the aforementioned books, learn the rest of the story and look up the cited laws, statistics, etc. Then, maybe, you will agree that it is time to look forward, not backward.
"Michael Anthony Hoffman II (born January 2, 1957)[1] is an American author. He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist[1][2] and by the Anti-Defamation League (among other sources), as a Holocaust denier and antisemite"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II
They were not slaves...
Time on the Cross is different. As luck would have it, I've read British and a translated German historian on why slavery ended. That was my first experience of how diverse historical interpretation can be. I am going to provide a link to a review by economic historians about Time on the Cross. But the substantive parts are not the issue here. The review is just to set the context of how historians see the work. Slavery may have been profitable, but it was also a great wrong, and a complete betrayal of the principles on which the country was founded.
https://eh.net/book_reviews/time-on-the-cross-the-economics-of-american-negro-slavery/
I am not a fan of reparations, but I doubt they are unconstitutional, they have withstood legal challenges before...
What I do advocate is good policy. Which, at heart, is simple. Good schools, adequate social services, access to basic health care for everyone. And the right to vote, of course.
Facts have a well known liberal bias