Anonymously Blogging

20-year-old young Black woman Megan Williams was held at a remote house in Big Creek and was tortured, sexually assaulted, and beaten for days before being discovered by the police. Once an assailant cut the victim’s ankle with a knife, calling her the n-word and confessing that she was kidnapped because of her skin color.

“They just kept saying ‘This is what we do to niggers down here,‘” Williams told The Associated Press.

However, six white people were charged with everything but the hate crime.

This brave woman hopes to attend college one day to become a nurse. 

This case deserves national attention and an outrage.

“It does not require an unreasonable reading of history to conclude that the degree of progress blacks have made away from slavery and toward equality has depended on whether allowing blacks more or less opportunity best served the interests and aims of white society.” So contended the late law professor Derrick A. Bell, who branded this concept the “interest convergence thesis.” Any gladiator battling in the coliseum of racial justice work must wrestle with it. And those who aim to make blacks lives matter imperil their movement, which recently announced six new demands, by failing to steep their strategy in Bell’s wisdom.

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “The Case for Reparations” crashed and burned on intellectual and logical grounds, partly because he presented reparations as a public policy prescription black folk could actually capture through the normal democratic process. I challenged Coates via Twitter, writing “you know reparations will never happen. Why champion solutions you know will never eventuate?” “Spoken like its [sic] 1859, talking about abolition,” he replied, arguing, subtextually, that reparations, like emancipation before it, can ascend from unfathomable dream to fulfilled promise in short order. The interest convergence thesis exposes Coates’ analogy.

President Abraham Lincoln sat in the White House on Aug. 22, 1862, bloody warfare gripping the country, and penned a response letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the influential New York Tribune. Greeley, three days earlier, maligned Lincoln for not manumitting the slaves to undermine the Confederacy. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” Lincoln wrote. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

Lincoln had already penned an Emancipation Proclamation — a version sat in his desk drawer — but he had yet to publicly declare the slaves in the rebellious South free. He agreed with Greeley, granting emancipation would indeed hasten the North’s march to victory. And we principally owe that strategic calculation to blacks receiving the largest stride toward racial equality in American history. Slavery was no less immoral in 1862 than in 1859. Rhetorically unshackling 3.5 million slaves, though, had suddenly become in the interest of whites, too. And white folk doing what’s best for white folk, even as we laud the valiant labor of abolitionists, animated the decision to elevate black property into black personhood.

Nigga, you got the wrong blog lolI’ve only been w like three maybe 4 guys that were bigger than 6"