Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts

11/01/2008

Abe Lincoln revisited

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.” Abraham Lincoln


The welcome new blogsite MTWSFH continues to chart, in Howard Zinn fashion, the history of the United States you’re not really supposed to know. The latest posting focuses on the Civil War of the 1860s, exposing the widely held myth that the Civil War of the 1860s was all about abolishing slavery.

MTWSFH states:

‘The real reasons for the slaughter of more than six hundred thousand ordinary Americans on both sides were, in fact, just the same two old reasons for each and every war from the dawn of time until today: the insatiable greed of the ruling class for ever more wealth and power. The northern ruling class, represented by Lincoln, drooling at the prospect of the cash to be made in the kind of large-scale industrialization occurring in Britain, wanted economic expansion, free land, free labour, a "free" market surrounded by high tariffs to protect their own operations and a central bank which would operate strictly in their interests: a nineteenth century New World Order, in fact. The southern ruling class, sitting on their porches sipping their mint juleps as generations of slaves toiled and died to make them ever richer, simply wanted to maintain the status quo.

'The "emancipation" of the slaves was a tactic which had the effect of destroying the power base which the southern ruling class derived from slavery and "freeing" millions of slaves who then became available as a cheap labour for northern factories and mills.'

Just as George “all men are created equal” Washington owned slave plantations and didn’t give a give a bollocks for the true conception of freedom, and just like Davey Crocket and Jim Bowie, the legends of the Alamo, who profited from slavery and in fact died defending their right to continue profiting from that noxious trade, so too with Abe Lincoln, as MTWSFH observes:

‘He opposed integration and intermarriage, did not think that freed slaves should be given full legal and voting rights, and forcefully advocated both before and during the Civil War that all blacks should be deported to Africa or the West Indies.

‘Lincoln’s armies committed countless war crimes and atrocities, burning and looting civilian property, destroying entire cities and laying waste vast areas of countryside. Lincoln imposed a fascist regime within the Union States, making a farce of the Constitution. His regime arrested thousands of critics of his war policies, including dozens of newspaper editors and publishers. Under Lincoln, the writ of habeas corpus, a fundamental characteristic of a democratic society, was revoked, and mail and press censorship was imposed.

‘Only after the Confederate states refused Lincoln’s offer to leave the slaves in chains if they stopped fighting did he issue the Emancipation Proclamation which purported to free slaves in states not under Union control. Slaves in states controlled by Lincoln remained in slavery.”’

A search of the www also throws up these two important quotes:

'I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favour of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.'

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) Also readable here.

'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.'

From a letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862. Also readable here.

Within one month of writing this letter, Lincoln issued his first Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that at the beginning of 1863 he would use his war powers to free all slaves in states still in rebellion (as they came under Union control). Significantly, one year later, in a letter letter to James C. Conkling of August 26, 1863, Lincoln would write:

'I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers….I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union.

'I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.'

With emancipation, the lot of the freed slave did not fair much better. They became not only cannon fodder for the warring capitalists the moment their chains were removed and lowest of the wage slaves in the American industrial proletariat and to an extent still are, often to be used as a bargaining chip by employers during industrial unrest to keep wages low and still denied many of the rights enjoyed by whites and which sparked the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

In April, 1865, during his second term as president, Lincoln gave a speech supporting a form of limited suffrage, for those he described as the more "intelligent" blacks and those blacks who had rendered special services to the nation. One hundred and forty years later that same limited suffrage could be found in the US elections where tens of thousands of black voters in Florida were disenfranchised in the presidential elections that brought George W Bush to power. Federal hearings would later investigate allegations of widespread voting irregularities, with many witnesses described being intimidated by police roadblocks near polling stations and being asked to produce several identity documents before being allowed to vote. Others spoke of being wrongly listed as convicted criminals and thus being barred from voting Moreover, an estimated one million black voters allegedly cast votes that were never even counted.

Eight years after that particular voting fiasco, we are reminded yesterday, via a piece on the Democracy Now website that nothing has changed: Supreme Court Considers Voter ID Law that Could Disenfranchise Thousands of Poor and Minority Voters

24/04/2007

Asylum and Refugee Myth Buster



I provide the following for any aspiring BNP supporters who may chance across this blog.

Myth 1: Britain is swamped with refugees


We're not that popular. Britain is in 10th place in Europe per head of population for asylum applications. The vast majority of refugees end up in the Middle East and Africa.


