because the white mind and its white agenda that operate in his black shell are camouflaged.




by Professor Hilary Beckles


Two hundred years separated prime minister of Britain Tony Blair and the primary anti-slavery leader of Parliament, Thomas Buxton. But they were miles apart in their view of justice for Black people. Between 2001 and 2006 Blair was blunt in his dismissal of black reparations. Buxton in the 1820s was equally firm that the enslaved Blacks, RATHER THAN THE ENSLAVERS, should have received reparations at emancipation. The system of slavery, Buxton insisted, was a national crime committed against Africans. Morality and legal right, he thought, dictated that they should be compensated. With these views he outraged Parliament on the eve of emancipation to the same degree that Blair has enraged the reparations movement.

The enslaved of the Caribbean, powerless to press their claim for financial compensation, could not help Buxton. Neither could Buxton help them with their desire for reparatory justice. The British Parliament, densely populated with slaveholders and other beneficiaries of slave investments, did not take Buxton’s suggestion seriously. His idea died as soon as the words “slave compensation” were uttered. Parliament’s position in 1834 was that Blacks were PROPERTY, NON-HUMANS, hence the compensation to slave owners of £ 20 million, paid out to meet 45,000 separate requests. This amount was “not far short of the annual cost of maintaining the army, the navy, and indeed of running the entire country”.

Parliament’s position in 2007 was that Blacks should receive no apology and that their descendants should not receive any compensation.

In the 200 years between Buxton’s call and Blair’s refusal, there had been no political softening of the British parliamentary position, even though many Blacks, descendants of the enslaved, came to occupy both Houses of Parliament as elected and appointed members.

Blair’s government maintained the” ANTI-SLAVE” line, principally because British Blacks have been unable, as citizens and as representatives of governments, to challenge this lineage of power and racial license.

As a result, the 1834 ANTIPATHY TO THE ENSLAVED continues to be echoed in the British Parliament that continues to reject the idea of compensation for slavery. Buxton stands tall today as an historic figure for human justice, while Blair paled as a polar opposite when the matter came before his government in 2007.

Blair directed his Durban delegates to adopt A HARD-LINE ANTI-REPARATIONS POSITION.

They arrived (at the World Conference against racism) led by Baroness Amos, AN ASTUTE BLACK POLITICIAN AND DIPLOMAT, to carry the policy position.

(Baroness Amos)

As a result the British delegation was inflexible on the issue of historical crimes AND BELIGERANT ON REPARATIONS.

Amos was adamant that SLAVERY AND SLAVE TRADING WERE NOT CRIMES because the British Parliament, and its colonial machinery, had made them legal. Despite 200 years of Black resistance and rebellion, she insisted that the slave system was legal because the British Parliament deemed it to be so. Aware that national law does not legalize crimes against humanity, she did not retreat in the face of overwhelming historical arguments.

Historical truth counted for little. Amos’s army of officials was silent when asked to put themselves in the position of the two million Africans that the British warehoused in West African forts and crammed into slave-ships. They appeared stone-faced when asked to imagine themselves captives on the Zong when Captain Collingwod prepared to throw them to sharks. IT WAS ALL LEGAL, the British argued…AND THE BARONESS DEFENDED IT.    



There ought to be no doubt that THE MOST DANGEROUS WHITE MAN IS THE BLACK ONE, because the white mind and its white agenda that operate in his black shell are camouflaged, and all the more likely to throw you off guard and deceive you.


With reference to this racist idea that slavery was not a crime against humanity because the slave-masters had made it legal, think about this:

Had Hitler made the frying and gassing of Jews legal, would that mean that such acts were not crimes against humanity?

If today's slave-owners made it legal to exterminate Africans, and put that law into effect, would this legality remove the atrocity from being described as crimes against humanity?



It is common knowledge that the slave-owners always had  ANTIPATHY TO THE ENSLAVED. At least they had this antipathy everywhere in public, even though it was definitely not the case sexually. But there is a psychological counterpart to be found in the mind of the TRAINED MERCENARY NEGRO. What he carries is EMPATHY FOR THE SLAVE OWNER, and it is this EMPATHY that makes him act in a way that is antipathetic to his own kind.







Experience gained from the long history of struggle against slavery and racism has taught us that there exists A NEGRO REAR-GUARD THAT PROTECTS THE SLAVE OWNER’S BACK.

In the present time this Negro rear-guard is the preferred defense that slave owners use when the need arises to sanitize and disappear slave-master crimes in an effort to make such crimes look like no crimes.

Do you remember The Askaris? Do you remember the Buffalo soldiers and all the other YES-SIR-NO-SIR NEGROES that have historically bowed down and served their white masters faithfully till the very end?

 When Mussolini decided that Ethiopia should become Italian property, he found no difficulty in recruiting such despicable characters to attack their own people on behalf of their white masters. They were known back then as Askaris.


“The Askaris or Black Eritrean soldiers, were members of the regular Italian Colonial infantry who provided the army’s spear-point during Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s. They largely belonged to the same race and had the same religions and customs as their Ethiopian brothers.

Regarded by Italian officers as MORE EXPENDABLE , more highly TRAINED, and more experienced in guerrilla-style warfare than their Italian counterparts, THEY BORE THE BRUNT OF EVERY ACTION, so much so that in many of the actions the white troops would seem to have been little more than spectators of the Askaris’ gallantry.

As a result, their casualty rates were far higher than those of white troops. (Editorial from The Black Man, London, July/August 1936 quoting A.J. Barker, The Civilizing Mission: The Italo-Ethiopian war 1935-1936 (London: cassell, 1968) pp. 141-142, 215.)


Two things to know about the modern-day Askari: In the slave-master’s books he has an unblemished impeccable record, for he has never been known to speak against or rebel against his white masters, and he can be counted on to rise to his master’s defense.

There are many Negroes like that today, and the slave-owners have absolute trust in them. That is why they are frequently promoted and used to interface with other Negroes on their master's behalf.

 Some of them can be found fervently articulating the slave-owner's point of view, and making the case that there should be NO REPARATIONS. And the real low-life, good-for-nothing, scum-bag Negroes are the ones that are frequently enlisted to assassinate the character of those that make the case for reparations.

Never did the captives in the slave-ship think that out of their offspring would come such low scum-bag Negroes with an antipathy to the enslaved.

Never in their wildest dreams could the slaves in the cane fields  imagine that after being robbed of four hundred years of time and labor, AND CONDEMNED TO FOREVER INHABIT THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL, that some Negroes would step forward to argue against reparations.

What a predicament! While a small number of Africans are struggling for reparations, just as many TRAINED AND EDUCATED ones are consciously struggling to make sure it doesn't happen.

To their kith and kin they say: "Forget about reparations, NEVER MIND THAT YOU ARE PRESENTLY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL, wait in line, and someday you or one of yours may be promoted just like us."