To Read the Entire Essay Here's The Link Here https://christogenea.org/podcasts/scientific-view-negro-age-political-correctness-part-1 - The Scientific View of The Negro Before The Age of Political Correctness - Part 1 - We are going to start something a little different this evening. Originally, I thought about presenting Clifton Emahiser’s brief paper, Diverse Seed Defiles Families. We may present that essay here in mid-January instead, since while I began preparing for that, a Christogenea Forum member had enlightened me to a book by Dr. John Van Evrie titled On Negroes and Negro Slavery, which was a defense of the institution of slavery in the South by a medical doctor from New York, of all places. Looking into this book, I saw that Wikipedia and other sources nearly ridicule Van Evrie, yet his book was actually cited in the bibliography of a famous Britannica article on Negros, which expressed many views shared by so-called “rednecks” and “racists” of today. It seems like a hundred years ago, our Christian Identity view of the Negro was actually quite popular among anthropologists, ethnologists and other academics. This presentation is actually an extension of things that both Clifton Emahiser and myself had said as I presented his series of papers Identifying the Beast of the Field, where we cited similar sentiments as they were expressed by 19th century geologist Alexander Winchell, and elsewhere where I had mentioned men such as Alexander Winchell along with Professor Charles Carroll and his book The Negro, A Beast or In The Image of God? in my essay on The Role of Faith in a Successful Insurgency, Movement, or Community. So this is my endeavor to examine to a greater extent that phenomenon of such opinions held by educated men in the 19th century.
The Scientific View of the Negro Before the Age of Political Correctness, Part 1
This presentation, which may well become an occasional series, will endeavor to demonstrate that many mainstream writers and academics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, educated men who could not merely be dismissed as rednecks or racists, had correctly considered the Negro more as a beast than as a person, and certainly not as an entity which deserved a right to stand alongside White men as an equal peer in a civilized society. Of course, we certainly agree with that, not because we merely hate Negros, but because we have observed their behavior, we have judged their fruits, and we realize that they are far more an impediment to the function of society than they have ever been a benefit. They have been far more a destructive agent than they shall ever be a constructive asset. We believe that the evidence of the last hundred years demonstrates that as a race, Negros should have been left separated to dwell in their aboriginal state, and the only sound alternative was to leave them as non-citizens and slaves. Today, after nearly a century of “equality”, our cities are destroyed, our educational institutions have been debased with mediocrity, morals and ethics have become relative, and our arts are now mostly decadent exhibitions of savage concupiscence. We have become an English-speaking Africa decorated with European technology and a few still-white faces, white faces which are slowly coerced into awarding the Negro with ever-increasing benefits which stand as bribes so that they would maintain a facade of civility. We can see the results of Negro emancipation and legislated political equality, having actually experienced the phenomenon. However one man who tried to warn the world of its consequences in advance was a medical doctor named John H. Van Evrie, who lived from 1814 to 1896. He was also the editor and proprietor of a newspaper called the Weekly Day Book, a Democratic newspaper, and a son of the founder of Rochester, a city on Lake Ontario in New York State. He also published several books on race relations and the character of the Negro, for which he used his own publishing company, Van Evrie, Horton & Company. His conclusions concerning the Negro led him to become a defender of the institution of slavery, and a defender of the cause of the Old South. He is slandered by mainstream sources today even in spite of the fact that many of his conclusions have been proven by the events of history subsequent to the War Between the States.
