Gerald Horne - Counter-Revolution of 1776 - Slave Resistance and the Origins of the USA

Speaker 1: Welcome again, Gerald. It's a pleasure to see you, as always. What's going to take the longest in my introduction, but I promise to keep things short, listing off some of the works that Gerald has written. I won't go through too many, but at the very least, I want people to have some idea of the range of Gerald's work. Gerald is currently the John and Rebecca Morris Professor of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. As Diane mentioned before, he was actually a professor here between 1988 and 1996. I came in 1992 as a dissertation fellow, so I had the distinct honor of meeting Gerald then and being influenced by him then, and I continue to be influenced by him. Before Gerald took his history degree from Columbia in 1982, he was a practicing lawyer. He was actually a member of the National Lawyers Guild, National Conference of Black Lawyers, apart from being a practicing lawyer. Then, I've got to get into some of the books that he has written since his dissertation. The late Du Bois, Black and Red, W.E.B. Du Bois, An African-American Response to the Cold War in 1944-1963. After that, Gerald Everett and the Communist Front, Civil Rights Congress, 1946-1956. Again, I'm just giving you some idea of the range, because if I were to list or to read off the 30-some-odd books that he's written, I'll say a few things about how we used to tease Gerald about, and I feel somewhat bad about that, because there used to be a point when Gerald used to write one book a year, then he got into writing two books a year, then he got into writing three books a year, and so anytime I'd go to some of these These book signings, you know? And Gerald would say something like, Chris, get back to me on this book. And I would say, well, Gerald, if I get back to you, by the time I get back to you, you're going to have like two or three more written, you know? So, I mean, come on. He also did a biography of Ben Davis Jr., Black Liberation, Red Scare, Ben Davis and the Communist Party. Many of us know the book that he wrote on the Watts Uprising, the fire this time, the Watts Uprising in the 1960s. which is a finalist for the Robert Parker Award from the American Sociological Association. Biography of Shirley Graham Du Bois, Race, Women, and the Lives of Shirley Graham Du Bois. Class Struggle in Hollywood 1930-1950, moguls, mobsters, stars, reds, and trade unionists. from the barrel of a gun, the US and the war against Zimbabwe, 1965 to 1980. Race war, white supremacy, and the Japanese attack on the British empire, black and brown. Of course, African-Americans and the Mexican Revolution, which took the Gustavus Myers Outstanding Book Award. Red Seas, Ferdinand Smith, and Radical Black Sailors in the U.S. and Jamaica. I swear I'll finish in a minute. The Final Victim of the Blacklist, John Howard Lawson, Dean of the Hollywood Ten, The Color of Fascism, Lawrence Dennis, Racial Passing, and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the U.S., I could swear that Dave Chappelle did a skit on that based on that book. The White Pacific, U.S. imperialism and the black slavery in the South Seas after the Civil War. The Deepest South, the U.S., Brazil, and the African slave trade. The End of Empires, African Americans in India. Mau Mau in Harlem, the United States, and the liberation of Kenya. Not too long ago, he actually wrote a short biography of W.E.B. Du Bois. for ABC-CLIO. Then, there were a couple of things, Gerald, that were not listed on your CV, that I had to add here. Fighting in Paradise, Labor Unions, Racism and Communists in the Making of Modern Hawaii, Black Revolutionaries, a couple of these books you've seen outside, Black Revolutionary, William Patterson and the Globalization of African American Freedom, Negro comrades of the crown, African Americans and the British Empire fight the U.S. before emancipation. And of course today, he'll be talking about counter-revolution of 1776, slave resistance and the origins of the United States of America. I think in the next couple of weeks, another book called Race to Revolution, the US and Cuba during Slavery and Jim Crow will be out. Earlier today, Gerald told us about six other projects. With most people, when they tell you, I'm working on six other projects, that is typically a ten-year plan. Then, you kind of knew with Gerald, that was probably a four-year plan, so those will be coming out. All jokes aside, and Gerald, this is something that I've long wanted to say to you. Thank you. Thank you. For many of us who work in the area of black folk and the issues that are related to black folk that have a global impact, meaning in a global dimension, in a global application. Your work has just been, you know, incredibly foundational, pioneering, even when it is that we think that we know a subject well. We look at what it is that you have to say about the subject. And so often, we're saying, my God, I didn't even know this, right? It's much to our embarrassment. Sometimes I actually pick up your books or look at what you've written on Google or Amazon, because many of these books, I have to say, are on my to-read list, right? Some I have read, some are on my to-read list. But I'll actually look to see what works you have looked at, because frequently you give us the most update bibliography, as well as dissertations, as well as telling us where it is that the information can be found. So I really feel that you... You give us, give many people a sense of the richness of the variety of black experiences in the world. But in addition, I think in your many studies of not just black folk, but you give us some. a guide or roadmap or even proof of how it is that the study of black people can be used to understand other experiences in other places. And so, in that sense, I really feel that you have taken the study of black people, black scholarship, into the realm of universal history. And I think that, you know, to whatever degree, You want to follow in the footsteps of Du Bois, you have arrived. I would also say that you were talking about a short Paul Robeson biography that you're going to be putting out. I was also thinking that, in many ways, I see you as the Robeson in the Academy. taking some of the specifics of the Black American experience, and discovering in the world other people's slave songs or other people's blues, and using that to be an entry into other people's worlds, and also as a way to understand what it is that other people are facing. So I just want to say thank you. although I do rib you for the amount of work that you have put out. And I will continue to, and I want you to keep on doing it. Thanks so much, Cheryl.

