“My privilege will try to make me complicit by default.”

This really hit home, so I’m posting it for others to see.


[Image description: A photoset of a white vlogger in front of a bookshelf filled with DVDs, with the captions: "How is it my responsibility, or even my place, to apologize for the actions of my ancestors? Because they did it in my name. They did it for the prosperity of their descendants. But I don’t want any benefits conferred through slavery. I know it’s impossible for me to shed every single advantage that my ancestry affords me, but the least I could do is examine it. Be critical of it, to be as proactive as possible when it comes to the whole ‘not being complicit in historical atrocities’ thing. As a person of considerable privilege, I consider it my responsibility because my privilege will try to make me complicit by default.“]


The 1811 Lousiana Slave Revolt

Charles Deslondes was a Creole Mulatto slave living on the German Coast east of New Orleans.  Because he was a Creole and thus had lighter skin than other African slaves, he was given special priviledges over other slaves and given the position of “driver”, an oversear of the other slaves tasked with maintaining order and discipline. To the slave owners Deslondes was a loyal slave driver. However in reality it was all an act, Deslondes hated his masters and secretly plotted to overthrow them. While by day Deslondes played the part of a viscious task master, at night he was organizing his fellow slaves for a rebellion, telling them tales of how slaves in Haiti had overthrown their masters and formed their own independent kingdom.  Deslondes also had the priviledge of being able to freely travel among the other plantations for business purposes. Thus he was ables to likewise organize the slaves of other nearby plantations. A date was set for an organized rebellion to take place when the sugarcane harvest was finished in early January, when the slave would be idle and have time to prepare the uprising while the slave owners would be busy preparing for the upcoming Carnival celebrations.  What would transpire would be the largest slave rebellion in United States history.

On January the 8th, 1811, Delondes attempted to murder his master, Col. Manuel Andry while other slaves hacked appart his son. Andry was able to escape across the Mississippi River despite suffering an axe wound to the head.  Likewise the slaves of other nearby plantations revolted and sent their masters fleeing into the swamps.  The rebel slaves grabbed whatever weapons they could, mostly farm tools such as machetes, pitchforks, axes, and sickles, while some acquired firearms pilfered from plantation armories.  The slaves then marched along the main roadway besdie the Mississippi River towards New Orleans, burning plantations and crops, beating on drums, and chanting traditional African war cries.  After a day, their numbers swelled to around 500 men and women. One notable white planter named Jean-Francois Trepagnier, who had a reputation as a particularly cruel slave master, chose to stand his ground by sitting on his porch on a rocking chair, armed with a musket waiting for the slave army to arrive.  Who knows what he thought he could accomplish alone, but when the slaves arrived he fired his musket and missed.  One of his slaves snuck behind him and buried an hatchet into his skull, then he was dismembered.


Meanwhile white planters fled their plantations for New Orleans, causing panic to sweep through the city. The locals formed a militia force of two companies bolstered by 30 US Army soldiers.  They were led by General Wade Hampton, who was then the largest slaveholder in the US at the time. They marched out to meet the oncoming slave army. The slave army made a tactical retreat east to fight on better ground.  However Col. Andry had returned from the southern bank of the Mississippi with a force of planter milita and attacked the slave army’s rear.  Surrounded on both sides by an enemy that was better organized and better armed, the slaves didn’t stand a chance.  After a short battle the slaves broke and ran for the swamps.  Around 95 slaves were killed in the battle. The rest would be hunted down by dogs and when captured, executed by hanging or by firing squad.  Charles Deslondes was personally tortured and executed by Col. Andry.  His hands were chopped off, he was shot in the legs, then he was thrown alive into a fire.  

After the rebellion the corpses of the rebel slaves were beheaded, their heads set atop pikes lining the road over which the slave army had marched along the Mississippi all the way from the Andry Plantation where the rebellion had started to the French Quarter 20 miles away.












lil matt damon SNAPPED

He looks exactly like Matt Damon

the finger points 😭😭

Him and this gif have the same energy

He dragged him for not listening lmao

The guy in the corner has the face of a man who has witnessed a murder and is absolutely loving it

That teacher is working so hard to keep his cool but I am a teacher, I speak teacher, and that man is having the best day of his entire career

This is the kind of shit teachers sign up for.

