LCRBMRP-T0E06

THE QUESTION OF RACE.

If it were not for the fact that I fear there are far too many of my own race, and a great many more of the white race, who will take the bold assertions of Mr. Bruce to be historical facts, and his propositions, arguments and conclusions for logical truths, I would not attempt a word in refutation of them. But, knowing as I do that they are conclusions jumped at, and not reached by proper syllogism, I therefore undertake to show their fallacy in that respect, and also their historical inaccuracy and unfairness.

Indeed, the whole affair is nothing more nor less than a bundle of abuse, slander, vituperation and misrepresentation, cast and heaped upon a whole race of people by an individual of another race.

I repeat, that I would not notice the matter, if it were not for the fact that so many will believe the statements and arguments of Mr. Bruce to be true; and for that other fact, that he will be largely quoted as authority on the past, present and probable future degradation of the colored race.

Let us notice some of Mr. Bruce's arguments and statements, for they may be seen through at a glance by any fair-minded person.

We are to bear in mind that abuse is not argument; nor is ridicule logic. This is a fact that Mr. Bruce seems to have entirely lost sight of. He has taken his own bold, dogmatic assertions for profound arguments, and his pitiable and contemptible ridicule of the colored race for irrefutable logic.

00044

Mr. Bruce makes the first ground of his race prejudice to rest upon the physical distinctions that exist between the colored and white races, which, he says, consist of "woolly hair, receding forehead, flat nose, thick lips and the protruding jaw," including the "color." This is the description Mr. Bruce gives of the colored race, but he does not stop one minute to notice that the existence of these differences found in the races is not the same thing as proving superiority and inferiority of race. Yet that is just the conclusion to which he has jumped. He simply says that these differences exist, and therefore the white race, he coolly and calmly concludes, is superior to the colored race. Any fool can readily see that there are many physical differences of appearance in any of the five races that divide the bulk of mankind; but the same fool cannot so readily prove that the simple existence of these physical distinctions is in any sense proof that the white race is superior to the colored. If Mr. Bruce does not like the race, or rather those of the race who are constructed by nature with different physical characteristics from himself, that only proves a matter of taste and choice with him: and not which is superior or inferior, in race qualities.

If I were more of a philosopher, or a scientist, I would declare the white man's color to be a disease, or a strange freak of nature. But being neither philosopher nor scientist, I do not know what it is; whether a disease or a very strange freak of nature. At any rate, it is extranatural, if not even anti-natural. And I do say most emphatically, that it is an act of nature for which the white man himself cannot account. And I would inform Mr. Bruce that we are beginning seriously to investigate that matter; for we want to know where the handful of white people that inhabit this globe came from, because they were not made white at the Creation of man, for Sir Henry 00055Rawlinson, one of the greatest paleologists that ever lived, himself being a white man, says that the word "Adam" means "dark race." So that we have the best of authority for saying that God never created man white, but created him dark: and that the color of the white man is an unknown, and probably an unknowable act of nature. No one ever has been able yet to trace the white man's color to its origin. But the dark man's color is traced to his creation. He was made so.

And again, if Mr. Bruce means to take the matter for granted, that the white man is superior to the colored, because he is found to be in the majority in this country, his proposition will prove too much for him, for it will prove, all that is needed to constitute superiority, is to be the dominant class; or to be the ruling class, by reason of majorities. I say if this is the stand he takes, then he is well aware, as are all of us, that there are large portions of the habitable globe in which the darker portions of the races rule the lighter; for example, in Arabia and India, and Africa. What would Mr. Bruce have us to conclude from these facts? Nothing of course, but that in those countries, and parts of countries, where the darker portions of mankind are in rule, they are therefore superior. Very well, then, he will fall very far short of establishing his universal superiority of the whites, for a large portion of the world is governed and controlled by the darker races.

Then again, he fails to account for his prejudice against the whole race, if the cause of his dislike for them is because of the dark color, "the woolly hair, the receding forehead, the thick lips and the protruding jaw;" for not more than one in ten, will anything like meet the above description. I ask again, why does he extend his hatred and spite to all of the race, because of a few specimens in it, which he does not like? Is this humane? Is 00066it manly? Is it intelligent? No, it is unusual, unreasonable, and indiscriminating; and, indeed, such a disposition is only found in the lower strata of man, and never in the higher and intellectual classes. It belongs to that class that believe that might is right because it is might, and happens to be in their possession; and that brute force is right simply because it is force, and is a means to an end.

Let us notice another of Mr. Bruce's great and weighty arguments in proof of the superiority of the white to the colored race. We quote from his pamphlet as follows: "But the lines of separation between the negro and the white man are far from being purely physical. Even if the personal characteristics, to which we have alluded, were wanting, his origin, his history, his present condition, and moral and intellectual idiosyncrasies of his would still impart to his individuality an invidious relief."

