, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Slavers Were Not Racists, They Were Multiculturalists
They say that a good idea is at first attacked, then tolerated, then finally accepted. This is what we tell ourselves when it comes to a particular social cause like Veganism or animal advocacy. But I think we have it wrong. Being vegan or anti-violence was probably one of the first ideas in the world, and chances are it was a bad idea that came along and pushed itself to be tolerated if not accepted and screwed up a good thing.
I figure it went something like this: a bunch of naked humanoids are sitting in a jungle eating roots or fruit or what not. And one of them, maybe we can call him or her (a little too much testosterone or lack of empathy gene) “Jamie” suddenly announces they have a great idea–“let’s eat some of that rotting animal corpse sitting under the bushes.” At first the rest of the tribe is disgusted, and they regard Jamie as a troublemaker, but Jamie persists, and eventually one or more of them tries it. Then after a while Jamie (or one of the converts) decides that they should venture out in search of more animal corpses to chew on. Maybe some go, some don’t. Doesn’t matter if a lot of them go or just one or two, because when if history teaches us anything, it only takes one asshole to cause a lot of trouble.

Eventually Jamie and the gang of troublemakers decide eating cadavers isn’t enough, or they end up in competition with real natural born carnivores and resort to violence, using tools to kill (in self-defense of course). Then they decide to start killing animals directly, since they find it more convenient than searching around for a random corpse that died of old age.

As time goes on, Jamie’s group grows in size, and perhaps splits into two or three or more, because one group decides they want to stay on one place or another wants to go search for animal herds in one direction or another. So you have several groups, started because of a bad idea, that spread out, and as it spreads, the bad ideas get more and more complicated. First it was killing for food, then it is killing competitors (including the other tribes) to protect their hunting grounds, then one day someone decides it is easier to domesticate animals and raise them for food.

At some point an asshole comes along who says “we ought to cut open one of these animals and see how they work inside.” If anyone objects, the asshole will accuse them of being overly emotional, or defying the will of the Gods, a blasphemer, etc. If a time comes when people do not believe in gods, then the asshole who likes to exploit the vulnerable and enjoys causing torture will find another excuse like curing cancer or gaining knowledge.

Remember, at one time in the distance past people sat around eating roots and fruit and didn’t seem to need this knowledge. The need for weapons came about because of competition over an unnecessary food choice. As they traveled into more hostile regions with weather that required artificial covering, even more cause for conflict arose. Technology for heating, fuel, oil. And the conflicts that follow the demand.

I tell this story to explain how troublemakers come up with a bad idea and where it can lead. One generation of troublemaker or asshole builds upon the work of the previous generation. As we see with vivisection for example, it starts with some assholes who do it and then make it part of an institution, and they recruit other assholes (those who lack empathy) to carry on the work. In other cases they force those who are empathetic to do it by peer and/or monetary pressure.

So how does this relate to the title of the piece? At some point in the past, a few troublemakers/assholes decided that they could exploit vulnerable persons in places like Africa for labor (though assholes/troublemakers of African heritage were no doubt involved–who says being an asshole is restricted by race?). They then shipped these slaves to the New World (the colonization of which was yet another case of a few causing trouble–venturing out to explore regardless of the consequences. Some of these folk may have had good intentions, but chances are, an asshole or two were at the center of it).

So what about this idea that a slaver wasn’t a racist? Well, as we tend to define racism, a racist is someone who believes their own race is superior. Now this may seem to suggest that white people who owned slaves were racially motivated, but think about it. If they were motivated by racial superiority, why would they bring all these Africans among themselves to live? Why would they take some as mistresses? The classic image of the KKK member is someone who is against racial mixing. They want racial separation of some kind. In truth, a slaver is an exploiter, they exploit vulnerable persons for personal reasons (money is usually a big part of it). They may come up with an excuse for it, such as the claim their race is superior, but chances are they are mainly people born without empathy who do as they please. To anyone, anything. They might have some personal favorites, but chances are this has little to do with ideology.


A couple of notes on slavery in the United States. It is not widely mentioned in the media that not only did Africans enslave Africans, but they also continued this practice in the United States. The first case in the 13 Colonies of a man suing for ownership of another was Anthony Johnson (black), who sued to regain possession of his indentured slave John Casor. It is also not mentioned that North American tribes also kept slaves, including African ones.

