Categories: Uncategorized


History records the Age of Reason, or The Enlightenment, during the time period of 1685-1815.  The American and French Revolutions were heavily influenced by the thoughts that were developed during The Enlightenment.   Though it was billed as the Age of Reason, European thinkers built wild theories about the inferiority of Blacks, which were used to justify the denial of Black civil liberties.  European thinkers created racist ideologist as a way to justify the slave trade and colonialism.  Yet how could people who espoused such great ideas regarding liberty and limitations of government power be in support of limiting the freedoms of the African? It is important to understand the times in which these Enlightenment thinkers were developing these ideas.

Europe before the Enlightenment period saw a growth of powerful monarchs who ruled with absolute power, and the rise of tightly-centralized national governments.  Due to a rise in violent wars due to the Reformation, people were willing to have local autonomy taken away in exchange for peace and safety.    Much of Enlightenment thought focused on man and his relationship with society.  At the same time as the Enlightenment, slavery was at its height.  Many Enlightenment thinkers wrote from a Eurocentric view, which analyzed society with a supposition that non-whites were clearly inferior to whites. 


Francois-Marie d’Arouet, better known as Voltaire, believed that Africans were a sub-human group.  He believed “Nature has annexed to this principle these different degrees of genius, and the characters of nations that are so rarely seen to change.  It is for this reason that Negroes are slaves of other men.  They are bought on Africa’s coasts like beasts, and the multitudes of these blacks, transplanted to our American colonies, serves a very small number of Europeans. (Essay on Universal History, 2:335)  Voltaire accepted that a slave ship be named after him, and he speculated and profited in the slave trade. (Constitutional Sentiments by Andras Sajo. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011, pg. 160).  His friend Rene Montaudion, a rich merchant from Nantes, named one of his slave ships after him. Voltaire believed Africans were naturally inferior, which justified them being slaves.  He believed in the superiority of the White race.

Voltaire also said about Blacks: “Their round eyes, their flat nose, their lips which are always thick, their differently shaped ears, the wool on their head, the measure even of their intelligence establishes between them and other species of men prodigious differences.  If their understanding is not of a different nature from ours, it is at least greatly inferior.  They are not capable of any great application of ideas, and seemed formed neither in the advantages nor the abuses of our philosophy.”

David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian and economist, who is recognized as a precursor of contemporary cognitive science.  He was a close friend of Adam Smith, and his essays on money and International Trade heavily influenced Smith.  Hume also had a strong influence on philosophers Charles Darwin, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Henry Huxley.  Hume was a harsh critic of religion and metaphysics. 

Hume was a racist who believed that dark skin color was linked to moral and mental inferiority.  Hume’s attitude toward the Black race can neatly be summed up in this quote: “I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all other species of men, to be naturally inferior to the whites.  There never was a civilized nation of any complexion than white nor even any individual eminent in action of speculation.  No ingenious manufacturer among them, no arts, no sciences.  There are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe of which none ever displayed any symptoms of ingenuity. (David Hume, Essays, Moral and Political 1742)

Hume subscribed to the pseudo-scientific racism that was prevalent in his time.  In his work, Of National Character, Hume  expressed the belief that there was never a civilized nation of any other complexion than white. (David Hume, footnote to ‘Of National Character’ (1748), in The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Volume III, Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996, pg 228.)  Hume even compared Black Africans to parrots, in that they could only achieve very low level accomplishments.  Hume’s remarks were used to support slavery.  He was a Eurocentric thinker who could not grasp the thought that Blacks could ever achieve any high level of civilization.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant had this to say about Blacks: “The Negroes of Africa have received from nature no intelligence that rises above the foolish.  Hume invites anyone to quote a single example of a Negro who has exhibited talents.  He asserts that among the hundred thousands of blacks who have been seduced away from their own countries, although very many of them have been set free, yet not a single one has ever been found that has performed anything great whether in art or science or in any other laudable subject; but among whites, people constantly rise up from the lowest rabble and acquire esteem through their superior gifts.”

Kant believed that Africans were incapable of any form of education other than learning how to be a slave.  He divided humankind into four races: Hunnic, White, Hindu and Negro.  Kant believed that the “Negro” was the lowest of all races, and that the white race was the greatest perfection of humanity.  He viewed Blacks as primitive and barbarian, possessing inferior cognitive ability.  Later, Kant condemned European colonialism and chattel slavery.


Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) was a French philosopher.  Born to a wealthy family, but after the death of his mother when he was just seven, Montesquieu was placed into the custody of a poor family as a child. 

