Non! The French On Reconstruction

That is the Negro question!

France

The French have been grossly misunderstood in America. Their stock has been rising as I have further researched the “anti-American” tradition in France.

“Anti-Americanism” in France is anti-yankisme. This certainly make a lot more sense than Bill O’Reilly’s new book of Abraham Lincoln:

“The post-emancipation black was no less downtrodden. Now that he was free, he was much less “interesting” to European sensibilities. And what had he made of his freedom? At best, nothing. At worst, he had turned it against his former masters. French travelers voiced a collective outcry against Reconstruction and the oppression into which it had cast the conquered of the white race. In 1875, Louis Simonin, in A travers les États-Unis (Across the United States), repeated in his own words Southern prejudices about the blacks’ laziness and the risk of anarchy that the United States ran so long as the black race was not extinct. Frédéric Gaillardet also foresaw the blacks’ extinction in 1883, without any superfluous regrets. In 1880, the French stereotype of the South having become an “upside-down world” because of the North was well established, and Johanet could make an attempted witticism about it: “Jacksonville is pullulating with Negroes. You would trample them, if only they could be crushed; but, quite the contrary, how many whites they crush!” We have already seen how Gohier’s “convictions” did not stop him from painting a picture worthy of Klan literature of the black as a rapist. Jules Huret attempted a timid resistance: segregation “bugs [him] a little,” and “for a little while I stayed away from Louisiana.” He movingly evokes a black funeral, and he is decidedly indignant that “Cleopatras [who have] immigrated to the brutal New World civilization” are set apart “like lepers.” But he practically apologizes for these outbursts: he wants to “understand” the segregationists and promises to make inquiries. And the chapter he finally devotes, in the form of a dialogue, to the “state of the Negro question” gives the Southern whites’ arguments pride of place.

These reactions are revealing in their convergence, all the more so because they are corroborated by opinions hostile to blacks’ citizenship, which were multiplying at the time in France. These were not travel impressions or mood swings, but learned pronouncements produced by great scholars and intellectuals. The most authoritative voices in France spoke up to condemn the policies of Lincoln’s successors and deplore the blacks’ accession to citizenship: a brilliant economist such as Leroy-Beaulieu; or the founder of the École des Sciences Politiques, Émile Boutmy. They “all concluded, despite differences of opinion on many points, that the Republicans had made a mistake when they declared the blacks to be citizens.”

The unanimity is crushing; the way the accusations are formulated is even more so. Leroy-Beaulieu speaks of “a race placed at the lowest rung of the anthropological scale and moreover morally degraded by four hundred years of slavery.” Boutmy, who early on approved the measures taken, state by state, for blocking the black vote, sticks to his guns in his Eléments d’une psychologie politique du peuple américain and is glad to see that the Supreme Court has let the Southern states multiply barriers to the black vote, from requiring a literacy test to imposing a poll tax. In just a few years, André Siegfried, having described the “negro bloc” ethnically “inassimilable,” would propose this apologue: “Have you read Well’s Island of Dr. Moreau, a fanciful story about animals transformed by a scientist into semihumans, who demand the same rights as man and all end up being killed? That is the Negro question.”

The “upside-down world” being described here is BRA.

It was imposed on the South by the North during Reconstruction. Ever since 1965, we have been living through the Second Reconstruction, and BRA has been resurrected and extended nationwide, arguably even worldwide through the American Empire.

About Hunter Wallace 9148 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

14 Comments

  1. Reality bites. Bureaucracies filled with 85 IQ employees simply fail to function. State governments fail. Businesses move off shore or to white (and Chinese/Hindu infested) U.S. areas.

