The Price of Liberty: African Americans and the Making of Liberia http://libgen.li/item/index.php?md5=28C51308F215E77FA12EEA0E3A25F329
…But for many individuals, dreams of a Pan-African utopia in Liberia were tempered by complicated relationships with the Africans, whom they dispossessed of land. Liberia soon became a politically unstable mix of newcomers, indigenous peoples, and “recaptured” Africans from westbound slave ships. Ultimately, Clegg argues, in the process of forging the world’s second black-ruled republic, the emigrants constructed a settler society marred by many of the same exclusionary, oppressive characteristics common to modern colonial regimes.
broke: read Settlers
woke: read Settlers but replace America with Africa and replace “white” with “black”, and replace “black” with “indigenous black”
I assume that the “woke” people that are being referred to were abolitionists who believed in giving freed slaves a place where they wouldn’t be under threat of being made into a slave again. It is fairly similar to the argument for Zionism or something like the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Doubt black mold futures will go on to call Stalin woke though.
You seem like a guy who knows his stuff. I’m admittedly not very studied on this topic, but I’m just gonna quote a little excerpt from the American Colonization Society’s Wikipedia page that gave me a different impression if you’ll allow me and if you want you can tell me what are the problems with what’s being said.
There were several factors that led to the establishment of the American Colonization Society. The number of free people of color grew steadily following the American Revolutionary War, from 60,000 in 1790 to 300,000 by 1830.[1]:260 Consequently, slaveowners grew increasingly concerned that free blacks might encourage or help their slaves to escape or rebel. In addition, most white Americans saw African Americans as “racially” inferior and felt that “amalgamation,” or integration, of African Americans with white American culture was impossible and undesirable. This reinforced the notion that African Americans should be relocated to somewhere they could live free of prejudice, where they could be citizens.
The African-American community and abolitionist movement overwhelmingly opposed the project. In most cases, African Americans’ families had lived in the United States for generations, and their prevailing sentiment was that they were no more African than white Americans were European. Contrary to stated claims that emigration was voluntary, many African Americans, both free and enslaved, were pressured into emigrating. Indeed, enslavers sometimes manumitted their slaves on condition that the freedmen leave the country immediately.
Yes, just like it is with Zionism, it also meshes well with people who just want to get rid of black people. Zionism was seen as a way to deal with the “Jewish question” even among many literal Nazis.
There were some people who supported it for the reasons I listed, but they were hardly in the majority.
Look, I will stop playing cute: that is always the wrong approach in my opinion. The right approach to these race issues is to have them stay where they’re from and intermingle with the local population. I’m Brazilian, I’m mixed, I believe this, my parents believed this, and it’s silly to me that Americans are so resistant to this. When Stalin came up with the Jewish Autonomous Oblast solution, he was envisioning the Jews dropping their historically retrograde ethnoreligious sense of identification and developing a new one based on land and the Yiddish language like the people of Europe. This was progressive to him in a Marxist sense, but it is impossible for blacks in America because their culture is exactly the same as that of the whites and the only thing that separates them is skin color. They both speak English, live in America and are Christians, everything that separates them is meaningless aestheticism. That’s just my two cents on this question.