Gerald Horne: Oh, okay. Well, just a technical issue we're trying to deal with here. Thank you very much for inviting me back home. Oh yeah, good. I just wanted the book cover to be present as I speak, since I'm going to be talking about this book. And since the book has been published, it's 300-something pages, and I'm only speaking, I guess, for about 40 minutes, there might be some ellipses in terms of my oral remarks. And this is to remind you that you can always consult the text if you want... further clarification, further context, etc. But it's really a pleasure to be back in Santa Barbara. I spent many pleasant years here, many productive years here. I mean, as I was landing in the airport, I was wondering why I ever left, in fact. I mean, it's so wonderful, and the environment is so pleasant that people tend to be pleasant as well, I think. So, thank you for inviting me. And... I'm gonna be speaking about this book, but when I talk about this book, which is obviously a narrative of the origins of the United States that cuts against the grain, I always feel apologized to, excuse me, feel compelled to apologize. Seriously, I apologize to, the indigenous population in the first place, the Chumash people, the Gabrielino people. I apologize to the Africans, many millions gone. I apologize to the Mexicans who have been dispossessed on this land. I apologize to the people of Asian descent who were interned on this soil. I apologize to all of those who were victimized by a kind of propaganda. And I apologize on behalf of scholars. I apologize on behalf of radical scholars, progressive scholars, who I don't think have done their jobs in terms of explaining how we reached this point. I apologize on behalf of black scholars, who I think could have done more. to explain how we got to this point. Could have cleared up a lot of confusion. So having said that and having done that, let me present to you this thesis and its implications. This is a book that talks about the origins of the United States of America. And it's a book that, unlike previous scholarship in this realm, does not begin the story in the 1770s, because I think that's part of the problem with the previous scholarship, in that when you begin the story in the 1770s, in the run-up to July 4th, 1776, I think you can leave a distorting impression because when men and women choose to take up arms against constituted authority, particularly when odds are great, oftentimes they engage in behaviors that are not necessarily consistent or congruent with their previous behaviors or their subsequent behaviors. What I mean is that if you began to tell the story of the United States or looked at the snapshot of the United States in, say, 1943, when the United States was in the midst of an anti-fascist war – that was compelling the United States in certain kinds of progressive directions, you might be led to believe, as Hollywood films were suggesting at that time, that the United States was a great friend of the Soviet Union, that the United States was a profoundly anti-anti-communist country, You might have focused unduly on some of President Franklin Roosevelt's speeches in 1944, which laid out a social democratic vision for the United States of America. And you might have totally underestimated the depth of conservatism in the United States, which had been the case before 1943 and 1944, and certainly was exemplified after 1943 and 1944. So in order to tell the story of what happened in 1776, the revolt against British rule that led to the formation of the United States of America, I felt compelled to go back a century earlier to the late 70s. And in my telling of this story, the key event is the so-called Glorious Revolution that grips England in 1688. As a result of this, quote, glorious revolution, unquote, amongst other things, the monarchy, the king, is forced to take a step back in terms of power and influence as against the power and influence of the rising merchant class. For the purposes of our story in this book and this afternoon, you should know that as a result of the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688, the king was compelled to deregulate the African slave trade. To that point, the Royal African Company had been under the thumb of the monarchy, and had a kind of monopoly over the trade in Africans. As you well know, Africans were enchained against their will and brought to the Americas in order to become slaves and work in the fields. In particular, producing wealth for England amongst other Western European countries. But as a result of the so-called Glorious Revolution, the African slave trade was deregulated, and that led to what I refer to in this book as free trade in Africans. That is to say, the African slave trade was opened up to merchants of various sorts, private traders of various sorts, as they termed themselves. And these merchants began to descend upon the African continent with the maniacal energy of crazed bees. chaining and manacling and handcuffing virtually every African in sight, and dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean, that is to say to Jamaica and Antigua and Barbados in particular. This, in some ways, is a catastrophic success for the merchants and for London itself. It's a success insofar as it produces enormous wealth for the merchants and those close to them. The profits on the African slave trade are eye-watering, eye-popping, stupendous. In some cases, 1,700% profits. As