Oh I know you're right about what you posted here. I was really referring to the negative comments you and a few other posters made earlier but I didn't see any real evidence to the contrary.
John Hanson, a black man, was the 1st president of the USA? (true or false)
- Thread starter Cock Head Jones
- Start date
Oh I know you're right about what you posted here. I was really referring to the negative comments you and a few other posters made earlier but I didn't see any real evidence to the contrary.
So how do you explain the photo of the black Hanson existing when photography hadn't been invented in the 1700's?
This thread is like
There were a couple of people on the Beck show on FOX that were tapping at the door of American history in a series I thing they called the founding fathers. I am inclined to believe this because there were a few extremely prominent blacks at the time. I know that Fox is not the place you would expect to hear Black History but the things theses guys knew about history was absolutely mind boggling! His take is that we dont know this stuff because we are being taught by the winners of time and not being told everything, but it is all documented. So If you want the Black history shocker of your life...get a transcript of Becks show....
The photo of the black Hanson is the guy who spearheaded the Liberia movement. Someone already posted that. Is that photo the only reason that the first Hanson started being called a black man?
I'm just playing devil's advocate. I had no idea who the guy was before stepping in this thread. I expected to learn something, but no side has posted any real evidence. I sided with themainman because he was being attacked using the same bullshit sources that most people say the "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theorist use.
Yes. people confused the two or purposely put that out there.
I first heard this story of John Hanson a few years ago and tried to find the truth in it for myself. Of the various sources I sought out, one being a professor at Fisk University who has also looked into the matter, I couldn't find much proof one way or the other. The "white" Hanson's heritage has been often debated and not much concrete evidence exists.
However, the one interesting thing that I think is worth noting is that as far back as the first days of this country, there were black men in America referred to as Moors who enjoyed a much different designation in society than other blacks. The term Moor, throughout history, has been used to refer to men of African and/or Arab decent who were known to be well educated, well traveled and cultured. An independent study into the history of the Moors is quite insightful. In the early days of America, there were Moors who were influential in everything from Architecture to Politics. That said, it is not entirely unrealistic to think that a Moor could have been involved with and even President of the Continental Congress.
Now, that doesn't make it true... just plausible.
However, the one interesting thing that I think is worth noting is that as far back as the first days of this country, there were black men in America referred to as Moors who enjoyed a much different designation in society than other blacks. The term Moor, throughout history, has been used to refer to men of African and/or Arab decent who were known to be well educated, well traveled and cultured. An independent study into the history of the Moors is quite insightful. In the early days of America, there were Moors who were influential in everything from Architecture to Politics. That said, it is not entirely unrealistic to think that a Moor could have been involved with and even President of the Continental Congress.
Now, that doesn't make it true... just plausible.
It's funny how niccas on BGOL mostly claim to loathe the white man, but will believe anything he teaches them or writes in his books. History is just that - HIS story. With that being said, I know nothing on this subject but it seems like most of ya'll don't WANT us to have been anything other than slaves. Shit is sad.
Thank you.
It's funny how niccas on BGOL mostly claim to loathe the white man, but will believe anything he teaches them or writes in his books. History is just that - HIS story. With that being said, I know nothing on this subject but it seems like most of ya'll don't WANT us to have been anything other than slaves. Shit is sad.
It's pretty funny to me that even posing this as a question offends some of these guys.
Cats saying I should kill myself before even wondering if our 1st president was of African descent.
That's deep.
googlebot,
your knowledge of most subjects begins and ends with wikipedia which is why this is a tough thread for you to add any insight to.
i like wikipedia too but i'm asking for more and that's something you just cant help us with.
thanks,
tmm
Black History Urban Legends
Friday, March 6th, 2009
We’ve received many queries about the historical accuracy of stories that have circulated in our communities for years. One is that a black man named John Hanson was the first president of the United States. I wrote about this tale in an editor’s letter in the Fall 2001 issue of American Legacy, but because I’ve had more queries about it lately, I thought I’d address it again here.
