20 Nigger Laws and other difficult truths

Offended yet? You should be. But, I’ll bet you didn’t know that every Confederate State passed “20 nigger laws” intended to exempt men from military service when they oversaw 20 or more slaves. I’ll also bet that you never learned that no less than 1/3 of the South’s military was stationed in areas with large slave populations, just to prevent slave uprisings. (pg. 194)

LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, by James W. Loewen (Touchstone Publishing, Simon and Schuster) Oct. 2007, is a newly published, and totally revised reworking of his 1995 blockbuster. Loewen analyzes history books, in particular those that are forced into the hands of America’s high school students. What he finds, again, is almost criminal in scope. As our children’s history books grow in size, they diminish in quality and honesty. They, simply put, are propaganda.

What he has done with wit, insight, and devastating analysis, is to show why today’s Americans are functionally illiterate, ill-informed, and easily confused by the likes of George Bush, when he claims the reason for the 9/11 attacks was because “They hate us for our freedoms.”

Loewen’s superb book starts off with a troubling subject – America’s illogical need to create blemish-free heros in the face of contrary facts. He starts off with two heros that we think we know, except for all that pesky reality-based stuff: Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson. Despite a touching celluloid tale, Keller was much more important and far more insightful than modern America gives her credit for. Why do we ignore her? Because she was not only a progressive, she was an active, published, loud, brash and proud socialist. If she lived today, she would be a featured writer on these front pages, if only because her ideas on sexism, racism, inequality and fairness would strike a chord with each and every one of us.

At the other end of the scale sits Woodrow Wilson, whose current cheerleaders support him as the most educated, most rational, and singularly humanitarian. Yet, Loewen points out that Wilson was not just a racist; he created policies and supported the growth of what ended up being the KKK. Instead of being a man of peace, Wilson was one of the earliest corporatist presidents. In order to protect commercial and corporate interests, the United States invaded Russia with thousands of troops in 1917-1918 to support the Whites against the Bolsheviks. And we wonder why the USSR never trusted us.

Loewen points out many other mistakes and cloudy rewrites of America’s history. To do it justice, this post would have to be almost as long as his extremely important book. Instead of me boring you second hand, I strongly suggest that you pick it up and read it. Then, pass it on. (forgive me if I repeat this advice)

Some of Loewen’s points need to be highlighted.

He points out many examples of racism, cultural bias, and class warfare. It probably is best exemplified by what we see in movie theaters, compared to the facts on the ground, or in the water, so to speak. Titanic, a celluloid favorite of millions, may entertain, but it hides some very dirty secrets.

“Among women, only 4 of 143 1st class passengers were lost, while 15 of the 93 second class passengers drowned, along with 81 of the 179 third class women and children. The crew ordered 3d class passengers to remain below deck, holding some at gunpoint.”

(emphasis added)

In what movie, history lesson, or textbook does that dirty little fact come out?

In addition to America’s creation of fake heros, Lowen also points out many dirty little facts that we simply aren’t taught. Here is one great list he offers, one that would explain a great deal about today’s current geo-political messes that involve us directly:

Our assistance to the shah’s faction in Iran, deposing Prime Minister Mossadegh and returning the shah to the throne in 1953.

Our role in bringing down the elected government of Guatemala in 1954.

Our rigging of the 1957 election in Lebanon, which entrenched Christians on top, and led to the Muslim revolt and civil war the next year.

Our involvement in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1961.

Our repeated steps to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba and bring down his government by terror and sabotage.

Our role in bringing down the elected government in Chile in 1973.

Not only did the USSR have good reason to fear another attack by the US; so does most of the Middle East. That sure puts our current occupation in a different light, eh?

On VietNam, the Gulf of Tomkin was the reason why Congress voted (almost unanimously) to support the war. (shades of Iraq, to be sure) President Lyndon Johnson reported to Congress that the USS Maddox came under repeated unprovoked attack by North VietNamese gun and torpedo ships.

Except it never happened.

Unprovoked? The USS Maddox was busy depositing secret invasion forces armed to the teeth, with orders to attack North VietNam facilities. And those torpedoes and attacks? As Johnson himself knew and admitted to an aide at that time:

Those dumb sailors were just shooting at flying fish.