you may know, those of you who are familiar with the system known as capitalism, there are those who will sell their firstborn for 1,700% profit. Certainly, there were those who had no compunction about manicling Africans for such lucrative endeavors. This African slave trade, as previous scholars have discussed, was in many ways the fuel that provided the takeoff for capitalism. This is a conclusion that has been delivered, for example, by the former prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, the scholar Eric Williams, a conclusion delivered by the Guyanese scholar Walter Rodney in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. And you should know, for our purposes here, that the profits from the African slave trade not only helped to produce sugar and tobacco amongst other crops and profusion, helping to, for example, change the taste and appetites, particularly in Western Europe. But the profits from the African slave trade were also used to develop allied industries, banking, insurance, shipping, et cetera, helping to create the foundation of not only for the system that we now refer to as capitalism, but also for the economy of what is now the leading so-called superpower, that is to say, the United States of America. But the African slave trade, as noted, was a catastrophic success. The catastrophe not only comes in with regard to the lives and families of the Africans that are disrupted and seized and snatched, but in some ways it becomes a catastrophe for their captors. Because as people are dragged across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, it provides something of a demographic nightmare for the settler class in the islands. It creates great disproportions in terms of populations and numbers. In certain areas and precincts of the Caribbean, the Africans outnumber the Europeans 20 to 1. And this creates fertile and favorable conditions for uprisings, for revolts. for liquidation plots, for murders, for massacres, for poisonings, and not to mention preceding shipboard insurrections, all of which helps to generate a certain kind of enmity, not least between Africans and Europeans. A kind of enmity that since we've had no truth and reconciliation commission, a la South Africa, after the end of slavery, not to mention the end or the erosion of Jim Crow, those kinds of tensions have yet to be grappled with in an honest sort of way and therefore still bubbling and percolating. Because of the tremendous explosion of slave uprisings that take place in the Caribbean, this causes many of the settlers to try to depart the Caribbean, despite the enormous profits that are being made. And what happens is that there is a great trek, as I use that term, from the Caribbean to the North American mainland. You may know that before about 1750, London thought that the Caribbean was a more profitable enterprise than the North American mainland. That is to say, the colonies that helped to form the United States of America. With this great trek of European settlers to the mainland, this creates other problems. This is all taking place in the context of competition between and amongst European powers for control of the great wealth that the Americas, particularly the Caribbean, is producing. When the British settlers and the English settlers migrate northward to the North American mainland, they then have to confront and bump up against other European powers. The Spanish in Florida and in Cuba, for example, and the French in Quebec, for example. What happens is that both of these European powers and their contestation and jousting with the British oftentimes begin to ally with the Africans under the Union Jack, under the British flag. You see this particularly in one of the more significant uprisings that takes place on the mainland of North America, which is 1712 in New York City, in Manhattan, where there is an attempt to overthrow slavery, liquidate the settler class, and establish a new polity. The 1712 uprising has French fingerprints all over it. You should also know that Britain has a particular problem in its contestation, particularly with the Spanish. This conflict between these two European powers in some ways takes the cast and the character of a religious conflict, Britain being the leading so-called Protestant power and the Spanish and the French being the leading so-called Catholic powers. Perhaps motivated by religious bigotry, London argues that the Spanish are more prone to place arms in the hands of African troops because so many of the men under the Spanish flag are entering the priesthood because of the strictures of Catholicism. Whatever the case, it's fair to say that the Spanish had begun to arm Africans as early as the 1500s. This puts competitive pressure on the British to do the same in order to contest Spanish hegemony in certain parts of North America, not least of Spanish Florida. And as will be detailed shortly, When London yields to this competitive pressure to arm Africans under the Union Jack, under the British flag, this outrages and enrages the settlers in the 13 colonies that helped to form what is now known as the United States of America. And it's one of the points of conflict that leads to to the revolt against British rule. You should also know that Britain has a demographic problem in and of itself. Even today, Britain only has a population of about 60 million compared to 300 odd million in the United States of America. And