Montesquieu believed that slavery was not good for the slave owner or the slave.  He supported slavery, and believed that if there were a group fit for slavery, it would be the Black race.  He believed that climate had an effect on race.  He believed that people were more vigorous in cold climates, and that cold climate makes people more courage, and a greater sense of superiority.  People in warm climates however, were more timid, afraid, and in a state of total incapacity. He believed that warmer temperature made people lazy, and thus he believed that slavery would be justified there in order to get them to work.  In addition, Montesquieu commented that because Africans were “black from head to toe, and they have such flat noses that it is impossible to feel sorry for them.  One cannot get into one’s mind that God, who is a very wise being, should have put a soul, above all a good soul, in a body that was entirely black.” (Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws, pg. 250)

Montesquieu wrote in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures to be men, because, allowing them to be men, a suspicious would follow that we ourselves are not Christian.”  Yet, while reaching this conclusion, Montsquieu also concluded, in regards to colonial slavery, that “Weak minds exaggerate too much the injustice done to Africans” (Montesquieu, “Spirit of the Laws” pg 204)  Montesquieu even questioned whether blacks had a soul. (The Limits of Ethics in International Relations: Natural Law, Natural Rights, and natural rights in Transition by David Boucher. London: Oxford University Press, 2009)

Montesquieu believed in, and supported the rights of property holder, even when the property that was held were slaves.

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes believed that human nature was greedy and warlike.  Thomas Hobbes theorized that the Native Americans were primitive and where incapable of development.   Hobbes believed in the inferiority of Blacks.  Hobbes believed that slaves should not complain about slavery since were provided with security and sustenance in for labor and being governed.  He considered slavery a part of the world’s system of subordination and authority. (Slavery and Servitude in Colonial North America: A Short History by Kenneth Morgan. New York: NYU Press, 2001, pg. 32) Hobbes saw slavery as a necessary element of society. 

John Locke

John Locke(1632-1704), whose theory of natural rights helped to define the principles of modern democracy, invested in the slave trade. While he wrote that slavery is vile, he held stock in the Royal Africa Company. It is difficult to marry the concept of the duality of his ideas. Locke theorized in Two Treatises of Government, that the right to govern came from the consent of the people to be governed. The irony in Locke’s stance on slavery is that he believed that if a government ruled absolutely and arbitrarily, it forfeited its subjects’ loyalty. Yet he had no problem with slave owners doing the same to the slave, yet the slave had no right to be governed. It can be understood then that Locke’s position only makes sense if he did not see the African as people, but merely as property.   Locke believed in in the natural liberty of human beings, yet was an integral part of the drafting of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas, which was the Constitutions of North and South Carolina. These two states openly embraced slavery in their Constitutions, which granted absolute power over slaves. Therefore, Locke believed that slavery excluded slaves from the natural right to withdraw their consent when governed in an unjust manner. If governments are created to protect the natural rights of the people, why wouldn’t governments protect the African slave? Obviously, it was because the governments did not recognize the slave among “the people.”

Locke taught that everyone had a right to life, liberty, and property but was in support of denying those same rights to Blacks.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was opposed to slavery, but like his contemporaries, he was a white supremacist.  He believed that Blacks were naturally mentally inferior to Whites. Yet Rousseau was against slavery. It was Rousseau who observed that people are born free and yet in chains everywhere. He believed in the ideals of democracy, and in his view, no man had the right to enslave another. He did not embrace the idea that military might gave man the right to justify slavery.

 The Age of the Enlightenment is considered a time when social philosophers used reason to revolutionize human thought. Enlightenment thinkers embraced the concept of natural rights, yet believed that Blacks were inferior, two concepts that are difficult to marry. If intellect and social behavior are associated with physiognomy, or physical appearance, then it is easy to assume “the white man’s burden” to govern and control those who are deemed inferior. The idea of natural rights then would not apply to those who are labeled inferior. This is how slavery, racism and colonialism were able to coincide with the growth of Enlightenment thought.

Give Me Liberty

April 30, 2014 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized

Give Me Liberty

April 30, 2014 Leave a comment

In 1776, at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, over 98% of Blacks living in the English colonies in North America were slaves.  That same year, Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations that slavery was uneconomical because the plantation system was a wasteful use of land and because slaves cost more to maintain than free laborers. 

When Jefferson wrote that “all men were created equal,” he certainly did not intend to include blacks, because he later on said that blacks were an inferior being to whites. (Slavery: a world history by Milton Meltzer, pg. 153, Chicago: First Da Capo Press, 1993.)  This sentiment is upheld by Stephen A. Douglas, who at the time of his 1858 political debates questioned the validity of the idea that the Founding Fathers included their Black slaves in the “…all men are created equal” ideals of the Constitution.  He noted that at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, all thirteenth colonies were slaveholding colonies and every man who signed the document was a slaveholding constituency.  He also noted that none of the Declaration signers freed their slaves at the time of the signing.  (Political Debates between Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen A. Douglas. Columbus: Follett, Foster and Company, 1860, pg. 37.)