The story goes that on November 5, 1781, a John Hanson of African descent was elected the first president of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to our present Constitution. This is a type of historical urban legend that has been circulating for years and is incorrect. The John Hanson who became the first president of the Continental Congress was a white man of European descent. The black John Handson was a senator of Liberia in the mid-nineteenth century.
As I wrote in that earlier letter, it would be easy to confuse the two John Hansons: They have the same name, and information on both of them can be found at palces such as the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Archives. A quick search on any of these organization’s Web sites yields information on, and pictures of, both men. Mixing up the two files could produce the first black president of the United States.
But here’s where logic steps in: No matter how African-Americans and their part in U.S. history have been ignored in the past (and this has been,a nd still is lamentably true in many cases), something as important as a black man becoming the head of a fledgling United States would have made it into the history books.
There isn’t a conspiracy big enough to have hidden that fact.
In addition, the same person could hardly have been head of state in one country and then senator in another nearly 70 years later, and even if such a thing could have happened and been kept secret, why would white American, in 1781, have allowed a black man to head the government? Finally, the image of the black John Hanson is a daguerreotype. Even if by some wild stretch of the imagination one could believe he was the first President of the United States, one could not deny the unalterable fact that modern photography wasn’t invented until decades after he supposedly took office.
In view of the recent inauguration of our forty-fourth President, who without a doubt is African-American, it seemed that an attempt to finally put the story of John Hanson to rest would help us proudly trade a mythical black first president for a very real first black commander in chief.
From time to time we’ll be tackling black history urban myths, and attempt to give you the best, most accurate answer possible. Recently, the question as to whether there was a black passenger on the Titanic has come up. We won’t tell you now, but soon (and it’s not the famous—or infamous—African-American folk hero who has been immortalized in scores of versions of “Shine and the Titanic” For a version of “Shine” and a bit about the black tradition of toasting visit Louisiana Folklife).—Audrey Peterson
Friday, March 6th, 2009
We’ve received many queries about the historical accuracy of stories that have circulated in our communities for years. One is that a black man named John Hanson was the first president of the United States. I wrote about this tale in an editor’s letter in the Fall 2001 issue of American Legacy, but because I’ve had more queries about it lately, I thought I’d address it again here.
The story goes that on November 5, 1781, a John Hanson of African descent was elected the first president of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to our present Constitution. This is a type of historical urban legend that has been circulating for years and is incorrect. The John Hanson who became the first president of the Continental Congress was a white man of European descent. The black John Handson was a senator of Liberia in the mid-nineteenth century.
As I wrote in that earlier letter, it would be easy to confuse the two John Hansons: They have the same name, and information on both of them can be found at palces such as the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Archives. A quick search on any of these organization’s Web sites yields information on, and pictures of, both men. Mixing up the two files could produce the first black president of the United States.
But here’s where logic steps in: No matter how African-Americans and their part in U.S. history have been ignored in the past (and this has been,a nd still is lamentably true in many cases), something as important as a black man becoming the head of a fledgling United States would have made it into the history books.
There isn’t a conspiracy big enough to have hidden that fact.
In addition, the same person could hardly have been head of state in one country and then senator in another nearly 70 years later, and even if such a thing could have happened and been kept secret, why would white American, in 1781, have allowed a black man to head the government? Finally, the image of the black John Hanson is a daguerreotype. Even if by some wild stretch of the imagination one could believe he was the first President of the United States, one could not deny the unalterable fact that modern photography wasn’t invented until decades after he supposedly took office.
In view of the recent inauguration of our forty-fourth President, who without a doubt is African-American, it seemed that an attempt to finally put the story of John Hanson to rest would help us proudly trade a mythical black first president for a very real first black commander in chief.
