Revisiting “The Color Curtain”

Posted on April 22, 2025 by Leslye Joy Allen (Ayọ)

The Bandung Conference was held in April of 1955. It was a meeting of representatives from 29 nations that then contained 65 percent of the world’s population, which were peoples of color that had been colonized or interfered with by European powers.

This conference was commonly known as the Asian-African Conference. Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon organized it and then invited 25 more countries to send representatives and observers. The invited countries were (in alphabetical order here): Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana (then called “The Gold Coast”), Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Nepal, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam Democratic Republic, South Vietnam, and Yemen.

After World War II ended, the only two military superpowers were the United States and the U.S.S.R. which competed with each other for influence in the Third World. The United States was initially invited to the conference but refused to send a representative. The USA denounced this conference. While these newly independent nations did not want to align with the Eastern bloc or the West, the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) did gain considerable influence in the region. Black Americans Richard Wright, and US Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., however, did attend.

Black novelist Richard Wright recorded what he witnessed at this conference where Africans, Asians, Black Americans, East Indians, Indigenous Peoples and other peoples of color met in Bandung, Indonesia to figure out a way forward in the new post-colonial era. No European nations were invited.

The conference allowed newly independent nations to assert their sovereignty. European colonialism’s oppression and exploitation and interference in African and Asian countries engendered a need for these nations to meet so that they could successfully deal with each other.

The outcome of this conference was the Non-Aligned Movement which discouraged countries in attendance from aligning with First World and Second World nations. It also produced an agreement called “The Ten Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” which emphasized cooperation, respect for boundaries and sovereignty, non-interference in each country’s affairs, and resistance to any aggression from the Western World.

I encourage everyone to read author Richard Wright’s observations about Bandung and recognize that not only are all of these nations of color much more geopolitically complex than they were 70 years ago, they are also more heavily populated today with much younger populations than Europe.

Referred to now as The Global Community, people of color now make up roughly 85 percent of all the people on this earth. Felon 47 and his yes-people know what these numbers mean which is why they want to stave off the inevitable by attempting to occupy and place Canada and Greenland under the US umbrella. Yet, the United States is disadvantaged in numerous ways.

Even though the USA still has perhaps the most skilled military in the world, China has the largest military. The USA is now seen as a pariah by most of the world courtesy of the person sitting in the Oval Office and his inept Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who may soon be replaced. Even worse, most of the US population is unilingual whereas many individuals in The Global Community are multilingual. That does not bode well for this nation that is slowly becoming isolationist to the point where we could lose allies, or worse, we lose knowledge about what the rest of the world is planning.

It would be interesting if another Asian-African conference, such as the one held in 1955, were held today or sometime in the near future. I also wonder which nations would not be invited.

©️Leslye Joy Allen

I am an Independent Historian, Oral Historian and Dramaturge. Please consider supporting my work with a few bucks for Coffee and Eggs via my CashApp.

You can also subscribe to my writings on Substack and stay in the loop with the best new research, history, journalism, prose, poetry, and etcetera.

All blogs written by Leslye Joy Allen are protected by U. S. Copyright Law and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Any partial or total reference to any blog authored by Leslye Joy Allen, or any total or partial excerpt of any blog authored by Leslye Joy Allen must contain a direct reference to this hyperlink: https://leslyejoyallen.com with Leslye Joy Allen clearly stated as the author. Postings or blogs placed here by other writers should clearly reference those writers. All Rights Reserved.

Normalizing Evil

Posted on April 15, 2025 by Leslye Joy Allen (Ayọ)

by ©️Leslye Joy Allen

In the past week or two there have been doctors saying how healthy Felon 47 is, along with Fund Managers openly wondering if he is insane. I have another hypothesis.

I don’t really think Felon 47 is insane, I think he is evil and crazy (there is a difference). I still remember when the late Dr. Frances Cress Welsing wrote that we have never scientifically studied “Evil.” She noted that at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazis where they were tried for “Crimes Against Humanity,” where they exterminated millions of Jews, Gypsies, Afro-Germans, LGBTQIA, and the Disabled, those Nazis were ruled to be perfectly sane by the world’s leading psychologists.

Now, I don’t want to make light of anyone’s mental health or this nation’s severe mental health crisis. Yet, every time some man does something horrible, particularly if he’s a white man, people speculate about his mental health instead of calling him the evil son-of-a-bitch that he is. I feel the same way about these school shooters who are overwhelmingly white and male who try to kill everybody they can, all because they can’t get a girlfriend.