yet, as early as the 1700s, it was either building or had established a massive empire, not least a foothold in the Indian subcontinent. And yet it was having to confront and contest other European powers with a relatively not only with a relatively small population, but also Britain felt or London felt that under the Union Jack were other nationals. other subjects who were politically unreliable. We all know about the contested relationship between the Irish and the English, which stretches back centuries, which led many in London to feel that the Irish were not necessarily as a class politically reliable. And indeed, as I talk about in this book, there are examples of the Irish collaborating with the Africans in South Carolina against British rule. There were those in London who also felt that the Scots were not necessarily reliable politically. You may know that Scotland only comes into the United Kingdom as of 1707. In the run-up to 1776, there are many revolts against English rules, they might have it, in Scotland, not least in the 1740s, which is a particularly tumultuous decade. And so, as a result of feeling that Britain's population is not that large in the first place, That there are those who are considered to be British subjects who as a class are not politically reliable. And given the competitive pressure from the Spanish, in particular in terms of arming Africans, Britain feels that it has little choice but to engage in a similar kind of practice to arm Africans. But as you can readily glimpse, there is something of a contradiction to arming Africans to protect the slave empire, to arm Africans to protect African slavery. Obviously, this introduces tensions and conflicts and contradictions that are difficult to resolve. One possible way out, it was felt, was to establish a so-called all-white colony, which takes place, or is attempted, I should say, in what is now the state of Georgia, north of Florida and south of South Carolina. What's curious today is that Georgia, according to the 2010 census, now has the largest population of African descent in these United States of America. So to fast forward, you can see that that experiment of a so-called all-white colony did not work out very well. But it was as of 1733 that this so-called all-white colony was established in Georgia. It didn't work out very well for many different reasons.

Speaker 1: One, it was...

Gerald Horne: Difficult for many poor Europeans to do the hard labor and hard work in the fields. Oftentimes it was easier for them to escape because their phenotypes were not that dissimilar from the phenotypes of the planters. It was also felt by some that by introducing poor Europeans to be poor laborers, that this was introducing class tensions and class contradictions, which it was thought was the province of Europe and that these new colonies should seek to escape that. And that leads me to another story that I tried to unwind in this book, which not only is a story of the takeoff of capitalism, it's not only a story about the origins of the United States of America, It's also a story about what I call militarized identity politics. That is to say, the construction of whiteness. That is to say, how was it that those who were designated on one side of the Atlantic as English or Welsh or Irish or Scots. As they cross the Atlantic and settle into this North American mainland, their identity becomes that of white. And I think it's fair to say that the construction of whiteness, and here I'm following in the footsteps of other scholars, although I do think I might add something to this discussion. It's fair to say that this construction of whiteness helps to explain part of the success, quote-unquote, of these United States of America. For example, if you look at Spanish colonialism, oftentimes Madrid took the position that in terms of their colonists, they wanted those who profess the Catholic faith. And if you have such a narrow view of colonialism, obviously you're narrowing the base, the population base for colonialism. But if your project is whiteness, basically you're appealing to those whose roots range from the Atlantic to the Urals, a tremendously sizable and large population. And when you do this in the context of calling at least a formal ceasefire in the religious wars between Protestant and Catholic, something that is then incorporated into the vaunted First Amendment of the United States Constitution, now under assault, as we saw with the most recent Supreme Court decision on freedom of religion. When you are saying and suggesting that there's going to be a ceasefire, and I'm choosing my words carefully, in the religious wars, you're expanding the base, the population base, for the colonial project. Now, I chose my words carefully because, as I'm sure you know, despite the First Amendment, the United States was a hotbed of anti-Catholicism. for the first few decades of his existence, perhaps well into the 20th century, is exemplified by the travails of the first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, in 1960. And I think we need not discuss the travails, quote unquote, of the first serious Mormon or member of the Church of Latter Day Saints presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, Willard Mitt Romney in 2012. I'm sure we need not to tell the travails of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish fervor, which was also part of the history of the United States of America