The revolution was not one of a poor or working class society.  Twenty four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers and judges, eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and plantation owners, and four were doctors.  The framers of the Constitution were among the wealthiest members of American society.  They became the ruling elite which established a government which was by rich white free men, for rich white free men.  The Constitution was exclusionary; it did not intend to include, women, Black slaves, Native Americans, or white indentured servants.

Nearly all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners or slave traders.  In my research, I could only find nine signers who I could not substantiate as slave owners. 

`Nineteen of the signers of the Constitution owned slaves, with an average of more than 90 slaves each. (To Form a More Perfect Union by Robert Allen McGuire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pg. 54) At least ten owned or managed large slave plantations or farms. 

It was the country’s elite, the law makers and heads of state governments, who were the biggest slave owners.  John Rutledge, Governor of South Carolina who later became Chief Justice, was a large slave owner and importer.  John’s younger brother, Edward, was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and was also a slave owner.   Henry Laurens, who became the President of the Continental Congress, ran the largest slave trading house in North America.  In fact, five of the framers of the Constitution owned more than 100 slaves: George Mason (300), John Rutledge (243), Pierce Butler (143), Charles Pinckney (111), and Edmund Randolph (101). (To Form a More Perfect Union by Robert Allen McGuire. New York: Oxford University Press 2003, pg. 54)

Think of the hypocrisy of these men, fighting against the injustices of their king, which they deemed as a threat to their economic and political freedom, while endorsing the wholesale enslavement of an entire race of people. They embraced the revolutionary ideologies of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, and yet ignored the unalienable rights of Blacks.  They wanted freedom from the yoke of oppression of their ruler, but refused to grant the same to their slaves.  Ironically, while Rousseau and other Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu were against slavery, Locke, while espousing ideas of freedom, did not believe that those personal freedoms were afforded to Black slaves.  He accepted the expeditions of the Royal Africa Company, assisted in the formulation of colonial policies, and even wrote the constitution for the state of South Carolina. (Against Empire: feminism, racism and the West by Zillah R. Eisenstein. New York: Zed Books, 2004, pg. 78) Locke believed that people could only be citizens if they owned property, with slaves being seen as property.  (John Locke: champion of modern democracy by Graham Faiella. New York: the Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2006, pg. 46)

Living conditions in England in the 17th century were difficult.  Unemployment was high and wages were low.  For many, the New World represented an opportunity for economic prosperity. Those opportunities for economic prosperity led to greed as the desire for increased revenue led to the increased importation of slaves into the colonies.  Slavery created a way to increase profits without having to do any work themselves. 

The British made large amounts of money through the slave trade.  They collected taxes on slaves, which made it vital to the British economy. In 1774, in an attempt to hurt the British financially, the First Continental Congress disallowed the British to import slaves in the colonies.

The argument has been presented by many who wish to purify the names of the Founding Fathers that they struggled with the idea of slavery.  It is said that many abhorred the idea of slavery, yet continued to own slaves even after they signed the document which declared their own freedom.  

(This post is an excerpt from my ebook Give Me Liberty by Calvin Evans available on http://www.amazon.com/Give-Me-Liberty-Calvin-Evans-ebook/dp/B00F3CCV1Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398834146&sr=8-1&keywords=give+me+liberty+by+calvin+evans)

John F. Kennedy: His Real Civil Rights Record

November 22, 2013 Leave a comment

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the Unites States, was born on May 29, 1917 in Brookline, Massachusetts.  Kennedy was born into wealth on both sides of his family.  His mother, Rose Fitzgerald, was the daughter of John Fitzgerald, a politician who served as a congressman and the mayor of the city of Boston.  His father, Joseph Kennedy Sr., was a banker who made a fortune as a banker, Wall Street speculator, real estate mogul, and bootlegger.

As senator of Massachusetts in 1957, Kennedy vetoed President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Bill.  Southerners saw Kennedy as a moderate because he wasn’t strong on civil rights issues.  He issued executive orders that created job opportunities, access to public housing and expanded voting rights for Blacks; he always stayed away from making a sweeping civil rights bill.