In this edition, Loewen ventures into modern history, including Iraq 1 and Iraq 2. He points out, with painful accuracy, that the whitewashing of our history has already taken place. And given the lack of a truly independent and vibrant class of modern journalists, we may be fighting a losing battle with a deck stacked against us.

The last point that Loewen makes is probably the most important. Current affairs are not just going unreported, but misreported. (you can only shake your head when you read in a history book that Truman stopped the KOREAN war by dropping the A-bomb)

Loewen compared and contrasted two current history books, both written by famous US scholars and historians. On one hand, we have Daniel Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, and on the other, professors of history Cayton, Perry, Reed and Winkler.

Loewen points out identical passages in both books. Not similar, IDENTICAL. He went so far as to contact and inquire of the authors how this could be. He comes to the conclusion (hardly comforting) that these sections were rewritten by the publisher (both books were edited and published by the same company) and that the authors – all of them – were innocent of plagiarism. (pg 315-319) In fact, when repeatedly questioned by Loewen, the surviving authors (Boorstin was already deceased) had no explanation, nor any recollection of actually writing the offending passages.

I leave you with the same test that Loewen gives his readers. Try to put the following important events in proper chronological order:

Serbs Croats and Bsonian muslims sign peace agreement to end civil war
Soviet Union dissolves
Bill CLinton is elected to first term as president
Geraldine Ferraro is first woman from major party to run for vice president
Iraq invades Kuwait
Sandra Day O’Connor named to Supreme Court
Ronald Reagan is reelected president

tough, eh?

get this book. You will thank yourself for it, then be sure to pass it on.

26 Responses to "20 Nigger Laws and other difficult truths"

  1. ekaton  November 30, 2007 at 10:50 am

    “I find this quite understandable. However, that would include allowing ethnic cleaning, abuse of women and children, and build-up of threatening armies.”

    How are any of these my responsibility? There are six billion on this planet and we are 300 million. Why is it always up to us to intervene. Kosovo, for example is in Europe’s back yard so to speak. Why was that a U.S. problem and not a Europe problem? What threatening armies would be a danger to the U.S.? This country is 9 trillion in debt mostly due to militarism and foreign interventionism. Why is it up to a bankrupt country to police the world? When is enough war enough?

    — Kent Shaw

  2. AustinRanter  November 30, 2007 at 10:59 am

    Indentured Servants……..

    I’m sure all Americans were taught about the very first settlers in this country…the struggles they had to endure and overcome.

    Oddly enough, there was very little taught about those who struggled and even died the most building dwellings, hunting food, etc.

    When the first ships came to America from Europe, they landed with, “Indentured Servants and their Masters”. A more realistic name for indentured servants should have been “Slaves”.

    Indentured servants were individuals indebted in some way to their “masters” either directly or indirectly. The debts owed by servants were impossible to pay off. Children of indentured servants were often born into debt and made as responsible as their parents for the so-called debts. They would never come to pay off the debts either.

    When more affluent individuals wanted to make the bold adventerous trip to settle in America, they would force their indentured servants to travel with them. Once in America, the servants were forced to carry out all of the labors of establishing the settlements.

    The genuine cruelity involved in this was that most indentured servants were not allowed to live in the quarters they built for their master. They were too labored doing tasks for their masters to create their own living areas. Many died from exposure. Some died from starvation, because at times food was a scarce resource and of course the masters had first dibbs on the fool. Others died from diseases borne from unsanitary conditions. Some died from just being worked to death.

    The thing that I want to make clear about indentured servants is…they didn’t come from Africa. They were indigenous to their birth of origin, which was Europe, and were mostly of the same race or ethnicity as was their masters.

    Consequently, slaves were used to create and build the very first settlements in America, but weren’t black.

    Black slavery was a terrible thing, no doubt about it. I’m not discounting just how inhumane that was. But, I don’t want those who were also slaves from Europe to be forgotten or just plain unacknowledged because our pubic schools for children don’t dissiminate that part of history as it should…if at all.

  3. Jeffers  November 30, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Kent,

    I do not disagree with you, but many people find it unacceptable. Often it is expressed as a given that we should act to prevent anything labeled as genocide.