A more bunglesome and tautological paragraph one seldom meets with in public print, and certainly not emanating from one who puts himself forth at once as historian, biologist, and profound statesman. Mr. Bruce says in the paragraph just quoted, that the origin of the colored man is against him, so I have been looking all through his pamphlet to find the place where he proves his assertion, but I fail to find even the slightest attempt to do so. Why is this? Is it because he did not know the origin of the colored race? Then he had no right to make such an assertion. Or was it that he feared the facts would contradict his own statement? Then in that case he would prove himself an unfaithful, unfair historian. No, we are not ashamed, either of our origin, or history, for both are so eminent and honorable that we are greatly proud of them. We are not afraid to have them brought to the light. But Mr. Bruce and others of 00077his ilk are, as they have long been, at work, and have succeeded in establishing for the colored race a false and fictitious origin and history and we have found it out, so we go behind the returning board to find the true returns, and we find the historical ballot-box has been stuffed.

Indeed, so untrue and unfair is, and has been, the white man's history-making, that we no longer accept it as true, for the late discoveries have given the lie to nearly all of it. But what is that to a man like Bruce, who tacitly admits that he is a creature of race-prejudice and race-hate? Yes, the white man has for ages artfully and systematically robbed the historical safe deposit of its sacred treasures of truth, and has deposited in their stead a lot of rubbish and trash, that is now being shelved all over the civilized world. My proof for the statements just made is to be found in the fact that the old theories so long held and taught by the white man, are now admitted to be false. For example, that thievish theory which taught that the Egyptian, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Ethiopian and a number of other existing languages belonged to what is known as the Semitic family of languages* --that is, that Shem, through his descendants, brought them down to us. I say this is a thievish theory, because it gives to the descendants of Shem credit and honor that belong to Ham, for the Egyptians and Ethiopians were the inventors of written language. Then there arose another class, who looked with jealous eye upon the idea of the Jew, or Shemite, being the inventor and transmitter of written language; so the Sanscrit theory was then trumped up and put forth as the foster-mother of all the languages of earth, But it changed and interchanged its name so often one hardly knows at which end to begin to reckon them up. At one time Sanscrit 00088is said to be the mother of all other languages, and then again it is said to be independent of all others, or in other words, to have an independent origin.

*Dr. Philip Schaff's History

But at one time it is known as the Indo-European, then the-Indo-Germanic, then the Indian itself is brought in and made to do duty. Then it is known as the Medo-Persian, or Graeco-Latin, or Germanic and Gallo-Celtic family, and so on. But not being content with this, the Aryan theory is started, which is by one writer made to appear the offspring of the Sanscrit, and by another the mother of them all; and so on, until one is made to stop and ask: Which is it? and What does it mean?

The answer is at hand; that a race of people, proud, haughty and ambitious, finding themselves without national honors, resolve, by a cunningly devised scheme, to cheat another race out of its national and historical rights, and to add them to their own stock, just after the same manner as they have invaded this country, to which they had no right whatever, and claimed it as their own.

The white race, I say, has thus planned to beat the descendants of Ham out of their legitimate and heaven-born rights, and the instrument used in this instance is comparative philology. But Prof. Max Muller, in his search for name and fame, has by his recent discoveries knocked the bottom all out of that, for he says, "There is no proof that the Aryan, Semitic and Turanian families of language had independent beginnings, and that the radicals existing in all the three can be traced to the common source," which, of course, goes back to Noah and his family. So the theorist will have to start off again, for Max Muller, in a very few, terse and pointed sentences, has stepped in and with a cruel coolness hard to describe, has broken up all those dear linguistic families. What a pity! Yes, with one fell stroke, he sweeps them all away. I wonder what Mr. Bruce and his other 00099"superior race" theorists will do now. Gentlemen, my advice is, that you had better begin to look after your fences, or rather, go back and begin your historical lives over; and this time I would advise you to begin fair; be honest, be just, be truthful; for we, as a race, are watching your every step.

Take for instance, the History and Geography of Africa, as it has come down to us from the "kith and kin" of the white man, and what have we? Simply a vast array of misrepresentations, and historical, geographical and ethnological contradictions. First, we were informed that Africa, as a country, for the most part, was a dry barren, sterile desert of shifting sands. Now, Stanley comes out and informs us that Africa is the richest of all the continents. Then again, we were told by old geographers that it was largely unwatered. But we are now told by later authorities that the same country abounds with lakes and rivers, and that these are among the largest in the world.

As for its people, we were told that they were simply a lot of dwarfs, abnormally constituted, with heads, arms and feet peculiarly different from those of other peoples. But now we are told, with, as it were, bated breath of astonishment, that there are men stalwart and beautifully formed, brave and warlike, in Africa. Which of these statements shall we receive as true? And as for the language of the African, we were told with a cool daring that would almost give one a chill, that they had no language that was above the gabble of the goose; but now, Dr. Grattan Guinness says he has found in the Congo and Soudan countries, languages having as many as forty tenses to the verb. Can that people, who have a language so richly embellished as to enable them to express an idea in forty different ways, be considered without a language? That is just what the forty tenses to the verb 001010means. Yes, it means forty modes of expressing one's thoughts.