Kennedy narrowly won the 1960 election, and while he courted the Black vote in the election, he also knew that if he wanted to be re-elected he needed to appease white southern voters in order to win their vote.  He refused to send in federal troops into the southern states to enforce desegregation.  Kennedy, while against segregation, was hesitant to take strong federal actions on the issue of civil rights due to fear of a southern voter backlash in his quest for re-election.

During his presidential campaign, he made it clear that he was a supporter of civil rights.  While campaigning, Kennedy promised to eliminate housing discrimination through executive order, but never followed through until two years into his presidency.  Blacks certainly helped Kennedy get elected.  He won the 1960 election by the slimmest of margins in presidential history.  Kennedy dominated the Black vote 70% to 30% over Nixon.  Kennedy was able to win the large majority of Black votes because he called Coretta Scott King in a show of support when her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested in Georgia.  Then his brother, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, called the Georgia judge who sentenced King and asked for his release.  King was released the next day.  Blacks showed their appreciation at the polls by throwing their support behind Kennedy.  Yet when he became president, he spent his first two years in office unfocused on the issue of civil rights.  To Kennedy, foreign affairs dominated his presidency and civil rights was a secondary issue.  He had a relatively weak civil rights record and he failed to deliver a civil right bill.  He never gave his full support to the Civil Rights Movement.  Much of the actions he took were due to pressure, not because of his moral belief system.  In 1961 when Freedom Riders traveled by buses into the south to lend their support to try to break segregation, they met violent resistance from white racists.  Kennedy sent U.S. Marshalls in to protect the Freedom Riders because he was afraid of the negative press that violence would generate.  In 1963, with the world watching via television coverage, violence broke out in Alabama as Bull Connor and the Birmingham police attacked non-violent protesters led by Dr. King.  The embarrassment of the situation forced Kennedy to take action.  It was at this point when Kennedy called for major civil rights legislation.

Through the Cointelpro (Counterintelligence Program) program, the FBI had Dr. King and all of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement under surveillance.  Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, were aware of the surveillance and supported it.   It was with Kennedy’s approval that Bobby Kennedy authorized the wiretapping of King by the FBI.  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was convinced that King was a communist and wanted as much information as he could gather on King.  This led to wiretaps on King’s home, office and even hotel rooms.

Kennedy’s image has posthumously been glorified within the African-American community, but during his life he accomplished very little to help Black people.  In fairness to Kennedy, he did not have the opportunity to complete a full term in office.  Many of the civil rights issues that needed to be addressed fell through the cracks.  He had major international issues to tackle in the short time he was in office, and unfortunately, Black civil rights was put on the back burner.

All things considered, Kennedy gets too much credit in the African American community for being a symbol of Black hope.  It was common in African American households in the 60’s and 70’s to see a picture of Jesus in between pictures of Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  As a community, African Americans elevated Kennedy to a status that he never actually achieved during his presidency.

Part of this article is an excerpt from the e-books Funny Money vol. I and II by Calvin R. Evans

Published by Saggigga Publishing on Amazon.com; August 2013; $2.99 US; Funny Money vol. I (ASIN: B00ESWAIZI), and Funny Money vol. II (ASIN: B00ESZ0008). Copyright © 2013 Calvin R. Evans

Blacks and the 1936 Olympics

February 17, 2011 Leave a comment

With the aggression of the Third Reich and the wave of Nazism rising in the 1930s, the 1936 Olympics, hosted by Germany, was seen by the Nazi Party as the perfect opportunity to display their racial superiority of the world stage.  The Nazis wanted to use the 1936 Olympics help Adolf Hitler advance his theories of Aryan supremacy.  Hitler hoped that the Germans would dominate the competition on the world stage, proving to all that the Aryans were a race of super beings.  Leading up to the Games, the Nazi’s took state control over all sports facilities.  They put extreme emphasis on physical conditioning in hopes of dominating the Olympics.  

 The Nazis banned Jewish athletes from representing Germany in the Olympics.  The United States considered boycotting the Games because they feared participation would reflect support of the Nazi’s and their anti-Semitic ideologies.  Later, in response to the threats of boycott from other nations, Germany allowed one German Jew, Helene Meyer, to compete for Germany at the Games.  As a footnote of irony, the biggest supporters of the idea of a Berlin Games boycott were the United States, who had their own issues of racial segregation and discrimination.  In fact, it was easier for Blacks to get service in Hitler’s Germany than to get service in a hotel or restaurant in Washington. (Sex and Race, pg. 188)

 In light of Hitler’s racial views, many were concerned about the Black athletes safety while in Germany.  The Nazis assured the International Olympic Committee that Black athletes would be treated well while in Germany.  They also allowed foreign Jews to compete at the Games.  

