Why do people take this guy seriously?
America seceded from Britain cause its raycis and wanted to keep slavery; Brits were good boys who loved their King...
Other urls found in this thread:
Gonna have to point those people out.
The "woke left" and the reddit left take him seriously, his new book has been plugged by monthly review.
That's at partially true tho, British activists at the time were advocating for abolitionism and American slave owners were afraid of what that would mean for the colonies.
GERALD HORNE IS NAZBOL
How can we get the Hotep community on our side?
It's okay. We have retards like Afroplasm that unironically suggest shit like "Settlers" is good reading.
words from a friend whose dad was a black hebrew: it's a movement that basically takes the blame for the black's suffering from capitalism/white people/whatever and throws it back at the blacks themselves (they believe that the people in ozeah chapter four are the blacks, look it up), it's pretty hard to save but some interpretation of their teachings might be spun off as commie, who knows
So how is any of this wrong?
You can't "save" something that was always retarded. They are so fringe that they're not worth focusing on.
Yes, I see, just because the Brits ended the importation of slaves to Britain cause they hated niggers it obviously means that the cause of the American revolution was slavery and not British control and economic overlordship over even advanced colonies like the 13 north american colonies.
America is more racist than Israel
Put your YPG flag back on. Thx.
fear of losing their slaves was a minor cause, don't be retarded and blame historical events on one thing.
That's what Horne literally does in his book tho
The American Revolution was the dumbest thing ever.
Good thing i'm not defending Horne then
Assblasted red coat detected. Educate yourself, cuck
On that point at least the colonists had reason to bitch. The British pursued the Seven-Years War in North America with spectacular incompetence. For years they kept throwing men and treasure into ill-conceived campaigns that were fought as if there were no differences between fighting in France and fighting in the wooded frontier thus leading their men into bloody ambushes. As the British Army got its ass handed to it time and again by smaller French and native forces, the colonial militias defended the colonies themselves. In the campaign along the St. Lawrence the colonial militias had been more effective than the regulars were due to their more localized tactics, which led the colonists to believe that they had carried the British forces to victory. That point is arguable, but it is clear that the British army performed better when they began using colonial militias and allied natives extensively in their offensive operations. So colonists did not feel like they owed more money to the crown for their defense in the war, because they thought that they had been protecting themselves (which really was true) and bought the victory for the crown themselves after all the army's bungling (maybe kind of).
That is seriously that article's biggest flaw, otherwise it is quite good.
I walk by these guys all the time on my way to work. They're fucking brutal.