law of the maculated text of the Torah, by following the same principles which it is claimed that God commanded Joshua to follow in his wars against the Philistines.

When the groups of colonists were able to become a national force, the violence was quickly directed toward the original peoples from whom the colonists came, especially the English. The American War of Independence was a revolution of white Protestants against a white, Protestant government. This proves that it had no ethical meaning other than continuation of the principle of expansion and conquest, the principle shared by both the [British] government and the colonists. If the matter had been one of values such as freedom and democracy, it would have been most appropriate out of all the governments of the West, to obey the English government, which was indisputably, the most democratic and open to debate of all the colonial powers. Without praising British colonialism, we can say that the people of other colonies rejoiced at the news of the British defeat of the Portuguese and Spanish for this reason. Then why did the branch revolt against the root? What lit the fuse of revolution was none other than the Sugar Law of 1764 and the [infamous] Tea Tax. Both parties fought over a land that did not belong to either, and human rights had neither mention nor effect!

The third feature besides exterminating millions of the native people, and fighting a democratic government in a civil war, is the most repulsive of features which formed the American national existence: hunting down and enslaving human beings simply because God created them a different color!

I do not know why the sixty intellectuals failed to praise the morality of America’s freeing the slaves, although this claim is similar to their claiming universal values and just war in that each is a late justification for a long and painful situation which cannot be justified any more than you can shield yourself from the sun with the palm of your hand. The phrase, “All men are created equal,” with which Jefferson begins the Declaration of Independence was not used in the context of inventing or discovering universal values, but was only an expedient argument for the equality of the white man of the American colonies with the white man in the motherland. It never included people of color or women. The Americans took nearly two centuries to pass civil rights legislation and end racial discrimination during the Johnson administration.

At the time that civil rights advocates were seeking to achieve the end of racial discrimination through legislation (which is only theoretical, as evidenced by subsequent and continual incidents) they sought to void the racist laws which were then fully in effect and enforced with the great popular support. As a quick example we recall that the constitution of the State of Mississippi, section eight concerning education, paragraph 207 required separation of white children from Negro children so that each race shall have its own schools.

Section ten concerning reformatories and prisons, paragraph 225 required the legislature to take appropriate measures to separate white prisoners from black prisoners.

Section fourteen, general laws, paragraph 263 declared marriage between a white person and a Negro, Mulatto, or a person of one-eighth Negro blood to be unlawful and void.

Perhaps more surprising than the laws of the State of Mississippi is the following text:

“Whoever prints, publishes, or distributes printed, typewritten, or handwritten materials inciting the population to consent to social integration and marriage between white and black, or presenting arguments or proposals of this kind, his activity is considered an offense punishable by law by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months, or both.”