Shooting of the Day
Out of context: Reply #1387
- Started
- Last post
- 2,776 Responses
- georgesIII-1
seriously, what this poor soul wrote is what most stormy rainbows forum has been spewing for years, sometimes it's words for words bs, I said before that I frequent these forums just to fuck with them, so for those who don't know badhistory, it's a fantastic source for official history..
--
It turns out Li'l Dylann wrote a manifesto, and he's a history buff. The full text can be found here[1] . I am starting this thread primarily to be a place for an open discussion about this document and what it tells us about Dylann's bad understanding of bad history.
Some initial observations:
Dylann writes:
Modern history classes instill a subconscious White superiority complex in Whites and an inferiority complex in blacks. This White superiority complex that comes from learning of how we dominated other peoples is also part of the problem I have just mentioned. But of course I dont deny that we are in fact superior.--- Here he seems to be saying that a history of "white" "dominance" is an objective truth. He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that the history books might be biased in favor of Western civilization or white people, and that this might account for the "subconscious" messages he believes can be found. He calls the resultant white "superiority complex" a "problem" because it promotes complacency.
Dylann continues:
I wish with a passion that niggers were treated terribly throughout history by Whites, that every White person had an ancestor who owned slaves, that segregation was an evil an oppressive institution, and so on. Because if it was all it true, it would make it so much easier for me to accept our current situation. But it isnt true. None of it is. We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths.---In other words, the current (perceived) oppression of whites by blacks is unjustified because it has no historical foundation. Black people were not oppressed in the past, and so we white people do not deserve payback today. As an example, he writes, "only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave." He also claims to have read "hundreds of slave narratives from my state," (which, if true, can only mean that he delved into the WPA Narratives) and has found many cases of slaves who loved their masters and plantations where whipping didn't occur.
Dylann isn't wrong about his statistic, and he isn't lying about what he found in the WPA slave narratives. (I suspect, though, that instead of actually sitting down with these volumes, he read the cherry-picked selections on his white power websites.)
He is right that on the eve of the Civil War, about 25% of white households in the South included at least one slave. Dylann seems to be saying that most white people today do not deserve to be killed and raped by black people (which he interprets as revenge for historical wrongs) because their ancestors' hands were clean.However, many of these poor landless tenant farmers in 1861 took up arms to defend the Confederacy anyhow. They did so because they hoped that they could one day become slaveowners themselves. They also defended slavery by being patrollers, by voting for slaveowners, by renting and marketing slaves, by purchasing slave-produced commodities, and by parroting white supremacist doctrine.
Now up in the Appalachians, where slavery was never especially profitable, there were quite a few poor whites who opposed the Confederacy and the slave system. Important examples are West Virginia and eastern Tennessee. Most of these people were nevertheless white supremacists, and were happy that they didn't live near black folk, either slave or free. The point is that statistics about slave ownership need to be contextualized.
Dylann is also right that that many plantation owners and managers used violence against slaves sparingly, if at all. There was a neverending debate within the Old South about how to manage the workforce. What works better, the carrot or the stick? There were fans of both methods. No one took any surveys. Modern historiography, however, favors the opinion that violence was endemic within the slave society, and an absolutely crucial and fundamental aspect of it. This really isn't a controversial topic. If your master chose not to use the whip, there was always the threat, unspoken or not, that he would sell you to one of the vast majority who had no such compunctions.
---Dylann writes about slave interviews: "Almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life."
Here we need to go into some background about how these interviews were produced. In the 1930s, the Works Progress Administration sent hundreds of field agents around the country to interview former slaves for the sole purpose of recording their memories for the sake of historical knowledge. Few of them had any background in doing interviews, most of them were white, and many of them were Southerners. So you would literally get exchanges like, "Your mistress was good to you, wasn't she?" "Yes ma'am." "You don't remember a lot of whippings on the plantation, do you?" "No ma'am." When a strange white woman appears on your porch in rural Jim Crow Alabama, you are going to be cagey about how you answer her questions. Historians have recognized for a long time that these interviews are problematic, and they have been duly scrutinized. There are over 2000 WPA interviews, and there are deep qualitative differences among them. If Dylann had succeeded in getting his drug-addled mind through 9th grade, he might have learned this.