as it is to this very day. But it is fair to say that there was a formal truce, a formal ceasefire, which was quite pragmatic in the sense that it did expand the base for the colonial project in North America. So this was part of the problem with constructing this so-called all-white colony in the state of Georgia. Another problem was that across the border in St. Augustine, Florida, which bills itself as the largest urban center, or the oldest urban center, I should say, on the North American continent, you had a plethora of armed Africans going back decades, and frequently they were crossing the border to attack Georgia and to go further to attack South Carolina, which brings us to the largest and bloodiest uprising in of the enslaved in British colonial history taking place in South Carolina circa 1739, 1740. Stono's Revolt, as it has been called, interestingly enough, had the fingerprints of armed Africans from St. Augustine all over it. Stono's Revolt in South Carolina also involved Africans who had roots in Angola, Southwest Africa. Angolans, who oftentimes spoke Portuguese, a language, as you know, is quite similar to Spanish, which facilitated the collaboration between the armed Africans in St. Augustine and these Africans in South Carolina. And also, perhaps not trivial, is the fact that many of these Africans in South Carolina were Catholic and therefore perhaps had some sympathy to his Catholic majesty in Madrid. And in any case, his Catholic majesty, in the run-up to Stonewall's revolt, circa 1739 and 1740, had sent emissaries across the border suggesting that if these Africans escaped to St. Augustine and converted to Catholicism, then they too could be incorporated into the Spanish military and could receive other kinds of benefits. So it turns out that by trying to establish this all-white colony, London had not done itself any favors. It had only complicated its colonial mission. This leads to the conclusion that the only way out for London was to oust the Spanish from Florida and the French from Quebec. That is attempted in the 1740s with mixed results. Particularly important here in the 1740s, as we march towards destiny in 1776, is the fact that the British and the Spanish crossed swords in Cartagena, which is part of what we now refer to as Colombia. And much publicity attended the fact that the British forces were shellacked. not least by armed Africans. This shellacking of the British forces in Cartagena also was facilitated by the fact that many of the European settlers on the North American mainland in the so-called Thirteen Colonies were quite reluctant to come to the northern coast of South America to fight the Spanish because they were busily expropriating the indigenous and trying to manacle Africans. This was causing many Londoners to question their patriotism and also to question the nature of slavery and, of course, moving London closer to the fateful moment when it decided to try to abolish slavery in order to deal with all of these tensions and contradictions that I've laid out for you. In the 1750s, finally, London decides to make an all-out push to oust the Spanish and the French from North America. They impose taxes on the settlers in order to fund this effort. This leads to a turning point in the history of North America, if not in world history, which is the so-called Seven Years' War, 1756 to 1763, where London is successful in pushing the French out of Quebec. And as you know, you still have a lingering national question of disgruntled French speakers in Quebec as we speak. and pushing the Spanish out of Florida. But in some ways, this too is a catastrophic success for London. Certainly, it's a major defeat for the Africans because when the Spanish are pushed out of Florida, this removes a rear base from which Spanish Africans could align with the Spanish to attack their mutual antagonists in Georgia and South Carolina. But also as a result of pushing the Spanish out of Florida and the French out of Quebec, this infuriates Paris and infuriates Madrid. And it allows the French and the Spanish to then cut a deal with the settlers, the British settlers in the 13 colonies, to ally in order to push the British out of North America. This particular decision is also facilitated by another momentous event, which is June 1772, Somerset's case. Whereby Lord Mansfield, a Scottish judge by the way, rules that at least in terms of the Sceptered Isles, this part of Western Europe where London rules, that slavery would no longer persist, that it would be abolished. It does not take an oracle or a seer to divine that that decision could be exported to the North American mainland, which was the fear of many colonists. The Somerset case, this decision to abolish slavery that emerges from London in June 1772, infuriates and enrages and outrages many of the settlers. This is taking place as London is arming more Africans to send them to the North American mainland in order to patrol European settlers. This is obviously inconsistent with the settler model of development, which is based upon the relentless oppression and despotism towards people of African descent. Not only that, but they are complaining about the taxes that are being imposed, that had been imposed, in order to fund and facilitate the Seven Years' War that pushed the Spanish out of Florida and the French out of Quebec, supposedly guaranteeing and securing their security. Other events that take place that are important