From time to time we’ll be tackling black history urban myths, and attempt to give you the best, most accurate answer possible. Recently, the question as to whether there was a black passenger on the Titanic has come up. We won’t tell you now, but soon (and it’s not the famous—or infamous—African-American folk hero who has been immortalized in scores of versions of “Shine and the Titanic” For a version of “Shine” and a bit about the black tradition of toasting visit Louisiana Folklife).—Audrey Peterson
It's funny how niccas on BGOL mostly claim to loathe the white man, but will believe anything he teaches them or writes in his books. History is just that - HIS story. With that being said, I know nothing on this subject but it seems like most of ya'll don't WANT us to have been anything other than slaves. Shit is sad.
common sense isnt that common even when masked in black pride
It's funny how niccas on BGOL mostly claim to loathe the white man, but will believe anything he teaches them or writes in his books. History is just that - HIS story. With that being said, I know nothing on this subject but it seems like most of ya'll don't WANT us to have been anything other than slaves. Shit is sad.
That slave mentality is a muthafucka boy...
fixed that for you, as that is its proper name for this board
please you its real name like the other members here
thank you sir
"Excuse me.....uh....themainman. I'M THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! Now...if you'll excuse me......I have some work.....to do...."
Actually as far as I know he's number 2 or 3. Warren G Harding was a proven "passer"
Bro black masons have been discussing the John Hanson story long before the internet or picture of the black Hanson from Liberia ever played any part.
Im not saying they are right or wrong but im saying its my opinion that the black Hanson pic was thrown into the discussion to confuse people.
This is why I didn't come in here instantly laughing at themainman's thread. The early history between the Moors (Morroco) and the U.S. (before it became officially the U.S.) has not been thoroughly researched. From the little info that is available, like you said, it is very plausible that a Moor could've held a very high ranking or leading position in the formation of this country.
Sad thing is, the descendants of some of these Moors are in the thread clowning not knowing how much history has been hidden/forgotten/revised. Just because you're of lighter skin, doesn't mean the slave master crept in your grannys shack.
This U.S. Congressman is a black man and standing member of the Congressional Black Caucus...by the way.
YOUR "knowledge" is non-existent.
The Amsterdam News and Dick Gregory are your "sources" for this nonsense. Good grief.
YOUR "knowledge" is non-existent.
The Amsterdam News and Dick Gregory are your "sources" for this nonsense. Good grief.
No, I said that there has to be better info than what I found...and wikipedia.
Without wikipedia links, you're stuck in neutral at this point blunt.
Just hurry up, throw a few weak insults and lurk/ troll from here on out...
every other day i read misinformation about the moors on bgol
who is feeding yall this garbage like a moor is something to proud of in black history
damn, i need to know so i can curse their asses out
its getting to the point that its sad
misinformation spreads to fucking easily
Who said anything about it having to do with pride? If they played a big part in American history then the truth needs to be known. If all people of African descent weren't bought here on slave ships, and there were some who were already here, and had been here for hundreds of years before Columbus, then it needs to be known.
I'm not an expert on the subject but neither are you. And i'm not going to dismiss it just because it wasn't in my school history books. The fact that you keep coming in here trying to discredit something that you obviously have no knowledge about says a lot.
Wikipedia COLLECTS info from legitimate sources (which can be easily checked), dumbass. The basic info provided about these men is obviously correct. Their biographies are only mysterious to you and the wannabe history-changers.
I gave you the urban legend link. Couldn't you read it? Go find ANY bio of these men and the info will be the same. YOU just made this shit up out of nowhere. It's easier to sling conspiracy nonsense than actually get educated.
You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing the dumbing-down of black men with this foolishness.
how do you know what i have knowledge on?
youre reaching but youre still very uneducated in this subject and its shows
i dont speak on shit unless i know it homeboy
you dont know what i study or have studied
and its obvious my knowledge on the matter is superior to yours
fall back and use some fucking common sense first
then we can discuss this topic like men
Awww, wikipedia can't save you on this one.
Please find me the biography of the original John Hanson that says he was EVER thought of as possibly black (before Afrocentrist fools confused him with the later one), and explains how he was born free and became a rich landowner without anyone knowing about it???
You're just making shit up out of nowhere. Wikipedia (or any other biographical reference you wanna use) at least gives YOU and the other knuckleheads the basic facts about the person you're babbling nonsense about. The OP didn't even know there were two John Hansons.
In the pics he looks like a lightskinned dude. Look at his nose.
He was neither "black" nor was he the first president. Double-fail on the urban legend tip.
Similar threads
