This is a specific subject page, dealing exclusively with, or primarily with, the subject in the title. Because of need, there are many such pages at RHWW: usually, but not always, linked to primary pages. For those in a hurry, they enable a quick summary of many important subjects. The menu for these pages is here: Click>>>



The History of Slavery



The Trans Atlantic Slave Trade

and related subjects

From a U.S. and European Prospective



Ascension of the European Albinos from Central Asia

Like the Assyrians before them, who also started off as a weak people, unable to effect what others did to them or what happened to them. When the Albino people were finally able to establish their own dominance in Europe, like the Assyrians, they did so with a particular cruelty, ruthlessness, and an apparent inability to empathize with the sufferings of any but themselves. The defeat and banishment of Europe's Blacks seems to have invigorated and emboldened Europe's Albinos with a newfound confidence and drive. Ultimately, this new drive culminated in an accomplishment never before attained, dominance over the entire world. Then once the last enemy and competitor was banished, there appeared musings of racial superiority. Once comfortable with that concept, Europe's Albinos then decided to crown themselves the worlds most compassionate, charitable and altruistic people. Both concepts grotesquely false: as an Albino is an Albino because of defective genes, how a gene defect then becomes the height of mans evolution is the most bizarre logic. Likewise, the perpetrators of mankind's greatest atrocities, could hardly then turn around and call themselves mankind's most compassionate, charitable and altruistic people - you would think. But as proof that fact is sometimes stranger than fiction, or the power of positive example, in many European Albino societies, charity, even to non-Albinos, if not altruism, is indeed practiced. But these are likely the pretensions of easy times, and will likely serve as proof that magnanimity is solely the domain of the victors, for such lofty thoughts will surely fade away with the pressures of competition.




Why Albino Bullshit is the only Bullshit most Humans know


VOX Media, Inc.

Map: European colonialism conquered every country in the world but these five

Updated by Max Fisher on February 24, 2015

It's no secret that European colonialism was a vast, and often devastating, project that over several centuries put nearly the entire world under control of one European power or another. But just how vast can be difficult to fully appreciate.

Here, to give you a small sense of European colonialism's massive scale, is a map showing every country put under partial or total European control during the colonial era, which ran roughly from the 1500s to the 1960s. Only five countries, in orange, were spared:





As you can see, just about every corner of the globe was colonized outright or was dominated under various designations like "protectorate" or "mandate," all of which are indicated in green. This includes the entirety of the Americas (French Guiana is incorrectly labeled as part of Europe due a technical issue, but make no mistake, it was colonized) and all of Africa save for little Liberia. More on Liberia later. The Middle East and Asia were divided up as well.

Some countries instead fell under "spheres of influence," marked in yellow, in which a European power would declare that country or some part of it subject to their influence, which was a step removed from but in practice not all that distinct from conquering it outright. Iran, for example, was divided between British and Russian sphere of influence, which meant that the European powers owned exclusive rights to Iranian oil and gas in their areas, among other things.

Most of the areas under spheres of influence on this map were politically dominated by the British, who ruled through proxies: Afghanistan (which also endured Russian influence), Bhutan, and Nepal. Mongolia was effectively a proxy state of the Soviet Union for much of the Cold War.

Something similar happened in China, where European powers established parts of coastal cities or trade ports as "concessions," which they occupied and controlled. Some, such as Shanghai, were divided into multiple European concessions. Others, like British-controlled Hong Kong, were fully absorbed into the European empires. This is why China is labelled as partially dominated by Europe.

Modern-day Saudi Arabia came under partial domination; in the early 1900s, most of the Arabian peninsula transitioned from the Ottoman Empire to the British Empire, though the British left much of the peninsula's vast interior relatively untouched. Parts of modern-day Turkey itself were divided among World War One's European victors, though Turkish nationalists successfully expelled them almost immediately in a war for independence that established modern-day Turkey.

There are only four countries that escaped European colonialism completely. Japan and Korea successfully staved off European domination, in part due to their strength and diplomacy, their isolationist policies, and perhaps their distance. Thailand was spared when the British and French Empires decided to let it remained independent as a buffer between British-controlled Burma and French Indochina. Japan, however, colonized both Korea and Thailand itself during its early-20th-century imperial period.

Then there is Liberia, which European powers spared because the United States backed the Liberian state, which was established in the early 1800s by freed American slaves who had decided to move to Africa. The Liberian project was fraught — the Americans who moved there ruled as a privileged minority, and the US and European powers shipped former slaves there rather than actually account for their enslavement — but it escaped European domination.

There is also debate as to whether Ethiopia could be considered the sixth country never subjugated by European colonialism. Italy colonized neighboring countries, and Ethiopia ceded several territories to Italian colonization as part of an 1889 treaty. The treaty was also intended to force Ethiopia to cede its foreign affairs to Italy — a hallmark of colonial subjugation — but the Amharic version of the treaty excluded this fact due to a mistranslation, leading to a war that Italy lost. Later, Italy conquered Ethiopia in 1935 and annexed it the next year, but this lasted only until 1941. While some consider this period of Italian rule to be a function of colonialism, others argue that it's better understood as part of World War Two and thus no more Italian colonization than the Nazi conquest of Poland was German colonization — although it could be certainly be argued that these fascist expansions were in fact a form of colonialism, as many eastern Europeans might.

The colonial period began its end after World War Two, when the devastated nations of Western Europe could no longer afford to exert such global influence and as global norms shifted against them. The turning point is sometimes considered the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US and Soviet Union pressured British and French troops to withdraw after invading Egypt to seize the Suez Canal with Israeli help. But it took a couple of decades for the European colonialism to fully collapse; France was fighting for Algeria until 1962 and Portugal did not abandon its African colonies until 1974. So this map, of a European-dominated world, is not as distant as it may feel for many Americans.






Albino Europe's rise was first and foremost, financed by the Trans Atlantic slave Trade, which in turn, financed Europe's Industrial Revolution. Before the industrial revolution in Europe, all technological advancements came out of the knowledge Crescent: Egypt, the middle-East, South-east Asia (mostly India), and also China. It was the inventions and technologies from these old Black, and formerly Black cultures, that Europe's Albinos were able to copy, improve upon, and use to further their expansion. The most important of these inventions and technologies to the Albino Europeans were:

The steam Engine

(The Steam Engine provided the power for Europe's factories and Transportation).

In about 60 A.D. the Egyptian "Heron of Alexandria" invented the first "Steam Engine" his steam-powered device was called the “Aeolipile”.
He also invented the Windwheel or Windmill, which was also very important to Europe's economy.

The Windmill:

Windmill machinery was adapted to supply power for many industrial and agricultural needs other than milling grain. The majority of modern windmills take the form of wind turbines used to generate electricity, or windpumps used to pump water, either for land drainage or to extract groundwater.

The Gun:

(The Gun gave Europe's Albinos a weapons advantage that could not be overcome except with large losses).

The first "Gun" was invented by an Egyptian, and used by their Turkic occupiers, the Mamluks, against the Moguls in the 1260 battle of Ain Jalute. These cannon were later described in Arabic chemical and military manuals in the early 1300s.


Both China and India had gunpowder by the 9th. century. No one knows which actually invented it.

With the money gained from the Slave trade trade and the Industrial Revolution (the period from about 1760 to 1840), the Albino Europeans were able to launch a "Weapons Race" which resulted in the development and manufacture of even more advanced weapons. With these new and better Weapons that they developed with the money from the Slave trade and the Industrial Revolution, Europe's Albinos were able to conquer most of the World, and then absorb and concentrate all of the worlds knowledge in their own hands.

The Conquests:

The American Hemisphere:

Aside from the Genocidal European conquest of the Americas:


Captain Arthur Phillip commanded the First Fleet, comprising a considerable number of convicted felons (convicts) and their armed military guard. He raised the Union Jack flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788.


By the middle of the 1800s, the British had gained direct or indirect control over almost all of India and Burma.

South Asia:

The British, french, and Dutch ruled South Asia, the Spanish ruled the Philippines. The only Asian country no colonized was Thailand.


Commodore Perry's expedition to Japan was preceded by several failed naval expeditions by American ships to open U.S. trade with Japan, which was an unwilling partner. In 1852, Perry sailed for Japan, in command of the East India Squadron in pursuit of a Japanese trade treaty. At Edo he was met by representatives of the Tokugawa Shogunate who told him to proceed to Nagasaki, the only Japanese port open to foreigners at that time. As he arrived, Perry ordered his ships to steam past Japanese lines towards the capital of Edo, and turn their guns towards the town of Uraga. Perry refused Japanese demands to leave. He then demanded permission to present a letter from President Millard Fillmore, and threatened to use force if the Japanese boats around the American squadron did not disperse.

Perry attempted to intimidate the Japanese by presenting them a white flag and a letter which told them that in case they chose to fight, the Americans would destroy them. Perry ordered some buildings in the harbor shelled. Perry's ships were equipped with new Paixhans shell guns, cannons capable of wreaking great destruction with every shell. After the Japanese agreed to receive the letter from the American President, Perry landed at Kurihama (in modern-day Yokosuka) on July 14, 1853, presented the letter to attending delegates, and left for the Chinese coast, promising to return for a reply. Perry returned in February 1854 with twice as many ships, to find that the Japanese had prepared a treaty accepting virtually all the demands in Fillmore's letter. Perry signed the Convention of Kanagawa on March 31, 1854, and departed.


Wars with European powers and Japan completely fractured China, which was not reunified until the the victory of Mao Zedong in 1947.


Siberia is an extensive region, consisting of almost all of North Asia. Siberia is 77% of Russia (13.1 million square kilometres), but has just 28% (40 million people) of Russia's population. Siberia has only been a part of Russia since the seventeenth century, when the Russians defeated the indigenous Mongol type people.

The Russian conquest of Siberia began in July 1580 when some 540 Cossacks under Yermak Timofeyevich invaded the territory of the Mongols. They were accompanied by 300 Lithuanian and German slave laborers, whom the Stroganovs had purchased from the Tsar. Throughout 1581, this force traversed the territory known as Yugra and subdued Vogul and Ostyak towns.




These conquests enabled something that had never been done before, one people (Europe's Albinos) were able to concentrate all of the worlds knowledge and most of it's wealth, in their own hands. This caused an explosion of new discoveries and inventions under the auspices of European Albinos. But it was not only Albino Europeans who contributed to this great leap forward in technological knowledge, many Blacks and others made important contributions also, (Black Americans keep informal lists of their own contributions).

But it is important to note that this period of Albino European dominance is almost at an end, after only about 200 - 250 years. Which is the shortest period of dominance of any people. Today, Europe's Albinos place great value on their current dominance as proof of their superiority and worthiness. But clearly, when that dominance is broken down into it's component parts, their myths of Glory and superiority melt away to reveal destitute peoples, willing to do anything and everything to get ahead. As it turns out, genocide and the most brutal Slavery, were simply things for others to endure, in order to guarantee the Albinos success.

Luckily for the rest of Mankind, the Albino peoples greed often got the best of them, and they fought among themselves, thus distracting them from greater atrocities against subject peoples. Now as the Albino peoples power wanes, some of their legacies cannot be undone: The man caused extinction of many species, the pollution of the Earths land, water, and air, and perhaps the most foreboding: In order to defend themselves against the Albinos, all of the Earth nations militarized themselves, and ever more of them are seeking Nuclear Weapons. The possibility exists that the Albinos may have set the stage for man to destroy himself.




The following is a Chronology of the Slave trade using many unrelated sources.