    Rather than a puerile “The South Shall Rise Again” mantra, I think a better scenario of where the direction society is evolving is better described by military historian Martin van Creveld’s in his The Rise and Decline of the State where he posits that the replacement of the current nation-state will take place upon lines that will be more corporatist and hierarchical:

    “The organizations which, in the future, will carry out the functions of government will be more fragmented, more integrated with each other than those with which we have become familiar during the last 300 years or so. Unlike states, which in theory at any rate are each other’s equals, they will tend to form hierarchical relationships with each other. Sometimes sovereignty will be divided, as is currently happening in Northern Ireland and is may eventually happen in the holy land. A hierarchical structure in which some political entities are more equal than others also means that those entities will operate at one or more removes from their populations.

    Both Singapore and Hezbollah in Lebanon come to mind. The inevitable proliferation of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems will only help to accelerate this trend.

    “People or organizations who used to rest peacefully in the bosom of the state will have to do, indeed are already doing, more to defend themselves, for example, by purchasing all kinds of specialized equipment; fortifying the premises in which they live and operate; mounting their own guards, whether in or out of uniform; and possibly even setting up their own armed forces under suitable commanders.”

    Not so much secession per se but more of a devolution and re-organization upon more rational interests in a Hobbesian sense.

  2. Hunter: Read on whatdoesitmean.com that on Nov. 16th The Regime was trying to Block Internet by censorship! Cainites know that things are stewing to get rid of them! Wonder what they will do next!

  3. Rather than a puerile “The South Shall Rise Again” mantra,

    Could the South ever rise again? Realistically?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_a_nation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)

    In the early twentieth century, the South defeated the North in the North’s own eyes, culturally speaking, and the North was better off for it and the push for racial insanity ebbed in what is known as the “Nadir of the Negro.”

    How did the Klan get to Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Colorado, and Oregon? Why is there all this talk about a “White Republic” and a “White ethnostate” in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey?

    Imagine a version of Twlight that was pro-White and was extremely popular among White women:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller22.html

    Margaret Mitchell’s novel Gone With the Wind, about the fall of the Confederacy, the burning of Atlanta, and the military occupation of the South, has struck a chord with people around the world. It has been translated into about 40 languages (and published in 50 countries), which include Kannada (in India), Arabic (Egypt and Lebanon), Amharic (Ethiopia), and Farsi (Iran).

    The book was published in 1936. Despite a three-dollar price tag ($43.50 in today’s dollars), in its first year Gone With the Wind sold 1,383,000 copies. Over the next several years, before World War II began, 24 countries had published translations of the novel. . . .

    In Vietnam, Gone With the Wind has broken records for readership. The first Vietnamese translation of this novel was published in 1951. Since then there have been 6 other translations published in 12 editions, with 100,000 copies sold. Thi Thanh Le, who grew up in the Mekong River Delta, explores the novel’s “striking vitality” with Vietnamese women in her 2003 PhD thesis (at the University of Massachusetts) titled, ‘Gone With the Wind’ and the Vietnamese Mind. Among other things, she explores the Vietnamese view of “the novel’s concept of womanhood, especially the central female protagonist, Scarlett O’Hara, who dealt with the collapse of the plantation’s system of values and the emergence of a new role for women.”

    Margaret Mitchell (1900—1949) began writing Gone With the Wind when she was 26 years old. When the book was published ten years later she was overwhelmed with praise and heart-felt thanks from readers and reviewers. In Southern Daughter: The Life of Margaret Mitchell, Darden Pyron recounts how wives wrote letters to her sympathizing with Scarlett because “no woman knows the degradation she will stoop to until she needs to defend her home and those she loves,” and men broken by the Depression poured out their hearts in understanding for Ashley Wilkes, the novel’s Hamlet-like planter aristocrat. Critics equated Gone With the Wind with Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace, to which Mitchell replied (in a letter), “I’ve read review after review saying the same thing and have realized with a sense of growing horror that eventually I’m going to have to read War and Peace.”3

    The communist regime in the former USSR effectively banned Gone With the Wind. A Russian translation, by Tatiana Kudriavtseva, was finally published in Russia in 2001. In a CNN interview, she says, “The whole thing happened in Russia…We were survivors of the war, like Scarlett, and this novel was ringing a lot of bells for us. We saw the ravages, we saw the fires, we saw the pilloried villages, we saw the poverty and the hunger… Gone With the Wind is considered in Russia as [the] American War and Peace.”

