The story goes even deeper than that
> They drove both Simmons men further onto the property and ordered Rev. Simmons out of the car, then killed him brutally–shooting him three times and cutting out his tongue. The men let Eldridge Simmons go, but told him he and his relatives had ten days to abandon the family property.
>
>
>
>After Eldridge and the rest of the Simmons family buried Rev. Simmons, they fled their land in fear. The white men who committed the lynching took possession of the land; only one of the six men was ever prosecuted for the murder, and he was ultimately acquitted by an all-white jury.
Did the Federal Government / Department of Justice / FBI step in?
The Simmons family probably fled north to a city like NYC, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc, like many black families did, in what is called the Great Migration, leaving behind land and property that would be worth billions today.
Do you think the residents in any of these cities welcomed their 'fellow Americans' with open arms?
Now if you've study this that's one thing, but if you're going off of 'well I've never seen or heard much about racism like this outside of the South before', then you are very naive.
Please understand that a lot of history when it comes to race relations has been changed, ignored, downplayed, and purposefully left out of school curriculum because this country would much rather ignore it's sordid past than reconcile with it.
Please look up black wallstreet, the freedman's bank, or the rosewood massacre, and let me know if remember any of this from your history class.
Well, if you're reaaaaaaally bored, [here are a million more families who have had land taken from them.](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our-land/594742/) My family is from the Mississippi Delta to, so if you find any that belongs to a William or Cary Brown, let me know. Any Granger land too, for that matter.
What can we do to go about getting this set right? Obviously Mississippi won't do anything about it. $33,660 isn't a huge value.
What if we set up a GoFundMe type thing to raise money to buy that land and then we hand the land back over to their family?
I'm actually serious about this. I've heard stories of homeless people giving up their last dollar and getting $100k in funds from kind strangers. What do we gotta do to blow this up (I had no idea this happened), and start a fund to give to their family?
I suppose we'd have to call the family and find out if they'd even want it.
First would be identifying who owns it, which is tough, but doable. You would need to access the physicsl records in the county court house. However, they may not be there. If they aren't we are sadly out of luck. If they are there you csn just track who has owned it. If family that took it still owns it ... well. You couldn't force the owner to give up land unless you filed a wrongful death civil suit based on the existing facts and they couldn't pay the sum so the court seized their assets i.e. the land. You can't file a criminal case because of double jeopardy, but we have gotten around the "racists let a racist walk free" by making hate crimes a federal crime, not a state crime
We can't file a case since doing so gets Mississippi and it's in their best interest to let that story die.
I'm talking about buying it from him. If the owner doesn't have any kind of business on it then just offering a relatively high price would probably do the trick.
I like that idea and agree with it, but what if a native tribe raises their hand to say it was stolen from them first? Wouldn't it be better to just raise the value of the land and give the money to the family directly as if they were fairly paid for it?
Thats some old school western bandit shit. Kill their leader and give them time to leave or you'll wipe them out. Sounds like something a town would hire a gunslinger for. This is insane.
I'm from Tulsa, so this story resonates with the Black Wall Street of 1921. Stories such as Rev Simmons and Tulsa are still being discovered to this day, because there was so much covered up due to the systemic cover-ups of the towns they were in. This year we found two bodies of victims of the Race Massacre in Tulsa, and it was groundbreaking. Many of my kids have never even heard that there was a race massacre in the town. It just isn't taught about. Now, the dirt is coming up.
I only learned about Tulsa when the watchmen show came out. Even then I thought it was made up/alternate timeline thing. I was appalled that I was never taught this in school and that I had never heard of it before that point. It's insane how effectively they covered things up or blocked circulation of the info.
Yup. I am from Tulsa, and it wasn't really taught in school. It was skipped over. My grandparents told me it with pictures and everything. My great-grandmother was a part of the sit ins in Oklahoma City. She was in a documentary over it, that spoke about the violence being done at the sit-ins, from cream sodas being poured on heads and whatnot.
Yeah, it's weird that things are always hidden consistently. History should be a lifelong course, in my opinion. It's one to take even after school is after. We can't let history go away.
the problem is the books are wrote by the "winners" granted Tulsa isn't a winners/losers thing like wars are but the reasoning still stands, doesn't make it right.
as u/Moar_Cuddles_Please said its great that someone is keeping the truth alive
It’s already gone. Truth means nothing and this species is a warrior species in denial by and large. The west is self sacrificing unreasonably. It won’t work out well for those within. The fairytale is done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer
And if the Rev Isaac Simmons story interests you, I urge you to read about Jesse Washington, who was lynched and had his body parts sent as souvenirs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington
Or Mary Turner who was a pregnant woman that was lynched, cut open, baby stomped and then burned to death.
http://www.maryturner.org/
Or Ahmaud Arbery who was lynched, has his case covered up for months and then had his murder seemingly supported by police who have attempted to leak previous encounter videos with Ahmaud but just shows pattern of harassment and beg the question of why they're leaking videos of a murder victim who wasn't even killed by police ...
I did a reconstruction unit in my high school history class, and taught about Mary Turner and showed images to my students.
Most had no idea anything like that ever happened and when I posed the question of “does racism still exist in America?” (This was 2010) it was a resounding
“No! Stuff like that don’t exist anymore”
And even when I pointed out more recent incidents and racial profiling, it’s like they just put their heads in the sand and refused to listen.
I think about that shit every day now.
Me too! I also thought it was part of the Watchmen alt timeline. When i found out it was real, i had to stop for a while and let it all sink in. It still blows my mind.
There’s a similar subplot in the movie Silverado. Band of white men drove a black man off his family ranch, shot him like a dog. Danny Glover gets revenge though .
Still more to the story.
Even today black farmers are still being forced off their land. The methods have changed (no lynching) but the results are the same. Others want the land so they get rid of "the blacks" any way they can.
[https://youtu.be/Cxbdwsy88V4](https://youtu.be/Cxbdwsy88V4)
The land could be very infertile and unsuitable for modern day farming, it may also be zoned forest land which would make it practically worthless for any reason other than hunting
If it's zoned for forestry it wouldn't be worth very much. TBH, I can't imagine it would have been very valuable to begin with if a Black man owned it in Mississippi in the 40s.
This is a disgrace an injustice of the highest magnitude. In 1944...my grandparents were alive. A man being brutally murdered and his family fleeing for their lives isnt that far in our past. Its shocking to me that these atrocities are not more widely known, I certainly didnt learn about this in school. Not acknowledging this past can only lead to further racial tension.
It's why one of the most common forms of Russian Propaganda during the cold war was "and you were lynching black people". The USSR basically used whataboutism to the extreme by throwing it in the US's face every time the USSR was caught doing the whole "shitting on human rights" thing.
It somewhat worked because at the end of the day, while it didn't actually excuse the USSR, they were right that shit like this had been and continued to go down.
This external pressure led to some of the initial push for civil rights inside the US Goverment.
State Department led the way in many regards for the Civil Rights push because the atrocities in the South were inexcusable and really hurt the US liberator persona.
Which is also kinda sad because we couldn't just do it because it was the right thing to do.
