Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Is history "racist"?

The Republic of Republics the Founders established is gone, supplanted by an Empire whose policy is perpetual war in the name of liberation – not that different from the old Soviet Union, when you think about it. Like the Soviet Union, personal liberty in the DC Empire is at the whim of faceless, ruthless bureaucrats who have the power to snuff out dissent at their discretion.

The League of the South opposes that Empire. While the Empire desires a randomized, multicultural population so fragmented that only an authoritarian government could hold it together, we seek to preserve our traditional culture.

Naturally, DC packages its agenda in the most benign terms. A fundamental part of that agenda is the rewriting of history to justify its power. That’s why the League so vigorously challenges the Empire’s central myth of the "Great Liberator" that roams the planet in search of monsters to destroy. Lincoln’s War, and the propaganda behind it, is the foundation of that myth. As Dr. Tom DiLorenzo observes, "The Lincoln myth is the cornerstone of the propaganda apparatus of American military imperialism."

So when confronted with the following, we must respond:

 "The League of the South doesn’t just defend secession as a political concept. They promote nonsense about how well off African slaves were, demonize the abolitionist movement and are highly critical of the civil rights movement."

The notion that Lincoln waged a war to liberate mistreated slaves is pure propaganda. And to point out that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was sensationalized fiction is not to defend slavery.

A recent post on the pro-war FrumForum included this doozy:

"My Southern ancestors lived quiet rural lives. The harshest and most dangerous labor in their world was performed by slaves…"

No, it wasn’t. Why would slaveowners squander their investment that way? It was cheaper to send in immigrants – which is just what they did when there was dangerous work to be done. For example:

Builders of the New Basin Canal

[in 1831], which connected the downtown American sector of New Orleans with Lake Pontchartrain, preferred to hire Irishmen because the work was dangerous, and they did not want their valuable slaves injured or killed.

Laboring in water up to their hips, canal diggers were very susceptible to yellow fever, malaria, and cholera. Estimates of the number of Irishmen buried along the New Basin Canal ranged from 3,000 to 30,000.

Statistical analysis by Nobel Prize winning University of Chicago professor Robert Fogel and University of Rochester Stanley Engerman revealed that wage-slaves in Northern sweat shops were worse off than slaves in the South.

Are these professors guilty of "racism" because of their conclusions?

If someone stated that Stalin hated his mother, I’d point out that he in fact was very close to her. That’s an historical fact. My statement would not make me a Stalinist or an apologist for communism.

On The Web:   http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-history-racist.html