If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Arkansas Republican defends slavery. This is NOT a repeat from last week   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 322
    More: Sick, Loy Mauch, Arkansas, Gene Mauch, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Carl Paladino, League of the South, premeditated murder, hot springs  
•       •       •

15983 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2012 at 3:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 10:25:42 AM

sodomizer: Another pointless witch-hunt to keep you little wage slaves distracted from how little your current elected leaders are doing to stop your society's decline.

Here's the "smoking gun":

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn't there a war before 1861?

These are legitimate questions. I don't know the answer to any of them, except to say that ancient slavery generally involved captives taken in war, while chattel slavery generally involved agriculture with an eye toward getting rich.

As to the question of war before 1861, an in-depth view of the civil war suggests it was fought over remnants of the States' Rights question which had divided the nation from 1776-1789 as well.

Again, these people are just whipping you little cube-serfs into battle mode over a non-issue.


Login: sodomizer
Fark account number: 815832
Account created: 2012-09-26 09:32:56
 
2012-10-09 10:27:39 AM

crozzo: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: FALSE!, etc etc.

Wow.

OK, when the Spanish began pulling gold out of South America by the caravelful, that pretty much killed the gold trade in the northern part of Africa. There was only one commodity the Arabs could get hold of that had any value - that's right, slaves. The aborigines in America didn't make very good slaves, they died too quickly, especially after being dismembered for failing to make their quota. So the Spanish began importing Africans to pick up the slack. Slavetrading was a pretty easy gig, all you needed was a boat. You didn't even have to learn anything about navigation, just follow the trail of floating corpses of the slaves that died during some previous voyage and were thrown over the side. And if they weren't quite dead, that was all right too. Your ship made better time with the lighter load.

The idea that the Arabs and the Spanish recruited the best and the brightest for the exciting adventure of slavery waiting for them in the New World sounds like something you might have learned in high school history class taught by a sociology major with a wonderful lack of competence in either subject.


So North American slavery had no impact on Africa and its development through the 18th and early 19th centuries? Or are things better in Africa because of it?
 
2012-10-09 10:29:00 AM

GAT_00: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Remember: this man was elected to represent his constituents

/be afraid

Remember: this man represents his constituents. Probably accurately.


Remember. Never forget.
 
2012-10-09 10:36:08 AM

sodomizer: OMFG, Republicans.

Everyone agrees that those are bad.

At least all the cool kids think that way.

We're different, we're not like those Republicans... we see the truth.

We all agree that Republicans are stupid, mean, primitive and ignorant.

There's no reason why they act the way they do.

And we all agree... do you?

Because if you don't, you can just play alone over there.

Because you don't agree.




Do thoughts come into your head in short sentence-blasts like this? It must be awful.
 
2012-10-09 10:41:18 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: crozzo: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: FALSE!, etc etc.

Wow.

OK, when the Spanish began pulling gold out of South America by the caravelful, that pretty much killed the gold trade in the northern part of Africa. There was only one commodity the Arabs could get hold of that had any value - that's right, slaves. The aborigines in America didn't make very good slaves, they died too quickly, especially after being dismembered for failing to make their quota. So the Spanish began importing Africans to pick up the slack. Slavetrading was a pretty easy gig, all you needed was a boat. You didn't even have to learn anything about navigation, just follow the trail of floating corpses of the slaves that died during some previous voyage and were thrown over the side. And if they weren't quite dead, that was all right too. Your ship made better time with the lighter load.

The idea that the Arabs and the Spanish recruited the best and the brightest for the exciting adventure of slavery waiting for them in the New World sounds like something you might have learned in high school history class taught by a sociology major with a wonderful lack of competence in either subject.

So North American slavery had no impact on Africa and its development through the 18th and early 19th centuries? Or are things better in Africa because of it?


