“Norval Morrisseau (Anishinaabe 1931–2007), Children with Tree of Life, ca. 1980–85” Source: AGH
The Smithsonian provides a long-form story about the sort of open fraud that probably deserves far more attention, especially as we debate plagiarism rising due to AI.
Morrisseau, though justifiably incensed [in 2001 about massive scale theft], wasn’t surprised that imitations of his work were being sold as authentic on the open market. As early as 1991, the Toronto Star reported the artist was complaining about being “ripped off” by fraudsters. But for years Canadian law enforcement did little to investigate the artist’s claims that forgers were imitating his work. Eventually, in the face of this inaction, Morrisseau’s lawyers advised him to notify galleries and auctioneers that they were selling fakes and warn them that they could be the subject of a court injunction, civil action or criminal complaint. Still the sales went on.
It wasn’t until this past year, more than 15 years after the artist died from complications related to Parkinson’s, that an unlikely consortium of investigators, led by a homicide cop from the small city of Thunder Bay, Ontario, finally exposed the scheme to defraud Morrisseau. Not even the artist himself could have imagined the scale of the fraud, which in both the number of forged paintings and the profits made from their sale was likely the biggest art fraud in history—not in Canada or North America but anywhere in the world.
Spoiler alert: a lack of any serious investigation by Canadian authorities facilitated long time exploitation and abuse of indigenous children.
Under Lamont’s direction, youths and other Indigenous people in Thunder Bay were paid—or forced at threat of violence—to create Morrisseau look-alikes by the hundreds.
Delving into the complexities of historical figures like Lord Acton (1834 – 1902), this blog post scrutinizes his controversial views on slavery and questions their place in the annals of history.
Lord Acton sometimes is cited for writing about Liberal Catholicism, which is held up as evidence he stood in stark contrast to prevailing beliefs of his day. He claimed to ardently support liberal ideologies, for example, to emphasize individual freedom and the state as solely a protector of people’s rights. Acton further is known to claim that he saw a centralized, powerful government as the ultimate threat, the epitome of tyranny.
However, there’s a huge problem with this narrative. Nothing can frame Lord Acton’s views like his awful screeds about the American Civil War. He considered it lost, rather than won, if you see the problem already.
The Civil War notably began when Kansas entered the Union and opted to ban slavery. In reaction to this anti-slavery stance, several pro-slavery states in the South joined forces to form a strong Confederate faction with the explicit aim of spreading slavery further westward and eventually northward.
To understand the contradictions and hypocrisy of Acton, we first should acknowledge a Confederacy of power essentially started a Civil War to prevent independent and new states from having any rights to abolish slavery.
Now think about why Lord Acton did not oppose known wrong and harmful yet widespread beliefs of his time. Why did he refuse to acknowledge that secession was first and foremost intended to preserve slavery? He supported a centralized and strong government aimed at extending and maintaining slavery, promoting power concentrated in the hands of a select few white men to deny the rights of individuals.
In fairness, Acton did express a theoretical condemnation of slavery in general terms. Such a disconnect reminds me of George Washington’s infamously contradictory stance on liberty, since he led a so-called revolution against tyranny (King of England) on the basis of him personally profiting from tyranny (perpetuation and expansion of American slavery). Washington purported concern for freedom while he actively fought against any such realization for Black Americans; as an obvious racist he never rose to the level of American heroes like Robert Carter who demonstrated enlightened perspective of their time.
The idea of slavery became so unjustifiable in Acton’s English society before he was even born that by “1824 there were more than 200 branches of the Anti-Slavery Society in Britain“. No surprise then the agrarian state of New York abolished slavery 1827, England emancipated slaves in 1833, English Colonies banned slavery in 1838….
Yet Acton’s later fervent argumentation posited that the loss of slaves by the white man as tragedy surpassing any moral reprehensibility of slavery itself. His alignment to centralized power of a Confederate tyranny, inherently grounded in the dehumanization of individuals as property, reveals his paradoxical affinity for a system fundamentally antithetical to individual liberty.
Despite abolition of slavery in England preceding Acton’s birth, his life-long struggle to acknowledge humanity of Black individuals underscores entrenched biases and ideological complexities within his worldview.
Acton’s perspective seems incredulous today given an inherent injustice of slavery, a very obvious failure in his morality. It’s even more starkly put in contrast when you consider the man claimed he was someone who could rise up and oppose prevailing beliefs of his day.
While claiming to deplore slavery, as everyone should have after the early 1800s, Acton instead promoted an extremely toxic idea that individual freedoms were dangerous and could not be allowed where the centralized authority of a slave-holding tyrant might face ruin and destitution. And he held on to such willfully wrong concepts well into the late 1800s long after Civil War had ended.