The foregoing are only a few of the misrepresentations. I repeat, that I find nowhere in Mr. Bruce's paper, that he attempts to show anything concerning the origin of the colored race, so I will refer him to one historical work, and it is the oldest History in existence, and is called The Book, or The Bible. I do not suppose that he has made a very thorough study of it; or if he has, he has not imbibed its spirit, nor profited by its teachings. If he had, he would have known that The Book says that "God made of one blood all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth." The other lesson is a commandment to Mr. Bruce that he should "do unto others as he would that they should do to him." It does seem somewhat strange that one of such apparently deep piety as he, should not follow more closely that very important command.

He says that the history of the colored man is also against him, but he does not prove the assertion. And yet the history of the three original branches of men stands out clear and distinct, or rather, that of two of them: Ham and Shem. The history of Japheth is obscure. As Mr. Bruce does not seem to know, I would inform him that the history of Japheth, except a very short portion of it, is entirely lost, there being no record whatever made of him after the short account to which I have referred. I am well aware that it is claimed that the race of Japheth is perpetuated through the Medes and Persians, and Greeks and Romans; but I want here to take on somewhat the manner of Mr. Bruce in dealing with things, and make this bold assertion: the man does not live who can trace Japheth historically out of Asia, or link him historically with the Greeks, for they themselves 001111say that they are the descendants of the gods, and we know that Japheth was as far from being a god as were any of his descendants, though the so-called European branch of them often tried to make gods of each other, and at times set up one of their number and worshiped him. But that did not make him a god: it simply showed the vanity, ignorance and superstition of the so-called European branch of the Japhetic family. And even if Japheth could be traced to the Greeks and Romans, what has the white man in the early history of either, of which he may be proud and boastful? In the case of the Greeks, they lay hid away up there in that little pent up peninsula, without government in any of its forms, neither family, church nor state; for they were without all, and were simply living huddled together, as so many wild beasts, feeding on roots and herbs, and wearing for clothing--when they wore any--the skins of beasts. And they remained in that low, degraded and pitiable condition, until Inachus, the Phoenician, arrived among them, about 1856 B.C., and founded the kingdom of Argos, and formed for them a government, and gave them laws for their family and state.

Later on, B.C., in 1556, Cecrops carried a colony to Greece, and built the city of Cecropia, (which was afterwards called Athens.) But still they could not read or write, until Cadmus, another Phoenician, arrived in 1493 B.C. and taught them letters. I want now to inform Mr. Bruce, as he dwelt long on race origin and race history, that Inachus and Cadmus, being Phoenicians, were the descendants of Ham, through Canaan, who was his youngest son, and therefore were of the colored race, and have in common the same history. I also want to inform him that Cecrops being an Egyptian, was a descendant of Ham, through Misraim, who was Ham's second son. Thus the early history of Egyptians was also the history 001212of the colored race, because the Egyptians were Hamites, and the colored race, it is agreed on all hands, were descendants of Ham, consequently his honors are ours.

There is another part of current history that stands to the credit of the colored race. I call Mr. Bruce's attention of it. It is, that the first kingdom ever established on earth was Babylon, and that the first king that ever reigned on earth with the title of "king," was Nimrod; and also that Nimrod was the grandson of Ham; so the colored race in their history have all the honor. And I wish to inform him of another fact that is not brought down in current history, and that is, that we as a race know all this, and intend to transmit the record as a legacy to our children forever.

I have already proved that the Egyptians belong to the colored race; but has Mr. Bruce thought of the fact that neither Greeks nor Romans ever learned to read the hieroglyphics written on the monuments and temples of Egypt? I ask, has he ever thought of this, for I nowhere find it made prominent in current history. It has a very important bgearing on the rise and progress of the white and colored races, in that it shows that her is a matter that stands to the honor and credit of the colored race, that he did not take into consideration when he so confidently, and with such an air of triumph affirmed that the history of the colored man was against him.

Yes, it is a significant fact, that here is a branch of the colored race, who have one of the fullest and most complete histories of their government and nation that the world has ever known, lying right before the white man's eyes for thousands of years; yet all those years produced no one who could decipher that valuable Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. But what did the white man do in this case? He did as he is still doing: that which he cannot 001313conquer he says is not worth having; and that which he cannot learn is not worth knowing. And so, the oldest and finest history in the world, except the Bible, was for thousand of years called trash and rubbish by the white man, simple because he did not have the ability to understand it; and for another important reason, which is prevalent in the white man everywhere, and that is his lack of manliness and moral fitness to acknowledge his inability to do. And yet it is a patent fact that there was not a man among the Greeks, nor among the Romans' neither among the Saxons nor the Anglo-Saxons, that could read and learn the history of that great people, the Egyptians, until the year 1790, when Champollion, a Frenchman, was born. He succeeded before he died, in learning enough of the Egyptian language to give a key to it; but that is as it were yesterday, for he died in 1832, only fifty-nine years ago. It seems to me that facts like these ought to make Mr. Bruce and others like him feel a great humiliation, and cause them to hesitate before rushing into print with a wholesale condemnation and villification of a peaceable, inoffensive people; for the white man lives in a very thin glass house, and I would advise him that he had better cease throwing stones, and he had better do so now, at once, for he is no longer pulling the blind over the eyes of the colored people, because we see through him like a man looking through a thin piece of gauze, and we certainly can read him with far more ease than he had ever been able to read the hieroglyphics of Egypt.