Africans in America: PBS

The history of the European seaborne slave trade with Africa goes back 50 years prior to Columbus' initial voyage to the Americas. It began with the Portuguese, who went to West Africa in search of gold. The first Europeans to come to Africa's West Coast to trade were funded by Prince Henry, the famous Portuguese patron, who hoped to bring riches to Portugal. The purpose of the exploration: to expand European geographic knowledge, to find the source of prized African gold, and to locate a possible sea route to valuable Asian spices. In 1441, for the first time, Portuguese sailors obtained gold dust from traders on the western coast of Africa. The following year, Portuguese explorers returned from Africa with more gold dust and another cargo: ten Africans.

Forty years after that first human cargo traveled to Portugal, Portuguese sailors gained permission from a local African leader to build a trading outpost and storehouse on Africa's Guinea coast. It was near a region that had been mined for gold for many years and was called Elmina, which means "the mine" in Portuguese. Although originally built for trade in gold and ivory and other resources, Elmina was the first of many trading posts built by Europeans along Africa's western coast that would also come to export slaves. The well-armed fort provided a secure harbor for Portuguese (and later Dutch and English) ships. Africans were either captured in warring raids or kidnapped and taken to the port by African slave traders. There they were exchanged for iron, guns, gunpowder, mirrors, knives, cloth, and beads brought by boat from Europe.

Concerning the trade on this Coast, we notified your Highness that nowadays the natives no longer occupy themselves with the search for gold, but rather make war on each other in order to furnish slaves. . . The Gold Coast has changed into a complete Slave Coast.

- William De La Palma
Director, Dutch West India Co.
September 5, 1705


When Europeans arrived along the West African coast, slavery already existed on the continent. However, in his book The African Slave Trade, Basil Davidson points out that slavery in Africa and the brutal form of slavery that would develop in the Americas were vastly different. African slavery was more akin to European serfdom --the condition of most Europeans in the 15th century. In the Ashanti Kingdom of West Africa, for example, slaves could marry, own property and even own slaves. And slavery ended after a certain number of years of servitude. Most importantly, African slavery was never passed from one generation to another, and it lacked the racist notion that whites were masters and blacks were slaves.

By the start of the 16th century, almost 200,000 Africans had been transported to Europe and islands in the Atlantic. But after the voyages of Columbus, slave traders found another market for slaves: New World plantations. In Spanish Caribbean islands and Portuguese Brazil by the mid 1500s, colonists had turned to the quick and highly profitable cultivation of sugar, a crop that required constant attention and exhausting labor. By 1619, more than a century and a half after the Portuguese first traded slaves on the African coast, European ships had brought a million Africans to colonies and plantations in the Americas and force them to labor as slaves. Trade through the West African forts continued for nearly three hundred years. The Europeans made more than 54,000 voyages to trade in human beings and sent at least ten to twelve million Africans to the Americas.



Dutch Slavery in Asia:

Expatica Communications - Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

The Dutch role in the slave trade is often said to be overlooked or unknown, rather than intentionally ignored. But as the nation toasted the brave sailors, merchants and traders who helped to build The Netherlands' maritime empire during the Golden Age, the forgotten issue of slavery has come back into sharp focus. "It's difficult to generalise, but many Dutch people want to know why the slave trade and slavery is a problem that should concern them;" explains Dr Susan le Gene, head curator of the Tropen Museum in Amsterdam, which deals with the Netherlands's colonial past. "It is a lack of perspective."

"Specialist historians have always done research on the subject, but it is only recently become a public debate," explains le Gene. "In schools, when the subject of slavery comes up, the attention is shifted to North America and slave traders described as European." Unlike the US and the UK, there is no national curriculum in the Netherlands. In the past ten years there has been a recommendation to teach the topic of slavery in the Netherlands, but frequently based on the US experience.

"It is very typical," say le Gene, "to confuse the issues. Even the debates in the past were imported. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" helped to end slavery in Dutch law. Too much about the slave trade was abstract." One reason for this may be that very few slaves lived in the Netherlands itself. But, as the recent VOC celebrations revealed that does not mean that slavery was not an integral part of the Dutch economy from the beginning of the 17th century until the middle of the 19th.


The VOC, or Verenigde Ooostindische Compagnie, is often referred to as the first multinational. It had a board of governors and issued shares, much like companies today. Launched in 1602, the VOC was granted a monopoly of the trade with the East Indies. It united Dutch companies for essentially military purposes; to defend their trading centres from the Portuguese, the English and the Spanish, as well as Asian competitors. Dr. Kees Zandvliet is head of the Dutch history department in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and curator of their recent exhibition "The Dutch Encounter with Asia". Zandvliet feels it is important not to ignore the connections to slavery in the Dutch past in the choice of objects and paintings on exhibit.

"In Dutch history it is quite unknown that there were so many slaves in Dutch Asia," says Zandvliet. "The rich Dutch merchants who settled there would have semi-courts with up to 200 slaves in and around their house. The Dutch households were a bit schizophrenic; up front the household was Dutch because the man was Dutch, but in the back of the house it was Asian because the woman was Asian."

In the 17th and 18th century a form of multiculturalism existed simply because there were no European women in the colonies. Most wives of Dutch men had begun their lives as slaves and could be freed after the death of their "boss" or husband if his will specifically requested it. In Batavia (Jakarta), the major trading centre in what is now Indonesia, there was a large craft quarters producing goods for export, which employed some Dutchmen, but most labour was provided by slaves from Madagascar, Sulawesi (Indonesia), India and Sri Lanka. One researcher estimates that half the population of Batavia were a slave. The use of slave labour undeniably created and supported large, complex and profitable trading networks throughout Africa, Asia and Europe. Yet, it is often pointed out that the VOC did not trade or traffic human beings.


The slave trade from West Africa was an integral part of the international trade network of the WIC, West Indische Compagnie, established in 1621. Like the VOC, the Dutch West Indies Company, also had governors and issued shares. It is estimated that the WIC trafficked over 550,000 slaves from West Africa at a time the worlds population was approximately 500 million. The WIC was at one time the second largest slave-traders along the "middle passage" from Africa to North and South America and the West Indies. The slave trade itself not only created a huge support network from shipping and ports to finance, slaves were considered an essential commodity. The WIC created an interconnected triangular trade route; starting in the Netherlands, ships would bring weapons and cheap goods to the West Coast of Africa.

These goods would be traded to buy slaves and then the ships would travel to the Americas and West Indies. The monies from the sales of slaves would purchase luxury goods from the Americas and West Indies, which were in turn taken to Europe to be sold. Just how much was earned by the sale of humans is still hotly debated. Most historians agree that the trade of spices and other good were more profitable, but they were still based on a slave economy. That they were treated as inhuman is obvious by the fact that slaves were not given "human" status by Dutch law until the late 17th century. The Dutch were also known for cruel practices such as whipping and branding, which were common throughout the slave trade at the time.

Playing it down

It is only recently that the connection between the WIC and the VOC has been highlighted. Dr le Gene's book "De Baggage van Blomhoff and van Breugen" (The baggage of Blomhoff and van Breugen) is one of the first to examine that connection. "Blomhoff and van Breugen are only examples of high society people at that time," say le Gene. "But what is fascinating is that the 21 people on the board of governors of the WIC are the same people that are also some of the governors of the VOC." "It is very striking," she continues, "that it is a very small group of elite families that were all interconnected and intermarried. Amsterdam was a part of a federal republic called North Holland and extremely powerful in the early 17th Century."

The end of the road

Slavery was officially abolished by most countries by 1838, although some form of "Indentured service," continued in Indonesia up to the early 20th century. The VOC closed down in 1799, as it was unable to compete with the English. The WIC had stopped trading by 1790, as slavery was no longer considered "acceptable". On the 1st of July, 2002 Queen Beatrix unveiled a national monument to the victims of slavery as a way of showing "deep remorse" for the nation's slave trading past. An important first step, but by no means as far as the National Committee on Slavery, who sponsored the monument, would like. So far, the Netherlands, England, Spain and Portugal - all major past slave-traders - have refused to officially recognise slavery as a crime against humanity. The National committee on Slavery is pressing for a formal apology, compensation and a permanent museum.




Transatlantic Slave Trade - East of England Broadband Network


For well over 300 years, European countries forced Africans onto slave ships and transported them across the Atlantic Ocean.

The first European nation to engage in the Transatlantic Slave Trade was Portugal in the mid to late 1400's. Captain John Hawkins made the first known English slaving voyage to Africa, in 1562, in the reign of Elizabeth 1. Hawkins made three such journeys over a period of six years. He captured over 1200 Africans and sold them as goods in the Spanish colonies in the Americas.

To start with, British traders supplied slaves for the Spanish and Portuguese colonists in America. However, as British settlements in the Caribbean and North America grew, often through wars with European countries such as Holland, Spain and France, British slave traders increasingly supplied British colonies. The exact number of British ships that took part in the Slave Trade will probably never be known but, in the 245 years between Hawkins first voyage and the abolition of the Slave Trade in 1807, merchants in Britain dispatched about 10,000 voyages to Africa for slaves, with merchants in other parts of the British Empire perhaps fitting out a further 1,150 voyages.

Historian, Professor David Richardson, has calculated that British ships carried 3.4 million or more enslaved Africans to the Americas. Only the Portuguese, who carried on the trade for almost 50 years after Britain had abolished its Slave Trade, carried more enslaved Africans to the Americas than the British (the most recent estimate suggests just over 5 million people). Estimates, based on records of voyages in the archives of port customs and maritime insurance records, put the total number of African slaves transported by European traders, to at least 12 million people.

The first record of enslaved Africans being landed in the British colony of Virginia was in 1619. Barbados became the first British settlement in the Caribbean in 1625 and the British took control of Jamaica in 1655. The establishment of the Royal African Company in 1672 formalised the Slave Trade under a royal charter and gave a monopoly to the port of London. The ports of Bristol and Liverpool, in particular, lobbied to have the charter changed and, in 1698, the monopoly was taken away.

British involvement expanded rapidly in response to the demand for labour to cultivate sugar in Barbados and other British West Indian islands. In the 1660s, the number of slaves taken from Africa in British ships averaged 6,700 per year. By the 1760s, Britain was the foremost European country engaged in the Slave Trade. Of the 80,000 Africans chained and shackled and transported across to the Americas each year, 42,000 were carried by British slave ships.

The profits gained from chattel slavery helped to finance the Industrial Revolution and the Caribbean islands became the hub of the British Empire. The sugar colonies were Britain's most valuable colonies. By the end of the eighteenth century, four million pounds came into Britain from its West Indian plantations, compared with one million from the rest of the world.

Who benefited from the Transatlantic Slave Trade?

In the Transatlantic Slave Trade, triangle ships never sailed empty and some people made enormous profits. This Slave Trade was the richest part of Britain's trade in the 18th century. James Houston, who worked for a firm of 18th-century slave merchants, wrote, "What a glorious and advantageous trade this is... It is the hinge on which all the trade of this globe moves."

Between 1750 and 1780, about 70% of the government's total income came from taxes on goods from its colonies. The money made on the Transatlantic Slave Trade triangle was vast and poured into Britain and other European countries involved in slavery, changing their landscapes forever. In Britain, those who had made much of their wealth from the trade built fine mansions, established banks such as the Bank of England and funded new industries.

Who profited?

British slave ship owners - some voyages made 20-50% profit. Large sums of money were made by ship owners who never left England.

British Slave Traders - who bought and sold enslaved Africans.

Plantation Owners - who used slave labour to grow their crops. Vast profits could be made by using unpaid workers. Planters often retired to Britain with the profits they made and had grand country houses built for them. Some planters used the money they had made to become MPs. Others invested their profits in new factories and inventions, helping to finance the Industrial Revolution.