    However, looking back at WW II, I believe it was important for us to finally take part against Hitler. He showed a desire to keep rolling; an insatiable thirst for power. He needed to be stopped.

    At what point does a country intervene? That’s the tough question. Do the libertarians offer an answer?

    Jeffers
    Peace without freedom is still slavery.

  4. Steve Horn  November 30, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    Many people decry omissions from our public school education, and I agree, revisionist history is education of the worst sort, however, having received a basic education there is nothing, nothing, preventing an individual from doing their own research on the real history of the United States.

    The information is out there, the horrors and triumphs well documented by many individuals from an equal number of perspectives. It is up to us, as citizens of this nation and the world to educate ourselves, is it not? Or should we rely on others to spoon feed us the data and hold an implicit trust in what we’re told?

    I believe this general lack of critical thought has manifested itself to the point that we belive the sound bites, we believe what we’re told and many take no time or effort to research topics on their own to check the veracity of what they’re told.

    Perhaps that can be attributed to us, as a nation, not reading any more. We’re occupied by television and quick, easy access to information in easy to digest packets. Most would rather watch a movie or TV show than read and learn. If there is any failing of our educational system it’s not in the revision of history, it’s in it’s redesign. We no longer educate for critical thinking, we educate to do well on standardized tests, which limits ones desire to think counter to what they’ve been taught. NCLB is a classic example of this.

    Perhaps we should stop teaching to scripts and test plans and, instead, teach people how to learn and think for themselves.

    We are, after all, as individuals, responsible for our own choices and education. But there I go again, expecting Americans to accept responsibility.

    Peace

    Steve

  5. issodhos  November 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Both the author of this article and the author of the book being written about lend credence to the thought that taxpayer-funded, government-run schools are, when not active centers of manipulative sociopolitical propaganda, merely holding pens for the conditioning of yet another befuddled and docile generation tailored for an unexamined life of voluntary servitude to whichever social or political hustlers make them feel they are special. Mass Man at his most obvious.
    Yours,
    Issodhos

  6. CheckerboardStrangler  November 30, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    Although I will buy this book and devour it cover to cover, it appears that the author has left out the one glaring Golden Meatball on Woodrow Wilson that serves as the foundation for almost every other act of the entire twentieth century and which may very well serve ultimately as the seeds of our demise…

    Woodrow Wilson allowed the creation of The Federal Reserve System and even when he later saw the damage that had been done, all he did was mutter an apology, which the Central Banksters saw as an invitation to scientifically engineer the Great Depression.

    To this day The Federal Reserve System functions as the central source of all power on the planet, unelected, unopposed and accountable to no one, and furthermore, the accredited organs of historical reference, to the last one, continue to spin yarns that portray it as a necessary institution which saves us from certain economic disaster.

  7. JoeMorgan  November 30, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Steve wrote:

    “The south would not have parted from the union were it not for a push to eliminate slavery…”

    The desire of the North was to maintain the union. You have that right. The desire of the South was to desolve the union for many reasons.

    The North began to treat the South as Britain treated the colonies, a source of raw material for its manufacturing base, and thwarting attempts of the South to develope in this area.

    The South also had developed a separate Confederate culture.

    Steve wrote:

    “By strict definition regarding the Jim Crow era you are correct – one human did not “own” another human…”

    A slave is still a slave, still owned as a comodity, regardless of the quality of his life. Even if he lived better than the typical free man.

    A free man is still free, regardless of his economic deprivation.

    If someone gave you a choice of being owned as a comodity by someone and living a Middle Class lifestyle — or living a free man, but in poverty, which would you choose?

    Steve wrote:

    “[African Americans] were subjected to a caste system…”

    Since slavery, the oppression in the black community has not come from whites.

    If whites had brought Chinese over as slaves, within one generation of emancipation, the Chinese would have created communities as economically vibrant as the white communities.

    In the real world, the average IQ of American blacks is 85, the average IQ of the Chinese 105.

    Uniformly low performing black schools are the source of their oppression, along with high crime rates, high illigamacy rates, high drop out rates, etc. etc.

    To suggest otherwise is to slander whites, which is the mother’s milk of pretend egalitarians.