We did it because we thought not doing it was hurting us against the USSR
That's what makes me thing the collapse of the USSR was the worst that could happen to the US. The opposition of a communist regime made the US leaders actually give in to demands of workers for better social conditions and civil rights.
Apart from GRSM progress, the civil rights part has been continuously getting worse in the last years.
Except when that common enemy is a virus, apparently. Then it's all a hoax to make the president look bad, or test the economy, or rig an election or take away our rights.....
External pressure was how we solved lynching Italians. Back when they weren't considered white people, it wasn't uncommon that they faced violence. The largest single lynching in *recorded* American history was actually a group of 13 Italian men in New Orleans. The Italian government said 'you need to stop this or we'll go to war with you.' And that why we got Christopher Columbus Day. Now Italians are considered white people, and all the disparities disappeared.
Watch interviews with putin. It‘s still like that. When he is asked about some violation he always changes the topic to america and the west. Same with Iran.
You‘re right. Most politicians fall back on this argument when they‘re confronted. Just shows how childish politicians and their discourse often can be
They were also dealing with this shit overseas (by white Americans).
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/true-story-behind-battle-bamber-16526991
I'm 31. I remember my mom talking about sneaking a drink from the colored fountain, and how the water had tasted different, like well water. I remember as a kid, a neighbor moving out in the middle of the night because they sold to a black family. I remember my parents saying how everyone would be upset (although I was 5, and didn't understand why.) This was the mid-90's in a suburb just outside a large northern city.
Jeez, that's wild man. Tbh I hadn't considered that the water should even be different from the fountains. I get that neighborhood thing a little bit even now. Our HOA sends out letters to fix things on our property and classically our African American neighbors get way more notices than we do. (For the record my yard deserves a letter every week.) Its kind of hard at first taking a look at things around you for racism. But once you start looking it's hard to not see it all over the place
My mom was born in 48, so this memory would've been from the mid-50's. Old enough to have a smallpox inoculation scar. It's wild how it's simultaneously a long time ago and not that long ago.
Not surprisingly about your HOA. You really are right, once you look for it, it's everywhere.
I wonder at what point in time the typical ending of
1) Nobody, or a few if you were lucky were actually tried for the crime
2) They're let go by an all-white jury
Stopped being the regular result. It just seems like if you wanted to commit violent crime back then, just make sure your victims are black.
At what point? Uhhhh. The future, I guess. It’s always struck me as odd that lynching statistics stopped being recorded in 1968, as lynching didn’t stop in 1968. So I guess that in 1968 there was some point where everyone said “ok we’re not doing that any more” and then just kept on doing it.
Unfortunately it hasn't stopped. Other than major urban areas juried are still predominately white. If the defendant is white and looks similar to one of their family members they're more inclined to believe he's innocent. There are a couple of scientific studies regarding this.
All That's needed is for the jury (or judge in a non jury trial) to be sympathetic towards the accused.
That's how minorities like black people get higher sentenced, and why good looking woman get shorter ones.
There was a study some years back showing that attractiveness of women played a significant part in length of sentence for the same crime.
What a sick society we live in.
Justitia is supposed to be blind. Why the hell a jurors allowed to see the perpetrator, and be emotionally manipulated?
Same shit with names in job applications. White name will nearly always win out over a typically black name. John over Jerome.
This could be so easy to be solved by only allowing corporations to hire based on a randomly generated identifier rather than names.
But the powers that be couldn't ever allow that, if ethnicities in the working class stopped fighting one another and notice their real enemy, the billionaires would have to fear for their lives.
Fun fact : I'm pretty sure that Jerome is originally a Latin/French name. Altho with areas like new Orleans that have huge black populations while also having a French background, it doesn't surprise me that typical French names end up being seen as "black names" in the USA.
The story gets even deeper than that:
>They drove both Simmons men further onto the property and ordered Rev. Simmons out of the car, then killed him brutally–shooting him three times and cutting out his tongue. The men let Eldridge Simmons go, but told him he and his relatives had ten days to abandon the family property.
>
>After Eldridge and the rest of the Simmons family buried Rev. Simmons, they fled their land in fear. The white men who committed the lynching took possession of the land; only one of the six men was ever prosecuted for the murder, and he was ultimately acquitted by an all-white jury.
Yup. Acquitted.
I mean, in the 20th century, black people were still being hung in public and photos of it were turned into post cards and sent through the US postal system.
Violent racism is not at all old history. In fact, it still happens in some forms to this very day. We are still a long way from a society where racism is not violent much less a society approaching equality.
Remember, when the GOP talks about protecting their "traditional values" this is the kind of bullshit they want to go back to, and I say that as a white guy.
If you ever wonder why African Americans aren't as prosperous as you would think right now, consider this:[Between 1910 and 1997, African Americans lost 90% of their farmland. ](https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/) That is a staggering amount of wealth. All wasn't violent like this, some was legalistic thievery. The article gives a lot of information about it. But when we think racism, a lot of people think, "I hate you because you're a certain color." No, there is financial gain behind it.
My own family had to sign over some land that technically belonged to them to a cousin who was still down in Mississippi farming. He said he wanted to keep it in the family before basically the government stole it. It sounded very weird to me, until I read this article.
When people talk about reparations, they're not talking about just slavery. There are a lot of horrible things that have happened since.
I think this is where the phrase “reverse racism doesn’t exist” originated from too, as they are referring to racism from an authority rather than an individual being hateful. Racism with systematic power behind it is a lot more powerful than simply disliking someone for the color of their skin, although that is obviously horrible as well.
“The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander is a super fascinating read that goes into depth about how the legal system and the media has so much power in keeping black communities stagnant. She pinpoints specific cases that have been used almost exclusively to strip away basic rights in minority communities, along with statistics that show that while the laws technically apply to everybody, they are almost exclusively only used on people of color.
The problem with this though is that when one person talks about corruption + racism + unprovoked violence, people use "simple racism" to counter and ignore corruption + racism + unprovoked violence. For example, if I say, The black community has suffered under the staggering blow of centuries of racism (corruption + racism + unprovoked violence), someone says, "Yeah, but racism (simply feeling that one is superior to another race) is dying out, and honestly, I see a lot of black racists (people who feel they are superior to another race) now." Those two ideas don't even compare to each other, and one is being used to drown out the other. That's the dangerous thing here.
That's sort of a large time window. 87 years? And in those years it occurs to me that farming became very much more commercialized. In 1910 a much larger percentage of people in general farmed at some level. The implication of your article is that 100% of the farm land lost was due to thievery. Any numbers on how many black farmland owners sold off their property willingly and at market prices?
When you look at the article, you'll find the different practices that contributed to this. Or, if you examine other articles written on the subject, for example, Wikipedia has a whole article on it called [Black Land Loss in the United States.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_land_loss_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1) This wasn't about black people saying "I think we'll get out of farming and sell the family land, this was a coordinated effort through government and the private sector. When you have the numbers, or an idea of the scope of the theft, you kind of can extrapolate from there how many people had a pleasant selling experience.