There are too many lions and hippos for Africa to ever be a good place for people. I think all the hippies and hillbillies and Amish people and African natives who feel like staying should go live in the African Preserve and it can be like the world's National Park where petroleum products and gunpowder are banned
 
2012-10-09 10:43:02 AM

CeroX: It's funny how all the republican shills come into these kinds of threads and post up pics of Lincoln era posters about anti slavery and how their party championed blacks rights...

While they are technically correct in that republicans did champion anti slavery, they fail to point out the history of their party and WHY the republican party is now full of racists douchebags...


Because the important thing is not what people's current convictions are, but rather getting the history of their party correct.
 
2012-10-09 10:45:08 AM

DrPainMD: It also assumes that without slavery, no black people would have found their way to America.

It assumes nothing of the sort?


Your paraphrase was "They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. " That clearly assumes that the only possible way in which black people could have arrived in the US was in slavery.
 
2012-10-09 10:49:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You sound pretentious, bitter and arrogant.


That's what you hope, anyway. Because otherwise, I'm accurate and you're sounding pretentious, bitter and arrogant.
 
2012-10-09 10:50:38 AM

fragMasterFlash: When master China decides to crack the debt whip we are all going find ourselves in chains, picking cotton. But in the meantime we should start a few more wars, eh?


I hope you are a Poe.

I would be sad to think someone was really that stupid.

/Farking bonds. How do they work?
 
2012-10-09 10:53:04 AM

Ilmarinen: BitwiseShift: The two greatest civilizations we know of that had slaves were the Romans and the Greeks

Meh. Almost all pre-industrial civilizations that ever existed had slaves, except most of Europe since the Middle Ages.


Coal miners in Scotland were slaves from 1606 till 1799. Not many people know that.
 
2012-10-09 10:56:02 AM

acad1228: DrPainMD: BTW, what the hell is a "black people do it, why can't white people?" troll?

Ya mean like someone who says, "Black people can say they're proud of their race, so why can't white people say they're proud of theirs?"


Exactly. "Why can't *I* point out that black people and white people drive differently?" "I see black comedians talk smack about the wacky names they give their kids, how come *I* can't?" That sort of guy. The guy who doesn't understand white privilege, or at least pretends not to.
 
2012-10-09 10:56:45 AM

DrPainMD: The fact that the average black person in the US has a much higher standard of living than the average African? How is that not common knowledge? OK, here's a list of countries ranked by per-capita GDP. Look at the bottom 50.

What is your opinion: do blacks in the US have it better here than they would have had if their ancestors were never brought over here (yes, I know that they never would have been born and a whole different group would be there, but that's outside the scope of the discussion)?


Actually, that is the Achilles' Heel of the discussion. That statement is ludicrous owing to the fact that we can never know with certainty that, of the people that were abducted and of their progeny, there would not have been a transformational figure of African politics. It is possible that, in a history with no African slave trade, Africa could have been the leader of the world's economies and we at the bottom.

However, the point is moot since it is impossible to know. It also is idiotic to make a statement that slavery was a good thing since it is, at its core, a fascistic inhumane practice. No amount of "good" can compensate for the death, maiming, destruction of families, and the establishment of institutionalized racism that has followed in our practice of slavery.
 
2012-10-09 11:00:35 AM

DrPainMD: They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. And let's face it... the worst in America live better than the vast majority in Africa. When Rock says it, people nod and say, "he's got a point," but this politician guy gets branded as being "pro-slavery" and a racist for saying the same thing.


also read your other stuff...
here is the difference, or at least the perception I see it from-
Chris Rock, correctly as long as you look at it from the perspective of now, or the result, after hundreds of years of oppression and subjugation, of being property to be dealt with at the whim of the owner, that those relatives who currently live in the US as equal and free citizens... yes they are now better than they might have been had they never been enslaved and transported to this country. Today, even the impoverished are probably better off than they might have been in Africa.

What dipstick MCGEE IS SAYING HOWEVER and why there is a difference, is the perspective he is projecting, meaning free labor is good for us, slavery is free labor, thus businesses can be prosperous. Job creation.

