Jewish slave-owners exempt from attacks by BLM?
by Phil Giraldi, …with The Unz Review
[ Editor’s Note: Phil takes us into a banned area of American history, the starting and control over the NAACP’s early years, and later the battle between black and Jewish academics on how the legacy of Jewish involvement in the slave trade would be treated.
The Jews were the victors, with their participation being airbrushed out of the textbooks and classrooms. Like VT, Phil is an iconoclast, willing to take on issues that are deemed too delicate to write about without career and censorship repercussions.
But in fact this topic does get covered by those wanting to do the historical research. I visited topics like this frequently in my Jim Dean Journal public tv shows in Atlanta, on the Jim Dean Journal, a knockoff of the hour long Charley Rose show.
I wove lots of authoritative quotes into my controversial material, which made me bullet proof from smear accusations. I used the same style when dealing with delicate Zionism and Israel Lobby controversy, where any criticism triggered a modern lynching response where you would be strung up as a hatemeister, heaven forbid.
In the backdrop of my video interviews, the middle library section is full of Judaica books with lots of dog eared pages and yellow highlighting to speed up looking for key quotes. I used to do show openings with a three minute commentary, borrowed from the old days when major network opened the news with the anchor’s commentary.
I believe that Phil’s motivation writing this is his knack for showing once again, while historical revisionism is generally fair game on all groups, as in tearing down monuments to anyone honored during the slave days, that Jews will be exempted.
But that is when I am for an equality for all mankind, insisting that they should not be discriminated against like that.
My favorite hidden slavery story, discovered in a Barbados library, was the niche that Bajan Jewish slave traders took over, buying sick slaves off the boats who were presumed to be terminal and were sold cheap.
The Jewish buyers nursed them back to health, most of the time, and then sold them for a nice ten times profit. Some might consider this ruthless exploitation, but the descendants of those slaves in Barbados might disagree.
They are proud of their heritage, more so than those of the Irish exported to work in Barbados, where the descendants were called ‘redlegs’ for being prone to sunburn. When I was there, they generally lived a subsistence lifestyle, raiding neighbors’ produce gardens to sell at the numerous roadside stands.
While Irish sold as servants in the US and to English Caribbean colonies is well documented, but suppressed in MSM. The trick they use to duck the truth is by not telling you that the terms slave and servants were synonyms at the time.
Oliver Cromwell kicked off the nasty business without a whiff of remorse, and later the sugar planters bred Irish women with black slaves as the lighter skinned children sold at much higher prices.
“In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city. Cromwell reported: “I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt.
During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas!” (from the link above)
…Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell’s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters.’
History has a tendency for being subjected to as much spin as can be found in political campaigns, with partially educated Donald Trump being the most recent example. Phil will fill you in on the rest.
Two books I would recommend, the first, for a quick study is Michael Hoffman’s They were white and They were Slaves, worth the price for the index alone, from which he pulled the gems from to do his.
And the the bible on the slave trade is Hugh Thomas’ 900 page tome, The Slave Trade, 1997, a 33 year effort for which humanity should be grateful for the incredible compilation, which includes me.… Jim W. Dean ]
|Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim’s work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>
– First published … June 30, 2020 –
The current wrath directed against anything or anyone having had anything to do with slavery or even racial discrimination includes destroying historical memorials and monuments as well as changing names that have stood for more than a century.
Much of it has been focused on white nominally Christian males, mostly of Anglo-Saxon stock, understandable as the United States was a child of Great Britain and a majority of the country’s leaders for nearly two centuries came from families descended from the British Isles.
Slavery in the United States version is, of course, seen in black and white terms but slavery in a broader historical context is much more complicated. There have been slaves since ancient times through the eighteenth century in many countries and most of them have been white.
Sometimes they were called something different. Indentured servants were de facto slaves, as were the serfs in Russia, who were tied to the land and were not liberated until 1861.
The very word slave comes from Slav, as many of the slaves in the Middle Ages were from the Slavic parts of the Balkans bordering on the Adriatic, where mostly Muslim seagoing raiders would attack coastal villages and carry off the inhabitants. Italy was likewise afflicted and the numerous small castles and improvised forts along the Italian and Croatian coastlines were intended to providing a refuge for villagers against the corsair slavers.
In the United States currently progressives of all types and colors are flocking to the revolutionary banner hoisted by Black Lives Matter (BLM) and other associated groups. Not surprisingly, given the liberal leanings of American Jews as well as their historical connections, Jewish groups have been actively engaged in the ongoing movement for racial justice.
American Jews have played major roles historically in the founding and financial support of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
In 1909, Henry Moscowitz was a co-founder the NAACP. Photos of the boards of directors of the various organizations well into the 1970s frequently reveal a majority of white Jews seated together with minority blacks. Kivie Kaplan was, for example, the national president of the NAACP between 1966 and 1975.
But this characterization of Jews as benefactors for the civil rights movement has also produced some curious omissions in the accepted historical narrative of who did what to whom in the slavery trade. It is well established, though never taught in schools, that Jews from Britain and Holland were involved in the African slave trade that prevailed after the European discovery of the Americas.
In the United States, concentrations of Jews in the American south were in slave trading centers, notably in Charleston South Carolina, Savannah Georgia, Richmond Virginia and in New Orleans Louisiana. Many of the Jews themselves owned slaves.
The debate over Jewish involvement in both the business side of the slave trade as well as in actually possessing slaves comes down to “proportionality.” As the historical record makes clear that Jews in the south were engaged in both the importing and selling slaves as well as exploiting slave labor, the question becomes whether they were central to the process or just one of many identifiable groups that were peripherally involved in what was a major segment of the southern economy.
The issue became extremely heated in the 1990s when mostly black academics argued that the Jewish role was pivotal while mostly Jewish professors responded that it was insignificant.
In March 1995 the American Historical Association (AHA) got involved by issuing its first ever “policy resolution”, coming strongly down on the Jewish side of the argument, which should surprise no one. AHA argued that it was wrong to use historical analysis to vilify one group before citing a memo by two Jewish professors which asserted that the role of their co-religionists had been marginal.
For those who are interested in more on the discussion, the following article might be helpful, though it is on a Jewish website, cites only Jewish sources for it debunking of the idea that Jews might have been heavily engaged in the slave trade, and also brings in the most disreputable sources that say the contrary. It nevertheless concedes that Jews were involved in the slave trade and also possessed slaves, though it seeks to minimize the extent to which that was true.
Much more interesting is a short book by a distinguished Wellesley History Professor Tony Martin “The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront.” Martin describes in some detail how he was subjected to a “hysterical campaign” by Jewish organizations and fellow academics to have him discredited and fired after he assigned to his class on African-American history a short reading on the Jewish role in antebellum slavery.
Be that as it may, everyone should be aware that delving around in the past can be a messy business with no easy answers and…