Myth 2: We are being ripped off


Hardly. A typical asylum seeker gets £5.62 per day to live on. They lose this if they don't live where they are told to by the Government. That's £40.22 per week - roughly 30% below the poverty line.


Myth 3: Asylum seekers are lazy


Our fault. We don't let them work. Many are really skilled and want to work and we have a shortage of skilled workers. The Government has reversed legislation so that asylum seekers are now prevented from working. Home Office research has shown that asylum seekers would prefer to support themselves rather than be supported by the Government, yet the law prevents them from doing so.


Myth 4: They take our homes


As if. When they are given a house or flat, asylum seekers have often been given the ones that are empty; the properties landlords find difficult to let.


Myth 5: We pay more Council Tax because of asylum seekers


Not true. Asylum seekers are looked after by the Government, not local councils. In 1999-2000, migrants and refugees made a net contribution of approximately £2.5 billion to the UK economy, according to The Home Office - worth 1p on income tax.


Myth 6: All refugees are con artists


You decide. Even though the Home Office is being tough on refugees applying to stay in Britain, last year, 40% of applicants were given permission to stay.


Myth 7: One in four come to the UK?


No... That’s reality times 10. In the UK, on average, people think that 23% of the world's refugees and asylum seekers are living in the UK, according to research by MORI. The reality isactually less than 2%.


Myth 8: It is safe back home


Hard to believe. Most refugees come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Iran. All these places have seen serious human rights abuses.

Myth 9: Asylum seekers bring crime to our streets


Ask the police. There is no evidence that asylum seekers commit more crime than anyone else, says the Association of Chief Police Officers. They are more likely to bevictims of violent crime, even murder, because of who they are.


Myth 10: Britain is the Land of Milk and Honey


Not true. Asylum seekers are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits. If they are destitute, the only option for some is to apply for support with theNational Asylum Support Service (NASS), the Government department responsible for supporting destitute asylum applicants.


Myth 11: It is safe back home?


No... It’s not. Most refugees come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Angola, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Iran. All these places have seen serious human rights abuses and some, civil wars. There is a connection between the situation in the home countries of the people who come to the UK for refuge. The increase in positive decisions by the Home Office proves that the majority of the people are fleeing for their lives from harshand oppressive regimes and severe ethnic conflict.


Myth 12: They arrive with false documents?

Maybe...It is virtually impossible for people fleeing persecution to reach Britain without resorting to the use of false documents. Article 31 of the 1951 Convention on Refugees prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. The 1951 Convention on Refugees means that by law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in the UK and remain until a final decision on their asylum application has been made.Myth 13: They’re really well off?No... You decide85% of asylum seekers experience hunger95% cannot afford to buy clothes or shoes80% are not able to maintain good health.(Source: Oxfam and the Refugee Council study of40 organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.)


Myth 14: Asylum seekers are draining millions from the NHS?


No... The cost is marginal. Asylum seekers are entitled to NHS services, like other residents and visitors to the UK. Don't forget the enormous contribution that asylum seekers, refugees and other immigrants make to the economic and cultural life of the UK. Refugees bring with them a wealth of skills and experience.The Home Office has recognised this and has made a commitment to put the skills to good use. The NHS relies heavily on foreign labour. In London, according to the Greater London Authority for example, 23% of doctors and 47% of nurses working within the NHS were born outside the UK."The system is very stretched" says Vivienne Nathenson, Head of Science and Ethics Committee, British Medical Association "and we have a serious shortage of GPs. It adds to the strain but it didn't create it. And if they lived in better conditions they wouldn't need so much intervention from the NHS.The evidence is that asylum seekers become ill after they arrive in the UK. The BMA also estimates that there may be up to 3,000 refugee doctors - a potentially invaluable resource at this time of acute staff shortage."


Myth 15: Employers won’t hire refugees?


No... 90% of employers want to take on refugees. Nine out of 10 employers want to take on refugees to meet skills' shortages, but don't because of their ignorance of the law and the confusing Home Office paperwork, according to research done by Personnel Today.


Myth 16: They get houses and are given new furniture, washers, fridges and cookers?


No... It’s not theirs. Asylum seekers are given support and furnished accommodation until the outcome of their application is decided. The household equipment never becomes the property of the asylum seeker and is reused for the next family. As with most furnished tenancy schemes equipment is new for the first person only. A similar furnished tenancy scheme in public sector tenancies operates for residents in a number of areas in North East England.