It was a strength as our nation came into being that we had a large "Free" workforce in the slaves and also indentured servants, though by the time of the Civil war they were no longer of any consequence. We also did this with the Chinese, Irish, and many other immigrants whenever possible. Take the disenfranchised and desperate and exploit them for cheap labor to be able to bring your goods to market at competitive rates. This is why corporations outsource, this is continuing even today as the "Job Creators" look for cheap labor.

Chris Rock is making a statement that is probably true, but there was a price to pay for reaching that level of poverty not as bad as african poverty.

This dipstick is talking about his current beliefs and that if he could would probably be all for it (AS LONG AS HE IS ON THE OWNERSHIP SIDE).

/get it... no?
//troll is breakfasty fed...
 
2012-10-09 11:13:49 AM
It's only fair we offer to fly all black people back to Africa. Can we start this today please?
 
2012-10-09 11:17:43 AM

sdkOyOte: Chris Rock is making a statement that is probably true, but there was a price to pay for reaching that level of poverty not as bad as african poverty.

This dipstick is talking about his current beliefs and that if he could would probably be all for it (AS LONG AS HE IS ON THE OWNERSHIP SIDE).


So what you are saying is that Chris Rock is coming at this issue from the black person's perspective and Loy Mauch is looking at things more from the white person's side of things? Intriguing theory.

:)
 
2012-10-09 11:21:24 AM

fusillade762: Let's see...


Slavery was a blessing

Disobedient children should be executed

The big bang and evolution are straight from the pits of hell

A woman can't get pregnant unless she enjoys her rape

Dogfighting is OK because humans box

Climate change will not destroy us because God made a promise to Noah


Anything other nuggets of GOP wisdom I'm forgetting?


I hesitate to joke 'forcing women to marry their rapists' because it seems every time we joke about a ridiculous we don't think extreme radical Christians will go to, they do.
 
2012-10-09 11:30:55 AM

trappedspirit: CeroX: It's funny how all the republican shills come into these kinds of threads and post up pics of Lincoln era posters about anti slavery and how their party championed blacks rights...

While they are technically correct in that republicans did champion anti slavery, they fail to point out the history of their party and WHY the republican party is now full of racists douchebags...

Because the important thing is not what people's current convictions are, but rather getting the history of their party correct.


It is important... Without the history you won't understand the current conviction... Young republicans MIGHT be more economically focused, but the republican party isn't filled with young people. The majority of the republican party are former democrats of the 60's, 70's and 80's, those that converted BECAUSE of the history. The republicans in office are not young. The well established members, meaning those people who's families have been members for generations, are typically well to do, the Rockefeller Republicans so to speak, but the majority are working class converts. I would say if you are under 40, but your parents are republican, there is a 75% chance (speculation) that your parents are converts and likely indoctrinated you from birth or an early age into the republican ideology. Between 40 and Baby boomer, I would say your republican lean comes from something that happened to you or your family directly that was out of your control and since everyone was blaming the liberals and the democrats for your woes, you sided with the republicans... Baby Boomers and older make up the majority of the republican party and they are the ones who lived through the civil rights movements. They had to experience first hand desegregation, and perceived how things went down the drain in this country because of it.

And you can't say that the current aggression, the teeth gnashing, the vitriol, the name calling, the conspiracy theories, the foaming, frothing hatred coming from many republicans since a black man became president is simply over economic policies...

For christ's sake, after Reagan took office, the national debt trippled, nearly doubled under bush senior, SLOWED during the clinton years, and nearly doubled AGAIN under bush Jr...

Seriously, if this was about economics, republicans would be electing NEW members of their party, not RE-electing the old timers...

No, Obama's economic policies aren't miraculous, but the debt growth has slowed for the first time since 2006...

And this clearly isn't about him being a Democrat either... Clinton implemented a lot of liberal policies but people weren't screaming "SOCIALIST" over it...