I add here that recently it came to my attention that a mass grave was uncovered in Ireland containing the bodies of infants and young children used in medical experimentation in the 1930s ( http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Religious-orders-allowed-over-2000-Irish-children-to-be-used-in-medical-experiments.html ). And hundreds of thousands of Irish people were also sent to the Americas as slaves in the 1600s, in some cases they were treated worse than the African counterparts because they were cheaper to ship and hated because of their Catholic religion. Slave masters also bred African men with Irish women/girls to save money on the transport of slaves from Africa and dumped them in the ocean when food became scarce during transport (See article on Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade for details or visit: http://settingrecordstraight.blogspot.ca/2015/03/irish-forgotten-white-slaves.html?m=1 ).

I say this while fully aware that the name of this site focuses on the ideological belief in Supremacy. As we have stated many times, it is a myth. But despite this truth, we also have acknowledged that those who adhere to the Supremacy Myth will often ignore arguments that oppose their abusive exploiting conduct. Whether talking about vivisectors, ranchers, hunters, slavers–these people much of the time will keep doing it as long as they are able to–unless forced to stop, which is not easy to achieve (though educating sympathetic people about the injustices, including ideological excuses like the Supremacy Myth may help). Assholes, troublemakers, psychopaths–they are most certainly beyond reach.

The catalyst for this essay is that in recent times we are hearing about the racism of those who oppose industrial exploitation. Whether it be vivisection, hunting, whaling, or human immigration. It occurred to me that a true exploiter does not care about race or gender or species-they care about getting something, and the more vulnerable the victim, the easier it is. They do it because they can, as one vivisector said to me to explain why they exploit animals. The exploiter most often uses a charge of racism to attack those who are upset about some personal suffering–whether it is witnessing the abuse of nonhuman animals, or the effects on their lifestyle thanks to economic-induced immigration. The deranged asshole/troublemaker (they do not see themselves as deranged, even if their actions ultimately lead to their own downfall which often is not the case unfortunately) will claim they are champions of the racially oppressed just as a slaver would have claimed they were bringing blacks from Africa as an act of mercy and necessary for commerce (an argument made by James Boswell in 1790: “The cheerful gang!–the negroes see/Perform the task of industry.”).

The writer Diane Johnstone had this observation recently which made me think about how exploiters use racism to attack animal advocacy that targets industry:

‘Globalization is not merely a process of economic integration regulated by flows of capital, which is deepening the polarization between rich and poor in the Western countries. It is also a powerful ideology, basing its moral certitudes on simplistic lessons drawn from twentieth century World Wars: the idea that the root cause of wars is a psychological attitude called “racism” which expresses itself in the nationalism of nation-states. This ideology gains semi-religious conviction by reference to the Holocaust, which is considered to have proven the point. Ergo, for the benefit of humanity, national borders must be torn down, national identities must be diluted by unlimited immigration, in order to achieve a worldwide multicultural society in which differences both coexist and cease to matter. This is a Utopian notion as unsupported by evidence as the Soviet dream of creating a “new man” who voluntarily works unselfishly for the benefit of all. Similarly, it considers human psychology to be perfectible by economic and institutional arrangements.” ”

Just something to chew on.

Note: Perhaps Johnstone is being cryptic, but this projection of the causes of World War 2 and the promotion of multiculturalism in the aftermath also ties in with the conspiracy theories of White Nationalists regarding Jewish power manipulation. The gist of it is that Zionist Globalist Jewish power concerns declared war on Germany in 1933, and despite the widespread opposition to US involvement (see Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, or the “America First” movement), war was achieved which led to the destruction of Germany, the empowerment of the Soviet Union (Jewish political involvement) and the creation of Israel–the Jewish-only state. And as for the “Holocaust,” to question it is to invite criminal prosecution which begs the question-if something is true, why do you need to make it illegal to discuss it? How much of this is conspiracy (HG Wells said the Bible details a conspiracy against non Jews), how much is paranoia, hard to say, but there is no question that a controlled media suppresses honest discussion on these topics.