to understand in the run-up to 1776 is that the British during the Seven Years' War not only puts the Spanish out of Florida, they temporarily push the Spanish out of Cuba, but they make a ruling that the slave trade to Cuba would be regulated, which Outrages many of the slave dealers in the Carolinas in particular. They feel that this violates that cardinal principle of free trade in Africans. And then you may know that the settlers had a justifiable reputation of being past masters at smuggling. And this was a way to evade and avoid taxes. And there was one particular case that takes place at the same time that Somerset's case was erupting that is particularly critical in this situation. eventuality. What I'm referring to is there was a ship called the Gatsby off the coast of Rhode Island that's attacked by settlers led by John Brown, who not the anti-slavery crusader, but the man who gave his name to the Ivy League University, Brown University, a major slave dealer. And he was also a leading smuggler, and his attack on the Royal Navy led to his being captured. And as it turns out, a major witness against him is a man of African descent. And this too is infuriating to the settlers who feel this is one more bit of evidence in terms of what they see as a developing alliance between Africans and London against their interests. To move the story further, let me say that another characteristic of this revolt against British rule in 1776 that leads to the formation of the United States of America is what I refer to as the Black Scare. That is to say, the fear that Britain would put more arms in the hands of Africans and that these armed Africans would be used to discipline the settlers. And this fear comes to a kind of fruition in 1775 in the colony that is Virginia, in many ways the most prosperous and lucrative colony, a colony that had a disproportionate number of African slaves. a colony led by men who would go on to play a preeminent role in the formation of the United States of America, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al. And as the anti-colonial revolt is brewing in Virginia, the last colonial governor, Lord Dunsmore, makes the decision, the faithful decision, to establish so-called Ethiopian regiments, regiments of armed Africans, that are enlisted to fight these settlers. And it takes quite a bit to encourage and entice subjects of the crown to rebel against their homeland. And one of the points that I make in this book is that one of the factors that caused so many previously, formally patriotic British subjects to revolt against British rule was precisely this black scare that I argue leads to the formation of the United States of America. Now, this has particular contemporary resonance and contemporary consequences. I end this book talking about the gubernatorial election in the state of Louisiana in 1991, where the Euro-American majority votes substantially for an avowed Nazi and Klansman David Duke for governor. And one of the factors that leads to his not being elected, of course, is a massive turnout by the black vote. But in many ways, the vote for David Duke, given his platform, his anti-black platform, was in some ways a replay of the black scare. I should also point to you a particular passage for those who may have this book in hand on page 262, which I will now cite and read from. I say on page 262 that my deployments of the terms racist in quotes and racism in quotes is intended to invoke the political more than the biological or even the anthropological. If the latter were mostly at issue, there would be little need for these Africans to adopt other black identities. Now, this is in the context of quoting Angela Davis, the political activist, who I'm sure you're familiar with, the contemporary political activist, who talked about growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, and in order to evade the strictures of Jim Crow and apartheid in Birmingham, Alabama, when she went into department stores, she would oftentimes speak French. Or James Weldon Johnson, a leader in the first few decades of the 20th century of the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a leading civil rights organization. In growing up in Jacksonville, Florida, he would do the same thing, except he would speak Spanish, and somehow he felt he would receive different treatment. The same holds true for Raymond Pace Alexander, a black lawyer who spoke Spanish, whose roots were in Philadelphia. I also cite the case of, for those of you who are jazz fans, Babs Gonzales. In his memoir, I paid my dues, good times, no bread. Born Lee Brown in Newark, New Jersey, this US Negro, a noted musician, adopted a Spanish tinge name, Babs Gonzales. in order to, as he saw it, escape the persecutorial fate he felt was the birthright of descendants of mainland enslaved Africans. I'll also go on to quote from a book I wrote about Kenya a few years ago, where the U.S. State Department When Kenya was rising to independence, it was felt that it would complicate relations with Nairobi if Kenyan diplomats coming to Washington, which was then a Jim Crow town, would be subjected to Jim Crow. So they suggested that the Africans wear badges so that they would not be mistaken for black Americans. So the point that I'm trying to make is that, number one, if that racism is a necessary explanatory factor in talking about what has befallen people of African descent in North America, particularly the