Look, if you're a young republican, and you don't think this is a racial issue among baby boomer and older republicans, ask them about 1964. Ask them what changed their minds, and why they converted... Ask them about welfare queens and baby mommas with 9 kids milking the system. I doubt many will even need to mention the words civil rights, blacks, or affirmative action when they ask, their parents will happily comply...
 
2012-10-09 11:38:24 AM

DataShade: DrPainMD: They could still have imperialism without slavery, and certainly would have; I don't see the relevance.

It's relevant because the entirety of the African slave trade took place along its continental borders, and that the pace of the Industrial Revolution matches the rise of the slave trade. You don't see the relevance because you don't want to consider that the entire success of white, western, enlightened, democratic nations was built on the backs of black slaves.


Funny, I always thought the "Industrial Revolution" had more to do with the rise of modern industry -- i.e., mechanization of jobs that were formally manual. It seems more related to the rise of steam power and the assembly line than slavery, which is why the Industrial Revolution is associated more with England an the Northern industrial states than the rural American South. Granted, the regional economies of the early 1800s were all intertwined (much as they are today), but you really seem to be off the mark.

Your reticence doesn't negate historical correlations or their implications.

Speaking of historical correlations, look familiar:

www.seanbonner.com
 
2012-10-09 11:39:35 AM

Nadie_AZ: Finally. They are coming out. We get to see more and more GOP for what they are.


Fark's broadest brushes are swinging early and often.
 
2012-10-09 11:41:18 AM

CeroX: While they are technically correct

...

i.qkme.me
 
2012-10-09 11:44:27 AM

jshine: CeroX: While they are technically correct...

[i.qkme.me image 312x235]


Let's not ignore the vast differences in the former Whig party members who created the Republican movement, and the current converts who occupy the republican party...
 
2012-10-09 11:45:39 AM

CeroX: jshine: CeroX: While they are technically correct...

[i.qkme.me image 312x235]

Let's not ignore the vast differences in the former Whig party members who created the Republican movement, and the current converts who occupy the republican party...


Hah -- I'm aware of the history, I just love using that quote too much to pass by such an obvious opportunity.
 
2012-10-09 11:45:51 AM

orbister: Ilmarinen:
Meh. Almost all pre-industrial civilizations that ever existed had slaves, except most of Europe since the Middle Ages.

Coal miners in Scotland were slaves from 1606 till 1799. Not many people know that.


Cool! (As in: interesting fact, not that enslaving people is 'cool', kids.) I indeed did not know that. But "most of Europe" is still correct, I think.

/serfs, however, didn't necessarily have any better lives
 
2012-10-09 11:57:38 AM
The first of my family on my father's side came here unwilling. I demand payment for this injustice. He was a Brunswicker solider sent to what is now the USA as a mercanary aka Hessian. Skipped getting back on the boat. I don't know who to sue. Should it be the UK or what is now Germany?
 
2012-10-09 12:05:28 PM

CeroX: It is important... Without the history you won't understand the current conviction...


Riiiiiight. I might accidentally flip and go pro-slavery because I don't know the histories of the Tories and Whigs.
 
2012-10-09 12:08:25 PM

CeroX: Tyrone Slothrop: If it wasn't for Hitler and Stalin, I wouldn't exist. Does that mean I should think they were good people?

This sounds intriguing... care to expand? Are you a direct descendant of those two? Was there some sort of secret nazi cloning program? Because that could just be the plot of a movie i'd pay money to see...

I'm not trying to troll you or anything, i am genuinely curious about this statement...


My father came to the U.S. from Hungary during the '56 failed revolution against the soviets. That wouldn't have happened if Russia hadn't taken over Eastern Europe, and that wouldn't have happened if WWII hadn't had happened.
 
2012-10-09 12:10:07 PM

jshine: DataShade: DrPainMD: They could still have imperialism without slavery, and certainly would have; I don't see the relevance.

It's relevant because the entirety of the African slave trade took place along its continental borders, and that the pace of the Industrial Revolution matches the rise of the slave trade. You don't see the relevance because you don't want to consider that the entire success of white, western, enlightened, democratic nations was built on the backs of black slaves.