Another point: there are many accounts of slaves crying at the funerals of their masters. Partly this was to keep up appearances, and was not a manifestation of true emotion. Another reason for tears was that often, the death of a master meant the reading of his will, and the separation of enslaved families among the heirs and creditors.
Dylann knows all about Jim Crow:
Segregation did not exist to hold back negroes. It existed to protect us from them. And I mean that in multiple ways. Not only did it protect us from having to interact with them, and from being physically harmed by them, but it protected us from being brought down to their level.It's interesting how old school Dylann's racism is. This is the classic defense of segregation which you could hear from Bull Connor and his ilk back in the day. I find it striking that this stuff is still in circulation, although maybe some of you who are more in touch with the modern white power movement won't be so surprised. The truth is that segregation, which emerged gradually in the decades following the Civil War, was employed to maintain white power throughout the South. There is no question that it was driven in part by fear of black barbarism, but the real goal was to perpetuate disempowerment, politically, socially, and economically.
Dylann on white flight:
The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities.Here Dylann might have a point about how whites rationalize suburbanization, even in South Carolina. The historical fact, however, is that the number-one reason why whites left the cities from the 1960s-80s was so that they could get away from black people. The triggers were school desegregation, the growth of the welfare state, "forced busing," and rising black militancy. During the famous showdown over busing in Boston, picketers carried signs saying, "We don't want any niggers in our school" and "Monkeys get out of our neighborhood." So not all white people have been coy about their reasoning.
Dylann returns to his observations of the history classroom:
In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we lern [sic] about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first nigger smart enough to open a peanut.Wait, didn't you just say that you were subliminally turned into a white-power activist by the content of your history textbooks? This makes it sound like they're all written by bleeding-heart liberals. You might want to sort this out before, you know, you use these beliefs as foundation for some kind of radical action.
George Washington Carver, by the way, was an agricultural scientist. His main interest was to encourage nitrogen-fixing crops (especially peanuts and sweet potatoes) as a way to repair soils from the damage done by cotton in the Lower South. He founded a research lab and his work generated a buzz in Washington. At the behest of his white colleagues, he testified before Congress in 1921 to (successfully) support a tariff on peanuts. The fact that a black man was testifying before Congress as an expert was controversial national news and made him famous. His scientific work was instrumental in helping the South recover from the boll weevil infestation.
Dylann is not the first racist to make fun of Carver, which admittedly isn't that hard to do since peanuts are a humorous topic. People also liked to make fun of Jimmy Carter for being a peanut farmer, even though he was also a nuclear engineer. However, there's no question that in the history of Southern agriculture, Carver is an important figure.
Dylann loved to visit historical sites in South Carolina, and included photos of himself at these sites with his manifesto. I am having trouble figuring out from news reports exactly what those sites were. The linked article says they were "a slave plantation, Sullivan Island, South Carolina, and the Museum and Library of Confederate History."
This is cumbersome phrasing. The New York Times article on Dylann has now been revised and has dropped its own list of these sites. I haven't been to any of these places. I have my popcorn ready for the embarrassed, defensive reactions of these sites to the news that Dylann learned so much interesting history from their displays. I hope this can open up a discussion about these dipshit Confederate memorials and whether bulldozers should be applied to them.
- I didn't make any sense, in english now: I frequent stormfag forums, what dyllan has in his manifesto is word for word what I have read many times, if you wantGeorgesII
- to learn more about "official" history, there's a sub called /r/badhistory, below a post I copied which dissects the manifestoGeorgesII
- poor soul?bklyndroobeki