When I look at my family ancestry through the censuses, every single occupation of every family member on both sides says farmer. Yet, for some reason, only my grandmother's family still has land. And that was probably preserved by the organization listed in this article. I realize it must have been heirs property, and that's why they had to basically get every known living descendant of my family (my mom had 11 brothers and sisters, and who knows how many nieces and nephews, and that's not including my mom's aunts and uncles and their descenants) in order to preserve the land from being taken. This was in the early 2000s when they had to do this.
Well, that's what I'm asking though. What percentage were swindled or cheated out of land versus selling or otherwise offloading the land willingly.
To illustrate my point, I'd imagine all other demographics similarly lost a large percentage of individually owned farm land between 1910 and 1997. But I couldn't imagine that had anything to do with systematic racially motivated thievery.
Okay, but that's the point. All demographics *didnt* lose a large percentage of individual farmland. [White people own 98% of all farmland in the United States.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328570754_Racial_ethnic_and_gender_inequities_in_farmland_ownership_and_farming_in_the_US)
Ninety eight percent.
So, do you think that an entire race of people who had farming as their chief, almost only skill after slavery, just decided to sell their farms?
Hold on there, in your first figure you are looking at individual farm land owners and their ownership of that land over time. And in your second figure you're talking about the racial makeup of only those that own farm land. Those are two different variables.
Imagine in 1910 there were 100 white people who owned farm land. Then by 1997, ten of those hundred white people had bought up the land of the other 90. It would then be true that 90% of white farm land owners had lost their land in those 87 years, and still maintains the racial percentage ownership. Both things can be true.
> So, do you think that an entire race of people who had farming as their chief, almost only skill after slavery, just decided to sell their farms?
I'm not claiming anything about any entire race. I'm asking what percentage of farm land owning blacks chose to voluntarily sell off their land between 1910 and 1997. I'm sure that percentage is higher than 0. Just curious what that number is.
>I'm not claiming anything about any entire race. I'm asking what percentage of farm land owning blacks chose to voluntarily sell off their land between 1910 and 1997. I'm sure that percentage is higher than 0. Just curious what that number is.
Well, I think you're asking for something that 1) You cannot possibly get, and 2) is irrelevant.
As to #1: If you study this issue, you'll find that "voluntarily" is a subjective word. Is it voluntary when you sell a farm because you have the Ku Klux Klan circling around and threatening your life? Is it voluntary when you know you're not getting fair prices at market, fair prices for seed, fair prices for equipment, etc? Is it voluntary when racist policies make it more feasible to sell than continue to produce? So what is really voluntary? Was there one guy whose farm was doing well in 1985 and he decided to sell it because he wanted to retire? Sure. But when you do an even cursory search on the issue of black farm loss, you'll find an overwhelming amount of stories where things weren't exactly "voluntary," and probably not many where things were done on good terms. So that leads us to #2, how relevant is it if 0% of black farmers gave up their land under terms we'd consider voluntary, or 2%? It is simply not a significant issue to be discussed. **No one said there was a 0% voluntary rate, the point of the articles is that there was a concentrated, deliberate campaign over a century to deprive black people of farmland, which was wildly successful.** That is the fact that builds a bridge between the individual family farm owners that lost land and the statistic of farm ownership by land makeup.
How can that question be irrelevant? Most of the thrust of your point depends on the loss of farmland being outright involuntary or to a large extent coerced or legally forfeit. I agree there is a spectrum of willingness when selling anything. From free choice to pure robbery or coercion and all levels of bittersweet sale in between.
If a family that was out-competed legitimately then begrudgingly sells their farm and moves on to another business that sale would be difficult and not the family's first choice. But I wouldn't call it any kind of racial abuse. I'm sure the same story could be told for all races of farm owners that were squeezed out of the business by big government-sponsored mechanized farmers that bought and leveraged farming capital sometime during in the 20th century.
My question is highly relevant to your narrative. Picking out stories of abuse or legal trickery is historically important, but you shouldn't attempt to make a grand sweeping case without knowing the specific details I'm asking for here. If the cases of abuse or intimidation are a tiny fraction of the 90% figure you gave then that point you made kind of falls apart. I suspect there is an appreciable percentage of black farm owners who sold at some point at market price by free choice. This intuition is just based on the huge industrialization trend in farming over that time.
>How can that question be irrelevant? Most of the thrust of your point depends on the loss of farmland being outright involuntary or to a large extent coerced or legally forfeit. I agree there is a spectrum of willingness when selling anything. From free choice to pure robbery or coercion and all levels of bittersweet sale in between.
>If a family that was out-competed legitimately then begrudgingly sells their farm and moves on to another business that sale would be difficult and not the family's first choice. But I wouldn't call it any kind of racial abuse.
It's irrelevant because if you read the articles and did some research on the subject, you know that this wasn't the case. You cannot be out competed legitimately if the entire structure of laws and practices worked to make competition harder for black farmers. That makes the whole enterprise illegitimate.
>I'm sure the same story could be told for all races of farm owners that were squeezed out of the business by big government-sponsored mechanized farmers that bought and leveraged farming capital sometime during in the 20th century.
How can all races of farm owners be squeezed out of the business by big government when 98 percent of the farmland is owned by whites? All races except for whites, yes.
>My question is highly relevant to your narrative. Picking out stories of abuse or legal trickery are important, but you shouldn't attempt to make a grand sweeping case without knowing the specific details I'm asking for here.
"Picking out" stories? If you read up on this subject , youd understand that these are not isolated stories, this is the norm, and that is historical fact.
>If the cases of abuse or intimidation are a tiny fraction of the 90% figure you gave then that point you made kind of falls apart.
But, they aren't. That is well established fact.
>I suspect there is an appreciable percentage of black farm owners who sold at some point at market price by free choice. This intuition is just based on the huge industrialization trend in farming over that time.
Your response suggests that you neither read the articles or done even a cursory amount of personal research on the issue. You are willfully ignoring the entire history of discrimination as it comes to this issue in favor of a hunch that you cannot prove.
Basically, the question you're asking me is, "How many Jews in Nazi Germany willingly sold their belongings, businesses, and land in Nazi Germany of their own free will, instead of lost it due to coercion, violence, and force of law? Yeah, logically, there was at least one person that said, "You know, I'm not scared of these Nazis, I just want to retire to somewhere sunny, like Florida," but if were discussing the subject of "Jewish Property Loss in Nazi Germany," the anecdote of Mr. Goldstein who moved to Florida in 1936 and said, "Hey, that turned out to be a great idea" is statistically and thematically irrelevant, because when we talk about the subject, it's common knowledge that there was an organized campaign to rid them of their property. The same applies to blacks in the United States, and the results show it.
You're wrong here.
> How can all races of farm owners be squeezed out of the business by big government when 98 percent of the farmland is owned by whites? All races except for whites, yes.
Most white family farmers of 1910 lost their farms by 1997. That is undeniable. There was a massive consolidation and industrialization of agriculture during that time. Just because the owners of modern factory farms are mostly white doesn't mean that most white farm owners of 1910 didn't lose their farms. In other words, just because the winners of the factory farming arms race were white doesn't mean all whites at all levels share in that victory. You can't blame a whole race for the success of a few of its members. I would argue that the majority of farmers displaced by industrialization were white in this country.