Funny, I always thought the "Industrial Revolution" had more to do with the rise of modern industry -- i.e., mechanization of jobs that were formally manual. It seems more related to the rise of steam power and the assembly line than slavery, which is why the Industrial Revolution is associated more with England an the Northern industrial states than the rural American South. Granted, the regional economies of the early 1800s were all intertwined (much as they are today), but you really seem to be off the mark.

Your reticence doesn't negate historical correlations or their implications.

Speaking of historical correlations, look familiar:

[www.seanbonner.com image 500x350]


Huh, I've seen that graph posted dozens of times at least, but this is the first time I ever noticed that the numbers are (presumably) wrong for the number of pirates, as it is actually showing an INCREASE in the number of pirates from 1820-1860 from 35,000 to 45,000. After that the numbers are sequentially smaller... Now I am left wondering if it was done intentionally to make the graph even more LULZworthy, or if it was just an honest mistake by the creator, who made a quick and dirty graph, never imagining that it would become a permanent meme posted and reposted across the intertubes.
 
2012-10-09 12:28:48 PM

Mock26: Gawdzila: ArcadianRefugee: Slavery: it gets shiat done.

[demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]

New evidence shows that slaves did not build the pyramids, that the workers were actually laborers who got paid for their work.


And they had advanced (for the time) health care.
 
2012-10-09 12:34:54 PM
These is your people Jebuse landers.
 
2012-10-09 01:00:08 PM

serpent_sky: I hate to agree with you, but I think you're right.

People always say, in a disparaging way, that those of us on the "left" or the "blue states" are scared of the "right" and the "red states." And I am willing to say, absolutely, YES, we are.

As a woman, I am terrified of these people having power. They absolutely hate me. They think I should be a subservient baby machine when I have no desire to, and will never, have children. I never have. I'm only 37 and keep thinking about how they want to outlaw birth control and the morning after pill (even in the case of rape) and wonder if I should try to convince a doctor to do Essure on me just in case this crazy shiat passes.

I don't believe in their God, and even less so in their interpretation of Him. (But I give them the respect of using the capital letter because I think people deserve respect in their belief... unfortunately, they do not extend the same to me.)

I am struggling middle class. They have no regard for me. Not that I should be worried about salary since I should just be having babies every year or so until menopause (or never having sex, ever, even if I am raped.) How I pay for them is my problem, never mind the hospital bills since they have no desire in ensuring I have any sort of healthcare.

They want to take away the Social Security I have paid into for over 20 years, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, which I have also paid into. I am pretty sure they also want to get rid of unemployment. All of the safety nets I have paid into since I was a teenager, as well as the plans that are supposed to be there when I am elderly.

Never mind that I have no problem with gay marriage, gay adoption, gay people in general, amnesty for illegal immigrants who were brought here as children, or helping the less fortunate. Or expecting the very rich to pay their share. And I don't think corporations deserve to have "rights" the same way we individuals do.

And they think they're right.

How is ths s ...


Our checks and balances will slow this down. I really believe that, in three or four decades, this will have fizzled out.

Sure, in the short term it's not reassuring, but there's a chance we won't need a war.
 
2012-10-09 01:08:26 PM

Godscrack: fusillade762: Anything other nuggets of GOP wisdom I'm forgetting?

-"Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there."

-"Wiccan should have their kids taken away. Anyone who isn't raising their children in a Christian home should have their children taken away, it is mental, emotional and spiritual abuse. Period. End of discussion. Case closed."

-"Climate Change is a religion and it's holy sacrament is Abortion."

-"if evolution was real humans, and animals alike would not need reproductive organs.'

Drum roll.......

-"We don't just think the Bible is true. It IS true because it's the Word of God. People who say "It's true because the Bible says it's true" is illogical are ignorant of the natures of both truth and the Bible and are themselves guilty of being illogical."


please, oh please share the speaker(s) of these word(s) of truth(s) and widsom(s). My mind, it is blown.