But let us return to Japheth and the Romans. I have already said that there is nothing in the origin and early history, either of the Greeks or Romans, about which the white man can legitimately boast and be proud, even if he could trace them to Japheth; and I have in another place shown that the early history of Greeks was disgraceful 001414in the extreme, and that their origin was very obscure and uncertain. But how about the Romans? What is their origin and history? It will be remembered that Mr. Bruce has called for a comparison, and has attempted to make one between the origin and history of the colored and white races. Now it is well known that the reputed origin of the Romans is nothing more than a myth, and their history is altogether fabulous. Examine into both and what do you find? Nothing but a huge bundle of fables, and a colossal mass of misrepresentations.

How did they get up into that little boot-shaped peninsula called Italy? It is not known. When did they go there? No one can tell. Did they come from Asia? It is an unknown matter? Did they come into Italy at a northern, southern, eastern or western point? It is all dark and unknown. There is no record that has yet been found, either above or under the ground, nor written on parchment or paper, that answers the foregoing questions. Then where did they come from? No knows. The white man, or Anglo-Saxon claims to be the offspring of the Romans. Is there anything in such all origin as that which I have just described,about which to be proud and haughty and boastful? Yet, of such an origin Mr. Bruce is proud, and asks for a contrast of the colored and white. We take great pleasure just here in giving it to him: "Where did the colored race spring from?" he asks, with a contemptuous scoff. I very readily and gladly answer the question and,say, They sprang from Ham, who was the second son of Noah. And as to their history, I would inform him that it is a matter of public record, and is found written on almost everything about the city of ancient Babylonia, and indeed the whole country of Babylonia, and in the names of the bridges that span its streams, and also on monuments 001515and in grottoes which are to be found on both sides of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. It is also written on the long-buried plates and slabs of the ancient city of Nineveh, that are now being found and read. Another branch of the colored race is to be found in the Egyptians, traced through Misraim, the second of Ham; and through Ham himself, for Egypt is often called the "Land of Ham." Their history can be found written on their temples, monuments and tombs, and in their grand libraries of all kinds, and their display of arts and sciences, the remain of which are found everywhere. Can the Greeks or Romans, or Britons, show any such record of their origin and early history? Not by any means. Another branch of the colored race can be traced in the descendants of Cush; who was the oldest son of Ham, and who settled India, Arabia, and Africa, and founded the Kingdom of Ethiopia in Africa, which was such a strong and powerful empire that at times she well nigh ruled the world.

And there is another noble branch of the colored race, and one which perhaps, has the most remarkable history of them all, because this is the branch of Ham's descendants upon whom that wonderful curse of Noah was pronounced. It is that of Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. Has Mr. Bruce ever read or heard of him? Well, what is the history, and what has he done for the world in which he and his descendants lived? What record has he left? Why, he like his brothers Cush and Mizraim, settled countries built cities, and advanced civilization everywhere throughout the Land of Canaan.

The Canaanites were the inventors of money measures, and weights, and were also the first to establish a scale for the measurement and valuation of land; see Machpelah, and the transaction that took place between Abraham and Ephron in the Land of Canaan. Ephron was 001616of the sons of Heth, and Heth was the second-born son of Canaan. Ephron valued the land which Abraham bought, at 400 shekels of silver, which is about $250 is also there called "current money."

The Canaanites also preserved and transmitted to Abraham the knowledge of the true God, and Melchisedek pronounced upon him the divine priestly blessing; and indeed it appears that the Land of Canaan was the only country at this time on the earth, where none but the true God was worshipped.

The Canaanites in after years, adopted and worshiped idols, but not in Abraham's day, neither in the days of Isaac and Jacob. The first idols we read of being in the Land of Canaan, were carried there from Syria by Rachel, one of Jacob's wives. She took them from Laban, her father. And I want to tell Mr. Bruce another thing that the Canaanites while we are comparing the histories of the white and colored races. I am sure he has heard of the "Tribe of Judah;" the chief Israelitish tribe, because from that tribe descended the Saviour of the World. Well, I want to tell him that the mother of that tribe belonged to the colored race, because she was a daughter of Canaan, her father, was a son of Ham; and the colored race descended from Ham. The name of the mother of the tribe of Judah was Tamar, and I repeat that she was a descendant of Canaan, the son of Ham. We have in another place, spoken of the origin of the Romans, but what of their history? When does their history begin? Who can tell? How can we have a true history of the Romans when there did not arise a man among them, who attempted to write their history, for six hundred years after the foundation of the city of Rome?