population we now refer to as African American. But it's not sufficient. It's not a sufficient explanation because if it were wholly sufficient within being able to speak French in Birmingham, Alabama during the Jim Crow era, it would not have helped you at all. What I'm trying to suggest is that there has been a special persecution of the descendants of mainland enslaved Africans, which is not to say that others who are black or of African descent have not faced persecution, but that it is to say that there is a kind of special persecution that we must take into account In the academy, for example, when we talk about African diaspora studies, it must be taken into account politically as well. Perhaps, as some like to say, that it's no accident that two of the highest ranking officials under the U.S. flag thus far have been of Jamaican and Kenyan descent. But it's also fair to say, as I wind up, that when we look at the headlines and we look at the rates of imprisonment of black Americans, when we look at those who disproportionately populate death row and are subject to execution, such as the botched execution in Oklahoma a few days ago, When we scrutinize carefully the poison words of Donald Sterling that I'm sure you're familiar with, when you examine the recent Department of Education study that suggested that black preschoolers are suspended at rates spectacularly higher than other preschoolers, leading to a letter writer writing to the New York Times just a few weeks ago suggesting that we may be marching to a destiny where black infants are segregated on the premise that they may cry louder And he said that, the letter writer said that jokingly, but this may be the path, well, this may be the path that we're on. I say all of this to say that as I wind up this Shirley Kennedy Memorial Lecture about the consequences of the formation in 1776 of the United States of America, allow me to say that the past is not past, it's still with us. And that, as Barack Obama suggested when asked in Malaysia about the comments of Donald Sterling, and he suggested that this was part of the continuing legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, he had a point. I would only go a step further and suggest that in terms of dealing with this poisonous continuing legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, it is long past time to take into account and consideration some of the factors that I've mentioned in the past two minutes, but also to take into account the examples of other countries, such as South Africa, which had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the aftermath of apartheid in order to sort out the destructive and damaging consequences of that particular system of hatred. And we would be well advised to emulate the South Africans and act similarly. I'll stop there. I assume I can take questions and comments at this point. So thank you very much for your attention. And as you're thinking your questions and comments, let me make a few other points. One of the points I try to introduce in this book also are points about comparative history. That is to say that Australia, which I wrote about in the book The White Pacific, has a history, as Australians will quick to point out, that's very similar to that of the United States. But what's different about Australia is that there's much more of a critical history about the dispossession of the indigenous population and the violent implantation of white supremacy. Unlike the rather glorified romantic history that even progressive and even some radical historians have put forward. If you look at Canada, which is something of a control group, since it was also under the Union Jack, but did not have a, quote, revolution, unquote. Yet when you compare Canada to the United States today, Canada, as you may know, has that single-payer health care system that progressive people tell us the United States should have opted for. Canada now, according to objective indices, the working class and the middle class have a higher standard of living than its counterparts and peers in the United States of America. Canada has a progressive party, the New Democratic Party, which has ruled certain provinces that is certainly more far-reaching and more advanced than anything on this side of the border. I should also say that it is fair to suggest that the United States has rescued many Europeans from persecution and from poverty. But I should say in that context that if you look at the history of the Dominican Republic, you may know that in the 1930s, the Dominican dictator, Rafael Trujillo, opened his doors wide to those fleeing persecution in Germany in particular, in Europe in general. Of course, he did so for reasons you may find odious. That is to say that he was, by his own admission, trying to, quote, whiten, unquote, the population. And at the same time that he was opening the door wide to those fleeing European persecution, he was massacring Haitians on the border. I'm sure that even progressive people in the United States, when they would look at the Dominican Republic, they would not necessarily salute Rafael Trujillo for rescuing European refugees without at the same time broadening the context and bringing in some of these other factors that I was just laying before you. But I'm afraid that that's not necessarily the standard or the criteria that's used with regard to comparable situations in terms of these United States of America.