A Smithsonian exhibition lays bare the fact that America was granted independence by Britain as a global business decision, rather than ideological conflict.

…the American Revolution was largely a war about trade and economic influence—not ideology. France and Spain, like Britain, were monarchies with even less fondness for democracy. The Dutch Republic was primarily interested in free trade. The leaders of all three countries wanted to increase their nations’ trade and economic authority, and to accomplish that, they were willing to go to war with their biggest competitor—Great Britain.

To the French, Spanish and Dutch governments, this was not a war about liberty: It was all about power and profit. If American colonists won their independence, that would cause harm to British interests and open new trade opportunities in North America and elsewhere for those who allied themselves with the colonists.

This helps explain why George Washington was so obviously wed to the idea of preserving and expanding slavery as his means towards personal enrichment, when it directly contradicted any ideological purposes of freedom from tyranny.

Parkinson reveals how the system’s participants constructed a compelling drama featuring virtuous men who suddenly found themselves threatened by ruthless Indians and defiant slaves acting on behalf of the king. Parkinson argues that patriot leaders used racial prejudices to persuade Americans to declare independence. Between the Revolutionary War’s start at Lexington and the Declaration, they broadcast any news they could find about Native Americans, enslaved Blacks, and Hessian mercenaries working with their British enemies. American independence thus owed less to the love of liberty than to the exploitation of colonial fears about race.

Did you catch that? White men “threatened by ruthless Indians and defiant slaves acting on behalf of the king” brings to mind an inversion of liberty, a ruthless economic conflict over profit from the exploitation of land and people.

Interesting to think of Washington trying to rally his troops by arguing that liberty was tyranny, based on the fear of the British king setting Black Americans free from men like… Washington. Don’t forget the colony of Georgia had banned slavery in 1735 and America would have seen abolition at the beginning of the 1800s had it stayed under British control.

Washington worked so hard throughout his life to ensure none of his slaves were given freedom, even illegally detaining them with the help of powerful lawyers… more Americans should naturally seek to know whether Washington intended to generate wealth through things other than slavery. Carter very clearly made this distinction and criticized Washington as such in the 1790s.

He counted Washington’s half-brother, Lawrence, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as friends; he regularly dined with and loaned money to the latter. Washington himself was a neighbor…“Carter’s plans look more like a pilot for mass emancipation,” Andrew Levy, a professor at Butler University, told CNN.

Not only was Washington differently aligned from what most Americans are taught, his role may have been overstated.

The Americans are barely noticeable on the sidelines, while the victors appear to be French. […] The last battle in this global conflict known in the United States as the American Revolution was not fought on the fields of Virginia in 1781: It occurred two years later at Cuddalore, India.

Virginia Heffernan, writing for Wired, has published an “ideas” piece for the March 2022 issue that calls out the Tesla bot as “a racist phenomenon dating back to the 18th century.”

I couldn’t agree more, and in fact am quoted in the article.

At least one observer, Davi Ottenheimer, a digital ethics expert, likened the robot’s appearance and loose-limbed dance number at the unveiling to a minstrel show. [Edward Jones-Imhotep, a historian of science and technology at the University of Toronto] concurs: “Musk’s presentation seems doubly regressive … It obviously evokes minstrelsy and blackface. And in doing so it also returns the Black android to some of its late 19th-century forms under the guise of progress.”

At 5′8″ and 125 pounds—programmed to be “friendly” and built so you can “overpower it,” in Musk’s words—the Tesla bot, Ottenheimer proposed, seemed to express a white male fantasy of being waited on by an uncomplaining and entirely controllable Black woman whom he can dominate without conscience.

I have been pleased lately to hear so many people say they’ve seen my name in this article. However, I never spoke with the author.

She is making a reference to an August 2021 blog post I wrote called “Tesla’s Blackface Robot: Promoting Slavery As Fantasy“, which unfortunately didn’t get a link from Wired now shows a direct link from Wired.

Kenyan news excitedly tells us that they may have the crucial explanation so far of the border conflict in Europe.

Ambassador Martin Kimani, Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, outlined the country’s position on the Ukraine-Russia conflict during an emergency Security Council meeting on Monday, February 21.

Kimani delivers a fantastic speech, the best I’ve seen so far on the topic, and allegedly already has other nations backing Ukraine against Russian divisiveness and military aggression.

Someone clearly thought it was important to very publicly call out a notoriously low-integrity American “news” source for being aligned with foreign military intelligence.

…officials said Zero Hedge, which has 1.2 million Twitter followers, published articles created by Moscow-controlled media that were then shared by outlets and people unaware of their nexus to Russian intelligence…

A tone-deaf response was then published by Zero Hedge, cited in the same article, which confirmed they knew they were spreading anti-American propaganda — as if an attack on truth (intentional lying) is a legitimate “side” for Zero Hedge to be on.

…publish a wide spectrum of views that cover both sides of a given story…

Wide spectrum? 2+2=5 is part of a “wide” spectrum. And “both sides” is a concept that invalidates “wide spectrum”, which I will explain in a minute.

First, this is like Zero Hedge saying “let’s hear from someone who denies basic math” as if that person needs help to spread obvious nonsense, increasing the cost of communication. Nobody really wants to hear 2+2=5 in their “spectrum” of news.

Someone who is actively doing wrong, someone who spreads intentional disinformation as part of a targeted military intelligence campaign, is being brought into the conversation because… why?

Second, in a spectrum you have many sides. However, if you cite “both sides” you negate the spectrum and force a binary. That’s a tactic to try to bring in a view that has been rejected, validate a side that doesn’t exist.

It is in fact a dog-whistle going back to at least the Civil War (if not WWII), which tries to promote obvious criminals and losers as deserving a voice and give them a chance to win after losing so obviously.

Let’s look at the Civil War for example. When Woodrow Wilson very clearly tried to re-write history, he claimed that the pro-slavery states starting a war to expand slavery weren’t doing the exact thing they had announced they were doing.

It was necessary [for the United States defending itself] to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.

The “states fighting for their independence” wanted independence specifically “for the maintenance and extension of slavery.”

The South was at a moral disadvantage because it aspired to be nothing more than a white police state that profited almost exclusively from human trafficking.

Woodrow Wilson was a ruthless anti-American propagandist, evidenced by things like how he solicited Black votes to become President and then used his power to remove all Blacks from government and dilute or remove their voting rights.

Kind of similar to what Andrew Jackson did 100 years earlier, and kind of similar to what George Washington did 100 years before that. See the problem with “both sides” being an invitation to regression and mass casualties?

The opposite of the “both sides” propaganda of Woodrow Wilson was President Grant’s famous campaign slogan “Let Us Have Peace“, which asserted there was a proven right and moral side to American victory over its enemy in war.

In other words… stop saying maintenance and extension of slavery has any “sides” or arguments worth hearing. It is beyond the spectrum of acceptable views.

Both the ballot box and the battle field have settled the argument. Let us have peace.

Grant won his 1868 campaign for President in a huge landslide, defeating a “side” that literally ran on a platform called “this is a white man’s country”, which in retrospect obviously was not a side at all.

Logically speaking a “both sides” claim also floats towards a form of the “tu quoque” (you too, appeal to hypocrisy) logical fallacy. Instead of presenting a logical argument, “both sides” misdirects using false statements (e.g. alleging to be interested in a “wide spectrum of views” when in fact shifting attention to a very narrow and intentionally wrong one) to obfuscate and distract from accountability of making such false statements.