I once knew a guy from Jonesboro, Arkansas. He was a brilliant scholar of Russian history, spoke three languages, and was the most mellow individual you could ever meet. These gentlemen, Hubbard and Mauch, do not represent my friend. Then again, he left Jonesboro and never looked back.
 
2012-10-09 01:13:15 PM

orbister: Your paraphrase was "They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. " That clearly assumes that the only possible way in which black people could have arrived in the US was in slavery.


It also implies that when God created the Africa, he did so specifically with the intent of making it a chaotic shiat-hole full of despots and tribalism. And of course He made it stinking rich in valuable natural resources so that His favorite people, the White People, could grow fat off the proceeds without having to chew up their own lands. This is for true?
 
2012-10-09 02:00:29 PM

fusillade762: Climate change will not destroy us because God made a promise to Noah


God only promised to never kill us with a flood. He never said anything about us doing it to ourselves.
 
2012-10-09 02:06:39 PM

propasaurus: Say what you will about Obama, and I know there are real valid reasons on both the left and right to disagree with some of his policies, but the way he's governed as a compromising middle of the road centrist SHOULD have united the country behind him. Instead, the right has gone even further to the extreme. As a president who brought the country back from the brink of financial meltdown, he should be leading the lying, waffling candidate who represents everything that led us to that brink.


THIS.
 
2012-10-09 02:17:35 PM
Anyone who publicly defends slavery is not only an embarrassment to every single breathing citizen of the United States of America, but an embarrassment to the human race. They are insulting every inch of civilization that we have carved out since our ancestors first learned to create tools.

Every one of us is shamed by this man.
 
2012-10-09 02:23:04 PM

dc0012c: However, the point is moot since it is impossible to know. It also is idiotic to make a statement that slavery was a good thing since it is, at its core, a fascistic inhumane practice. No amount of "good" can compensate for the death, maiming, destruction of families, and the establishment of institutionalized racism that has followed in our practice of slavery.


Nicely put.
 
2012-10-09 02:25:48 PM

sgt cyanide: Mock26: New evidence shows that slaves did not build the pyramids, that the workers were actually laborers who got paid for their work.

slaves were paid too, silly.

they were provided with food shelter, clothing and sometimes even good nursing if the massuh's wife knew bout birthing babies and such.


They still were not slaves who built the pyramids.
 
2012-10-09 02:27:33 PM

HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: DataShade: DrPainMD: Ok, I'll put the question to you: do blacks in the US have it better here than they would have had if their ancestors were never brought over here?

It's a simple question with a completely objective answer, and that answer is, "yes." If you agree, you are a racist apologist for slavery, and if you disagree, you are an idiot.

The fact that you literally cannot conceive of any influences on African economics, government, culture, or history other than the influence of white people is, itself, a strong case for properly categorizing you as "racist."

Hey, I'm not agreeing with the evil, conservative, Republican that black people are better off here than in Africa... I'm agreeing with the hip, liberal, African-American that black people are better off here than in Africa. And that's PC and acceptable, not racist.

Why don't you own your half baked ideas instead of using a black comedian as cover?

What idea? That they both said the same thing? Or that blacks in the US have a higher standard of living than those in Africa. Neither are my ideas... they are objective facts. Do you dispute them?

The measure you're using is a bit retarded for a number of reasons which I see have been explained to you over and over already.

But your ultimate counter appears to be the a stand up comedian agrees with your assessment. So have fun with that I guess.


So, let me get this straight:
If a liberal says it, it's not racist.
If a conservative says it, it's racist.
If I point out the double standard, I'm racist.
If you agree that it's a double standard, you're not racist.

Does that sum up your position?
 
2012-10-09 02:29:33 PM

intelligent comment below: Mock26: Gawdzila: ArcadianRefugee: Slavery: it gets shiat done.

[demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]

New evidence shows that slaves did not build the pyramids, that the workers were actually laborers who got paid for their work.