    Steve wrote:

    “In the post civil war era the African Americans were dominated through voilence”

    In the report The Color of Crime, based upon 2005 FBI statistics, blacks are 39 times more likely to criminally attack whites than visa versa, and 2.5 times more likely to commit a “hate” crime than whites.

    In other words, blacks create a near oneway flow of criminal violence and suffering into the white community, and are much more likely to commit a racially motivated crime.

    I would imagine those statistics were the same or worse 50 to 100 years ago.

    Steve wrote:

    “Consider those [Europeans] who worked, lived and died in “company towns”…”

    For most of our evolution as a species we lived as hunter gathers, constantly on the verge of starvation, a kind of poverty that is difficult for us to imagine now.

    Poverty does not equate with being owned by another human being.

  8. yarply  November 30, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Nothing new here. The idea that this country has systematically “whitewashed” its history, is a practice which could be said to be practiced by all countries, but even revisionist have been known to ‘juggle’ the facts. Such as the “fact” that you never learned that no less than 1/3 of the South’s military was stationed in areas with large slave populations, just to prevent slave uprisings. (pg. 194)
    It is easy for someone or even groups of people to say 1/3 of the South’s military was stationed in areas just to prevent slave uprisings and to a small degree that may be true, but the fact is that most of the “white” souths population was in thoughs areas, so where else were they to be stationed. Most white people were stationed close to where they lived so they could take care of their families, farms or businesses, until they were deployed into battle areas or were on troop movements.
    Slave uprisings, while a worry, would be a small reason to position troops in such areas. There had always been a possibility of an uprising before the civil war, but before the war the “plantation” owners kept their “negroes” in line
    just fine without all the troops they did not have, and which were now supposedly needed to keep them so.
    Either way this book seems interesting. I just hope the “facts” listed in it are mostly facts.
    Historical fact, like a case of law is either considered fact or not, on whether or not people believe the facts presented. Like the OJ murder trial. He was found not guilty, but was he?
    I guess you would have had to actually been there to really know the truth.

    As the story was titled; The problem of History in America, could have really been titled; The problem of the History of the World.
    Because all countries are guilty of such a “whitewash”.

  9. Rob Kezelis  November 30, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    Yarply makes some very good points, especially in the last sentence. Every country tries (or tried) to whitewash its history, but several modern powers refuse to do so and have faced up to their past. Germany is one example of how a nation took a horrible series of events (their final solution, blitzkrieg, etc), took a good, hard look at it, and made reparations to the extent possible. Even today’s Russia has opened up its NKVD and KGB files to citizens’ examinations, often publishing incredible findings (and finally letting relatives know how a loved one met his or her end) and coming to terms with just how evil Stalin and Lenin were. Ignoring, for the moment, what Putin has in mind (for we truly do not know) that is another great example of taking an honest look at a country’s own actions. England, with its Troubles, has also finally managed to take concrete steps to account for its treatment of the Irish.

    the one modern nation that has shown no inclination to do so is the USA. When the very problems we face in many areas are due to our past policies, I think it would be prudent for us to start educating our youth as to the background. Honestly, for a change.

  10. JoeMorgan  December 1, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Kezelis wrote:

    “the one modern nation that has shown no inclination to do so is the USA.”

    Actually, you have it the exact opposite.

    (Note that Kezelis only gave examples of European peoples, another sign of the contempt the PC have for white Gentiles? And should only “modern” nations show remorse for past aggression?)

    No nation has gone out of its way to place a group on a pedestal as the PC have with the various black races in America, the Negro people and the many Mulatto races here.

    Black oppression, real or imagined, (and just about all has been imagined), is constantly enshrined in our media and lamented by people in government.

    The great betrayal of blacks has come from those who promote the multicultural experiment. If America had stayed 90% white with traditional values, while granting to blacks the right to discriminate based upon skin color, which is what the quota system is, that would represent the ideal for American blacks.

    Now, black culture glorifies thugs, treats and calls black women “hoes” and “bitches,” and has seen a drastic rise in illegitimacy rates.

    And as America is remade into a Third World economy, thanks to the demographic changes occurring, most blacks in the near future will find themselves living in Third World squalor.

  11. yarply  December 1, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    I have not heard the term Mulatto since watching the film Birth Of A Nation.

