Thank you Dr. Horne more people need to listen to this!

Really enjoy the concise knowledge, clarity of thought and clarity of speech that Gerald Horne brings to every discussion.

My respect and admiration to you, sir,Thank you for not giving up on people.

FBA'S NEEDS A REFUND OR REPARATION FOR OUR PART OF THE MILLIONS, BILLIONS, TRILLIONS TRADE AND INVESTMENTS INTERNATIONALY, THATS WAS HAORDED 100% TO 1% LEGISLATING AT PRESENT TIME TO 0% WITH ALL DO RESPECT IF WE CANT GET WHAT WE PAID FOR FAIRLY HERE THAN what we payed for is still there and we need it now more than ever.

🙏🏿🌹 YHVH...be with you!!! 🌹🙏🏿

With this great effort to raise concerns on what was happening with the black condition in the US by those two black men internationally was there efforts to pay attention by any other country beside Russia at that time" if so whom.?

You can tell who is an opp., in the comment sections. 🤦🏾‍♀️

Tiananmen Square was started by anti-black student protests in Nanjing. What is Horne talking about.

How can you trust the words of a man who OPENLY LIES on the very first page of his book and twists an antislavery quote into a pro-slavery quote? "1. The British Empire in the late 18th century was moving in the direction of the abolition of slavery Horne spills a considerable amount of ink on detailing the Somerset case, a 1772 court decision which ruled the practice of chattel slavery illegal in England or Wales. This law did not apply to Britain’s overseas empire, where nearly all of the nearly one million Africans enslaved by the British actually resided. Nonetheless, Horne insists that the colonists in the 13 colonies saw the ruling as a bellwether for eventual abolition in North America, and this spurred them to rebellion. As evidence that this court ruling was infuriating to the pro slavery colonials, Horne starts off by quoting a Virginia newspaper supposedly opposing the ruling: “Is it in the power of Parliament to make such a Law? Can any human law abrogate the divine? The laws of Nature are the laws of God”[4] The source cited, a 1772 issue of the Virginia Gazette, available online in its original text, says something quite different: “It has been said that Lord Mansfield has advised a law respecting the property of Negroes in England. Is it in the power of Parliament to make such a Law? Can any human law abrogate the divine? The Laws of Nature are the laws of God. By those laws a Negro cannot be less free than a man of any other complexion. If Negroes are to be slaves on account of their colour, the next step will be to enslave every Mulatto in the Kingdom, than every Portuguese, next the French, then the brown complexioned English, and so on till there be only one free man left, which will be the man of the palest complexions in the three kingdoms!”[5] What Horne presents as a pro slavery argument is in fact an anti slavery one, and an anti racist one at that. And this is only on the very first page of the book."

Given the shitty scholarship of his work, I wouldn’t trust a single thing Dr. Horne presents as fact.

Stop polishing a turd, kids. Nearly 250 years after the American Revolution, the event continues to exert a powerful influence on the present. The ideals of the revolution-human equality and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-have a deep appeal to Americans, and moreover have inspired political idealists and revolutionaries around the world. In 2014, Professor Gerald Horne of the University of Houston published a book with a startling thesis: that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. This was no genuine revolution, Horne argued, but rather a counter-revolution waged to defend slavery against the true revolutionary force, the abolitionist British Empire-hence the name of the book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776. The American victory was not a progressive or world-historic event. It was a catastrophe. Horne suggests an analogy: the American Revolution created “the first apartheid state.” Horne’s thesis, if true, would be a fundamental re-writing of American and world history. If the United States was born in a struggle not for political liberty, but rather to preserve the wretched system of property in man, then 1776 was nothing but a prelude to the founding of the Confederate States of America in 1861. The longstanding appreciation of the American Revolution’s direct impact on the French Revolution of 1789, and all the revolutions that were to follow-a position supported by Marx and Engels-would also be false. Moreover, if the British Empire were the revolutionary force in the contest with the American colonists, the well-established understanding of its centrality to imperialist reaction over the course of the 19th century-in Ireland, India, Egypt, China and South Africa, to name a few places-would also be called into question. Horne’s book is influential among those who insist American history can only be conceived of as a struggle between races. Though the New York Times’ 1619 Project did not initially provide any sources, lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones later said that Horne was a source for her central claim that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” The Counter-Revolution of 1776 has been praised by vociferous defenders of the 1619 Project, such as Prof. David Waldstreicher of the City University of New York and Nicholas Guyatt of Cambridge University. The New York Times itself has given Horne a prominent platform, inviting him to sit on a panel for a public discussion of the 1619 Project in March 2020, chaired by historian Karin Wulf of William and Mary University. The trouble is this: Horne’s scholarship does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Horne’s work is worse than inaccurate: it is, in large measure, a work of fiction. His interpretation of source material is so inaccurate as to be fanciful: quotes are truncated to invert their meaning, sources are misattributed, and even elementary facts are misrepresented-or are just plain wrong. Honest historians, who deal with a vast array of sources, make mistakes here and there. What makes Horne’s misrepresentations so galling is not just their magnitude and number, but that they are central to his project of rewriting American history. In order to appreciate just how fundamentally Horne’s thesis-if true-would revise American history, we must first briefly review the basic facets of the understanding of the American Revolution that have been established by a century of scholarship. www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/18/horn-m18.html