Myth 17: Greater London is tops


Around a third of asylum seekers (31%) supported by the Government live in Greater London. The North East is in sixth place in the UK (with 6%), after Yorkshire and Humberside (13%), West Midlands (13%), North West (11%) and Scotland (7%).


Myth 18: They are all issued with mobile phones, leather jackets, TVs, satellite TV and given money for cars?


No... They choose what to buy. Asylum seekers receive up to 70% of income support and like all of us have choices about how to spend that money. A mobile phone can be the only link to family in other countries. One woman living in the North East said she wanted to buy a phone card so that she could talk to her mother in Zimbabwe once a week.


Myth 19: Asylum seekers are uneducated?


No... Most are well educated. A high proportion of asylum seekers have substantial educational and work related qualifications and were successful individuals in their home country. A Home Office survey found that 90% of refugees speak at least one other language and 65% speak at least two, in addition to their first language.


Myth 20: Asylum kids mess up our schools?


No... Says teachers leader: "All the evidence we have is that in some of the toughest schools it is the asylum seekers' children who provide stability, because they are most dedicated to getting the best out of the system.” (John Banks, Head of Education, National Union of Teachers)


Myth 21: North East England has been flooded with asylum seekers?


No... Not true. North East England has a population of about 2.5 million. There are less than 5,000 asylum seekers. That's less than a quarter of 1% of the total population of the region.

The top ten nationalities of asylum seekers living in the North East.

1. Iran - 424 2. Angola - 257 3. Turkey - 250 4. Eritrea - 222. 5. Sri Lanka - 192 6. Zimbabwe - 189 7. Congo Democratic Republic - 185 8. Pakistan - 176 9. Iraq - 165 10. Afghanistan - 116


(Source: North of England Refugee Service and NECARS, December 2005)

What is a refugee?


A refugee is anyone fleeing their country of birth. Refugees are described as 'asylum seekers' while they are waiting for official recognition as defined by the United Nations.


In the UK it is The Home Office that decides if they can stay or not. There is an appeal procedure. The Home Office may not grant refugee status to some asylum seekers.
Or, it may grant the right to stay in this country for a limited time. At the end of this time the Home Office will look at their case again. If the Home Office believes it is then safe for them to return to their country, they have to go home. If it is still not safe, the Home Office may allow them to stay for longer.


Around 3,500 asylum seekers from 79 different countries in North East England.
There were 3,508 asylum seekers in North East England at the end of December 2005.
Around a third lived in Newcastle and a third in Tees Valley.


The North East Top Ten areas for asylum seekers


1. Newcastle - 1081
2. Middlesbrough - 668
3. Gateshead - 3924. Sunderland - 345
5. Redcar and Cleveland - 327
6. Stockton - 277
7. North Tyneside - 251
8. South Tyneside - 138
9. Darlington - 25
10. Hartlepool - 16

Seems the North East hardly has an 'immigration problem' at all!!

25/05/2004

BNP humour

Sent to the Shields Gazette, 25th May 2004
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at DR's letter (the BNP candidate for Whiteleas).

He states the BNP is the "true representative of the working class" .So much so that many of their members have criminal convictions for assaulting and racially harassing the same members of their class. So much so that their National Organiser considers people with learning difficulties to be "sub-human" and those with disabilities to be "genetically inferior". As true heroes of the working lcass the BNP have said they will introduce a GM programme to get rid of those they consider "inferior".

Their same National Organiser believes the rich are genetically superior and under BNP plans many working class people will be banned from having their own children.

The Socialist Party is contesting the Monkton Ward as the TRUE representatives of the workiong class. We advocate the common ownership and democratic control of the earth's natural and industrial resources. A world without borders or frontiers, social class or leaders. A world where production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit and in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation. For 100 years ( we were founded in June 1904) we have campaigned for socialism and are yet to compromise any of our principles.

I've watched the BNP for many years now and one thing I can say without fear of contradiction is that they no more have the best interests of the working class at heart than did Hitler.

I certainly do not advocate banning the BNP, as many on the "left" do. For one thing I believe in freedom of speech, regardless of how silly the claims the speaker/writer makes. For another, the ideas of the BNP are easily discredited and calling for a ban on the BNP simply shows how intellectually bankrupt we are when it comes to countering their ideas.


John B
The Socialist Party Candidate
Monkton Ward