  12. Paolo  December 2, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Kezelis is right to point out that official government schools often teach ideas that paint a glowing picture of the government. Shazam! What an intellectual breakthrough!

    As a libertarian, I point out that the solution is to get government out of the education business entirely.

    By the way, contrary to other posts, America did not “fight a war to free the slaves.” The misnamed “Civil War” had freeing the slaves as, at most, a secondary issue. Keeping states from leaving the Union–which they had every right to do–was the primary issue. That is, maintenance of tyranny under a central government was the issue all along.

    You cannot argue that the North fought the South to free the slaves, when several northern states (Kentucky, Maryland, and even New Jersey) allowed slavery for the entire duration of the war.

    Lincoln, far from being our “greatest President”, was far and away our worst. He ignored the Constitution, conducted an unnecessary war that killed over 600 thousand, and imprisoned those who opposed him. He was, in short, a brutal tyrant.

  13. Elmo  December 4, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    I’ve always considered history as taught in high school to be more myth than fact. This is even more pronounced in the Texas high school one of my children attended than the Pennsylvania school the other went to.

  14. ekaton  December 5, 2007 at 1:42 am

    POSTER DELETED

  15. Barry Jeenmaz  September 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Thank goodness that these laws have long since been fixed!

    ———————————-
    Email – tonyjlabs[at]gmail.com
    AIM – dolphinlabs
    Yahoo – tonyjohansen1980
    Free Petition

  16. ekaton  November 29, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    “Bay of Tomkin”

    Gulf of Tonkin. Otherwise an excellent posting.

    “LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, by James W. Loewen (Touchstone Publishing, Simon and Schuster) Oct. 2007, is a newly published, and totally revised reworking of his 1995 blockbuster.”

    I will definitely read this one.

    Thanks, Robert.

    — Kent Shaw

  17. funkyjoe  November 29, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    “Sandra Say O’Connor”

    Sandra Day O’Connor

  18. Rob Kezelis  November 29, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    oops, thanks. I will fix.

  19. Kim Scipes  November 30, 2007 at 1:41 am

    “What I’ve Learned About US Foreign Policy: The War Against the Third World,” compiled by US military veteran Frank Dorrel is another fine source that tries to set the record straight. Dorrel’s put together a string of movies/exerpts on US foreign policy that is truly excellent. It is available for $10 from him at http://www.addictedtowar.com .

    Best–

    Kim Scipes

  20. JoeMorgan  November 30, 2007 at 9:07 am

    Let’s remember whites ended slavery in all their lands in the 19th century … while there are still 5 African countries that still keep slaves.

    But then, people like Kezeles never tire of painting whites in a bad light.

    Let’s remember also, when the politically correct use propaganda words like “racist,” they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.

  21. Steve Horn  November 30, 2007 at 9:40 am

    Joe –

    Actually, let’s keep in mind that “whites” fought a war to end slavery in the 19th century. It’s not like there was a sudden moment when the entire population of the country decided “hey, this is wrong” – and slavery didn’t end with the civil war – it continued through the Jim Crow era to an extent (quiet, but still there) and continues today with the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor – forced to work for substandard wages at dangerous mind numbing jobs with the constant threat of deportation hanging over their heads.
    Perhaps you’d prefer that it be called endentured servitude in these enlightened times -but how many of us are really “free” in this day of being wage slaves to service our debt?
    Yes, slavery still exists in other nations, does that justify it here?

    Peace

    Steve

  22. Steve Horn  November 30, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Looks like I need to read another book (not a problem!) – very interesting article.

    A couple of points grabbed me:

    1) George Bush, when he claims the reason for the 9/11 attacks was because “They hate us for our freedoms.”

    Well – “they” should love us now, given what Bush and company have done TO our freedoms in the wake of the attacks.

    2) Wilson was elected to a great degree on his position to keep us out of the “Great War” – we then entered into it.

    3) Hellen Keller, Mother Jones, Woody Guthrie, Joe Hill, Phil Ochs and many, many other people currently held in high regard were socialists – and would be considered “dangerous” today. The only “danger” ever presented by socialists was to those who had accumulated great wealth at the expense and exploitation of labor. Joe Hill was an outspoken activist for the miners who toiled in the copper mines and for the IWW (industrial workers of the world) – he was murdered by the mine bosses. Mother Jones marched at the front of many labor strikes, another proud member of the IWW. Our history was framed by men and women who are ignored by it. Odd how when they are mentioned today, their political leanings are ignored.