The factory owners in Britain - who had a market for their goods. Textiles from Yorkshire and Lancashire were bought by slave-captains to barter with. One half of the textiles produced in Manchester were exported to Africa and half to the West Indies. In addition, industrial plants were built to refine the imported raw sugar. Glassware was needed to bottle the rum.

West African leaders involved in the trade - who captured people and sold them as slaves to Europeans.

The ports - Bristol and Liverpool became major ports through fitting out slave ships and handling the cargoes they brought back. Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool's population rose from 5000 to 78,000.

Bankers - banks and finance houses grew rich from the fees and interest they earned from merchants who borrowed money for their long voyages.

Ordinary people - the Transatlantic Slave Trade provided many jobs for people back in Britain. Many people worked in factories which sold their goods to West Africa. These goods would then be traded for enslaved Africans. Birmingham had over 4000 gun-makers, with 100,000 guns a year going to slave-traders.

Others worked in factories that had been set up with money made from the Slave Trade. Many trades-people bought a share in a slave ship. Slave labour also made goods, such as sugar, more affordable for people living in Britain.










Timeline of Atlantic Slave Trade - ABC News


1502 First reported African slaves in the New World.

1640-1680 Beginning of large-scale introduction of African slave labor in the British Caribbean for sugar production.

1791 The Haitian Revolution begins with a slave uprising in the French West Indian colony of Santo Domingo. The revolution will eventually lead to the establishment of the black nation of Haiti ten years later.

1793 Waves of white refugees pour into United States ports, fleeing the insurrection in Santo Domingo.

1794 France emancipates all slaves in the French colonies. In the United States, Congress passes legislation prohibiting the manufacture, fitting, equipping, loading or dispatching of any vessel to be employed in the slave trade.

1795 Pinckney’s Treaty, also known as Treaty of San Lorenzo, establishes commercial relations between the United States and Spain.

1800 The United States enacts stiff penalties for American citizens serving voluntarily on slave ships trading between two foreign countries.

1803 Denmark is first to ban the slave trade.

1804 The Republic of Haiti is declared on January 1, 1804 by General Jean-Jacques Dessalines.

1807 Britain, the principal slave-trading nation, bans the Atlantic slave trade.

1807 The United States passes legislation banning slave trade that will take effect the following year.

1810 British negotiate an agreement with Portugal calling for gradual abolition of slave trade in the South Atlantic.

1815 At the Congress of Vienna, the British pressure Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands to agree to abolish the slave trade. However, Spain and Portugal are permitted a few years of continued slaving to replenish labor supplies.

1817 Britain and Spain sign a treaty prohibiting the slave trade. British naval vessels are given right to search suspected slave ships. Still, loopholes in the treaty undercut its goals and the slave trade grows with the slave economies of Cuba and Brazil expanding rapidly.

In the Le Louis case, British courts establish the principal that British naval vessels cannot search foreign vessels suspected of slaving unless permitted by their respective countries. The ruling hampers Britain’s efforts to suppress the trade.

1819 The United States and Spain renew commercial agreements in the Adams-Onis Treaty.

Congress passes legislation stiffening laws against American participation in the slave trade.

Britain stations a naval squadron on the West African coast to patrol for illegal slave ships.

1820 The United States deems slave trading an act of piracy and punishable by the death penalty.

The U.S. Navy dispatches four vessels to patrol the coast of West Africa for slavers. This initial campaign lasts only four years before the Americans recall the cruisers and break off cooperation with the British.

1824 Great Britain and the United States negotiate a treaty recognizing the slave trade as piracy and agree to work together to suppress it. But the U.S. Senate undercuts the treaty’s force in a series of amendments and Britain refuses to sign.

1825 The Antelope, a slave ship sailing under the Venezuelan flag is seized in U.S. waters with a cargo of 281 Africans. Ship’s owners try to reclaim ship and slaves. The Supreme Court hears the case and issues a unanimous opinion declaring the slave trade a violation of natural law. But 39 of the slaves are returned to ship’s owners.

1831 A large-scale slave revolt breaks out in Jamaica and is brutally repressed.

1833 Britain passes the Abolition of Slavery Act, which emancipates salves in the British West Indies starting in August of the following year.

1835 The Anglo-Spanish agreement on the slave trade is renewed and enforcement tightened. British cruisers are authorized to arrest suspected Spanish slavers and bring them before mixed commissions in Sierra Leone and Havana.

1836 Portugal bans the slave trade.

1837 Britain invites the United States and France to create an international patrol to stop slaving. The U.S. declines to participate.

1838 In the British West Indies, most colonial assemblies have introduced legislation dismantling apprenticeships, which followed the emancipation of slaves. Laws against vagrancy and squatting attempt to keep the social and labor system of the plantation economy intact, with varying results.

1839 Nicholas Trist, U.S. Consul in Havana, recommends that the administration dispatch a naval squadron to West Africa to patrol for slavers, warning that the British would police American vessels if the United States did not.

The Amistad is seized off Long Island and taken to New London.

J.M.W. Turner’s “The Slave Ship,” goes on display in London. The piece was inspired by a recent incident in which a captain threw slaves overboard during an epidemic. As insurance companies only covered slaves drowned at sea, profit-minded captains often cast the sick or dying into the ocean.

1841 Nicholas Trist is dismissed as U.S. Consul in Havana amid allegations he connived to sell U.S. vessels to Spanish slave traders or at least failed to stop the illegal transactions.

1860s The Atlantic slave trade was abolished over a 30-year period ending with Portugal’s 1836 ban on slave trading. But legal abolition did not end the still profitable trade. It continued illegally well into the 19th century. As long as there remained a market for slaves in the Americas, mostly in Brazil and Cuba, the trade would continue until the 1860s





Why is the Black Man Disrespected?


An interesting curiosity:

Blacks were the original colonizers of the entire Planet. Every ancient civilization was a Black civilization. Every Human started off as a Black African: yet today, Blacks are the most contemptuously treated, and marginalized people on the Planet. Certainly the Albinos desire to elevate himself by distancing himself from his Black creator, assigning benefit to his disabilities, and then denigrating his creator for not having the symptoms of those disabilities (pale skin, blue eyes, blonde hair, etc.) has much to do with it. But might it also have to do with the African Slave trade?

It is well documented as to how the Japanese shogun, upon seeing how the Portuguese were enslaving Japanese and Chinese people, and how the Spanish had used Christianity to colonize the Philippines: Banned the Europeans slave trade, and outlawed Christianity. Since the Japanese were active in enslaving Koreans, the issue for them must certainly have been about selling their own kind to others, not slavery itself.

Contrast that with the Africans whole-hearted embrace of the Trade in African Slaves: To the point where even after 350 years of selling their own kind into the most brutal slavery possible, and to whatever part of the world that buyers would care to take them: The Africans had to be forced by their partners, the Europeans, over their own loud protestations, to stop selling their own kind into slavery - externally at least, it still continues in Africa today.

Might it be that the spectacle of what those Africans were blithely doing to their own kind, was so disturbing to those seeing it, even to their Albino partners, that the conclusion was made that because Africans were capable of so off-handedly selling their own kind to whoever had the price, into whatever misery they might find. Then ALL Blacks must be without an innate respect and concern for ones own kind, without the moral compass of advanced humans: and thus capable of mindless atrocities just like the people of those African slave kingdoms.

This of course, was a bogus accusation made convenient by Africans. For lost in such nonsense thoughts is the reality that every single religion of any consequence in the entire world today, was created and developed by Black people.








Black Loyalists in the American Revolution - George Mason University


In 1775 when armed conflict appeared inevitable between England and the American Colonists, there were approximately 500,000 slaves in the Southern Colonies, roughly twenty percent of the total population of the entire 13 colonies. This presented a frightening situation for the slave owners, but fascinating opportunities for the British forces. The British were chronically short of troops, and a number of theories were advanced to take advantage of the slave situation, such as inciting an insurrection of the slaves and causing chaos in the southern colonies, wrecking their economy. The colonists briefly considered using some as soldiers to fight the British, but this notion was quashed by the fear of putting weapons in the hands of slaves whose loyalty was uncertain. Furthermore, slave owners feared that if this plan was implemented, some slaves, devoted to their masters, would have willingly borne arms, but would have presented postwar problems. The question would have been how to compel them to revert to their pre-war slave status after having fought a war for independence and "freedom" from oppression.

Two declarations, both authored by the British, initiated "Black Loyalist" history. The first was Lord Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775; the second, Commander-in-Chief Sir Henry Clinton's Philipsburg Proclamation of 1779. The idea behind both declarations was to encourage the slaves to desert their masters and come over to the British cause on the promise of freedom and free land at the end of the war. Lord Dunmore's Proclamation met with only limited success because it required the slaves to actually join the fighting forces and bear arms. It was unlikely that any married slave would desert his family and leave them to the mercy of an infuriated master. Four years later, Sir Henry Clinton's proclamation solved this dilemma by making the same offer to any slave who came over to the British side and pursued "any occupation which he shall think proper." The offer applied to males and females and included the slave's family.

Clinton's proclamation was very successful. It is estimated that about 100,000 slaves, often whole families, deserted to the British. Black slaves proved extremely useful to the British. In addition to the thousands who actually saw military action, many were employed as blacksmiths, coopers, tailors, carpenters, bakers and guides. Slaves were especially important as guides. Many knew the country intimately (especially the back roads, swamps, rivers and streams) and were invaluable to the British.

Just what did the termination of hostilities mean for slaves who had taken advantage of the Dunmore and Philipsburg Proclamations? After all, the British were the losers and hardly in a position to dictate terms. Suffice to say, it presented the British with a real dilemma. General Carlton, the new British commander who replaced Clinton, knew that the Treaty committed his country to returning all slaves to their former owners, a policy totally at odds with the promises of Dunmore and Clinton, and he resolved to remedy the situation. The Americans, intending to enforce the provisions of the peace treaty relating to return of slaves, demanded their slaves back as “property” and were not interested in any British commitment to free the slaves and grant them land. General Washington met General Carleton at Orangetown, New York on May 6, 1783 and determined to force his will on the British general and return the slaves. Carlton, to his immense credit, refused to honor the provision of the peace treaty that required return of the slaves to their former owners. He insisted that the British commitment be honored and he pledged the honor of the British Parliament to grant compensation to the slave owners if his stand was not upheld. He refused to give in to the pressure from Washington, in itself a formidable task.

There were thousands of blacks in New York claiming freedom. In order to settle the claims a commission was set up to hear the cases. The commission, under the supervision of General Samuel Birch, consisted of three British and two American officers. They met twice weekly at the famous, and still standing, Fraunces' Tavern, in lower Manhattan to hear and decide the cases of those blacks who claimed to "qualify" under the terms of the proclamations. One can only imagine the heartrending scenes that transpired, as hundreds of poor, uneducated, and inarticulate blacks seeking to produce evidence faced hostile and demonstrative masters who poured into the city from all over the south, demanding their "property" back. The actual records still exist and copies of the hearings are lodged with the New York Public Library. Each decision is written in longhand. There were no "pro bono" lawyers or a "Legal Aid Society" to represent them. Doubtless, many of those entitled to freedom lost their cases. Many worthy blacks were spirited away by former masters and returned to slavery without a chance to present their cases.

The approximately 3,000 slaves that qualified were transported to Nova Scotia to begin a new life along with roughly 27,000 white Loyalists. They landed in Birchtown [named after Samuel Birch] in the spring and summer of 1783, full of hope and the expectation to begin a wonderful new life as free men and women.