Dudes enjoying a kid taking the class serious all prepared for a full on combat discussion.

If you’re teaching that topic and a student walkes in with a full prepared diss track you’re secretly hyped as fuck.

Full video. His name is Christopher Justice!



I think one of the things that well-meaning but perhaps uninformed people get wrong about John Brown is that “peaceful protest” was not an option on his table. I’m going to take their arguments in good faith and assume that folks who say “he should have done x or y instead of being violent” just do not understand the realities of slavery and opposing it in the 19th century.

Many of us grew up in a culture that talks about civic engagement—write to your member of congress! vote! attend a protest!—and maybe don’t realize (due to a lack of adequate historical education) that it is not, and has never been, that simple. Brown’s opposition to slavery in Kansas wasn’t just an “unpopular” political position; it was a felony punishable by hard labor, imprisonment, and death. And those were just the codified laws, let alone what vigilantes would do.

Brown knew this. And it’s not like he was a half-cocked killer, only in it for the bloodshed. He did the other things, too. He assisted runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad (as his father did before him). He read The Liberator and supported organized abolitionist groups and wanted to start a school to educate formerly enslaved peoples. When he saw Black worshippers segregated in the back of his church, he gave up his pew to them and moved his own family to the back. He moved to upstate New York to help teach free Blacks how to farm and support themselves. He housed fugitive slaves in his home, treated his Black neighbors with a respect they’d never received from a white man before, was so committed to the movement that his friend Frederick Douglass said “though a white gentleman, [Brown] is in sympathy, a black man, and as deeply interested in our cause, as though his own soul had been pierced with the iron of slavery.”

So when people say “Brown should’ve done x and y,” well, he did those things. And those things were good. But John Brown said he felt he had a purpose from G-d. His purpose from G-d was not to read abolitionist essays. He pledged his life “to the destruction of slavery.” And he came to the conclusion that violence was the only option if he truly wanted to end slavery in the U.S.

There are people who act like Brown was the first person to introduce violence to the issue in the 1850s. But no, violence had been at the heart of the slavery since its inception—between pro- and anti-slavery factions, as well as the immeasurable, irreparable violence of the act and institution itself that slaveowners wrought on millions of people every day for centuries. Brown admired Nat Turner and saw the way his uprising brought national attention to the evil of slavery. And that’s what he did at Harpers Ferry, too. And then came the Civil War.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is, in an effort to keep my sanity, I’d like to believe that most regular people who express discomfort with John Brown’s tactics do so from a place of unintentional ignorance, and it is better to help educate folks than attack them for not knowing. After all, everything you know now is something you once had to learn! (But for racist bigots who don’t like John Brown because they’re racist, fuck you, he should’ve killed more slaveowners because slaveowners aren’t people)

Didn’t just about every state that seceeded mention slavery being the main reason in their constitution or something?



The unfortunate truth is that the war wouldn’t have started if not for deliberate military occupation by the North.

But the American Confederacy and the American Union allowed Slavery.

Claiming that one side opposed slavery and the other supported it just isn’t factual.


Hush now, Dixieboo, the adults are talking.


All this does is acknowledge that the secessions were, for the most part, about slavery. This is not sufficient to establish that slavery was the cause of the war.

This is like saying the cause of the Vietnam War was that North Vietnam wanted to unite the north and the south under one communist system; while this is an accurate statement, it does nothing to address the US’s motivation for involvement.


Thank you, great resource!!!



I can’t speak to the individual state declarations or constitutions, but the Constitution of the Confederacy included specific references to slavery and Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech, describing the basis of the Confederacy, is an explicit defense and promotion of slavery. Anyone arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery, at this point, is willfully and dangerously ignorant

Here’s a good list of state declarations that made mention of slavery.


…When your at the bottom of a hole you should stop digging…

“The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall
have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of
all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the
limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in
such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted
into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro
slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized
and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the
inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have
the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in
any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”