    Yep, thanks much, now I know what I’m going to read over the holidays!

    Peace

    Steve

  23. Jeffers  November 30, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Titanic movie made class separation quite clear.

    Also, didn’t the KKK start shortly after the Civil War, with Nathan Bedford Forrest? So how did Wilson support the growth of “what ended up being the KKK?”

    Most of the examples given were at least 50 years ago. Germany and Japan are now considered strong allies. Perhaps we should look at how we handled those wars and the following reconstructions.

    We could pull back entirely from foreign interventions, as libertarians suggest. I find this quite understandable. However, that would include allowing ethnic cleaning, abuse of women and children, and build-up of threatening armies. I’m not sure that I am ready to go that route.

    As for educating children, it is always difficult to determine how much information to provide them with. Do you try to tell a two year old everything you tell a college student? No.

    I look forward to reading this book, but let’s try to keep perspective.

    Jeffers

    Peace without freedom is still slavery.

  24. JoeMorgan  November 30, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Steve wrote:

    “Actually, let’s keep in mind that “whites” fought a war to end slavery in the 19th century.”

    The Civil War was not fought by the North to end slavery. It was fought to maintain the Union. If the South had agreed to end slavery, the North would still have fought to maintain the Union.

    Steve wrote:

    “…slavery didn’t end with the civil war – it continued through the Jim Crow era…”

    Slavery is the ownership of a human being, like owning a car or watch.

    Jim Crow was not slavery.

  25. Steve Horn  November 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    The south would not have parted from the union were it not for a push to eliminate slavery, so the seccesionist movement that disolved the union was predicated on the attempt to end slavery – hence the war resulting from the desire to maintain the union was predicated on end of slavery. I stand by my logic.

    By strict definition regarding the Jim Crow era you are correct – one human did not “own” another human, however, from a quality of life perspective and the reality of life for African Americans in the Jim Crow south there was little difference. While “free” in a legal sense, most African Americans in the southern states during that era were far from from free in any real sense of the word. Perhaps I should have phrased my original text to “during the Jim Crow era the African Americans, while legally free and not owned by whites, were subjected to a caste system which, for all intent and purpose meant that, while not owned in a literal sense, they were dependent upon and dominated by those who had previously owned them and had very little, if any, opportunity to move out of the poverty and domination to which they had been subjected before the civil war and since”. However, that seemed a bit verbose at the time.

    As for ownership – if your life revolves around serving others and “knowing your place” – you are not free. In the post civil war era the African Americans were dominated through voilence and the courts, rather than through literal ownership – however – these people,still objectified and denied freedom accorded the white population, no matter the social standing of the white individual in question, were not free in any real sense of the word.

    In the same breath, many European immigrants who were not considered “slaves” lacked these basic freedoms as well. Consider those who worked, lived and died in “company towns” – to be sure they were not slaves, they were working for a given wage, were not obligated by sale to the company owners and were, if free of debt, able to leave the situation into which they were placed. However, being paid in company script, being forced to live in company towns and pay rent in script, having to make their purchases in company towns using company script they were driven into a level of debt from which they could not expect to escape – in a very real sense they were slaves. Instead of abolitionists calling for their freedom you had the formation of organizied labor which fought in a very real and literal sense (think of Homestead Pennsylvania and the strike of 1892 where the steel mill owners floated an armed barge down the river shooting stikers, for one example). These people were fighting for their freedom in a very real and literal sense, as they were, before organization, slaves in every sense of the word, except that the chains that held them were economic rather than of iron and steel.

    If you don’t see this I suggest you read the writings of Emma Goldman, Mother Jones and others who were on the front lines of labors fight for recognition during the later 19th and early 20th century.

    At one point, Emma Goldman was considered the “most dangerous person in the United States” and was deported for her writings and actions.

    In short, if one person is in chains, be they physical, economic, social or otherwise, none of us is free.

    Peace

    Steve

  26. John Farley  November 30, 2007 at 10:45 am

    I read the earlier edition, and it was great! Thanks for notifying us about the new edition.

Comments are closed.