  4. The north “lost interest” in the African American after the north won the war. (Lmao.) What could be more transparent than that? After they were used, for the north’s own ends, they just so happened to “lose interest.” Oh, those savior souls from the north! Those do-gooders against all evil doers!

    And— how spineless that northerners never plunged into the alternative side of their own history! Never had the guts to let the south have its say. How xenophobic!

    Lol, when I lived in a big multi city— the only people who DIDN’T like me were the american northerners, lol. There was nothing funnier than them noticing that I got along better with the blacks, better with the Asians, better with the other folks. Why? B/c they see the southerner getting the propaganda, the short end of the stick. Plus, many people LIKE others who know who they are, (meaning who they REALLY are, where they come from, who their people are, even if it’s politically unpopular and disadvantageous to be that type).

    The nyc-l.a. mythos has had its day but b/c the north culture doesn’t value history, (the cause and effect kind), they have no idea the pendulum always swings.

    It’s an unwise way of life, and smart people —of all types— seek genuine wisdom. Southerness —in its sheer historicity— is very smart.

    Once, while in an apartment in school, a ‘mexican’ immigrant was sent to do work. After he finished, he reminded me that ‘he had done things for me around the house that I didn’t even know, wouldn’t even notice’ (he was the unappreciated worker “doing the work I would never do). He knew nothing about me, my family, my history, the odd jobs I’d done, etc, etc, etc. And yet he presumed on the basis of propaganda and my looks.

    When I turned off cable, I could not get information about where to return the companies equipment. Four phone calls, two hours. Finally found one address, but no one answered, and kept getting bumped to costa rica or wherever. Drove to the one address. It was closed, but they had thought to make a sign with a new location, which was really savvy in this day and age. Service doesn’t get worse than in a self-designated “service” economy. Now, everything is “plans.” You establish a “relationship” with ongoing fees for the product that is never really fixed. When you make money on servicing, things have to stay broken.

    Southerners seem to know this sort of thing.

    Northerners don’t seem to know what would happen if everything was fixed. What would they DO???

    This is the upside-down world. BUT it wasn’t just imposed on the south through reconstruction. Rather, it’s the way they live. It’s not some evil they thought up for the southerners— it’s just the extension of their own culture, imo.

    Not having a cause-and-effect historical sensibility seems a root of it. They cannot see history as a thing happening now, or to whatever extent they do, it is only to posit the self as a great hero in the narrative, which is hardly a real historical sensibility!

  5. Ah, Anna Frank, how your posts bring me back to the shtetl. We would be starting to make our dradles now. This was before the pogroms, of course. Why do they hate us so?

  6. “Could the South ever rise again? Realistically?”

    My post was about why not. That the future political order, however benign it might be to whites, will not be a reactionary return to an older one. (As of course it never is.)

    BTW, I’ve got nothing against GWTW, it’s a great read which I have read twice. Just as I loved the cornbread our cook Clara used to bake back when I was a kid. It’s just that they are not much use as blueprints for our future progress.

  7. BRA was put there by the controllers. The BRA if they get out of line the Controllers will get rid of them. Who are the Controllers: Read the Black Rapper article – WHO ARE THE BLACK NOBILITY! Wow—how did a Black Rapper write that? NWO is world wide. Some countries are to extreme like Canada and England. Austrailia and New Zealand are NWO also. Some of the smaller countries are much less NWO garbage. But even in the small countries…GMO foods and chemicals enter and the populations run to get there needle shots. France now is extreme NWO garbage. All of your articles are great Hunter..Keep em comin!

  8. dixiegirl,

    Not having a cause-and-effect historical sensibility seems a root of it. They cannot see history as a thing happening now, or to whatever extent they do, it is only to posit the self as a great hero in the narrative, which is hardly a real historical sensibility!

    That’s remarkably deep and astute for a southerner … and a girl.

Comments are closed.