Still up for debate. There isn't evidence slaves did not build them, there is just a lack of evidence they did. Except for historical commentary that is... and the Egyptians have been known to whitewash their history like all powerful regimes. So not finding a paper trail to slaves building them when at that time slave labor was well known through the world should not be read into that much.


There is the evidence of many tombs built near the pyramids, tombs that were for commoners. Slaves would not have had tombs built so close to that of the King.
 
2012-10-09 02:34:59 PM

DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: DataShade: DrPainMD: Ok, I'll put the question to you: do blacks in the US have it better here than they would have had if their ancestors were never brought over here?

It's a simple question with a completely objective answer, and that answer is, "yes." If you agree, you are a racist apologist for slavery, and if you disagree, you are an idiot.

The fact that you literally cannot conceive of any influences on African economics, government, culture, or history other than the influence of white people is, itself, a strong case for properly categorizing you as "racist."

Hey, I'm not agreeing with the evil, conservative, Republican that black people are better off here than in Africa... I'm agreeing with the hip, liberal, African-American that black people are better off here than in Africa. And that's PC and acceptable, not racist.

Why don't you own your half baked ideas instead of using a black comedian as cover?

What idea? That they both said the same thing? Or that blacks in the US have a higher standard of living than those in Africa. Neither are my ideas... they are objective facts. Do you dispute them?

The measure you're using is a bit retarded for a number of reasons which I see have been explained to you over and over already.

But your ultimate counter appears to be the a stand up comedian agrees with your assessment. So have fun with that I guess.

So, let me get this straight:
If a liberal says it, it's not racist.
If a conservative says it, it's racist.
If I point out the double standard, I'm racist.
If you agree that it's a double standard, you're not racist.

Does that sum up your position?


I don't know about them, but my position is that someone who drops turds like that in a thread is a festering pustule farktard.
 
2012-10-09 02:38:41 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food:
FALSE!

The slaves brought to America were often the most able-bodied and productive members of African society, because those traits made them more likely to survive the journey and also more valuable upon arrival, and slave traders are nothing if not merciless businessmen. So, you take the best 20% of a society and expect the remainder to get along like nothing happened?


20%? They took 20% of the population of Africa? Care to back that up?

The question wasn't "are black people in America today better off than black people in Africa today" it is "would black people in Africa be better off than black people in America if slaves had never been forcefully removed from their homes"

Yes. That's the question. See my earlier post.

which HAS to take into account the other changes that slavery resulted in, on both sides of the ocean. A large part of the reason that Africa has so many problems today, is BECAUSE they lost many of their best members of society to slavery.

Prove it. Colonization surely had a huge impact, but I doubt you can find a credible source for that claim. It's hard to say whether Africa would be better off if there had never been slavery, but there's no doubt that the US would be better off if there had not been slavery. Slavery, while making money for the traders and owners, put a huge downward pressure on wages in the slave states, and the south would have been far less poor and more productive without slavery.

/Stop being obtuse
//Some trolls I just can't quit I guess
///Unless you actually think this...in which case I weep for you and your shortsightedness


I'm not being obtuse, and what exactly do you think I think? I'm just pointing out an inconsistency and a few verifiable facts.
 
2012-10-09 02:39:42 PM
It may well be true that the descendants of those Africans who were abducted into slavery, as a group, are better off today than the descendants of those who were not. I haven't subjected that to systematic analysis, but it sounds possible. It doesn't follow, however, that the slaves were lucky to be abducted. Furthermore, that whole abduction thing might not have worked out so well with a different outcome in the Civil War.

I guess I have a horse in this race. I'm one of the few 100% white men in America who is the great-grandson of a true slave. My maternal grandfather's dad was born into slavery in Russia in the 1850s. (Russia ended slavery about the same time as the US did.) Because his son, my grandfather, was so deeply affected by his father's past; because he thought true slavery could come back to Czarist Russia at any time; and because conscription into the Russian army, which was still a very real threat in his youth, was just another form of slavery; he fled to Poland, then France, then the USA, where he prospered. (Well, OK, he married a prosperous woman. Same thing.) It is ultimately because of slavery that I had the good fortune to be born into a comfortable life in New York. Those who were born at the same time as I, but whose grandfathers did not escape, were born under the dual curse of poverty and Stalinism.