Felon 47 is trying his best to get rid of every brown skinned person who migrated to the USA without giving any of them due process as he shreds all the basic tenets of our Constitution. He’s sending a majority of people who are not criminals off to other countries while his sycophants explain these actions as a part of keeping America safe. Short of putting them all into ovens to get rid of them the way Nazis would, he has ordered them all to an uncertain fate somewhere else in the world.

Everything Felon 47 is doing to immigrants and legal citizens, who happen to not be white, is going to make this nation a hundred times less safe. Go piss off the world and you will find out that the world is not majority white; it never has been.

People who voted for Felon 47 are also crazy and evil too—and dumb. Did this previous italicized sentence upset you a bit? Did it sound like I was unfairly vilifying an entire segment of the US population without giving them an opportunity to explain their choices or even redeem themselves? Well, I don’t give a damn because that is exactly what Felon 47 and his supporters are doing to immigrants, women, Black folks, Latinos, LGBTQIA, and the Disabled.

Felon 47 supporters voted for this; and even if some of them can prove they didn’t think Felon 47 would do all of this harm, no self-respecting Black or Brown person with half a brain is going to try to weed out who might be on their side from those who would kill or harm us. We have never had that kind of time to deal with anyone or anything that normalizes evil.

©️Leslye Joy Allen

I am an Independent Historian, Oral Historian and Dramaturge. Please consider supporting my work with a few bucks for Coffee and Eggs via my CashApp.

Tariffs, Borders, & Personal Loss Redux

Posted on April 10, 2025 by Leslye Joy Allen (Ayọ)

by ©️Leslye Joy Allen

It can be argued that tariffs helped fuel the US Civil War. By the mid-1800s, the northern economy was based on manufacturing and was in direct competition with an agricultural, slave-based southern economy. Tariffs on imported goods were great for the Northern states as they provided a huge amount of revenue. Tariffs also protected American businesses from foreign competitors and provided revenue for the federal government. In the South, tariffs were a big negative.

In 1828, a tariff that southerners called the Tariff of Abominations became law. This tariff protected Northern manufacturers, but it penalized Southern slaveholders who relied on exporting their agricultural products (cotton) that were produced by Black slave labor. These same Southerners imported goods from Europe.

The Morrill Tariff passed in 1861 around the time several Southern states had seceded from the Union because tariffs placed a heavy economic burden on the South. The big issue was, however, the expansion of slavery.

The American South sought to transplant slavery in newly acquired western territory due to its own self-produced ecological disaster, namely soil exhaustion. Yet, it was often difficult to transplant slavery in the western portion of what is now the United States due to the fact that laws differed in these newly acquired regions. California became a state in 1850, but it had abolished slavery. The Compromise of 1850 granted statehood to California as a free state with the expectation that California would uphold the Fugitive Slave Act.

Once the Mexican-American War was over in 1848 and the Treaty of Guadalupe was signed, Mexico ceded over 500,000 square miles of its territory to the United States. Those square miles included modern-day Utah, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, California, and large portions of Arizona, Wyoming, Oklahoma and Kansas. So, do not think that Felon 47’s desire for extra territory is something new. And for Goddess sake don’t think the USA had or has any respect for actual geographic boundaries.

(Arlington Cemetery, c. 1865, Library of Congress)

Tariffs in the United States only waned after this country’s “protectionist” period ended roughly in the early 1930s. By the end of World War II, the United States entered full swing into a period of open markets and greater engagement with markets in other countries.

But here’s the thing. What Felon 47 is doing is not new. In the mid-1800s while Northern industrialists reminded poorly paid white factory workers that they had privileges and supremacy over Black folks who were slaves, Southern slaveholders were selling the exact same argument to poor whites and middling white yeoman farmers.

The white oligarchy didn’t fight in the Civil War on either side. They used poor whites to do it for them. And the South lost—Thank You Jesus! Yet, what most folks forget is that Black folks in the South were its property and its wealth. Setting them free WAS NOT the initial aim of the war. It was not until Black abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass pushed at President Abraham Lincoln to make ending slavery a war objective.

Douglass made it plain. If Lincoln wanted to end the war, and force the South back into the Union, the simplest way to do it was to free the slaves. After all, Black slaves were one third of the population of the entire South, and Black bodies were the primary source of wealth of a minority of white southern oligarchs. That strategy worked.

Yet, here’s something to contemplate on a more personal level. After he was around the age of 6, abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass never saw his mother again and never learned what happened to her. After he escaped from his owner, he remained a fugitive for years. Eventually his freedom was purchased by Quakers in the UK for $711.66 (around $30K today) in 1846. After the Civil War ended, roughly two generations of white southern women who hoped to marry and have children never did so in certain areas of the South because there simply were not enough men to go around. A majority of the men they might have married were killed during the Civil War.