The story should have ended there with a happy conclusion for these brave colonists. Unfortunately, it did not. Most of the good land was deeded to the 27,000 white Loyalists who fled to Nova Scotia. Priority was given to those who lost the most "property" in the revolution, and, of course, none of the blacks had any property to lose, so they came at the end of the line. After seven years of suffering, approximately one-third of the black settlers accepted an offer to create a new colony by the name of Sierra Leona in Africa, and sadly they returned to their native land.

Descendents of the two-thirds of the Black Loyalists who came to Nova Scotia and did not return to Africa are still living in Nova Scotia. Their remarkable history is recorded in the Black History Museum located in Shelburne, Nova Scotia. This author has twice visited the Museum and interviewed some of the descendents. Anyone interested in reading more about the Black Loyalists should consult the two best books The Black Loyalists, by James W. St. G. Walker and The Loyal Blacks by Ellen Gibson Wilson.


Sierra Leone

In 1790, Thomas Powers carried a petition of protest to London from the Nova Scotia black Loyalists. The British government responded by offering free passage to Sierra Leone to blacks who wanted to leave Canada. Peters' story attracted the attention of the Sierra Leone Company through Granville Sharp a famed abolitionist and philanthropist. The company was working to establish a settlement in Sierra Leone, but badly needed new settlers to rebuild the destroyed settlement. The company offered Peters and his followers a new promised land in the 'Province of Freedom'.


Paul Cuffee, a wealthy Black or mulatto Quaker and New England shipowner and activist, was an early advocate of settling freed blacks in Africa. He gained support from black leaders and members of the US Congress for an emigration plan. In 1811 and 1815-16, he financed and captained successful voyages to British-ruled Sierra Leone, where he helped African-American immigrants get established. Although Cuffee died in 1817, his efforts may have "set the tone" for the American Colonization Society (ACS) to initiate further settlements. The ACS was a coalition made up mostly of Quakers who supported abolition, and slaveholders who wanted to remove the perceived threat of free blacks to their society. They found common ground in support of so-called "repatriation". They believed blacks would face better chances for full lives in Africa than in the U.S. The slaveholders opposed abolition, but saw repatriation as a way to remove free blacks and avoid slave rebellions. From 1821, thousands of free black Americans moved to Liberia from the United States. Over 20 years, the colony continued to grow and establish economic stability. In 1847, the legislature of Liberia declared the nation an independent state. By 1867, the ACS had assisted in the movement of more than 13,000 Americans to Liberia.



There were many schemes to relocate Black Americans to Africa, all of which failed miserably - because the majority of Black Americans were not Africans.


Please note: African-American is a "Modern" term and is a misnomer.

The etymology of the term is as follows:


A) Isolated instances from at least 1863 (Afro-American is attested in 1853, in freemen's publications in Canada), but the modern use is a re-invention first attested 1969 (in reference to the African-American Teachers Association) which became the preferred term in some circles for "U.S. black" (noun or adjective) by the late 1980s.

B) For centuries, the question of what to call certain ethnic groups raged on in newspapers. In the case of black people, the terminology decided upon by the dominant white majority was "Negroes"-- but there were some people of both races who did not like that term. Thus, in some newspapers of the late 1800s and early 1900s, you would see such terms as "colored"-- as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded in 1909. You would also see the term "Afro-American," which was the name of a popular black newspaper that was published in Baltimore beginning in 1892; this term was intended to recall the fact that most black people had African ancestry. In fact, we can find the term "African-American," as far back as 1899, although it does not seem to have been in popular use yet.

C) A poem by the name of "I Can" popularized the term African American in 1987. The poem was written by Johnny Duncan. It appeared in The 1987 Black History Calendar, and all subsequent editions through 1993. Jesse Jackson saw a copy of the poem in 1989 Black History Calendar that Duncan sent to Mrs Coretta King. Jackson then collaborated with Ramona Edelin and others and made the push to use the term Afr-i-can Amer-i-can. Johnny Duncan, when he created the term, defined African Americans as "the children of the descendants of the African Diaspora who inhabit the Americas", not just the United States.

Blacks in the U.S. are undoubtedly mostly of European extraction. The data to support that conclusion is already plentiful and available in these pages. The reason this is not generally known and accepted: is because the entire civil rights movement in the U.S. was based on all U.S. Blacks being one people, with one background (Africa), and one experience (Slavery). The racial cohesion and unity needed for a mass movement, was thus satisfied with these imbedded and untrue beliefs. Another obvious fallacy is that all U.S. Blacks were Slaves. Actually about 16-20% or even more, were always free, and in that group there were Slave owners. As we can see from the 1850 U.S. census, Whites were also Slaves.


Note that the false term "African American" is used exclusively by the Schomburg center for Black research, in the following piece on Black relocation schemes.



African Americans' interest in colonization was engendered by the dramatic increase in restrictions placed on them during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The slave system in the South was progressively intensified. The region's agriculturally derived economic prosperity depended on slavery: one-third of its population consisted of African-Americans in bondage. Throughout the South, laws were passed that prohibited their manumission.

Meanwhile, rising racism made conditions for Northern blacks more oppressive. The growth of the free black population - 500,000 by 1860 - was yet another factor in the effort to keep the nation's African Americans on an ever-tightening leash. They faced voting restrictions and were, for all intents and purposes, excluded from the justice system. By the 1830s, state and federal regulations, popular pressure, and social custom had dispatched them to the very bottom rungs of the social, economic, and political ladders.

In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the constitutional amendments giving them citizenship and voting rights led many African Americans to hope they would finally be integrated into American society; but by the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white Northerners' interest in the problems of recently freed slaves had cooled. The return of the Democratic Party to power in the South was accompanied by mounting Ku Klux Klan violence and intimidation.

Ways were found - election fraud, poll taxes, confusing balloting schemes, and suffrage disqualification - to nullify black political strength. Supreme Court decisions declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional and upholding legal segregation sped up the process of black subordination. The federal government also enacted immigration and naturalization laws that effectively limited citizenship to whites.

In the South, African Americans were relegated back to the farm and, with little or no money to buy land, they had no choice but to work as tenant farmers or sharecroppers on white-owned property or as agricultural laborers earning meager wages. By the turn of the twentieth century, only 20 percent of African Americans owned their property and were able to maintain some small degree of independence.

Though people had continuously struggled against bias and oppression, there were always some who believed that ameliorating their condition was ultimately impossible. They favored emigration, and some advocated the establishment of colonies in Africa.

The first known colonization effort took place in Sierra Leone, home to the Temne, Mandingo, Fulani, Bullom, and Kru people. The original settlers, 450 destitute black men and women from England, called the Black Poor, arrived in 1787. In 1792, they were joined by twelve hundred Black Loyalists from Canada - former U.S. bondsmen who had fought alongside the British Army during the Revolutionary War - who were dissatisfied with conditions in Nova Scotia, where they had been sent. Jamaican Maroons, runaways who had been deceitfully deported to Canada after they had signed a peace treaty with the British, followed them in 1800.

In its early years, the settlement was governed by the Sierra Leone Company, an organization founded by British humanitarians with the goal of developing agricultural and other products for trade with England. Its population rapidly increased after 1807 with Africans recaptured from slave ships following the British and American abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. These "recaptives" or Liberated Africans came from throughout western, central, and southeastern Africa. About 58,000 were eventually settled in Sierra Leone.

African-American involvement in Sierra Leone began in 1811 when Paul Cuffee, a prosperous black and American Indian Quaker, ship owner, and lifelong campaigner for black people's rights, set sail from Massachusetts for Freetown with a crew of nine African-American seamen. The journey came in response to an invitation from England's Royal African Society to visit the colony.

While there, Cuffee decided to develop trade between blacks in England, Sierra Leone, and the United States. He also began to consider the possibility of relocating skilled African Americans to the colony, and founded the Friendly Society of Sierra Leone to put his ideas into practice. In 1815, he took thirty-eight emigrants to the colony. Among them were a Senegalese who had migrated from Haiti, and a Congolese. This would be the first migration of African Americans from the United States to Africa.


Though Sierra Leone would continue to receive African-American immigrants over the years, their primary destination soon became Liberia, the country of the Vai, Kru, Kissi, Grebo, Bassa, Kpelle, Mandingo, and other populations. The controversial American Colonization Society (ACS) helped them in this endeavor.

It was founded in 1816 with the expressed aim to colonize free African-Americans in Africa or wherever else it saw fit. An organization with mostly white members and supporters, many of whom were slaveholders, the ACS did not gain widespread support among African Americans, who saw it as a means by which whites hoped to deport free blacks. Nonetheless, some people, dissatisfied with their lives in the United States, sought help from the society. Its first vessel, the Elizabeth, set sail in 1820 with some eighty migrants on board. They were unable to acquire land in Liberia and took refuge in Sierra Leone.

A year later, the ACS was successful in obtaining acreage, and a ship carrying thirty-three African Americans landed at Cape Mesuardo - later to become Monrovia, after U.S. President James Monroe.

Over the course of the nineteenth century, the ACS transported an estimated sixteen thousand migrants to Liberia. The migration peaked between 1848 and 1854; during this period, the ACS chartered forty-one ships, carrying over four thousand colonists to new lives in a new land. Most were free blacks who had either lived in the North all their lives or had been born in the South and later moved across the Mason-Dixon Line.

They came from almost all the Southern states and from as far west as Colorado. Many of the Southern migrants were born free, but a large number had been freed from enslavement on the expressed condition that they leave the United States.

Gen. Robert E. Lee freed most of his slaves before the Civil War. He offered to pay the expenses of those, like William and Rosabella Burke and their children, who wanted to go to Liberia. Burke went to the seminary in Monrovia and became a Presbyterian minister in 1857. A year later, he wrote a friend back home:

Persons coming to Africa should expect to go through many hardships, such as are common to the first settlement in any new country. I expected it and was not disappointed or discouraged at any thing that I met with; and so far from being dissatisfied with the country, I bless the Lord that ever my lot was cast in this part of the earth.

In a letter to Mary Custis Lee, Rosabella Burke noted, "I love Africa and would not exchange it for America."

The colonists were predominantly male, and often traveled in family groups. Many were under twenty years old. During the 1820-1828 period, women made up 43 percent of those going to Liberia. Freeborn migrants were mostly artisans, involved in agriculture in some way, or skilled and unskilled laborers; a few were professionals.

As the nineteenth century progressed, an increasing number came from the middle and professional class.

The migration was not always without problems - many prospective settlers died en route. They succumbed to fevers, tuberculosis, pleurisy, and other lung diseases. The primary reason for African Americans to seek freedom through emigration was their perception that there was no other alternative to a hopeless situation. But they also came to Africa because it was the land of their ancestors. Another reason was that the American Colonization Society paid their passage. Most could scarcely have afforded it and would have remained in the United States had the society not paid their way.

In the early years the ACS ran Liberia's government, but the settlers soon demanded control of their own affairs. In 1837 the Commonwealth was formed, and virtually all power devolved to the emigrants. The society retained only the right to choose the governor. A decade later, Liberia became an independent nation, and in 1848, Joseph Jenkins Roberts - a Monrovia merchant who had emigrated from Virginia twenty years earlier - was elected president.

Even as they left the United States behind, the colonists made concerted efforts to create a sort of "little America" in their new surroundings. They spoke English, and their manners, clothing, and even the construction of their homes reflected their previous place of residence. They were not always welcome in Liberia. Heavily influenced by Christian values, many exhibited a missionary zeal toward the indigenous Africans. They wished to "civilize" and Christianize people whom they often perceived as "heathen savages."