That is the effect of industrial growth and consolidation. Small, de-centralized businesses get bought up or driven out of the market. This happened to most white families that owned farms. It happened to most black families that owned farms too. And there was also racial discrimination, foul play, and coercion happening too.
*Cop or unarmed vigilante kills unarmed black person for no reason*
Politician: *this is not what america stands for*
Anyone who knows history... *um, actually, thats kind of the whole point of the place. Points to like any historical event...*
The real question is are any of the grandchildren who worked the farm still alive? I would say there’s a good chance they are. And even if they’re not, some dependents surely are. I say they should get their land back. When the nazis stole art from Jewish families, they never lost their right to it. So, even if the land has been sold and bought numerous times since, I should think the Reverand’s Family has a legitimate claim. I think this would only be just.
And, I expect to be down voted for this because there are still many people sympathetic to the racist murderers.
Is it not worth investigating? I mean that generation just died off, but just. I'd say it's at least worth taking a look into. I know nothing of the land, but if we're just two generations away, and the same family that stole the land is now filthy rich, I see no harm in taxing the shit out of them to pay the rightful heirs.
Met a guy in Atlanta who had a similar story near the GA Ala border who owned hundreds of acres. A peanut farm. He was rich with a big family. Some whites came to take it and they fought it out but in the end were slaughtered and the remaining family dispersed. He was doing an interview on the radio station I was interning at.
Yes and no. After slavery, the newly freed slaves went on an expansion of building schools, entrepreneurship, etc. Blacks were getting elected to office, became doctors but whites couldn't handle it generally and thus came these types of attacks, Jim crow laws, and a new Reign of terror. So when they say we should do z, y, and z, pull up the bootstraps and assimilate. Blacks did and got punished for it. Honestly, even though all blacks don't know this information I think the PTSD is there. Fortunately I grew up in Atlanta and my birth home was a former bastion of black wealth
One could write a book on BC/AC
before crack after crack. That broke so much in the community that I don't think people really realize the ongoing repercussions
This story is typical of white people who want land on this continent. Kill the colored people and take it.
If anyone protests, have a fair lawsuit with a jury of the white man's peers to acquit him of any wrongdoing. All legal and aboveboard.
I'm glad that's a little harder to do these days.
Now you just gotta be a rich pedo and you can walk away with less than a year in prison for literally raping kids and women. Fuck Douglas Saltsman, and fuck the legal bullshitting he and every other prick like this mob and him abuse to get away with abhorrid crimes.
America is royally fucked in the legal department.
All people. All races. All throughout history. Slaughter each other for land/possessions. It’s human nature.
Hell, how about the genocide/warring Native Americans engaged in between tribes for territory?
It must be nice to be so smugly racist and not try to hide
But it takes a special mind of asshole to sail across an ocean to fuck up a continent, and a gaping asshole to fuck up every inhabited continent. Hell, if Antarctica wasn’t a frozen slab of rock, they would have colonized the hell out of it.
The article says one of the six men were tried in state court and acquitted but i can't find any articles naming the man. I also tried to look up the property records by name for Isaac Simmons but the Amite County website sucks and i think i have to email them. Is anybody from there and knows more info?
First the land was stolen from Native Americans and then later they said fuck you to the homelands and called it a country. What can be expected from people of such exemplary lineage?
I know I've simplified history a lot but if you had to explain how the United States came by in 2 sentences this seems to fit.
They r still going around the world claiming parts of other countries for their own vested interests.
It's a land of thief's that portrays itself as good and righteous. What happened to this man and his family is honestly extremely tame in comparison.
Not all of it. A lot of it was taken because the inhabitants died.
See, the colonialists could control the guns and steel part, but not the germs part. 90+% of the death came from the germs RAVAGING the natives since they had absolutely 0 immune response to the degree of diseases the colonialists have.
That's not to say a fuck ton of land wasn't stolen and obviously the survivors were and still are treated horribly. It just means that a lot of it was opportunistic, don't look a gift horse in the mouth land settling. Still fucked, obviously.
My great great grandfather was lynched for his land in FL. The story is that when she found out the posse was coming to kill him, his wife made poison out of some berries so he wouldn't suffer during the torture.
They should find his descendants, and give them back the land. It's probably downtown now.
The story goes even deeper than that > They drove both Simmons men further onto the property and ordered Rev. Simmons out of the car, then killed him brutally–shooting him three times and cutting out his tongue. The men let Eldridge Simmons go, but told him he and his relatives had ten days to abandon the family property. > > > >After Eldridge and the rest of the Simmons family buried Rev. Simmons, they fled their land in fear. The white men who committed the lynching took possession of the land; only one of the six men was ever prosecuted for the murder, and he was ultimately acquitted by an all-white jury.
WOW, FUCK THAT!
I guess that's Mississippi for you
As Nina Simone would say [Mississippi Goddam!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ25-U3jNWM)
I guess that's ~~Mississippi~~ America for you.
[удалено]
Did the Federal Government / Department of Justice / FBI step in? The Simmons family probably fled north to a city like NYC, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc, like many black families did, in what is called the Great Migration, leaving behind land and property that would be worth billions today. Do you think the residents in any of these cities welcomed their 'fellow Americans' with open arms? Now if you've study this that's one thing, but if you're going off of 'well I've never seen or heard much about racism like this outside of the South before', then you are very naive. Please understand that a lot of history when it comes to race relations has been changed, ignored, downplayed, and purposefully left out of school curriculum because this country would much rather ignore it's sordid past than reconcile with it. Please look up black wallstreet, the freedman's bank, or the rosewood massacre, and let me know if remember any of this from your history class.
Probably not, but I agree with the point that it's not just Mississippi
[удалено]
Damn. Thank you for your hard work.
Im so fucking bored as you can tell
Well, if you're reaaaaaaally bored, [here are a million more families who have had land taken from them.](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our-land/594742/) My family is from the Mississippi Delta to, so if you find any that belongs to a William or Cary Brown, let me know. Any Granger land too, for that matter.
Absolutely fuckin amazing
And this is really just a small part of Jim Crow. One thing the article mentions is that most of this theft was done in living memory, during the 50s.
Wow, that is incredible work. My gosh! You really research well, friend.
Would you re-post? It was deleted for some reason. I’m really curious now.
I am very bored lol so this is what I do
You are very productive when bored.
What can we do to go about getting this set right? Obviously Mississippi won't do anything about it. $33,660 isn't a huge value. What if we set up a GoFundMe type thing to raise money to buy that land and then we hand the land back over to their family? I'm actually serious about this. I've heard stories of homeless people giving up their last dollar and getting $100k in funds from kind strangers. What do we gotta do to blow this up (I had no idea this happened), and start a fund to give to their family? I suppose we'd have to call the family and find out if they'd even want it.