As a Black woman historian, nothing that Felon 47 is doing is new to me. Although I must admit he seems to be an old American history lesson on steroids. The American North tore up the Slaveholding South, imposed tariffs that favored their industries and never lost a wink of sleep; and never once worried about the personal costs of doing any of it.

So, while there are plenty of Black fools out there (trust me, I know many of them), a majority of us Black folks know that there is no limit to how oligarchs will play with our lives, crush economies, steal from us, and attempt to throw our Black asses on the frontlines of military interventions and sacrifice us on an assortment of altars. They have done all of this to us for centuries. What is different now is that white folks are finding out that they too will be placed in these same untenable positions.

©️Leslye Joy Allen

I am an Independent Historian, Oral Historian and Dramaturge. Please consider supporting my work with a few bucks for Coffee and Eggs via my CashApp.

The Intersectionality of Suffragist & Abolitionist Lucy Stone

Posted on March 27, 2025 by Leslye Joy Allen (Ayọ)

by ©️Leslye Joy Allen

“Intersectionality is a metaphor for understanding the ways that multiple forms of inequality or disadvantage sometimes compound themselves and create obstacles that often are not understood among conventional ways of thinking.” — Kimberlé Crenshaw

Recently, I responded to a question about the factors that stymied women’s quest for suffrage during the mid-to-late 19th century. I brought up the pragmatism and egalitarianism of suffragist and abolitionist Lucy Stone whose legacy remains largely overlooked. And therein lies the problem.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton have rightfully earned their place in Women’s history. They battled for the vote in ways almost unimaginable. Yet, they both held racist and classist views. Now before you start yelling about how both of them worked in the abolitionist movement, spare me. You can be anti-slavery and still not think the slave is your social or political equal. The inability to shake off one’s sense of entitlement has extreme consequences for everyone.

When lawmakers decided to include Black men as voters in the 15th Amendment without including the franchise for white women, both Stanton and Anthony were rightfully livid, but livid to the point where they then fought against the passage of the 15th Amendment altogether. It passed, however, in 1869 and was ratified in 1870.

Stanton wrote that it was unconscionable and dangerous to give the vote to Black, Chinese or Irish men because they were inferior. Anyone that did not fit a strict Anglo-Saxon and native-born status was considered inferior. Additionally, neither Stanton nor Anthony had thought about Black women voting at all.

Stone broke with Anthony and Stanton over their racism. Orator, writer, abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass cut his ties to Anthony and Stanton as well. The tragedy was that Douglass had attended the Women’s Conference at Seneca Falls in 1848 and had been a huge and early advocate for women’s rights. Moreover, it was Lucy Stone’s brilliant oratory that had inspired Susan B. Anthony to join the suffrage movement.

Stone read the political winds correctly. She formed the American Woman Suffrage Association which concentrated on gaining women the right to vote on a state-by-state basis. She knew that Congress was not going to grant the franchise to everyone.

Stone believed that the enfranchisement of Black men was progress. Although she was disappointed that the 15th Amendment did not include women’s suffrage, she did not believe that denying the franchise to others would help women in the long run.

Black men, rather than white women, were granted the right to vote first for a variety of reasons. As a historian, I know that the Republican Party in the 1860s was the party of Lincoln (not the sh*t show it is now) that freed Black American slaves. They controlled both the House and the Senate in 1867 to 1869. They knew that recently freed and enfranchised Black men would inevitably vote Republican and increase the party’s political dominance.

Granting the franchise to white women would have mixed political results as many white women still believed in the lost cause of the South in spite of its loss during the Civil War. They would have voted Democrat which was then the favored party of the former slave-holding South.

Some of Stone’s ideas were tied to her upbringing. She came from a hardworking farming family in Massachusetts. Both of her parents were abolitionists. While quite young, she, along with Lucretia Mott and Abby Kelly Foster helped William Lloyd Garrison establish the American Anti-slavery Society which was founded in 1833.

All of her brothers attended college. Yet, Stone had to postpone her education. She taught school for several years and was able to scrape up enough money to attend Oberlin College, the first college in the nation to accept Black people and women. When she graduated in 1847, she became the first woman in Massachusetts to earn a college degree.

Stone had planned to remain a single woman because she feared losing her independence to a husband. She finally yielded to Henry Browne Blackwell’s persistence. Blackwell was also an abolitionist and women’s rights advocate. Blackwell would learn years later that Stone finally decided to marry him after he met and aided a young slave with her owners while traveling on a train.