 Eighteen African-Americans represented the United States at the Olympic Games, winning a total of fourteen medals, which was nearly one-fourth of all of the fifty-six medals awarded to the U.S. team during the 1936 Olympics.  The African-American athletes dominated the Track and Field events at the 1936 Games.  Ten of the United States Eighteen African-American athletes were on the Track and Field team.  They combined to win seven gold medals, three silver, and three bronze medals. 

 The standout athlete of the Games was Jesse Owens, the African-American track and field star.  Owens won four gold medals at the Games.  Owens’ performance undermined the Aryan superiority myth of the Nazis.  A long standing story from the games said that Hitler shunned Owens by refusing to shake hands with him after the medal ceremonies.  In fact, Hitler refused to shake the hands of all of the black athletes at the Games. 

 On the first day of the Games, after two German’s won Germany’s first-ever gold medals in track and field, Hitler invited both of the athletes to his box and congratulated them.  He did the same for three Finnish gold medalists in the 10,000 meters competition.  But when two of the United States African-American athletes, Cornelius Johnson and David Albritton, won gold and silver medals in the high jump later that same day, Hitler left the stadium abruptly and did not shake their hands.    Later that night the IOC president instructed Hitler that he either had to shake the hand of every winner or none at all.  Hitler chose the latter choice. (Ring of Hate: Joe Louis vs,. Max Schmeling: the fight of the century by Patrick Myler New York: Arcade Publishing, 2005, pg. 93)  While it is certainly true that Hitler did not shake Owens’ hand, Owens says that they did acknowledge each other with a wave.  When asked about the incident, Owens was always quick to say that he didn’t feel snubbed by Hitler.  In fact, Owens said that it was the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who shunned him.  Roosevelt, Owens stated, never received him at the White House after the Olympics.  Roosevelt was in the middle of a Presidential campaign and was concerned about a possible backlash from the southern states in response to inviting Owens to the White House. This is another example of Blacks regarded as heroes in public view, yet still being under appreciated in America.

The Herero Massacre

February 17, 2011 Leave a comment

One of the most understudied aspects of the Adolf Hitler regime in Nazi Germany was his attitude towards black people.  His plan of extermination of non-Aryan races certainly included blacks. 

If there was any doubt as to the German plan to exterminate blacks, the Herero massacre would clearly define their plan.  The Herero were the first ethnic group subjected to genocide in the 20th Century.  In the 1880s Germany made South West Africa (the land which is present day Namibia) their own colony.  As the Germans moved in, the inhabitants (the Herero and the Nama peoples) were forced off of their land.  The situation worsened when the Germans found that the land was rich in diamonds.   

 Then in the 1890s, a devastating cattle virus killed much of the cattle that the Herero herdsmen relied upon for livelihood.  The German colonists offered to give the Herero aid on credit, but the aid only led to large debts for the tribesman.  When the Herero could not pay off their debts, the Germans took the remaining livestock from them.  This action incensed the Herero, who wanted to regain their land and cattle.

 In January of 1904, the Herero rebelled against their German oppressors.  The Herero killed German men but spared women, children and missionaries.  In October of the same year the neighboring Nama people rebelled against the Germans as well.  The Germans sent in an army under the leadership of Lothar von Trotha.  Trotha labeled the conflict a “race war” and was determined to deal with the rebels with a heavy hand.  He ordered the Herero to leave the country or die.  He threatened to shoot every man, woman, and child, armed or not.  On April 22, 1905, von Trotha issued an annihilation order against the Herero and the Nama peoples.  The Germans poisoned the Herero water supply.  Women and children were put in concentration camps but due to horrific condition in the camps, mortality rates reached over 40 percent.  By the time the massacre ended, an estimated 65,000 Herero (about 80% of the total population) and 10,000 Nama (about 50% of the total population) were exterminated.  The Germans argued that blacks were not protected under the articles of the Geneva Convention because they were sub-human. 

 Since their independence, Namibia has received major aid donations from Germany.  But in 1995, during a visit from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, about 300 Herero demonstrators rallied outside the German embassy to demand compensation for the 1905 massacre. Then, during a visit to Namibia in 1998, German President Roman Herzog acknowledged that German soldiers had acted “incorrectly” in carrying out the massacre of the Hereros, but said that too much time had passed for Germany to give any formal apology for slaughtering Hereros during colonial rule. (Colonial Genocide and Reparations Claims in the 21st Century by Jeremy Sarkin, ABC-CLIO, 2008 pg. 132)  He would not discuss the issue of reparations. 

 On the hundredth anniversary of the massacre, the German developmental aid minister visited the country and did issue an apology but still refused the issue of reparations.




Categories: Uncategorized