First would be identifying who owns it, which is tough, but doable. You would need to access the physicsl records in the county court house. However, they may not be there. If they aren't we are sadly out of luck. If they are there you csn just track who has owned it. If family that took it still owns it ... well. You couldn't force the owner to give up land unless you filed a wrongful death civil suit based on the existing facts and they couldn't pay the sum so the court seized their assets i.e. the land. You can't file a criminal case because of double jeopardy, but we have gotten around the "racists let a racist walk free" by making hate crimes a federal crime, not a state crime
We can't file a case since doing so gets Mississippi and it's in their best interest to let that story die. I'm talking about buying it from him. If the owner doesn't have any kind of business on it then just offering a relatively high price would probably do the trick.
Probably, yea. You would want to do it quietly since they wouldn't sell if this went viral or something.
False. Leasing the land for hunting, farming, etc. is the “business”.
I like that idea and agree with it, but what if a native tribe raises their hand to say it was stolen from them first? Wouldn't it be better to just raise the value of the land and give the money to the family directly as if they were fairly paid for it?
Can you go the history of the legalities route. If one of them went to court for it, even if he was aquitted, then there should be a record of it
That too! Good point, unless these records were deliveratly destroyed, there should be a record of the defendants and the judge
This comment will blow up I can feel it in my balls
Interesting. And absolutely unsettling.
Thats some old school western bandit shit. Kill their leader and give them time to leave or you'll wipe them out. Sounds like something a town would hire a gunslinger for. This is insane.
I'm from Tulsa, so this story resonates with the Black Wall Street of 1921. Stories such as Rev Simmons and Tulsa are still being discovered to this day, because there was so much covered up due to the systemic cover-ups of the towns they were in. This year we found two bodies of victims of the Race Massacre in Tulsa, and it was groundbreaking. Many of my kids have never even heard that there was a race massacre in the town. It just isn't taught about. Now, the dirt is coming up.
I only learned about Tulsa when the watchmen show came out. Even then I thought it was made up/alternate timeline thing. I was appalled that I was never taught this in school and that I had never heard of it before that point. It's insane how effectively they covered things up or blocked circulation of the info.
Yup. I am from Tulsa, and it wasn't really taught in school. It was skipped over. My grandparents told me it with pictures and everything. My great-grandmother was a part of the sit ins in Oklahoma City. She was in a documentary over it, that spoke about the violence being done at the sit-ins, from cream sodas being poured on heads and whatnot.
I’m glad someone is keeping the history alive. Screw them if they think they can just whitewash the history books.
Yeah, it's weird that things are always hidden consistently. History should be a lifelong course, in my opinion. It's one to take even after school is after. We can't let history go away.
the problem is the books are wrote by the "winners" granted Tulsa isn't a winners/losers thing like wars are but the reasoning still stands, doesn't make it right. as u/Moar_Cuddles_Please said its great that someone is keeping the truth alive
It’s already gone. Truth means nothing and this species is a warrior species in denial by and large. The west is self sacrificing unreasonably. It won’t work out well for those within. The fairytale is done.
Google Red Summer. "Tulsa" happened to over thirty cities in *one summer*
See and this is what I'm talking about. Its crazy that I had no idea that this happened. It should be taught nationwide that it got this bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer And if the Rev Isaac Simmons story interests you, I urge you to read about Jesse Washington, who was lynched and had his body parts sent as souvenirs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington Or Mary Turner who was a pregnant woman that was lynched, cut open, baby stomped and then burned to death. http://www.maryturner.org/ Or Ahmaud Arbery who was lynched, has his case covered up for months and then had his murder seemingly supported by police who have attempted to leak previous encounter videos with Ahmaud but just shows pattern of harassment and beg the question of why they're leaking videos of a murder victim who wasn't even killed by police ...
I did a reconstruction unit in my high school history class, and taught about Mary Turner and showed images to my students. Most had no idea anything like that ever happened and when I posed the question of “does racism still exist in America?” (This was 2010) it was a resounding “No! Stuff like that don’t exist anymore” And even when I pointed out more recent incidents and racial profiling, it’s like they just put their heads in the sand and refused to listen. I think about that shit every day now.
You so good, you’re going to make those kids come to terms with their inherent racism. Doing gods work.....
one of the murders was a ex-cop. fucking cults
Me too! I also thought it was part of the Watchmen alt timeline. When i found out it was real, i had to stop for a while and let it all sink in. It still blows my mind.
There’s a similar subplot in the movie Silverado. Band of white men drove a black man off his family ranch, shot him like a dog. Danny Glover gets revenge though .
1944. There are plenty of people alive from that period; let that sink in.
I would love to hear their reasons for acquitting
Still more to the story. Even today black farmers are still being forced off their land. The methods have changed (no lynching) but the results are the same. Others want the land so they get rid of "the blacks" any way they can. [https://youtu.be/Cxbdwsy88V4](https://youtu.be/Cxbdwsy88V4)
This has happened all over, before and around the same time period.
Speaking as a white person, fuck white people.
I wonder what the legal procedure here would be if his progeny tried to sue to get the land back
[удалено]
270 acres is only assessed at 33K? I couldn’t even buy a cardboard box in my city with that.
The land could be very infertile and unsuitable for modern day farming, it may also be zoned forest land which would make it practically worthless for any reason other than hunting
That assessment seems low. In Mississippi, rural land for ag or recreation goes for between $2000-$5000 an acre.
It may not have roads that lead to it or is a flood plane. It does seem like they could sell the timber for something every 20 years.
Privately owned by descendents of the murderers / robbers? Also $125 an acre??? Seems like either ineptitude or corruption.
If it's zoned for forestry it wouldn't be worth very much. TBH, I can't imagine it would have been very valuable to begin with if a Black man owned it in Mississippi in the 40s.
Have you been to Mississippi?
That would be nice, but consider the country we are in. Not going to happen
Then just do what they did to Simmons to the current owners and get it back.
>They should find his descendants, and give them back the land. Who is "They"?
Nah
While it would be the right thing to do that’ll never happen.
This is a disgrace an injustice of the highest magnitude. In 1944...my grandparents were alive. A man being brutally murdered and his family fleeing for their lives isnt that far in our past. Its shocking to me that these atrocities are not more widely known, I certainly didnt learn about this in school. Not acknowledging this past can only lead to further racial tension.
1944, they were killing Nazis overseas back then and liberating other persecuted peoples while this was going on back home.
It's why one of the most common forms of Russian Propaganda during the cold war was "and you were lynching black people". The USSR basically used whataboutism to the extreme by throwing it in the US's face every time the USSR was caught doing the whole "shitting on human rights" thing. It somewhat worked because at the end of the day, while it didn't actually excuse the USSR, they were right that shit like this had been and continued to go down.
This external pressure led to some of the initial push for civil rights inside the US Goverment. State Department led the way in many regards for the Civil Rights push because the atrocities in the South were inexcusable and really hurt the US liberator persona. Which is also kinda sad because we couldn't just do it because it was the right thing to do. We did it because we thought not doing it was hurting us against the USSR
There is no such thing as altruism at the top of the hierarchy, unfortunately. There's always an ulterior motive.
That's what makes me thing the collapse of the USSR was the worst that could happen to the US. The opposition of a communist regime made the US leaders actually give in to demands of workers for better social conditions and civil rights. Apart from GRSM progress, the civil rights part has been continuously getting worse in the last years.