Emigration to Africa continued on a small scale into the twentieth century.

Between 1890 and 1910, some one thousand African Americans immigrated to Liberia. In 1913, sixty Oklahomans settled in the Gold Coast under the leadership of Chief Alfred Sam.

Though small in number, these efforts were not insignificant, as in most cases they represented self-initiated migrations, heavily influenced by nationalist ideas. Although individuals continued to migrate to the continent, there were few organized movements. Events in Africa itself may have been the reason. The 1884 partition of the continent resulted in full-scale domination by Europe. African nations, with the exception of Liberia and Ethiopia, came under European rule. In this climate, it was difficult for African Americans to consider emigration schemes.



Vai Women

When the African-American settlers arrived in Liberia, the Vai were one of the first indigenous populations they encountered. The Vai were a mostly Muslim, Mande-speaking people who had migrated to the Atlantic coast from the region that is now Guinea at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Vai are best known for having created a written alphabet for their language in 1833.




Mandingo Men

The Mandinka (known as Mandingo in English) are an ethnic group populating many countries of West Africa, including Sierra Leone and Liberia. Renowned for their skills in commerce, they had, centuries ago, established a widespread and efficient trading network. The missionary efforts of the American Christians did not sit well with these early converts to Islam, who protested the establishment of Christian schools.




Joseph Jenkins Roberts

Joseph Jenkins Roberts (1809 - 1876) was born free in Norfolk, Virginia. He began his career as a trader, and immigrated to Liberia in 1829. After four years, he became the lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth, and later the first black governor of Liberia. When the country gained independence in 1847, he became its first president. He achieved international recognition for acquiring sufficient funds to purchase land west of Cape Mount in order to prevent slavery within the nation. In 1856, he left public office and devoted his talents and energies to establishing and administering Liberia College. By the 1860s, many European countries had recognized Liberia as the first republic in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1862, during the tenure of Abraham Lincoln, the United States recognized Liberia as an independent nation. Roberts reclaimed the presidency in 1872 and served until his death in 1876.




Because of its association with the ACS, many African Americans opposed Liberian emigration. Other sites were proposed - Central America, the Caribbean islands, the Niger Valley, Canada, and Haiti. For a short while, Haiti proved the most popular of these alternatives.

The first black republic and the second country to gain independence, under the leadership of François Dominique Toussaint L’Ouverture, Haiti had served as a place of asylum for runaways and free men and women over the years. This fact, plus its proximity to the United States and its history of self-liberation and Christianity, made the island attractive to black proponents of emigration. They stressed that since it was so close, emigrants would not be abandoning their enslaved brothers and sisters. White advocates saw Haiti as another site to which undesirable free blacks could be deported.

In 1824, the New York Colonization Society received a commitment from Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer to pay the passage of U.S. emigrants. Boyer also promised to support them for their first four months and to grant them land. The same year, African-American leaders, including wealthy Philadelphia businessman James Forten and Bishop Richard Allen, formed the Haytian Emigration Society of Coloured People. They arranged for the transportation of several hundred people, not only to Haiti but also to Santo Domingo, the Spanish-speaking western part of the island of Hispaniola that had been conquered by Haiti in 1822.

New efforts to settle African Americans in Haiti were launched in the mid-nineteenth century. Emperor Faustin Soulouque and James Theodore Holly entered into discussions in 1855 on the settling of African Americans in the island state. After Soulouque was deposed, the new President, Nicolas Fabre Geffrard, appointed his own representative, James Redpath, a white American reporter, as General Agent. His mission was to attract immigrants to the island.

One of Redpath's agents was Holly, who emerged as the leading advocate of Haitian emigration. He believed that African Americans could profoundly influence the development of the Haitian Republic:

Our brethren of Hayti, who stand in the vanguard of the race, have already made a name, and a fame for us, that is as imperishable as the world's history. . . .It becomes then an important question for the negro race in America . . .to contribute to the continued advancement of this negro nationality of the New World until its glory and renown shall overspread the whole earth, and redeem and regenerate by its influence in the future, the benighted Fatherland of the race in Africa.

In the early 1860s, partly as a result of Holly's relentless proselytizing, African American interest in colonization increased. Haiti's president, Fabre Geffrard, hoping to ease the island's labor shortage, promoted policies that encouraged immigration but were not as generous as those offered in the 1820s.

In March 1861, Holly sailed to Haiti with 111 migrants from Connecticut and Canada. During the course of the year, several other journeys brought 800 more to the island. Most were unprepared for life in a different environment. Many complained about the climate and the language barrier, and expressed contempt for Vodou and Catholicism. Haitians were often suspicious of the immigrants, whom they described as lazy and uncooperative. Most immigrants, who came from American cities, did not want to work on farms and sold the land they had received for free in order to settle in the urban centers, where they could not find work. In addition, the government's subsidy policy depleted the country's already minimal treasury by funding emigrants who often left after their four months were over. The majority of the Americans returned home, but others kept on arriving.

President Abraham Lincoln had for some years advocated the removal of freed slaves as a partial solution to the nation's "race problem." In 1863, he supported the transportation of 453 men and women - most were former bondspeople from Virginia - to L'Ile-à-Vache, an island off the Haitian coast. The experiment failed due to inadequate planning and poor leadership. In less than a year, the survivors were returned to the United States.

Many Americans, black and white, were opposed to Haitian immigration. Their attacks were not as strong as those against Liberia, mainly because it was a movement initiated, for the most part, by African Americans. In fact, the 1854 National Emigration Convention actually endorsed Haitian immigration. But the opponents of Haiti were numerous. Frederick Douglass, who was opposed to emigration but had finally encouraged the Haitian movement, later abandoned the cause.

Widespread migration to Haiti never materialized. Estimates of the number of African Americans who made the trip range from eight thousand to thirteen thousand, but most returned to the United States. Unlike the situation in Liberia, the island's fairly large but mostly transient African-American community left no lasting evidence of its presence.





Other Caribbean islands

Other Caribbean islands were also proposed as possible destinations, and small numbers of African Americans did immigrate to various colonies.

In the aftermath of the 1812 war between the United States and Great Britain, several hundred African-American soldiers who had sided with England were sent to the southern part of Trinidad. They received sixteen acres of land and quickly became assimilated into Trinidadian society. Between 1839 and 1847, another 1,301 Americans migrated to the island.

Several hundred people moved to Mexico in 1894 as part of a development scheme established by W. H. Ellis, an African-American businessman from Texas.

Ellis later went to Abyssinia (Ethiopia), hoping to arrange for black migration to that country, but nothing appears to have come of it.

Canada's first critical mass of African-American immigrants comprised five thousand free and enslaved Loyalists. Most had fought alongside the British during the American War for Independence, while a third had been brought by their British owners.

After the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain, about two thousand African Americans crossed the border. Long a safe haven for American runaways, Canada became a land of immigration for free African-Americans after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 put them at risk of being fraudulently sold into slavery. Canadian migration was advocated by Theodore Holly, Henry Bibb - a runaway who founded the newspaper The Voice of the Fugitive - and Mary Ann Shadd, editor of the Provincial Freeman.

By the mid-nineteenth century, the country had about forty black settlements, but it is estimated that thirty thousand black Canadians left during and after the Civil War to fight with the Union Army and be reunited with their families.

Immigration to Canada was revived in the twentieth century when over a thousand African Americans settled in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta between 1905 and 1912.

Some arrived from Kansas and Texas, but most came from Oklahoma. The latter left behind a state where racial violence and segregation were on the rise, and where their right to vote had been largely taken away in 1910. Many had moved there from the Deep South to escape racism and discrimination, and once again, they were ready to pack up and leave in search of freedom.

Henry Sneed, an African American from Texas who had migrated to Oklahoma, organized the first group of 194 Canadian settlers. They left with nine railroad carloads of farm implements and livestock. But the movement north stopped in 1912 because of growing opposition from Canada's government and citizens, as well as anti-emigration black advocates.

The Rev. Henry Highland Garnett and Martin R. Delany, both prominent abolitionists, did much to advance the colonization/emigration movement. In 1858, Garnett formed the African Civilization Society with the aim of encouraging the concept of Black Nationalism. Though initially opposed to emigration, he came to the conclusion that African Americans had little chance of attaining true independence in their country. Blacks returning to Africa, he argued, could benefit continental Africans by bringing "civilization" and Christianity while gaining freedom for themselves.

Garnett countered the argument that emigrationists were abandoning their enslaved comrades by stating that although he was totally opposed to that institution, "No man should deprive me of my love for Africa, the land of my ancestors." He also advocated migration to the Caribbean islands and spent several years as a missionary in Jamaica. In November 1882, Henry Highland Garnett, by then an old man, immigrated to Liberia, where he died soon after.



Born into slavery in Maryland, Henry Highland Garnett (1815 - 1882) escaped to New York with his father at the age of nine. An active abolitionist, he supported emigration and was a missionary for the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in Jamaica in the 1850s. He advocated the immigration of African Americans to the island, but was opposed in this by Frederick Douglass. Returning to the United States, Garnett—who was an agent of the Haitian Emigration Bureau—actively sponsored immigration to Haiti and Africa, and was a founding member of the African Civilization Society.



Martin Robison Delany was, perhaps, an even more forceful proponent of Black Nationalism than Garnett. He was a journalist, firebrand abolitionist, and one of Frederick Douglass's closest friends. Douglass said of him, "I thank God for making me a man, simply, but Delany always thanks Him for making him a black man." After a short and unpleasant stay at Harvard Medical School, Delany published The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States (1852), supporting black emigration.

Vigorously opposed to the American Colonization Society because it was created by white men, he was an unbending advocate of black autonomy and self-reliance. Delany proposed the Caribbean islands, Canada, and Central America as alternative sites to Liberia. In 1859, he went to Africa to explore emigration possibilities and negotiated for an American settlement in Abeokuta (Nigeria), but nothing came of his effort. In 1877, Delany established the Liberian Joint Stock Steamship Line. The company's only voyage came a year later, when the ship Azor, carrying 206 migrants, sailed from Charleston to Liberia.

Martin Robison Delany

Determined to provide her son with an education, Pati Delany, a free woman whose parents were born in Nigeria, moved her family from Virginia to Pennsylvania. By 1838, her son Martin (1812 - 1885) was a fervent anti-slavery activist who championed the importance of African heritage and self-reliance. Slavery and racial discrimination induced Delany to advocate emigration. In 1852, he published The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States, which suggested that blacks leave for Central and South America. In 1856, Delany moved to Chatham, Canada. In 1859, he traveled to West Africa and negotiated land treaties to establish a colony in Abeokuta, in present-day Nigeria. The commencement of the Civil War disrupted his plans. By the end of the war, Delany became a major, making him the highest-ranking black officer of the Civil War. He held numerous political positions, including member of the Republican State Executive Committee, lieutenant colonel in the state militia, and agent for the Freedmen's Bureau during Reconstruction.





Edward Wilmot Blyden, born in St. Thomas in what was then the Danish Virgin Islands, immigrated to Liberia in 1851. He eventually became president of Liberia College. Blyden was convinced that the only way his people could gain the world's respect was by building progressive new "empires" in Africa. However, his work on behalf of the American Colonization Society put him at odds with some emigrationists as well as those African Americans who believed their people should pursue a policy of assimilation.

By the 1890s, Henry McNeal Turner had become the most outspoken African-American advocate of emigration. Turner's "Back to Africa" message was well received by many poor Southern farmers. They often endured great hardships in their efforts to find passage to Liberia. In 1876, Turner came under heavy criticism when he became vice president of the ACS. He traveled to Africa four times during the 1890s.

Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization. In 1818, three thousand free African Americans answered a call from James Forten and the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Richard Allen, to convene in Philadelphia. The assembly denounced the ACS's colonization scheme as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country." They expressed the idea that the United States was their home, and though they recognized the inequalities they faced, they maintained that:

if the plan of colonizing is intended for our benefit, and those who now promote it will never seek our injury, we humbly and respectfully urge, that it is not asked for by us: nor will it be required by any circumstances, in our present or future condition, as long as we shall be permitted to share the protection of the excellent laws and just government which we now enjoy, in common with every individual of the community.

Individual African Americans also noted their views on the subject. In 1834 Peter Williams, an Episcopal priest in New York City, objected to the idea that African Americans were best suited to colonization in Africa. "We are NATIVES of this country," he asserted, and "ask only to be treated as well as FOREIGNERS . . . we ask only to share equal privileges with those who come from distant lands, to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Let these modest requests be granted, and we need not to go to Africa nor anywhere else to be improved and happy."

Edward Wilmot Blyden

Born in St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Edward Blyden (1832 - 1912) traveled to the United States, where he gained his first exposure to American racism. After the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, he sailed to Monrovia in December. Between 1858 and 1861, he was principal of Alexander High School, was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, served as the editor of the Liberia Herald, and published numerous pamphlets and essays which suggested that Christianity and European education would enrich neither the cultural nor the intellectual wealth of Africa. In 1861, he made the first of several trips to the United States to encourage African Americans to immigrate to Africa because he believed that American racism was so ingrained that blacks could never be more than second-class citizens. Between 1871 and 1873, Blyden lived in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where he edited the journal Negro. He returned to Liberia in 1874, and ran unsuccessfully for president in 1885. He was appointed ambassador to Britain and France, and later served as president of Liberia College.






Bishop Henry McNeal Turner

Born free in South Carolina, Henry McNeal Turner (1834-1915) became one of the preeminent African-American leaders of the late nineteenth century, an author, and Bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1863, when the Union army recruited African Americans, Turner encouraged them to join. He raised the first black regiment of the Civil War and was the first African-American chaplain in the U.S. Army. By the 1870s, Turner had become disenchanted with the prospects for African Americans in the United States and advocated their immigration to Haiti and Africa. Throughout the 1890s, he traveled to Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and the Transvaal. Upon his return, he published articles in the Voice of Missions and Voice of the People that criticized America, and he urged colonization, stating, "A man who loves a country that hates him is a human dog and not a man."

Bishop Turner on why he supported emigration: "I believe that the Negroid race has been free long enough now to begin to think for himself and plan for better conditions than he can lay claim to in this country or ever will. There is no manhood future in the United States for the Negro. He may eke out an existence for generations to come, but he can never be a man—full symmetrical and undwarfed. . . . And as such, I believe that two or three millions of us should return to the land of our ancestors, and establish our own nation." J. W. E. Bowen, ed., Africa and the American Negro.


The American Colonization Society

The American Colonization Society was established in 1816 by Robert Finley as an attempt to satisfy two groups in America. Ironically, these groups were on opposite ends of the spectrum involving slavery in the early 1800's. One group consisted of philanthropists, clergy and abolitionist who wanted to free African slaves and their descendants and provide them with the opportunity to return to Africa. The other group was the slave owners who feared free people of color and wanted to expel them from America.

Both the these groups felt that free blacks would be unable to assimilate into the white society of this country. John Randolph, one famous slave owner called free blacks "promoters of mischief." At this time, about 2 million Negroes live in America of which 200,000 were free persons of color. Henry Clay, a southern congressman and sympathizer of the plight of free blacks, believed that because of "unconquerable prejudice resulting from their color, they never could amalgamate with the free whites of this country."

On December 21, 1816, a group of exclusively white upper-class males including James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Andrew Jackson, Francis Scott Key, and Daniel Webster met at the Davis hotel in Washington D.C. with Henry Clay presiding over the meeting. They met one week later and adopted a constitution. During the next three years, the society raised money by selling membership using the certificate shown here. The Society's members relentlessly pressured Congress and the President for support. In 1819, they received $100,000 from Congress and in January 1820 the first ship, the Elizabeth, sail from New York headed for West Africa with three white ACS agents and 88 emigrants.

The ship arrive first at Freetown, Sierra Leone then sailed south to what is now the Northern coast of Liberia and made an effort to establish a settlement. All three whites and 22 of the emigrants died within three weeks from yellow fever. The remainders returned to Sierra Leone and waited from another ship. The Nautilus sail twice in 1821 and established a settlement at Mesurado Bay on an island they named Perseverance. It was difficult for the early settlers, made of mostly free-born blacks, who were not born into slavery, but were denied the full rights of American citizenship. The native Africans resisted the expansion of the settlers resulting in many armed conflicts. Nevertheless, in the next decade 2,638 African-Americans migrated to the area. Also, the colony entered an agreement with the U.S. Government to accept freed slaves captured from slave ships.

During the next 20 years the colony continued to grow and establish economic stability. Since the establishment of the colony, the ACS employed white agents to govern the colony. In 1842, Joseph Jenkins Roberts became the first non-white governor of Liberia. In 1847, the legislature of Liberia declared itself an independent state, with J.J. Roberts elected as its first President.

The society in Liberia developed into three segments: The settlers with European-African lineage; freed slaves from slave ships and the West Indies; and indigenous native people. These groups would have a profound affect on the history of Liberia.

Though neglected by historians, the American Colonization Society was vastly more popular with ante-bellum Northerners than abolition societies. Its leading men included clergy, college presidents, and politicians of all parties -- among the officers of the society over the years were Daniel Webster, William H. Seward, Francis Scott Key, and Winfield Scott. It was lauded by the legislatures of 14 states. In 1829, for instance, the Pennsylvania Assembly endorsed the American Colonization Society and agreed that black removal would be highly auspicious to the best interests of our country.

Despite their rhetoric of sympathy for freedmen, the colonizationists' beliefs led them to oppose legislative efforts to procure civil rights for blacks and remove the barriers to work, education, and voting. Such efforts, they said, were only designed to tease an inferior people with hope of an equality that never could be real.

Even white abolitionists at first were sympathetic to the colonization movement. But the plan was rejected, emphatically and early, by black leaders. They protested eloquently that they had been born in America and considered themselves Americans. In many cases their fathers had fought and shed blood for American freedom. They felt no connection to Africa, and sought none. Their focus was on political recognition by the majority in the North and abolition of slavery in the South. They rightly recognized colonization as a movement that would sap strength from the sympathetic portion of the white population, while indirectly thwarting their aims by spreading the propaganda of black inferiority. Most of the blacks who took up the society's offer to remove to Africa were recently freed slaves from the South, who had been manumitted in exchange for agreeing to emigrate.

Without coercion, and without black cooperation, the plan went nowhere. By 1831, white abolitionists regarded the Colonization Society as the black leaders did: as a mortal enemy. Society leaders realized they had alienated the only people who could have made their vision a reality -- free blacks -- by continually describing them as a vicious and degraded race. The difficulties the society faced in Liberia, the colony it created in Africa, further undercut its support. Faced with government apathy and riven by internal conflicts, it faded from importance in the 1830s.

But America's race problems only deteriorated as the decades passed, and in the 1850s colonization, and the society, revived. The movement always had two wellsprings: philanthropy to blacks and a sense that America would benefit from a separation of the races. After the 1830s, the second became the main motive. Whites and blacks alike, frustrated by the conflicts tearing the nation apart, reconsidered an exploded idea. Even some who had been abolitionists wavered. The ending of Uncle Tom's Cabin is an eloquent appeal for colonization. In the 1850s, colonization was urged by the governor of New York and the legislature of Connecticut. The concept was endorsed by the new Republican Party and was embraced by its first successful presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Even some black leaders came to see removal as the only alternative, however undesirable, to eternal repression, poverty, and mob violence in the North.

Henry Clay, a long-time supporter of colonization, made it out to be God's work:

There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence. Transplanted to a foreign land, they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty. May it not be one of the great designs of the Ruler of the universe (whose ways are often inscrutable by short-sighted mortals), thus to transform an original crime, into a signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the globe?

The language of an 1854 newspaper article from Pennsylvania is less elevated, but more typical of Northern rhetoric:

We think we have a proper estimate of the character of the negro, and our feelings towards the race are of the most kindly character. We would elevate them, but not at the expense of the white man. We have no idea of sinking our own race, in order to raise up the inferior African. This country belongs to the white man, and not to the negro, and that, in our estimation, is the purest philanthropy, which seeks to place upon the shores of Africa again, those whom cupidity has stolen from their native soil.

Between the rhetoric of the Northern colonizationist and that of the Southern slavery-apologist, there often is little to choose. They saw the same scene, and differed only in the proposed solution: long-term enslavement and paternalism, or short-term riddance back to Africa. The Colonization societies often were most strident where blacks were fewest. Vermont, with only a handful of blacks, had one of the most active in New England. John Hough, professor of languages at Middlebury College, preached this in a sermon to colonizationsts in Montpelier on Oct. 18, 1826:

The state of the free colored population of the United States, is one of extreme and remediless degredation, of gross irreligion, of revolting profligacy, and, of course, deplorable wretchedness. Who can doubt ... the blacks among us are peculiarly addicted to habits of low vice and shameless profligacy? They are found in vast numbers in the haunts of riot and dissipation and intemperance where they squander in sin the scanty earnings of their toil, contract habits of grosser iniquity and are prepared for acts of daring outrage and of enormous guilt. ... Squalid poverty, loathesome and painful disease, fell and torturing passions, and diversified and pitiable forms of misery are to be found (there).

Some of the Northern states tied the movement to their increasingly restrictive black codes. Indiana's 1850 constitution agreed to contribute fines collected under the new anti-immigration law to colonization. The state legislature later set aside $5,000 toward the cause.

This time around, Africa was not the main focus. Instead, supporters sought to found a black colony in some convenient place in the Caribbean basin. The Ohio state House petitioned Congress in 1850 to set aside some of the land lately won from Mexico to be a home for American blacks. But that idea aroused horror in many Americans who saw such a settlement eventually becoming a territory, then a state, and ultimately sending blacks to Congress. Instead, in January 1858, Missouri Republican Rep. Francis P. Blair Jr. proposed to the U.S. House that a committee be created to seek land in Central or South America for a black colony. Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin introduced a similar proposal in the upper chamber.

Abraham Lincoln was an avid colonizationist. He quoted with approval Henry Clay's words on the topic. He touted colonization in his annual messages to Congress in 1861 and '62, in his appeal to border-state representatives for compensated emancipation (July 12, 1862), and in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (Sept. 22, 1862). In 1861, addressing Congress, he mentioned contraband slaves who had fallen into the hands of Northern troops, as well as the possibility of border states emancipating their slaves. He advocated that steps be taken for colonizing both classes, (or the one first mentioned, if the other shall not be brought into existence), at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, -- whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization. A year later, he told Congress, I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.

In his Speech on the Dred Scott decision (June 26, 1857), he had scolded both parties for not taking up the cause:

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform -- opposition to the spread of slavery -- is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, had his eye on the Caribbean basin, which he, Lincoln, and other cabinet members thought was the ideal place to colonize emancipated slaves. Congress set aside $600,000 for this, and during the Civil War the U.S. also was exploring likely spots in Mexico, British Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica -- not always with the permission of the national governments. Yet the second colonization movement was as much a failure as the first had been. A projected African-American colony at Chiriqui on the Isthmus of Panama fell through. In 1863 some 450 American blacks were settled at Isle a Vache in Haiti, but it was a debacle and starvation and smallpox wiped them out.