We will take special notice here of the fact that this people exists six hundred years before they do anything 001717worth recording, or else they do not in all that time produce a man who is able to write an account of his nation--it is one or the other--in either case it tells a very bad story for their descendants, the so-called Caucasians of to-day, who boast so loudly of their Roman origin and history. I have already said that the whole matter was a myth; for Romulus and Remus, the reputed founders of the city of Rome-and Rome was the beginning of their state and government--were twins, and were the sons of a woman by the name of Rhea Sylvia, and it is said she was the daughter of Numitor, the king of the country. But the father of the two boys Romulus and Remus, was Mars, and Mars was a chief god of the country. Wonderful heirship this, for Romulus and Remus! for according to this account, they were the grandsons of a king, and the sons of a god. No wonder the white man is so proud of his origin and descent, when he, according to the history made of himself, is the offspring of a king and a god; or, in other words, when he is a half king, half god. Truly, at that, he is a wonderful being!

But there is another important fact about this matter, but it is neither the kingly, nor the deistic side of which I now speak, but the moral; and that is, the relationship between the god Mars and Rhea Sylvia was an illicit one. Is the white man also proud of that side of the matter? I do not often hear of his mentioning it, but that is the history of it.

But there is another remarkable fact about the history of the white man that is brought down to us, and that is: we learn who was the Romans' foster-mother. She was a she-wolf, we are told, who heard the two boys crying on the banks of the river Tiber, where they had been cast by order of the king of the country to die. This she-wolf came, we are seriously told, to the banks of the river, day after day, and nursed and cared for these two 001818wonderful, kingly boys. They truly were, of high and noble birth, being as Roman history tells us, the grandsons of a king, and the sons of a god. Their foster-mother and father too, were of very noble birth, being none other than a she-wolf and a wood-pecker; for we are told by history, that the wolf did the nursing, and the wood-pecker brought the boys whatever else they got to eat, which consisted, we may well suppose, of worms and bugs plucked from decaying trees.

But what was the final result of all this? It was, that all the Roman leaders, both men and women, for many years afterwards, were turned into gods and goddesses. It is true that Romulus killed Remus, but Romulus became a god after he died, or rather disappeared, and came back, and watched over, and guarded and protected the Roman nation. I wish to ask Mr. Bruce, was there ever superstition to surpass that? I mean, a superstition that could believe the things to which I have just alluded, as true? And yet, that is just what every white man does, when he boasts so proudly of his Roman birth and descent. When I see the white man skipping from principle to policy; and from one policy to another, yet seldom coming back to principle, I am vividly reminded of the wood-pecker as he skips from limb to limb in his native forest. And when I see him scheming and planning as he does, to get the advantage of his colored fellow-man, I am simply reminded of the fact that history says his foster-mother was a wolf. I refer to these things, because, Mr. Bruce says the colored man's origin and history are against him. And he set out in his pamphlet to draw a comparison, but inasmuch as he failed to refer to any of those things, I thought I would do so, because they form an important part of the white man's history. He seems to take pride in relating the mode and manner by which the African was introduced into 001919this country. He says all other than the colored man came, and that he was brought. I will quote a paragraph of his, to show how he says it was done, and the following is it:

"Captured by his own kith and kin, in Africa; sold by his captors to the slave dealers; sold by the slave dealers to the slave ships; transported by the slave ships to our shores." I am glad Mr. Bruce unwittingly told the true story of how the Africans were brought to this country. He says they were captured by the African himself; sold to the slave dealer, which we accept. Very well then, he was not captured by the white man going up into Africa, and fighting with, and conquering him, and making him his slave. But as mean and disgusting a business as making and dealing in slaves as that would have been, I want him to remember that the business is even robbed of that paltry honor, because he says the African captured his own people, and sold them to the slave dealer. But he does not tell that they were captives of war. He would leave the impression that at that time the slave trade was carried on in Africa for the gain that was in it; whereas, the fact is, the slaves that were sold to the slave ships were captives of war, and were sold by way of disposing of prisoners in what was considered a more humane manner than putting them to death.

No, the white man did not go up into Africa to capture anybody, but stayed on his boat, and got what was brought to him, because he dared not venture away from the shore; he had neither courage nor manhood to do so.

And Africa not only kept the slave ships out of her territory, but has in a large degree, kept out all the nations, for thousands of years. Neither the Greeks nor Romans were ever able to penetrate into Africa further than the narrow belt along the coast.

002020

It is wonderfully interesting to note the many ingenious reasons that have been assigned from time to time, for this and also for the lack of the knowledge of the interior of the country, and its people.

It is astonishing to see how the white man strives to keep from acknowledging that he was not able to conquer the people, and take their country. Nevertheless it is a fact that Africa is the only country on the globe to-day, that has not at some time in its history been conquered by other nations; for, as I have said, the Greeks and Romans were both closely confined to the northern coast, and the Jews, even in Solomon's day, knew so little about it that they could only say that the queen of Sheba, when she came up to view Solomon's temple, had come from the uttermost parts of the earth. I am not rash enough to say that no part of Africa has ever been taken, but I do, with great boldness assert, that as a country, it has never been taken by any one of the nations, or by all of them combined, even down to the present day.