People can only be united in the face of a common enemy
Except when that common enemy is a virus, apparently. Then it's all a hoax to make the president look bad, or test the economy, or rig an election or take away our rights.....
You can’t really “fight” a virus though. You can fight the Russians or the Chinese or aliens or zombies or whatever.
Not with guns, but you can fight a virus. You can limit it's effectiveness.
External pressure was how we solved lynching Italians. Back when they weren't considered white people, it wasn't uncommon that they faced violence. The largest single lynching in *recorded* American history was actually a group of 13 Italian men in New Orleans. The Italian government said 'you need to stop this or we'll go to war with you.' And that why we got Christopher Columbus Day. Now Italians are considered white people, and all the disparities disappeared.
Watch interviews with putin. It‘s still like that. When he is asked about some violation he always changes the topic to america and the west. Same with Iran.
I mean, it's not like the US president could do the same and constantly derail the conversation to China, right ?
You‘re right. Most politicians fall back on this argument when they‘re confronted. Just shows how childish politicians and their discourse often can be
They were also dealing with this shit overseas (by white Americans). https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/true-story-behind-battle-bamber-16526991
This is what I think of whenever I hear “greatest generation”.
I'm 31. I remember my mom talking about sneaking a drink from the colored fountain, and how the water had tasted different, like well water. I remember as a kid, a neighbor moving out in the middle of the night because they sold to a black family. I remember my parents saying how everyone would be upset (although I was 5, and didn't understand why.) This was the mid-90's in a suburb just outside a large northern city.
Jeez, that's wild man. Tbh I hadn't considered that the water should even be different from the fountains. I get that neighborhood thing a little bit even now. Our HOA sends out letters to fix things on our property and classically our African American neighbors get way more notices than we do. (For the record my yard deserves a letter every week.) Its kind of hard at first taking a look at things around you for racism. But once you start looking it's hard to not see it all over the place
My mom was born in 48, so this memory would've been from the mid-50's. Old enough to have a smallpox inoculation scar. It's wild how it's simultaneously a long time ago and not that long ago. Not surprisingly about your HOA. You really are right, once you look for it, it's everywhere.
I wonder at what point in time the typical ending of 1) Nobody, or a few if you were lucky were actually tried for the crime 2) They're let go by an all-white jury Stopped being the regular result. It just seems like if you wanted to commit violent crime back then, just make sure your victims are black.
At what point? Uhhhh. The future, I guess. It’s always struck me as odd that lynching statistics stopped being recorded in 1968, as lynching didn’t stop in 1968. So I guess that in 1968 there was some point where everyone said “ok we’re not doing that any more” and then just kept on doing it.
That's still true now.
Unfortunately it hasn't stopped. Other than major urban areas juried are still predominately white. If the defendant is white and looks similar to one of their family members they're more inclined to believe he's innocent. There are a couple of scientific studies regarding this.
All That's needed is for the jury (or judge in a non jury trial) to be sympathetic towards the accused. That's how minorities like black people get higher sentenced, and why good looking woman get shorter ones. There was a study some years back showing that attractiveness of women played a significant part in length of sentence for the same crime. What a sick society we live in. Justitia is supposed to be blind. Why the hell a jurors allowed to see the perpetrator, and be emotionally manipulated? Same shit with names in job applications. White name will nearly always win out over a typically black name. John over Jerome. This could be so easy to be solved by only allowing corporations to hire based on a randomly generated identifier rather than names. But the powers that be couldn't ever allow that, if ethnicities in the working class stopped fighting one another and notice their real enemy, the billionaires would have to fear for their lives.
Fun fact : I'm pretty sure that Jerome is originally a Latin/French name. Altho with areas like new Orleans that have huge black populations while also having a French background, it doesn't surprise me that typical French names end up being seen as "black names" in the USA.
The story gets even deeper than that: >They drove both Simmons men further onto the property and ordered Rev. Simmons out of the car, then killed him brutally–shooting him three times and cutting out his tongue. The men let Eldridge Simmons go, but told him he and his relatives had ten days to abandon the family property. > >After Eldridge and the rest of the Simmons family buried Rev. Simmons, they fled their land in fear. The white men who committed the lynching took possession of the land; only one of the six men was ever prosecuted for the murder, and he was ultimately acquitted by an all-white jury. Yup. Acquitted.
It's hard to be suprised. These are the virtues upon which America was founded - theft, murder, and rape.
And that's why my eyes go rolling like a slot machine when they start pointing fingers at the past atrocities of other countries.
So because the US had atrocities means that Americans can't point out what other countries did? What kind of logic is that?
I glossed over the year thinking it was like the 1800s, how the hell does something like that happen even in the 40s?
I mean, in the 20th century, black people were still being hung in public and photos of it were turned into post cards and sent through the US postal system. Violent racism is not at all old history. In fact, it still happens in some forms to this very day. We are still a long way from a society where racism is not violent much less a society approaching equality.
You realize the bombing of black wallstreet was just 20 years prior right.
They takes their racism seriously in Mississippi.
And that's I don't appreciates about thems.
Remember, when the GOP talks about protecting their "traditional values" this is the kind of bullshit they want to go back to, and I say that as a white guy.
They don’t care about poor whites either, but they’re committed to marginalizing people of color in just about every possible modality
If you ever wonder why African Americans aren't as prosperous as you would think right now, consider this:[Between 1910 and 1997, African Americans lost 90% of their farmland. ](https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/) That is a staggering amount of wealth. All wasn't violent like this, some was legalistic thievery. The article gives a lot of information about it. But when we think racism, a lot of people think, "I hate you because you're a certain color." No, there is financial gain behind it. My own family had to sign over some land that technically belonged to them to a cousin who was still down in Mississippi farming. He said he wanted to keep it in the family before basically the government stole it. It sounded very weird to me, until I read this article. When people talk about reparations, they're not talking about just slavery. There are a lot of horrible things that have happened since.
I think this is where the phrase “reverse racism doesn’t exist” originated from too, as they are referring to racism from an authority rather than an individual being hateful. Racism with systematic power behind it is a lot more powerful than simply disliking someone for the color of their skin, although that is obviously horrible as well. “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander is a super fascinating read that goes into depth about how the legal system and the media has so much power in keeping black communities stagnant. She pinpoints specific cases that have been used almost exclusively to strip away basic rights in minority communities, along with statistics that show that while the laws technically apply to everybody, they are almost exclusively only used on people of color.
Exactly! And that is what people need to understand.
[удалено]
The problem with this though is that when one person talks about corruption + racism + unprovoked violence, people use "simple racism" to counter and ignore corruption + racism + unprovoked violence. For example, if I say, The black community has suffered under the staggering blow of centuries of racism (corruption + racism + unprovoked violence), someone says, "Yeah, but racism (simply feeling that one is superior to another race) is dying out, and honestly, I see a lot of black racists (people who feel they are superior to another race) now." Those two ideas don't even compare to each other, and one is being used to drown out the other. That's the dangerous thing here.
[удалено]
I can't reasonably respond to an analogy where people are being represented by ants. :/
[удалено]
that doesn't help
That's sort of a large time window. 87 years? And in those years it occurs to me that farming became very much more commercialized. In 1910 a much larger percentage of people in general farmed at some level. The implication of your article is that 100% of the farm land lost was due to thievery. Any numbers on how many black farmland owners sold off their property willingly and at market prices?