Perhaps his most extensive, and infamous, statement on the topic was the Aug. 14, 1862, speech he gave to a group of Northern black leaders in Washington.

This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them.

Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration.

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.

A Voice: Yes, sir.

The President---Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case. But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves.

There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usage of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself, and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race--- something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own.

The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me--- the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.

The question is if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.

The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia---not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days'--- run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel---it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land---thus being suited to your physical condition.

The particular place I have in view is to be a great highway from the Atlantic or Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a colony. On both sides there are harbors among the finest in the world. Again, there is evidence of very rich coal mines. A certain amount of coal is valuable in any country, and there may be more than enough for the wants of the country. Why I attach so much importance to coal is, it will afford an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate employment till they get ready to settle permanently in their homes. If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show; and so where there is nothing to cultivate, and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of with which to commence an enterprise.

To return, you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen, who have an interest in the country, including the coal mines. We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites as well as blacks look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here as elsewhere. If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is whether it cannot be made of advantage to you. You are intelligent, and know that success does not as much depend on external help as on self-reliance.

Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal mines, I think I see the means available for your self reliance. I shall, if I get a sufficient number of you engaged, have provisions made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in the enterprise I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money, but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think, with care, we can succeed. The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but it is true all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, and are more generous than we are here. To your colored race they have no objection.

Besides, I would endeavor to have you made equals, and have the best assurance that you should be the equals of the best. The practical thing I want to ascertain is whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go, when I present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundred tolerably intelligent men, with their wives and children, to "cut their own fodder," so to speak? Can I have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children, good things in the family relation, I think I could make a successful commencement.

I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. There are subjects of very great importance, worthy of a month's study, instead of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you then to consider seriously not pertaining to yourselves merely, not for your race, and ours, for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind---not confined to the present generation, but as

"From age to age descends the lay,
To millions yet to be,
Till far its echoes roll away,
Into eternity."

The above is merely given as the substance of the President's remarks. The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that "they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer."

The President said: "Take your full time---no hurry at all." The delegation then withdrew.




A Biography of Marcus Garvey

By Lisa Vox





Post-World War I Harlem was an exciting place for African-American culture. Poets like Langston Hughes and Countee Cullen as well as novelists like Nella Larsen and Zora Neale Hurston created a vibrant literature that captured the African-American experience. Musicians such as Duke Ellington and Billie Holiday, playing and singing in Harlem nightclubs, invented what has been called "America's classical music" -- jazz.

In the midst of this renaissance of African-American culture in New York (known as the Harlem Renaissance), a recent arrival from Jamaica, Marcus Garvey, seized the attention of both white and black Americans with his powerful oratory and ideas about separatism. During the 1920s, the UNIA, the foundation of Garvey's movement, became what historian Lawrence Levine has called "the broadest mass movement" in African-American history.

Early Life

Garvey was born in Jamaica in 1887, which was then part of the British West Indies. As a teenager, Garvey moved from his small coastal village to Kingston, where political speakers and preachers entranced him with their public speaking skills. He began studying oratory and practicing on his own.

Entrance into Politics

Garvey became a foreman for a large printing business, but a strike in 1907 during which he sided with the workers instead of management derailed his career. The realization that politics was his true passion prompted Garvey to begin organizing and writing on behalf of workers. He traveled to Central and South America, where he spoke out on behalf of West Indian expatriate workers.


Garvey went to London in 1912 where he met a group of black intellectuals who gathered to discuss ideas like anti-colonialism and African unity. Returning to Jamaica in 1914, Garvey founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association, or UNIA. Among the UNIA's goals were the founding of colleges for general and vocational education, the promotion of business ownership and the encouragement of a sense of brotherhood among the African diaspora.

Trip to America

Garvey encountered difficulties organizing Jamaicans; the more affluent tended to oppose his teachings as a threat to their position. In 1916, Garvey decided to travel to the United States to learn more about America's black population. He discovered the time was ripe for the UNIA in the United States. As African-American soldiers began serving in World War I, there was widespread belief that being loyal and performing their duty for the United States would result in white Americans addressing the terrible racial inequalities that existed. In reality, African-American soldiers, after having experienced a more tolerant culture in France, returned home after the war to find racism as deeply entrenched as ever. Garvey's teachings spoke to those who had been so disappointed to discover the status quo still in place after the war.


Garvey established a branch of the UNIA in New York City, where he held meetings, putting into practice the oratorical style he had honed in Jamaica. He preached racial pride, for instance, encouraging parents to give their daughters black dolls to play with. He told African Americans they had the same opportunities and potential as any other group of people in the world. "Up, you mighty race," he exhorted the attendees. Garvey aimed his message at all African Americans. To that end, he not only established the newspaper Negro World but also held parades in which he marched, wearing a lively dark suit with gold striping and sporting a white hat with a plume.

Relationship with W.E.B. Du Bois

Garvey clashed with prominent African American leaders of the day, including W.E.B. Du Bois. Among his criticisms, Du Bois denounced Garvey for meeting with Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members in Atlanta. At this meeting, Garvey told the KKK that their goals were compatible. Like the KKK, Garvey said, he rejected miscegenation and the idea of social equality. Blacks in America needed to forge their own destiny, according to Garvey. Ideas like these horrified Du Bois, who called Garvey "the most dangerous enemy of the Negro Race in America and in the world" in a May 1924 issue of The Crisis.

Back to Africa

Garvey is sometimes said to have headed a "back-to-Africa" movement. He did not call for a widespread exodus from America and other countries to Africa. He did see Africa as a source of heritage, culture and pride. Garvey believed in founding a nation to serve as a central homeland, as Palestine was for Jews. In 1919, Garvey and the UNIA established the Black Star Line for the dual purposes of carrying African Americans to Africa and promoting the idea of black enterprise.

The Black Star Line

The Black Star Line was poorly managed and fell victim to unscrupulous businessmen who sold damaged ships to the shipping line. Garvey also chose poor associates to go into business with, some of whom apparently stole money from the business. Garvey and the UNIA sold stock in the business by mail, and the inability of the company to deliver on its promises resulted in the federal government prosecuting Garvey and four others for mail fraud.


Though Garvey was only guilty of inexperience and bad choices, he was convicted in 1923. He spent two years in jail; President Calvin Coolidge ended his sentence early, but Garvey was deported in 1927. He continued to work for the UNIA's goals after his exile from the United States, but he was never able to return. The UNIA struggled on but never reached the heights it had under Garvey.


Garvey died in London on June 10, 1940, at age 52 after suffering two strokes, putatively after reading a mistaken, and negative, obituary of himself in the Chicago Defender in January earlier that same year, which stated, in part, that Garvey died "broke, alone and unpopular". Due to travel restrictions during World War II, his body was interred (no burial mentioned but preserved in a lead-lined coffin) within the lower crypt in St. Mary's Catholic cemetery in London near Kensal Green Cemetery. Twenty years later, his body was removed from the shelves of the lower crypt and taken to Jamaica, where the government proclaimed him Jamaica's first national hero and re-interred him at a shrine in the National Heroes Park.


Marcus Garveys most notable quote may be:

"This is a white man's country. He found it, he conquered it, and we can't blame him if he wants to keep it. I am not vexed with the white man of the South for Jim-Crowing me, because I am black. . . . I never built any street cars or railroads. The white man built them for his convenience. And if I don't want to ride where he's willing to let me ride then I'd better walk."

(Note: if one Googles that text "This is a white man's country" you will find it, and Garvey, admiringly referenced by any number of Albino supremacy organizations).

Clearly Garvey was ignorant of true history and reality. He Foolishly depended on what his known enemy, the Albinos, had taught him: how many still do the same thing today? But there is also another reality to consider. That is that it is often the ignorant who possess the bravery to lead in the face of imminent danger. It appears that Garvey was just another ignorant Black man who had had enough! He was willing to make a deal with anyone and everyone, to get out from under the thumb of the Albinos.

Though he must be admired for his courage, we must also note his ignorance - his contemporaries did!

Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Manuscripts, Archives and Rare Books Division

The Messenger, March 1923




"Garvey Must Go"

W. E. B. Du Bois, the NAACP, A. Philip Randolph, Robert S. Abbott (publisher of the Chicago Defender), and several other African-American and Caribbean leaders were quite critical of Garvey, whose objectives they found unrealistic, ridiculous, and full of pageantry. They believed he was a fraud and organized the "Garvey Must Go" campaign. It reached its height after Garvey held a secret meeting with the leader of the Klu Klux Klan in June 1922. Garvey had declared, "This is a white man's country. He found it, he conquered it, and we can't blame him if he wants to keep it. I am not vexed with the white man of the South for Jim-Crowing me, because I am black. . . . I never built any street cars or railroads. The white man built them for his convenience. And if I don't want to ride where he's willing to let me ride then I'd better walk." In a series of articles and public meetings, Randolph and Chandler Owen, secretary of the Friends of Negro Freedom - the organization leading the Garvey Must Go campaign - denounced the UNIA leader: "We know Marcus Garvey was a tool and a traitor. Was he also the white man's spy?"









The NAACP began as the “Committee for the Advancement of the Negro Race” by abolitionist type White People

But when Jews saw it's potential for THEIR advancement, they took it over and funded it, with hapless Blacks as their front.

Thus it became: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Jews were not thought of as White at the time).

a African-American Jewish FUNDED civil rights organization formed in 1909



The founding board members

National President, Moorfield Storey.
Chairman of the Executive Committee, William English Walling.
Treasurer, John E. Milholland (right).


Note: no picture is available for Executive Secretary, Frances Blascoer


Inez Milholland daughter of John E. Milholland
Disbursing Treasurer, Oswald Garrison Villard
Director of Publicity and Research, Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois.


The NAACP was incorporated in 1911. The association's charter delineated its mission:



To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens (Jews were not thought of as White at the time); to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

The conference resulted in a more influential and diverse organization, where the leadership was predominantly white and heavily Jewish American. In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African-American. The Jewish community contributed greatly to the NAACP's founding and continued financing. Jewish historian Howard Sachar writes in his book A History of Jews in America of how, "In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise." Early Jewish-American co-founders included Julius Rosenwald, Lillian Wald, Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch and Wise.






Special Dispatch to the Herald - Westport Inn, N.Y., Aug. 17, 1924.

John E. Milholland, Father of Inez

Race Issue Hits Feminist Party: it crops up at funeral for Late Inez Milholland daughter of NAACP co-founder John E. Milholland


Race antagonism was injected in dramatic manner today into the campaign which the National Woman's Party is to wage for the election of women congressmen who will fight for legal equality of the sexes. After a memorial service for Inez Milholland, who died Nov. 25, 1916, while campaigning for suffrage in the West, the delegates marched out of the little Congregational church at Lewis, 12 miles from here, and to the top of the nearby mountain where the feminist leader is buried.

John E. Milholland, her father, had with him three negroes who are his house guests, Dr. Emmett J. Scott, secretary and treasurer of Howard University at Washington, D.C.; Miss Lucy Slowe, professor of the department of women at Howard University, and Mrs. A. W. Hunton of New York City, representing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. None of them had been asked to participate in the program at the grave and Mr. Milholland in the midst of the services, suddenly felt unable to contain himself.

"Friends of Inez," he said with obvious emotion, "I am her father and I want to say to you what I had intended to say until now, as I stand here beside her grave. I feel duty to speak out. If I did not think her spirit would rise up from the grave and say to me, 'Dad, why were you afraid.'"