I am well aware that Mr. Bruce asserts that the Christian and civilized nations of the earth, have gone into the country and divided it up among themselves, with little or no regard to the wishes of the people who own it. Well, what does that argue for the "Christian nations," even if it were true? It simply argues that the white man's christianity does not at all stand in his way when he sees his neighbor's goods, and covets them.

Has Mr. Bruce ever stopped to consider how misleading are his statements, as to how those "Christian Nations" of which he speaks, got hold of Africa? Will he not at some time tell the public what those technical terms "sphere of German influence," "sphere of English influence," and "sphere of French influence" mean? Do they 002121not simply mean that these nations came together and agreed to divide up the country of Africa, and after that manner call it their own without being actually in possession of it at all? In other words, is not the possession of these nations simply on charts and paper? What I mean is, that it is one thing to lay claim to goods, and quite another to have them turned over, or to come into possession of them.

I have already called attention to the ingenious manner, by which the white man has evaded giving the true reasons as to why he had never been able to take Africa, conquer its people, and own the country. Oh, the many reasons given by writers, book-makers, historians, and missionaries, why Africa was so little known to the white man, and why he has been so slow in making his home there! I must say, that in all this, the white man makes himself appear to us, more ridiculous than he does the honest, impartial, faithful historian.

First it was said that the people were too cruel and savage, and that they were nearly all cannibals and would catch the white man and eat him. But now, a missionary, writing in a late number of the Missionary Review of the World, tells us that a white woman missionary can go alone and unattended into the interior for hundreds of miles among tribes often millions of so-called cannibals, and still be unmolested in any way whatever. The next was, that it was too deadly in climate for the white man to live there. The story as told was that the whole country was not much else than one vast, pestilential, miasmatic swamp of death-dealing air and poisonous vapors; and that if the white man came within reach of them he was done for. But now the Germans, who are the princes of the white progeny, are planning to colonize the same country by thousands of their race, and we are also told that the climate is not torrid at all, but 002222temperate, like that of Asia, and even the southern part of this country. Now, what I want to know is, which of these lies shall we believe?

There is another thing I would like Mr. Bruce and his other "superior race" theorists to answer: Suppose all of the deadly climate conditions named for Africa were true, and that the white man could not live there, what would that prove, except the fact that he finds himself living in a world to one-fourth of which he is not adapted. Or, in other words, what would it argue but his inadaptability to certain climates? And would that not prove a lack of that very important quality found in man, known as physical endurance, and therefore make him unequal to the endurance of certain climates, and consequently destroy his much-loved doctrine of the "survival of the fittest?" And also, would it not destroy his hobby, the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon, Caucasian, Syro-Arabian, Indo-European, Anglo-Germanic and as many-more-named race? I mean that all these names belong to one people. They sometimes call themselves the one, and sometimes the other, and I do not mean different races.

Or does it not argue that the white man is not in all things equal to the colored? For the colored man can, and does live and prosper in every part of the habitable globe. But now, since he has been permitted to enter and quietly take up his abode there, and buy things very cheap and to sell them very high, and thus soon become rich, he declares Africa to be a most charming country--that is, when he is writing from a money and mercenary point of view. But still, when he begins to write from the race point, Africa is an awfully desolate and dangerous place.

But, as I have said, there must be other reasons given than those I have named as to why the white man has out gone into Africa before; so they are soon found, and 002323one of them is its inaccessibility because of a great desert that is said to stretch clear across the continent; but the bottom is effectually knocked out of that by the statements of other white men that the desert is not more than a third as large as it has been described to be.

Another reason given is, that but one river was known to history, and yet we are told by Herodotus that the king of Egypt, Necho by name, sent out an expedition which circumnavigated Africa* and also penetrated the interior, when its great lakes, rivers and creeks were explored and made known to the world, thousands of years before either Parke, Livingstone, Stanley, or any of the modern visitors to Africa were born.

*See Cyclopedia Britannica, on Africa.

And then, with that other fact before the white man's eye, that Africa is at this time inhabited by nearly three hundred millions of people, who are tilling the country and making a living after their own ideas.

How can he, I ask, under such circumstances, talk about Stanley having discovered Africa? Yes, it may have been, and was, a discovery to Stanley and others, just in the same light it is to every missionary who goes there; and indeed, I see by the Missionary Review of the World that a certain missionary, named Chambers, I believe, is set down as an "explorer and discoverer."

Now, what these men see and find among the people of Africa is no more a discovery in the true sense of that term, than are the visits of any European tourist to the woods and forests of this or any other country inhabited and cultivated by its natives. But what shall I say more about Africa--for instance, of the men she has and is still producing?

Mr. Bruce has given a long list of the men produced by the whites. Will he listen while I shall give him a few names of the men of Africa, whose lives and characters it will pay him to study?

002424

Has he ever heard of that great African general named Hannibal, who was born in Africa, B.C.247, and that he was the son of a noble Hamilcar, and that he had a brother named Asdrubal, who was also a famous general! And has he ever heard that these Africans made Rome howl, for years upon years, until they brought her almost to the brink of desolation? And that they so weakened her that she was never able fully to recover herself, and that she continued to decline, decay and crumble, until she tottered and fell, a mangled mass of wreck and ruin, to rise no more forever? To-day she is a disgrace to the name she once bore. And these same generals made great conquests in Spain, and subdued nearly all of Sicily.

