Hawaii
There is some anti-racist rhetoric in this new DiLorenzo article, but it is not all that bad for a libertarian audience:
“For the past century and a half the Republican Party has gratuitously labeled itself as “The Party of Great Moral Ideas.” The Party of Great Moral Frauds is more like it. The party began as the party of mercantilism, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, constitutional subterfuge, central banking, and imperialism. Its 1860 presidential platform promised not to disturb Southern slavery; its first president supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed “Corwin Amendment” to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery; the party committed treason by “levying war upon the states” (the precise definition of treason in the Constitution) and murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens in order to destroy the voluntary union of the states that was established by the founding fathers. It refused to do what Britain, Spain, France, the Dutch, Denmark, Sweden, and the Northern states in the U.S. had done about slavery and end it peacefully. Instead, it used the slaves as pawns in a war that was about consolidating all political power in Washington, D.C. in general, and in the hands of the Republican Party in particular.
Three months after the War to Prevent Southern Independence ended the Republican Party commenced a twenty-five year war of genocide against the Plains Indians, killing as many as 60,000 of them, including thousands of women and children, and putting the rest in concentration camps. It did this, according to General Sherman who orchestrated this horribly immoral crusade, to “make way for the railroads” that were being heavily subsidized by the Republican Party. It also plundered the conquered South with exorbitant taxes and the legalized theft of vast tracts of property by party hacks for a decade after the war (so-called “reconstruction”), while doing virtually nothing for the freed slaves. It did nothing while as many as 1 million former slaves died of disease shortly after the war in the worst public health disaster in American history. . .
The war of genocide against the Plains Indians was a way of socializing the cost of building the government-subsidized railroads. Having succeeded in eradicating the Indians, the Republican Party next turned to tiny little countries like Cuba and the Philippines to plunder under the usual phony excuse of spreading “freedom” and “the American way” around the globe. The Republican Party claimed to embrace the message of Reverend Josiah Strong’s 1885 book, Our Country, which proclaimed a supposedly sacred American duty to “civilize and Christianize inferior peoples.” They portrayed themselves as one big gang of Mother Theresas, selflessly sacrificing endlessly for the benefit of strangers in foreign lands.
A particularly galling example of this spectacular hypocrisy and dishonesty is the conquest of the Kingdom of Hawaii. By the early 1890s American businessmen had been in Hawaii for many years as corporate sugar and pineapple growers. Encouraged by the Republican Party’s aggressive and imperialistic foreign policy, they sought to get the Party to overthrow the government of Hawaii and make it an American province under their political control. They wanted to turn it into the perfect Hamiltonian corporate welfare state, in other words.”
“The Republican Party commenced a twenty-five year war of genocide against the Plains Indians, killing as many as 60,000 of them, including thousands of women and children, and putting the rest in concentration camps.”
I have no problem with this. The Indian Wars were not corporate driven. They were a direct result of the populist sentiment of white settlers. It wasn’t a war of imperialism, it was a war for Lebensraum for white pioneers. We weren’t colonizing the Indians and using them as corporate slaves as the Spanish did, whites were replacing them all on their own. It the result of the organic growth of a burgeoning people, and was occurring before the Civil War.
Has DiLorenzo ever written openly about race? One gets the view from reading his Lincoln book that he is of the liberal “all are equal” persuasion, but it is not explicit.
DiLorenzo is a libertarian and liberal by default most especially liberal on race
Libertarians generally view ‘racism’ as a form of collectivism and therefore anti-individualistic. ‘Racists’ according to this view attribute certain traits to all members of a race whether their own or a different race. This is of course nonsense. I’ve never met anyone who believed that there were not always exceptions. No one disputes that there aren’t some intelligent blacks and some less intelligent whites. Pretty much everyone I’ve dealt with is concerned about averages and probabilities. There does seem to be broad agreement against ‘racists’ that the exceptions aren’t worth treating differently considering the costs.
The war of genocide against the Plains Indians? Next thing you know he will be using this to justify White genocide going on right now under his nose. He implicitly believes in racial equality and all the anti-White clap trap associated with it.
As Jack Ryan pointed out libertarians are Old Believers, liberals behaving like it was still 1912.
It’s not a matter of intelligence. When the bongo drums start pounding away we really do cluster around people we recognize as closely related family. Colour is a visual marker of close relation or distant relation. I’ve got more in common, most likely, with
a Republican Irishman in Dublin than I do with a Nigerian with a British passport living in London who thinks the sun shines out ElizabethII arse. This is broad ethological identification. In a riot the nig will 9/10 be an enemy.
Although it’s quite possible to bond with someone from another race it’s generally a shallow bond or one that is fragile. People get on until they don’t.
This is about the best you can do as a libertarian.
“They’re racists!” You can bet he’d never label the immigration policies that are making whites a minority in this country as racist or colonialism. Or the far more than 60,000 innocent whites who have been mass-murdered since the Revolution of Hate in the 1960s as part and parcel of a program of genocide. He’s more or less right about the Republicans but I despise people who cheaply fall back on the rhetoric of white-hating genocidal liberalism because it helps legitimize liberalism’s policies and actions.
“….You can bet he’d never label the immigration policies that are making whites a minority in this country as racist or colonialism. Or the far more than 60,000 innocent whites who have been mass-murdered since the Revolution of Hate in the 1960s as part and parcel of a program of genocide….”
The funny thing, is how Sherman is SO GREAT for the North (b/c of the decimation of the south).
Meantime, the way yankees have it, the South is responsible for all ills (them, the Puritans, or the Germans, lol—- one of the three). So, there are people who will blame southerners for slavery AND the indians…
When really Sherman burned everything, impoverished everyone, with “total war,” which did not end for the south ever, then he marched on to the Indians and Hawaii…
DiLorenzo does tell many things truthfully.
Let me add this thought. We should honor both of these warring peoples, our white ancestors and the American Indian tribes who fought in those wars. Although outnumbered and outgunned by the technology of the white man who was saturating their lands, they at least fought back to defend their land and ancestral people and didn’t just lie down and let an alien race displace them. We whites could learn a few lessons from them.
As far as Sherman..today he would have been indicted as a war criminal…His conduct in Georgia outraged the civilized world (Europe). He was the forerunner of total war against European civilians