"And so I want to remind you that in the first suffrage parade, Inez herself demanded that the colored women be allowed to march, and now today we were told that it would mar the program to have these guests of mine speak. I have nothing to say except that Inez believed in equal rights for everybody."

There was a pause as Mr. Milholland finished and leaders of the party talked together in low tones and a suppressed murmur ran through the throngs of delegates.

Then Dr. Scott was asked to say something. "Inez Milholland had the courage to face the application of democratic principles and was not afraid to follow them to their logical end." began Dr. Scott.

"Those who fight for a fresh idea and for a great ideal do not fear to be counted as a friend of the friendless and a defender of the weak, and she was that and more. Howard University holds dear among its traditions the unflinching faith and courage of the woman who in the moment of her greatest triumph, forgot not justice and fair play."

The party workers admitted that Mr. Milholland's outburst had caused them much uneasiness. Mrs. Gatewold Boyers explained why it was that none of the Negroes had been placed on the program.

"We did not want it to go out," she said, "that we were bringing in the colored people. It would be bad politics. We want to try to elect some women congressmen in the southern states, and after all, this is our convention-not Mr. Milholland's."

Miss Alice Paul of Washington, the vice-president of the party, said:

"This was arranged as a demonstration of women and it was no place for colored people to speak. We have invited them to carry a wreath to the grave and their feelings were not hurt."






The Jews payoff came in the 60s and 70s when Civil rights legislation was passed. This legislation, though won by Blacks, and identified with Blacks, did not specify ANYONE! It simply mandated that EVERYONE would be treated fairly without prejudice.

Thus JEWS AND WOMEN who had also suffered discrimination in employment and money making ventures, were now free to enter any job or business they desired. Numerically, White Women were the big winners in Civil Rights legislation.

But Money-wise, Jews were the big winners.

They had been mostly excluded from the big money businesses like COMMERCIAL BANKING - now that they had to be included, they started to take them over. Today most large commercial Banks and Brokerage houses are Jewish owned or controlled.






And what about the poor hapless Blacks who Fought, Bled, and Died for that legislation?


Affirmative action


Unlike Jews and "White" Women, Blacks did not have the educational background or financial resources to participate in the economy on their own. They needed a way to even the playing field until they could build themselves up. The solution was called "Affirmative action".

When it was created, Jews rejected it! Every major Jewish organization opposed affirmative action. They said that it reminded them of Pogrom's. (A Pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews). They said that it would have the effect of excluding them! Over time, they effectively killed it!

They knew that without that crutch for Blacks, they would have the field all to themselves. And they were right! Jewish wealth EXPLODED! And poor Blacks still have their hands out. That little investment in the NAACP, paid off many times over.









The Zionist Organization of America wants to Amend Civil Rights Act to include religious discrimination


When the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it was seen as the main vehicle for ending racial discrimination against African Americans. Now, two Jewish lawmakers are trying to amend the law, in order to have it include protection for Jewish students on college campuses. In the process, they are taking on a heavy historical question: Are the Jews of America part of a religion, or are they an ethnic group?

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Rep. Brad Sherman of California, both Democrats, seeks to broaden the definitions of groups protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in agencies receiving government funding. The lawmakers believe that the landmark legislation had left open a loophole in its formulation of Title VI protections. It prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin,” but does not mention religion.

“We need to close the loophole that allows students to be harassed and threatened because of their religion,” Specter said in a statement. He added that religious discrimination is already prohibited in other parts of the Civil Rights Act, including those relating to employment and housing.

The driving force behind this proposed legislation is the Zionist Organization of America, and the events triggering it took place at the University of California, Irvine, where tensions between Jewish and pro-Palestinian students have run high.

In 2004, after receiving complaints of harassment from Jewish students at the university, the ZOA made an official appeal to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which is charged with enforcing Title VI. The group claimed that UC, Irvine’s leadership did not properly address these events and that Jewish students should enjoy the protection provided by Title VI, since the university receives government funds.

At the time, the prevailing interpretation of Title VI at the DOE was that it also covered religious groups that share ethnic characteristics. But while the investigation was under way, the OCR changed its position and adopted a narrower interpretation, one that recognizes discrimination based only on race, color or national origin.

“When someone shouts at Jewish students, ‘You’re baby killers,’ or, ‘You’re Nazis,’ this is intimidation that is not covered by the criminal law,” said Morton Klein, national president of the ZOA. “If someone turns to a black person and uses the N word, then it is covered. But if he calls a Jew ‘Nazi,’ it is not.”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does not infringe on free speech on campus, but it does require universities to maintain an environment free of discriminatory harassment. Use of racist language, for example, could be addressed by condemnation by campus leaders or through educational efforts.

In addition to incidents at UC, Irvine, ZOA also pointed to other campuses at which anti-Israel activity has left Jewish students feeling harassed. The Specter-Sherman bill mentions several incidents at other universities, as well, including the University of California’s Berkeley campus, where a student holding a pro-Israel sign was pushed and injured. At the University of North Dakota, anti-Semitic slurs were shouted at a Jewish student.

Amending the Civil Rights Act would also provide other religious groups with protection, which, according to sponsors of the new bill, is needed, as well. The sponsors detailed several cases of discrimination against Muslim, Sikh and Hindu students, including a case in which a Muslim student at the University of Illinois was beaten and had a swastika drawn on her locker, alongside the words “Die Muslims.” In another case, a Sikh seventh-grade student in New Jersey faced repeated taunts and harassment from students who called him “Osama.”

But when dealing with these cases, activists and lawmakers had to struggle with frequent changes in policy at the OCR. After turning down requests for investigation regarding the UC, Irvine, case, the OCR agreed in 2004 to broaden the definition to cover Jewish students, too. Then, with the new administration, the policy was reversed again to exclude Jewish students.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was almost entirely about race,” explained Erwin Chemerinsky, founding Dean of the UC, Irvine law school. Chemerinsky added that even if amended, Title VI would do little to stop religious harassment, since it would only make universities liable in case of “deliberate indifference” and that, he said, “is a hard standard to meet.”

The issue was discussed in a recent phone conversation between Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Sherman, who later told the Forward that he is “more than cautiously optimistic” that the Department of Education will readopt the broader interpretation of Title VI. Sources within the DOE said that it would be releasing a new policy statement in the coming weeks.

Sherman also stressed, however, that even if the department revises its policy to include protection for Jewish students, he still intends to go ahead with the legislation in order to ensure that the interpretation of the Civil Rights Act on this issue is not subject to future administrative changes.

A spokesman for the DOE would not comment on the conversation between Sherman and Duncan. As for the proposed legislation, the spokesman said the department does not have a position on the bill.

Tackling the issue of anti-Jewish discrimination on campus also required the opening of a centuries-long debate over the definition of the “Jewish people.” For Jews to be protected under Title VI, assuming the Civil Rights Act is not amended, activists would have to make the case that Jews are members not of a religion, but rather of an ethnic group, or of a group that shares a national origin.

Sherman said the OCR failed to understand that “there is a Jewish people, not only a Jewish religion.” To prove the point, he argued that Jews can be atheists, while there is no such thing as a Catholic atheist. Furthermore, he said, Jews have a national origin, although thousands of years have passed since they actually shared this common national origin. “The word “Jew” is short for ‘Judean,’” Sherman explained.

In actuality, “Jew” is derived from “Judah,” a son of the biblical patriarch Jacob, and the leader of one of the Tribes of Israel. The tribe later gave its name to the southern portion of the Land of Israel.









The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler

Arthur Koestler was born in Budapest, studied science and psychology in Vienna, and became a foreign correspondent for various European newspapers. He covered the Spanish Civil War, and later joined the French Foreign Legion, then the British Army. His most famous novel is "The Darkness at Noon". This 1976 book discusses the ancient Khazar Empire that flourished in the Dark Ages, the seventh to the tenth centuries between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, an area called Caucasia where the Aryans originated. They were wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan. Some took refuge in Eastern Europe and had an impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry.

Part One tells of the "Rise and Fall of the Khazars". Their cavalry was the origin of the word "Hussar". They adopted Judaism to avoid becoming a vassal of either the Christian ruler in Constantinople or the Moslem ruler in Babylon. Previously they worshiped pagan gods. Chapter III tells about their state at its peak. Emperor Leo the Khazar ruled Byzantium in 775-780. The invasions by Vikings or Norsemen affected many nations around Khazaria. The Khazar state disappeared by the end of the 13th century (p.132).

Part Two discusses "The Heritage" after the Mongol invasion. Khazar people migrated to the west (eastern Europe), such as in Hungary (p.142). The Black Death also depopulated the former Khazar heartland (p.144). Place names in the Ukraine and Poland are derived from `Khazar' or `Zhid' (p.145). The Polish kingdom attracted immigrants (p.149). Chapter VI discusses the migration of Jews into Europe since Roman times. The Black Death killed many, and led to the persecution of the Jews.

(Please note: this book is cited only because it confirms that the White people (Turkish Khazars) calling themselves Jews/Hebrews have nothing to do with Jews/Hebrews ethnically. Much of the rest, as with the Aryan nonsense, is in error. Please see the Canaan section of this site for the history of the Hebrews and the Khazars.





Donald Sterling





In a newly released audiotape of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s notorious racist remarks to his girlfriend, he seems to justify his views of African-Americans by noting how in Israel “the blacks are just treated like dogs.”

Sterling is heard at a game complaining to his black-Mexican girlfriend, V. Stiviano, after seeing that she’d posted Instagrams of herself with black former basketball star Magic Johnson. “Don’t bring black people” to the Clippers games, he tells her. “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?”

In the new, 15-minute tape released Sunday by the U.S. website Deadspin, Sterling, 80, is heard telling Stiviano, 38, “You think I’m a racist …” which Stiviano denies. He insists that that’s what she thinks, that he has an “evil heart,” to which she replies, “I don’t think so. I think you have an amazing heart, honey, I think the people around you have poison mind, and have a way of thinking.”

At that point Sterling – born to American Jewish immigrant parents as Donald Tokowitz – seemingly tries to defend his views by putting them in an international context, singling out how blacks are treated in Israel.

Sterling: “It’s the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.”

Stiviano: “So you have to treat them like that too?”

Sterling: “The white Jews, there’s white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?”

Stiviano: “Are are the black Jews less than the white Jews?”

Sterling: “A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.”

Stiviano: “And is that right?”

Sterling: “It isn’t a question – we don’t evaluate what’s right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.”

Stiviano: It’s like saying, “Let’s just persecute and kill all of the Jews.”

Sterling: Oh, it’s the same thing, right?

Stiviano: Isn’t it wrong? Wasn’t it wrong then? With the Holocaust? And you’re Jewish, you understand discrimination.

Sterling: You’re a mental case, you’re really a mental case. The Holocaust, we’re comparing with—

Stiviano: Racism! Discrimination.

Sterling: There’s no racism here. If you don’t want to be… walking… into a basketball game with a certain… person, is that racism?


Stiviano is reportedly 31 years old and was born María Vanessa Perez, according to the lawsuit filed by Rochelle Sterling (more on that later). According to the L.A. Times, Stiviano has also gone by Monica Gallegos, Vanessa Perez, and Maria Valdez.

In 2010, she legally changed her name because she said she had not been "fully accepted because of my race." (On the TMZ tapes, Stiviano identifies as black and Mexican. "You're supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl," says the voice that is almost definitely Sterling. ("And you're in love with me. And I'm black and Mexican. Whether you like it or not," she replies.)
























Click for Realhistoryww Home Page