I want also to inform Mr. Bruce of Augustine, the great, of Tertullian and Cyprian. These were born at or near Carthage, and I hold that they were Africans. And I would also name Novatian, Donatus and Novatus. These were all noble sons of Africa, and known as the Latin Fathers, and outside of the Church itself were the greatest lights the Christian Church has ever produced since the days of Christ and his Apostles. These were all writers of Christian literature. So we see that the first and best Christian literature we have, were produced not only by Africa's great writers, but in Africa, and upon African soil.

As to the men and women of the present day, we have examples of ability and genius too numerous to mention by name. They are here and here to stay, and still they come: scientists, artists, artisans, professors, ministers of church and ministers of state, lawyers, doctors of divinity and doctors of physics, authors religious and authors secular. And we have laborers too, and they are none the less honorable for being such, although Mr. Bruce would have it so.

002525

He has brought the Anglo-Saxon race in particular contrast with the colored race, as well as the white man in general; and surely he has given a bright and beautiful picture of them. But there are two sides to all questions. Let us then, take a look at the other side:

Who are the Anglo-Saxons? What is their origin and early history? Is it honorable or is it otherwise. These are a few of the plain questions that pushed to the front and demanded an answer, but Mr. Bruce failed to answer them, though they stood before him, looking him squarely in the face demanding an answer. But instead of answering them, he soars away on the height of his imagination and gets completely lost in the mazes of his own delights.

And what a beautiful, intelligent, brave, warlike, energetic, enterprising and business-like white race rises up out of the sea of his surmises, and stands before him in all of its grandeur and glory. But what are the facts about this great and mighty Anglo-Saxon race? Let us see: The first thing we must do, is to have Mr. Bruce define his terms. What does he mean when he speaks of the Anglo Saxon race? Is he talking by the etymology of the term "Anglo-Saxon?" If he is talking from an etymological point of view, "Anglo-Saxon Race" sounds very musical. But carry him back a little to the words 'Britain" and "the Britons;" not "Great Britain," but plain "Britain;" for it will be remembered, that it did not become great for many, many years. And as to the territory of the island, it is known to be but a speck of the earth, in comparative geography. Now what does history say about the inhabitants of that little island? The first we hear of it or its people is about 002626fifty years before the Christian era. They then lay there hid away, wild savages; poor, and without government; without clothes, save the undressed skins of beasts, which only consisted of straps and strings wound about the lions, and so on, with the rest of the body painted and stained with a mixture of clay and the berries picked from the bushes found in the swamps, just after the same manner as have done all savage nations. The whole country abounded with forests and swamps, and the natives made no attempt to improve the swamps or clear the forests. They were without roads or bridges; nor did they know how to make the one or build the other. They has no houses, but lived in the ground, for the most part; with some few mud huts; and where these existed, they were absolutely without design in their arrangement, for they had no streets, but just squatted, and dotted the earth, here and there and everywhere, without plan and without purpose.

This is only a faint picture of the early stages in the life and history of the Anglo-Saxons. I say that it is only a faint picture, for they were without letters and without learning, and apparently without abilitye or disposition to learn. but still they are, to Mr. Bruce, wonderfully superior. Superior to what, and to whom, I should like to know? there they are, lying in this isolated island, ignorant, lazy, superstitious, savage and thriftless; yet they are the "great superior race." If they are the direct descendants of Japheth, where is the knowledge of civilization he left them? They were too worthless to keep it in memory. And they had but a speck of earth there on that island to look after, and they were actually too lazy to improve it in any way whatever, for centuries, and yet they were very "superior." Another thing I would like Mr. Bruce to tell me: Why is it that this superior 002727race could remain for four hundred years under the Romans, and then learn so little of civilization and make so little progress along the ways of true life?

I have said they were superstitious. Were they not, when they believe in the power of charms; worshiped serpents as gods: and believed in the enchantments of a magician's wand ? And they also believed in the sacrifice of human beings to the serpent god. Yes, and they were cruel and bloodthirsty, for they burnt alive those whom they suspected of any crime. And I wish to say that this is a trait of the "superior" Anglo-Saxon race, that has not left them yet; but it will be noticed that the practice is kept up after the same manner as of old-that is, they still lay cruel and wicked hands on the helpless few or on the one, as the case may be, and ruthlessly take away life, and then brag and boast of their bravery and manhood.