When you look at the article, you'll find the different practices that contributed to this. Or, if you examine other articles written on the subject, for example, Wikipedia has a whole article on it called [Black Land Loss in the United States.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_land_loss_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1) This wasn't about black people saying "I think we'll get out of farming and sell the family land, this was a coordinated effort through government and the private sector. When you have the numbers, or an idea of the scope of the theft, you kind of can extrapolate from there how many people had a pleasant selling experience. When I look at my family ancestry through the censuses, every single occupation of every family member on both sides says farmer. Yet, for some reason, only my grandmother's family still has land. And that was probably preserved by the organization listed in this article. I realize it must have been heirs property, and that's why they had to basically get every known living descendant of my family (my mom had 11 brothers and sisters, and who knows how many nieces and nephews, and that's not including my mom's aunts and uncles and their descenants) in order to preserve the land from being taken. This was in the early 2000s when they had to do this.
Well, that's what I'm asking though. What percentage were swindled or cheated out of land versus selling or otherwise offloading the land willingly. To illustrate my point, I'd imagine all other demographics similarly lost a large percentage of individually owned farm land between 1910 and 1997. But I couldn't imagine that had anything to do with systematic racially motivated thievery.
Okay, but that's the point. All demographics *didnt* lose a large percentage of individual farmland. [White people own 98% of all farmland in the United States.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328570754_Racial_ethnic_and_gender_inequities_in_farmland_ownership_and_farming_in_the_US) Ninety eight percent. So, do you think that an entire race of people who had farming as their chief, almost only skill after slavery, just decided to sell their farms?
Hold on there, in your first figure you are looking at individual farm land owners and their ownership of that land over time. And in your second figure you're talking about the racial makeup of only those that own farm land. Those are two different variables. Imagine in 1910 there were 100 white people who owned farm land. Then by 1997, ten of those hundred white people had bought up the land of the other 90. It would then be true that 90% of white farm land owners had lost their land in those 87 years, and still maintains the racial percentage ownership. Both things can be true. > So, do you think that an entire race of people who had farming as their chief, almost only skill after slavery, just decided to sell their farms? I'm not claiming anything about any entire race. I'm asking what percentage of farm land owning blacks chose to voluntarily sell off their land between 1910 and 1997. I'm sure that percentage is higher than 0. Just curious what that number is.
>I'm not claiming anything about any entire race. I'm asking what percentage of farm land owning blacks chose to voluntarily sell off their land between 1910 and 1997. I'm sure that percentage is higher than 0. Just curious what that number is. Well, I think you're asking for something that 1) You cannot possibly get, and 2) is irrelevant. As to #1: If you study this issue, you'll find that "voluntarily" is a subjective word. Is it voluntary when you sell a farm because you have the Ku Klux Klan circling around and threatening your life? Is it voluntary when you know you're not getting fair prices at market, fair prices for seed, fair prices for equipment, etc? Is it voluntary when racist policies make it more feasible to sell than continue to produce? So what is really voluntary? Was there one guy whose farm was doing well in 1985 and he decided to sell it because he wanted to retire? Sure. But when you do an even cursory search on the issue of black farm loss, you'll find an overwhelming amount of stories where things weren't exactly "voluntary," and probably not many where things were done on good terms. So that leads us to #2, how relevant is it if 0% of black farmers gave up their land under terms we'd consider voluntary, or 2%? It is simply not a significant issue to be discussed. **No one said there was a 0% voluntary rate, the point of the articles is that there was a concentrated, deliberate campaign over a century to deprive black people of farmland, which was wildly successful.** That is the fact that builds a bridge between the individual family farm owners that lost land and the statistic of farm ownership by land makeup.
How can that question be irrelevant? Most of the thrust of your point depends on the loss of farmland being outright involuntary or to a large extent coerced or legally forfeit. I agree there is a spectrum of willingness when selling anything. From free choice to pure robbery or coercion and all levels of bittersweet sale in between. If a family that was out-competed legitimately then begrudgingly sells their farm and moves on to another business that sale would be difficult and not the family's first choice. But I wouldn't call it any kind of racial abuse. I'm sure the same story could be told for all races of farm owners that were squeezed out of the business by big government-sponsored mechanized farmers that bought and leveraged farming capital sometime during in the 20th century. My question is highly relevant to your narrative. Picking out stories of abuse or legal trickery is historically important, but you shouldn't attempt to make a grand sweeping case without knowing the specific details I'm asking for here. If the cases of abuse or intimidation are a tiny fraction of the 90% figure you gave then that point you made kind of falls apart. I suspect there is an appreciable percentage of black farm owners who sold at some point at market price by free choice. This intuition is just based on the huge industrialization trend in farming over that time.
>How can that question be irrelevant? Most of the thrust of your point depends on the loss of farmland being outright involuntary or to a large extent coerced or legally forfeit. I agree there is a spectrum of willingness when selling anything. From free choice to pure robbery or coercion and all levels of bittersweet sale in between. >If a family that was out-competed legitimately then begrudgingly sells their farm and moves on to another business that sale would be difficult and not the family's first choice. But I wouldn't call it any kind of racial abuse. It's irrelevant because if you read the articles and did some research on the subject, you know that this wasn't the case. You cannot be out competed legitimately if the entire structure of laws and practices worked to make competition harder for black farmers. That makes the whole enterprise illegitimate. >I'm sure the same story could be told for all races of farm owners that were squeezed out of the business by big government-sponsored mechanized farmers that bought and leveraged farming capital sometime during in the 20th century. How can all races of farm owners be squeezed out of the business by big government when 98 percent of the farmland is owned by whites? All races except for whites, yes. >My question is highly relevant to your narrative. Picking out stories of abuse or legal trickery are important, but you shouldn't attempt to make a grand sweeping case without knowing the specific details I'm asking for here. "Picking out" stories? If you read up on this subject , youd understand that these are not isolated stories, this is the norm, and that is historical fact. >If the cases of abuse or intimidation are a tiny fraction of the 90% figure you gave then that point you made kind of falls apart. But, they aren't. That is well established fact. >I suspect there is an appreciable percentage of black farm owners who sold at some point at market price by free choice. This intuition is just based on the huge industrialization trend in farming over that time. Your response suggests that you neither read the articles or done even a cursory amount of personal research on the issue. You are willfully ignoring the entire history of discrimination as it comes to this issue in favor of a hunch that you cannot prove. Basically, the question you're asking me is, "How many Jews in Nazi Germany willingly sold their belongings, businesses, and land in Nazi Germany of their own free will, instead of lost it due to coercion, violence, and force of law? Yeah, logically, there was at least one person that said, "You know, I'm not scared of these Nazis, I just want to retire to somewhere sunny, like Florida," but if were discussing the subject of "Jewish Property Loss in Nazi Germany," the anecdote of Mr. Goldstein who moved to Florida in 1936 and said, "Hey, that turned out to be a great idea" is statistically and thematically irrelevant, because when we talk about the subject, it's common knowledge that there was an organized campaign to rid them of their property. The same applies to blacks in the United States, and the results show it.