This is how Acton was exactly backwards on the actual facts of the Civil War. Once he had dismissed Kansas exercising its rights as a state, he bemoaned the effects individual freedoms had on rights of centralized tyrants (e.g. the very concept of plantations, unjust mass incarceration, which the British had tried to ban in the colony of Georgia). Acton in fact argued on behalf of those who Confederated to preserve slavery, which manifested as a military campaign by slaveholders to deny any future states from choosing abolition (prevent another Kansas).
Acton claimed the abolitionists were deeply unsettling because he saw a drastic departure from existing systems of racial oppression that kept power in the hands of a elites, specifically white men. He viewed those advocating for the rights of Black Americans, nearly a century after the global abolitionist movement had gained momentum, as some kind of radical and dangerous version of individual rights.
Acton even went so far as to argue the Union’s efforts to defend itself against attack by slaveholders eroded control over the concept of self-governance… because Blacks being set free from tyranny meant white men would “lose” their cause of “property” accumulation (power and wealth).
Yes, Acton very seriously believed that “self-governance” was consistent with the idea that a few white men could operate a tyranny where self-governance was only allowed for a tiny select few (e.g. how Mussolini later described his plan for fascism). He complained about abolitionism as though it could only be a pretext for subjugating the noble white slaveholder. Acton did not agree with a “radical” end to human trafficking. It was through this corrupt and polluted lens that Acton thought he could characterize the emancipation of people living within the Union as a movement against the Union itself.
…in the United States no such design seems to have presided over the work of emancipation. It has been an act of war, not of statesmanship or humanity. They have treated the slave-owner as an enemy, and have used the slave as an instrument for his destruction.
“They have treated the slave-owner as an enemy…”.
To provide context to this phrase, there was widespread explosive terrorism being carried out by slave-owners against innocent Americans. Constant lynchings and other forms of public/political intimidation made it undeniable how extremely violent militias wanted to be seen as the avowed enemy of anyone who dared to advocate for individual freedom.
Almost every documented lynching between the 1830s and 1960s. Source: Smithsonian. Monroe Work Today/Auut Studio
In 1838, Abraham Lincoln depicted the pervasive dread and horror from widespread terrorism perpetrated by slaveholders to prevent abolition.
Thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers; till, dead men were seen literally dangling from the boughs of trees upon every road side; and in numbers almost sufficient, to rival the native Spanish moss of the country, as a drapery of the forest.
A quick recap of some of the expansive pro-slavery campaigns that Lincoln was talking about:
1829 David Walker’s Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World is circulated by sailors and U.S. mail “as one of the most important social and political documents of the 19th century”
1831 Nat Turner’s uprising results in white supremacist militias unleashing a ruthless “reign of terror” murdering innocent and free Black Americans
1833 England abolishes slavery and the following year John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton is born
1835 President Jackson orders Postmaster General Amos Kendall to intercept US Mail to impound any publication or speech about abolition. Americans found with a copy of David Walker’s Appeal immediately are jailed, tortured and subjected to surveillance.
1835 the Seminoles, Black Seminoles, and rebel slaves initiate the most coordinated Indigenous and Black people defense against tyranny in the history of the United States (lasting until 1838)
1836 Gag rule created to deny Americans the right to even speak about abolition.
1837 Journalist Elijah Lovejoy tragically murdered by violent pro-slavery militias in what Abraham Lincoln called “the most important single event that ever happened in the new world”
It’s within this history we must consider Acton’s remarks regarding an “enemy” and how the term would land then and now. John Brown, for one simple example, very obviously transitioned in a few short years from being viewed as a traitor to being seen as the epitome of the nation’s conscience. While the concept of freedom became rightly associated with the long-awaited movement of American abolitionism, Acton persisted sticking himself on the wrong side of history.
John Brown grew tired of torture and murder of abolitionists and called for armed defense against expansion of slavery. Curry’s “Tragic Prelude” impressive mural can be seen in the Kansas State Capitol celebrating his moral conviction to defend Americans against Acton’s brand of tyranny.
In this context, the emancipation of Black Americans, achieved through winning the Civil War initiated by slave-owners, seemed to enrage Acton in a perplexing twist of logic. He viewed anyone advocating for the rights of non-white Americans as hostile, lacking in statesmanship or compassion. Furthermore, Acton saw the Southern stance of declaring war (in the name of preserving and expanding slavery) as noble, while condemning the North for leveraging democratic principles of individual liberty that undermined the tyranny of slaveholders.