Mr. Bruce makes reference to the docility with which the colored people bore the yoke of slavery in this country. Not more so than have other races, the Anglo-Saxon, for instance, who were made prisoners of war and sold into slavery. We do not read of any efforts on their part to free themselves from bondage. The fighting that went on was tribal and racial--that is, the Scots fought the Picts fought the Saxons and the Saxons fought the Britons; but it was all done for greed of gain, and to dislodge each other from certain territory. But nowhere do we read of the slaves, as such, uprising, at any time, in any of the before-named tribes, to deliver themselves from bondage and slavery. And the same is equally true of all white slaves, wherever they have existed, whether among the Saxons, Picts, Britons, Greeks or Romans; and we are told by F. W. Farrar, in his "Early Days of Christianity," that there were not less than sixty millions of white slaves in the Roman province 002828alone. Sixty million, mark you! Can Mr. Bruce place his finger on a alone. Sixty million, mark you! Can Mr. Bruce place his finger on a single page of history that treats of an uprising among them? No, he cannot, and the same writer to whom I have just referred says that they were willing to serve anybody as masters, simply for what they could get to eat and to wear And then again, there were those other slaves in Athens and Corinth, and other Grecian cities. They were also white; and Dr. Gill tells us in his exposition of Deuteronomy xxviii: 68, that, "thirty sold for one penny in Rome." Did Mr. Bruce ever read of an uprising among them, as slaves, and on account of their bondage attempting to free themselves? However, I believe one of them did try to escape, but the Apostle Paul sent him back home again to his master, whose name was Philemon; the slave's name was Onesimus. Could a people make less effort to free themselves than the classes of whites to which I have referred?

I want to inform Mr. Bruce that the white slaves in the world have exceeded the colored, by the million. As was just shown, there were sixty millions in the Roman province; and, on investigation, it will be found there were equally as many in Greece: which will make one hundred and twenty millions. This, added to the two millions of Jews who were slaves in Egypt, would make the enormous number of two hundred and twenty-two millions of white slaves that have existed in the three countries above-named, namely, Greece, Egypt and Rome.

But the largest number that was ever brought from Africa, those in the West India Islands, and including all in this country, did not exceed ten millions. Now deduct this from one hundred and twenty two millions, and it will leave a balance against the whites who were enslaved, of one hundred and twelve millions.

But is it true, as Mr. Bruce asserts, that the colored people of this country never made any attempt to free 002929themselves? If he thinks so, let him read "The Underground Railroad," a book written by Mr. William Still. And is it possible that he has forgotten the name of Nat. Turner, of Virginia, and the date of August, 1831, and the sixty whites who fell under his hand, in that mighty stroke he made for his own liberty and that of his fellows? And has he forgotten the dates of 1710, 1740, 1814?--these dates all tell uprisings of the colored people of this country, who either struck, or planned to strike for liberty. And has he forgotten those who died with John Brown at Harper's Ferry? of the two hundred thousand brave soldier boys who willingly and gladly offered their lives for their freedom, in the late Rebellion? If so, I kindly remind him of these facts.

He says "the white race is preeeminently the race of reforms." Well, I very readily grant that, but take the liberty to assert that their reforms have been for the most part, worse than the evils complained of, and have seldom accomplished more than to disturb peace and destroy harmony.

And this has been true of the white man from the middle ages down to the present day. This is true with Family, Church and State. Can any whit white man mention the term "middle age," with its state and condition, without a blush? For one has only to mention this term, in order to call up all the superstition, ignorance, misery, bloodshed and death, that occurred in that period. Is Mr. Bruce and the other white men proud of this also? Yes, simply, because the white man did it, and therefore it was right, and the very best thing that could have happened to the world and mankind, for he magnifies his very weakness into strength, his ignorance into profound knowledge, his wickedness and cruelty into bravery, his 003030evil into good, and his white color is to him the very synonym for "Ruler of the World." Oh! the vanity, the brass, the gush, that is inmate and inherent in the white man!

Mr. Bruce takes the liberty to make a thrust at the chastity of our women. I think he might have spared the virtue of our wives and daughters; but he has failed to do so. Well we can afford to grant him a monopoly of that kind of business. But when he comes to speak of the morality that he says there is lacking among the colored race, I simply have this to say: If he speaks of honesty in dealing and fidelity to trusts reposed in us, that we have not robbed many banks as yet; we have no representatives in Canada, who are fugitives from justice on account of robberies, forgeries and embezzlements. Neither have we seven defaulting treasurers, who in seven different States of the Union, have robbed the State treasuries of between two and three millions of dollars. Neither have we wrecked the homes of thousands of widows and orphan children by foolish, wild-cat, hair-brained speculations. But has not the white man done this, and is he not doing it every day?

And if Mr. Bruce wishes to contrast morals from the side of virtue and purity of life in the home and family circle, I would say that we have not many Marvins, who married no less that fifteen wives. Neither have we many Brigham Youngs among us. We have not established a Salt Lake City, nor an Oneida community. Neither have we any such thing as a Mormon question to settle, for there is not a colored Mormon in all this broad land, although the white man sought for two hundred and fifty years to make us such through his Reform institutions--Slavery, for instance. And neither have we had a London Pall Mall Gazette exposure of the extensive corruption and sale of young girls to profligates. But all this is too true of the white man.

003131

I would say to Mr. Bruce that the Scriptural injunction is, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." And if we, as a race, have not sense enough to know who William Lloyd Garrison was, as he implies by a quotation of what he has heard, there are some other things which we do know, and therefore take great pleasure in calling his attention to them.