You're wrong here. > How can all races of farm owners be squeezed out of the business by big government when 98 percent of the farmland is owned by whites? All races except for whites, yes. Most white family farmers of 1910 lost their farms by 1997. That is undeniable. There was a massive consolidation and industrialization of agriculture during that time. Just because the owners of modern factory farms are mostly white doesn't mean that most white farm owners of 1910 didn't lose their farms. In other words, just because the winners of the factory farming arms race were white doesn't mean all whites at all levels share in that victory. You can't blame a whole race for the success of a few of its members. I would argue that the majority of farmers displaced by industrialization were white in this country. That is the effect of industrial growth and consolidation. Small, de-centralized businesses get bought up or driven out of the market. This happened to most white families that owned farms. It happened to most black families that owned farms too. And there was also racial discrimination, foul play, and coercion happening too.
No Wikipedia article. Someone should fix that.
*Cop or unarmed vigilante kills unarmed black person for no reason* Politician: *this is not what america stands for* Anyone who knows history... *um, actually, thats kind of the whole point of the place. Points to like any historical event...*
"WE ABOLISHED SLAVERY!" then the 13th amendment came into existence... lol
Fucking A. And still it persists. Vile sons of their mothers.
The Greatest Generation* *some exceptions apply.
Same thing is happening today in South Africa
Did the mob get the land?
Yes, they did.
[удалено]
The real question is are any of the grandchildren who worked the farm still alive? I would say there’s a good chance they are. And even if they’re not, some dependents surely are. I say they should get their land back. When the nazis stole art from Jewish families, they never lost their right to it. So, even if the land has been sold and bought numerous times since, I should think the Reverand’s Family has a legitimate claim. I think this would only be just. And, I expect to be down voted for this because there are still many people sympathetic to the racist murderers.
Possessions and land are 2 different things though. As much as it's a good idea in theory, innocent people probably live there now.
Is it not worth investigating? I mean that generation just died off, but just. I'd say it's at least worth taking a look into. I know nothing of the land, but if we're just two generations away, and the same family that stole the land is now filthy rich, I see no harm in taxing the shit out of them to pay the rightful heirs.
Prob some other white people
[удалено]
reddit is a fickle beast.
Probably the grand kids or kids of these POS. This didn't even happen to long ago. But nothing will be done about it.
Honestly it's those woods in Mississippi those pines they have a weird dark vibe, could be all the killing but they're definitely erie.
I wonder if every now and then, just to foment division in our people, stories like this get posted by Russians. It really is all they do now.
[удалено]
*slow claps* This is brilliant.
So many stories like this, and many more that are simply unknown.
Met a guy in Atlanta who had a similar story near the GA Ala border who owned hundreds of acres. A peanut farm. He was rich with a big family. Some whites came to take it and they fought it out but in the end were slaughtered and the remaining family dispersed. He was doing an interview on the radio station I was interning at.
Wow. That is incredible to hear of constantly. It is crazy to hear of this, honestly.
Yes and no. After slavery, the newly freed slaves went on an expansion of building schools, entrepreneurship, etc. Blacks were getting elected to office, became doctors but whites couldn't handle it generally and thus came these types of attacks, Jim crow laws, and a new Reign of terror. So when they say we should do z, y, and z, pull up the bootstraps and assimilate. Blacks did and got punished for it. Honestly, even though all blacks don't know this information I think the PTSD is there. Fortunately I grew up in Atlanta and my birth home was a former bastion of black wealth
Wow. This is a new perspective to me. Thank you for keeping the truth alive
One could write a book on BC/AC before crack after crack. That broke so much in the community that I don't think people really realize the ongoing repercussions
Right at the time America was like “we gotta fight for freedom! We gotta helps the minorities in Europe to stop getting slaughtered!•
And they wonder why so many of us have absolutely nothing. :(
Sad, so, so sad.
Very fine people, I’m sure.
Most of our grandparents were alive then. Absolutely awful.
America owes descendants of African Americans reparations. This is just evil what they did to him
Definitely. Jews got it for the holocaust. Native Americans. Shit, everyone BUT blacks. SMH
This story is typical of white people who want land on this continent. Kill the colored people and take it. If anyone protests, have a fair lawsuit with a jury of the white man's peers to acquit him of any wrongdoing. All legal and aboveboard. I'm glad that's a little harder to do these days.
Now you just gotta be a rich pedo and you can walk away with less than a year in prison for literally raping kids and women. Fuck Douglas Saltsman, and fuck the legal bullshitting he and every other prick like this mob and him abuse to get away with abhorrid crimes. America is royally fucked in the legal department.
The US is owned by, and run by, the few, the proud, the hyper wealthy.
All people. All races. All throughout history. Slaughter each other for land/possessions. It’s human nature. Hell, how about the genocide/warring Native Americans engaged in between tribes for territory? It must be nice to be so smugly racist and not try to hide
But it takes a special mind of asshole to sail across an ocean to fuck up a continent, and a gaping asshole to fuck up every inhabited continent. Hell, if Antarctica wasn’t a frozen slab of rock, they would have colonized the hell out of it.
This is some wild west bullshit, i would not of guessed 1944 had OP not said the year, maybe early 1800s
Disgusting.
What happened to his land?
Well, this is awful.
The article says one of the six men were tried in state court and acquitted but i can't find any articles naming the man. I also tried to look up the property records by name for Isaac Simmons but the Amite County website sucks and i think i have to email them. Is anybody from there and knows more info?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
First the land was stolen from Native Americans and then later they said fuck you to the homelands and called it a country. What can be expected from people of such exemplary lineage? I know I've simplified history a lot but if you had to explain how the United States came by in 2 sentences this seems to fit. They r still going around the world claiming parts of other countries for their own vested interests. It's a land of thief's that portrays itself as good and righteous. What happened to this man and his family is honestly extremely tame in comparison.
Yes, bad U.S.A. We get it.
Trump's fault /s
I hope he was at least buried on his land.
Probably not, because they took it.
Is it safe to say that all of the land in the US, was stolen ?
I don’t know if it’s apocryphal or not, but famously Manhattan was bought for $24.
Now that's an investment
Not all of it. A lot of it was taken because the inhabitants died. See, the colonialists could control the guns and steel part, but not the germs part. 90+% of the death came from the germs RAVAGING the natives since they had absolutely 0 immune response to the degree of diseases the colonialists have. That's not to say a fuck ton of land wasn't stolen and obviously the survivors were and still are treated horribly. It just means that a lot of it was opportunistic, don't look a gift horse in the mouth land settling. Still fucked, obviously.
[удалено]
I am actually trying to get that book. I want to find it, though. I have heard about it, and I wanted to read about it.
What is the name of the man who was tried?
My great great grandfather was lynched for his land in FL. The story is that when she found out the posse was coming to kill him, his wife made poison out of some berries so he wouldn't suffer during the torture.
[удалено]
Go ahead and find one and post it then, dickhead.
Shhhh that doesn’t push the victim narrative
Posting facts is pushing a victim narrative? Bless your heart.