Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on May 7, 2008 at 1:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't understand how the Democrat can abhor slavery and promote seeking federal dollars at the same time. Treasury bonds are bonds on the people themselves, if using people as collateral is not using them as chattel, then what exactly is it?

Maybe when the Park Service gets around to doing the exhibit they can have a plaque at the end explaining the principles of slavery and the parallels between the old form of slavery and the new form.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on May 7, 2008 at 5:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Historian Theodore Allen argues that Grantham’s report is one of the most important documents in the whole archive of colonial Virginia. In his two volume history of U.S. racial slavery and oppression, The Invention of the White Race (Verso, 1994 and 1997), Allen argues convincingly that Grantham’s specific description of the rebel leaders indicates the American chattel bond-laborers did not accept any social partition of themselves into “white” and “black” – that, in fact, the “white identity” did not yet exist. The bond-laborers worked together, ate together, slept together, escaped together, and fought together."

"The deeper you go into this line of thinking, the clearer things become: the quick overthrow of Reconstruction and restoration of white supremacy; a brutal century of lynch law; the endurance of Jim Crow; the “white backlash” against the civil rights agenda; the resegregation of public schools; the incarceration of a generation of African American young men; racial profiling; redlining; the assault on black women through the systematic de-funding of public education and healthcare; the re-election of Bush; a U.S. class struggle in which the capitalist class wins every time."

'Rather, isn’t the peculiarity of U.S. history and society that the masses of European American bond-laborers were not kept in a condition of lifetime bond-servitude? Why not? Why would a capitalist let a worker up from a condition of servitude if it didn’t serve his particular class interest to do so? What was this particular class interest all about?"

From W.J. Dubois, 'Black Reconstruction':

”The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor. But the race philosophy came as a new and terrible thing to make labor unity or labor class-consciousness impossible. So long as the Southern white laborers could be induced to prefer poverty to equality with the Negro, just so long was a labor movement in the South made impossible.”

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on May 7, 2008 at 5:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The above quotations are from a guest article by Jonathon Scott in www.blackcommentator.com in which Scott explains a few things about the birth of black and white identity in America and reveals a some often unseen truths about slavery in America. His whole article can be read at http://www.blackcommentator.com/129/129_... and anyone interested in the Forks project really should read this article.

The Forks project should be done with proper care, not to bring more business to Natchez, or to be used to promote a selfish racial view of slavery by proponents like Boxley, or to show an equally sanitized version likely to be promoted by the National Park Service, but because the location serves as a monument to what happens when the idea of gain is put above the idea of personal liberty.

Read Scott's article about Bacon's Rebellion, and read the analysis by the NPS at http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/b... and you will see why I doubt the Park Service's ability to see beyond the most shallow interpretation of any historical event.

The Forks project could be an inspiring look into a past common to white and black alike and could serve as a place of deep reflection into the founding spirit of America, and whether or not we wish to continue in the philosophy or abandon it.

Jonathon Scott, by the way, is an assistant professor at a community college in the City of New York University system. He is a gentleman and a Marxist as well, though his Marxism should not be distasteful to the Democrat or the majority of its readers, who are so fond of wealth redistribution though without the understanding or analytical power of Scott. He likes being a Marxist and his argument for his political view goes beyond the need to build walking trails or fund business expenses for the common good.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on May 7, 2008 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In short, I agree the project should not be rushed or built as a simple tourist attraction. It should not be left solely to the National Park Service or to local groups, unless those bodies care to look a little deeper into the possibilities and issues at hand. I say, write to Jonathon Scott for his advice on what should be said about slavery because he understands it very well. And Bill Cosby might be willing to help as well, I have read he has an interest in another museum. Don't be shortsighted about this. It is a counter view to a well established view and deserves a lot of thought.

Posted by ConstantComment (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Natchez Democrat editorial seems to pose a new question and is somewhat evasive about its original premise. The purchase and safekeeping of the site by the people of Natchez, city or county, would protect the site and thus benefit all our citizens. When I attended the public meeting where the National Park Service unveiled their study at Natchez Council Chambers, the conditions were proven for the site to become part of the national park here. However, the public was advised to acquire the site and have it held by a local government, rather than, say the Forks of the Road group per se, so that any future plans for the site would be facilitated if and when the NPS moves forward. This was not a slam on the good hardworking Forks of the Road members, but a recognition that the local government is theoretically and perpetual entity, as opposed to a community based organization that may or may not remain viable forever. A representative from Tulane was also in attendance and there was discussion of the university partnering with the community and other groups to develop an interpretive center. There seems to be a lot of interest in the site and if the local government on all our behalf holds the deed, that would be a big step toward maintaining some local control and seeing to it that a responsible interpretation is made. I find it hard to understand why the Democrat would oppose local government acquisition and why the Democrat suddenly links doing nothing with somehow progressing toward the day when the Park Service takes real steps toward development.

Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So the county needs a plan for moving forward. Based on the Democrat's account of the meeting, I agree with them. But perhaps Boxley was there trying to push the recommendations of NPS, but no one present had ConstantComment's prior knowledge of the situation and Boxley didn't manage to communicate what had gone before. If I had a million dollars to donate to Forks tomorrow, who the heck would I give it to?

Posted by damifino (Gale Coleman) on May 7, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur: I've said it once, I'll say it again...You need to be writing a book!

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought the same thing, Daminfo!

Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So how much does the adjacent property and the plans for development of the site cost? Won't "the people" fund it whether it is by local or federal means? How would Natchez afford to do it solely?

Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are interested in socioeconomics and greed.........read some of Julian Edney's Essays

http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SayIt Right ,where do you find these websites in the first place ? I looked , I read ,and some of it makes so much sense and some of it is downright scary . Back to the subject at hand , Natchez cannot afford to carry the Forks of the Road ahead at this time . We need help and that is just a fact .

Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernbelle, I have done heaps of research on the decline of the middle class and socioeconomics. Julian Edney's work made so much sense that I delved into it.

I agree, I can see how it would be hard for Natchez, by herself, to pay for this.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow...the Democrat's opinion on this almost exactly matches my comments to a previous story on the same topic yesterday...they embellished it some, but really go back and read it...I should have copyrighted...LOL.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The comments on this topic of EnKiKur, ConstantComment, and SayItRight are excellent and a delight to read. Well done, folks.