So, Acton ultimately believed that the Confederate cause was more just. He saw pro-slavery forces as defending white males against radical ideas of individual freedom. To him, the Union represented a threat to the fundamental principles of the United States, particularly a threat to the notion of humans being treated as property. The defeat at Richmond symbolized, for Acton, the loss of control over government by a small elite of white men who were supposed to dictate all laws and consent—a system he ironically likened to Britain’s colonial empire, which was preserved at Waterloo.
Acton’s views resonated widely among the British elites of his time, reflecting a sentiment of disdain toward the progressive Union and a romanticized view of the centralized Confederacy’s struggle to preserve and expand an immoral tyranny over non-white populations.
Perhaps most interestingly, however, is where and how Acton’s views lately have resurfaced.
Today they are resonating with a South African elitist, known for promoting racism, who owns and operates the “largest hate rally in history”.
Acton was wrong. Very wrong. The American politician Robert G. Ingersoll, giving 1890s speeches in direct contradiction of Lord Acton’s views, once said:
Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test. It is the glory of Lincoln that, having almost absolute power, he never abused it, except on the side of mercy.
To put it in other words “for some people, power seems to bring out their best… power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies”.
Tesla workers described the CEO as someone who encouraged pro-slavery racism in the workplace.
…frequent use of racial slurs and references to the manufacturing site as a plantation or slave ship.
Now that same mindset has shifted to X Twitter, where Elon Musk promotes slavery and generates ad revenue from pro-slavery accounts.
That was several months ago, inviting X Twitter accounts to start promoting slavery. And so indeed, we now see monetization schemes and ad placements on pro-slavery comments such as these.
Pro-slavery hate tweet with 2.9 million views generates ad revenue for Musk… Will Stancil pointed out that Twitter has become “the largest, longest, most sustained hate rally in human history.”
This not some kind of accident. It is a CEO being intentionally, wickedly wrong about slavery for purposes of profiting on it, facilitating and promoting hate crimes.
It reminds me of the kind of willful moral bankruptcy that political scientists pin on a big fan of Confederate General Lee, the infamously anti-democracy Lord Acton.
[Acton’s] insights led him to analyses of the U.S. Civil War that were not merely wrong, but carefully, thoughtfully, wickedly wrong. He identified the cause of the Confederacy as the cause of freedom, even knowing slavery to be evil; and he thought this with firm commitment, for many years.
Acton is a toxic name, someone who thought slavery wasn’t the issue in Civil War, even though it was absolutely and most definitely the issue. Acton corresponded with Lee about Americans being held hostage, tortured and murdered, as some bizarre vision of “freedom”.
Now guess who has been putting up wickedly wrong Acton banners and quotes at the office.
Contemporary struggles against misogyny in Britain are not isolated occurrences but rather manifestations of historical inequities deeply entrenched within the fabric of society. So when the Chief of Police asks the British public to undertake direct interventions to reform itself, will it work?
Speaking to radio station LBC, [chief of British Transport Police] Ms D’Orsi described misogynistic behaviour as “a societal challenge” and urged people to “speak up about violence against women and girls”.
More than one-third of all British women who travel by railway are likely to be assaulted during their commute, suggest figures released in November by BTP, which polices the railway network.
The rate of abuse is so high, it begs the question what percentage of British are able and willing to intervene and stop harm instead of amplifying it.
The language used by police is clearly elevated. In both physical and online forums they describe misogyny in terms of a domestic terror threat, perhaps preparing to raise liability on anyone who refuses to aid victims.
“In my old role in counter-terrorism police we used to talk about how communities defeat terrorism, and I think in the rail sector passengers can help us to defeat unwanted sexual behaviour.”
Should women visiting Britain, expected to travel in peak times, be warned they have a 1 in 3 chance of domestic terror attack?
And when we speak of time delays in Britain, we really speak of many, many, many years being lost.
The sexist abuse that haunts modern life is nothing new: women have been ‘trolled’ in art for 500 years. Deanna Petherbridge, co-curator of the first major exhibition on the subject, delves into a ghastly history.
Efforts to recognize and address systemic roots of British misogyny seem to benefit from the longest timelines possible. Such persistence in permitting abuse at unacceptably high levels even to this very day suggests a deep-seated societal affliction, one passed down through generations without signs of any real accountability.
The plight of British women, or any women who are unfortunately subjected to the bias and hate festering within British culture, are thus actually dealing with a societal failure that spans centuries. Is it reasonable for the Chief of Police to expect the British public to now successfully help stop crimes so entrenched, and on what timeline?