When Blackwell asked the girl would she rather be free, she answered “yes.” Blackwell and an accomplice helped get the young girl off of the train and away from her owners. It was that act of liberation that won Stone over.

When Blackwell and Stone married their written protest against laws that denied women equal rights was read before the ceremony. The promise “to obey” was removed from their wedding vows. Stone retained her maiden name and refused to pay taxes as long as she was denied her equal rights.

While neither Stone nor her contemporaries Anthony and Stanton lived long enough to see women receive the right to vote, their different approaches and beliefs underscored a perpetual problem in the quest for women’s equality and the right to vote.

Stone never stopped fighting for the rights of Black people as she continued her fight to get the vote for women. She believed that both causes were interrelated. The same cannot be said of Anthony and Stanton.

The fight for the right to vote for women was often fractured by racism well into the 20th century. Stone’s stances on racial equality and equal rights for women cost her some popularity among some white women. Anthony and Stanton emerged as the face of white women’s suffrage. Yet, Anthony and Stanton also emerged as suspect to Black men and women.

After Lucy Stone died of stomach cancer in 1893, her only child, Alice Stone Blackwell reached out to the daughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and began the process of repairing the divided women’s suffrage movement. They created a new coalition. Alice Stone Blackwell followed her mother’s mantra to make the world better.

Lucy Stone deserves more historical attention than she receives. Her example should be emulated precisely because she understood the “intersectionality” of gender and race (and the political implications that go along with it) long before Black scholar and lawyer Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term and defined the theory in the late 20th century. Stone recognized that, no matter how different gender and race may appear, women’s equality was inextricably linked to racial equality. You must fight for both, not just one or the other.

I am an Independent Historian, Oral Historian and Dramaturge. Please consider supporting my work with a few bucks for Coffee and Eggs via my CashApp.

Revisiting “Late Victorian Holocausts”

Posted on February 12, 2025 by Leslye Joy Allen (Ayọ)

I’m not going to write a full analysis of the late historian Mike Davis’ exceptional book “Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.” I do, however, want to revisit it and emphasize a few points Davis made about European colonialism in the late 19th century.

Davis’ examination of famines and droughts in Southeast Asia, China, Africa, and Latin America underscored how indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their land; and their time-honored farming traditions were also dismissed. It created ecological and environmental problems we now deal with today but rarely think about.

Davis acknowledged that land theft, the closing off of common farming areas, and violence against these populations were key components of European colonization and expansion, but he added one more element—the weather.

European colonizers studied El Niño weather patterns to determine when populations in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, China, and etcetera, would be at their most vulnerable.

El Niño is part of a long-existing and large weather pattern. During El Niño, areas of the Pacific Ocean experience unusually high surface temperatures. El Niño disrupts typical weather patterns, affects rainfall, temperatures, and etcetera. The period when these waters are much cooler is called La Niña.

Europeans studied when the weather was working against the people and the lands they wished to colonize—The colonizers struck most often at those times proving that famines are human-made.

The book’s preface offers a detailed account of former U. S. President Ulysses Grant and his family on vacation in 1877 after he left office. He and his family visited Europe first, but soon ended up visiting places devastated by famine. Grant took notes about what he saw, but he did not report the degree of ecological destruction he witnessed.

Davis’ book was published in 2001 and it remains a rare gift because his research proved that heads of state and monarchs in the western world tended to ignore the long-term ecological damage from their destruction of natural resources. Indigenous populations were seen as inferior, therefore their farming techniques and cooperation with their native ecologies were dismissed by Europeans as well.

The fires that recently destroyed homes and huge areas of California were made worse by what is called “Hydroclimate Whiplash.” When heavy rains due to El Niño soak the ground leading to the excessive growth of vegetation, what follows next are extremely long dry spells.

The dried up vegetation becomes little more than fuel for fires. The results of El Niño are much more troublesome now due to climate change. It’s not just happening in California. It’s happening everywhere around the world.

What is often left out of discussions about climate change and the usage of El Niño’s disruptive weather patterns, is the racism against and the subjugation of peoples of color by Europeans and others that has aided and abetted climate change crises around the world.

Davis was not the first historian to understand what European colonialism did to the natural environments of countries around the world, but his book “Late Victorian Holocausts” is one of the few histories to recognize that the routine and natural disruptions of El Niño were deliberately weaponized against Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans in horrific ways that few individuals realize.

Leslye Joy Allen

Social Commentary, History, Theatre, Jazz, and the Environment

Category Archives: Micro-Histories

Revisiting “Late Victorian Holocausts”