And still at no time am I tempted to say, "I thank holy mother Russia that my great-grandfather was a slave. That gave me an opportunity." The tragedies of the past may have resulted in favorable outcomes for some people in the present, but that does not mean they were not tragic.

I just have this suspicion that African Americans aren't any more thankful to America for slavery than I am to Russia. I dunno, just call it a hunch.
 
2012-10-09 02:41:07 PM

HotWingConspiracy: sodomizer: OMFG, Republicans.

Everyone agrees that those are bad.

At least all the cool kids think that way.

We're different, we're not like those Republicans... we see the truth.

We all agree that Republicans are stupid, mean, primitive and ignorant.

There's no reason why they act the way they do.

And we all agree... do you?

Because if you don't, you can just play alone over there.

Because you don't agree.

You sound pretentious, bitter and arrogant.


Actually, he sounds like just another troll/alt with a 2-week old account trying to stir up shiat.
 
2012-10-09 02:43:44 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: If you honestly think that elected officials aren't held to a higher standard (and/or shouldn't be held to a higher standard) than your average citizen, you are dumber than I thought.


When did I say that elected officials aren't held to a higher standard, and what does that have to do with whether or not the statement is racist? You really are having some separate conversation in your head and attributing it to me.
 
2012-10-09 02:48:44 PM

sdkOyOte: DrPainMD: They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. And let's face it... the worst in America live better than the vast majority in Africa. When Rock says it, people nod and say, "he's got a point," but this politician guy gets branded as being "pro-slavery" and a racist for saying the same thing.

also read your other stuff...
here is the difference, or at least the perception I see it from-
Chris Rock, correctly as long as you look at it from the perspective of now, or the result, after hundreds of years of oppression and subjugation, of being property to be dealt with at the whim of the owner, that those relatives who currently live in the US as equal and free citizens... yes they are now better than they might have been had they never been enslaved and transported to this country. Today, even the impoverished are probably better off than they might have been in Africa.


You better run... 100 farkers are about to call you a racist.
 
2012-10-09 02:53:51 PM

propasaurus: DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: DataShade: DrPainMD: Ok, I'll put the question to you: do blacks in the US have it better here than they would have had if their ancestors were never brought over here?

It's a simple question with a completely objective answer, and that answer is, "yes." If you agree, you are a racist apologist for slavery, and if you disagree, you are an idiot.

The fact that you literally cannot conceive of any influences on African economics, government, culture, or history other than the influence of white people is, itself, a strong case for properly categorizing you as "racist."

Hey, I'm not agreeing with the evil, conservative, Republican that black people are better off here than in Africa... I'm agreeing with the hip, liberal, African-American that black people are better off here than in Africa. And that's PC and acceptable, not racist.

Why don't you own your half baked ideas instead of using a black comedian as cover?

What idea? That they both said the same thing? Or that blacks in the US have a higher standard of living than those in Africa. Neither are my ideas... they are objective facts. Do you dispute them?

The measure you're using is a bit retarded for a number of reasons which I see have been explained to you over and over already.

But your ultimate counter appears to be the a stand up comedian agrees with your assessment. So have fun with that I guess.

So, let me get this straight:
If a liberal says it, it's not racist.
If a conservative says it, it's racist.
If I point out the double standard, I'm racist.
If you agree that it's a double standard, you're not racist.

Does that sum up your position?

I don't know about them, but my position is that someone who drops turds like that in a thread is a festering pustule farktard.


Hey, no need to call HotWingConspiracy, DataShade, et al, names.
 
2012-10-09 02:59:41 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: orbister: DrPainMD: They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. And let's face it... the worst in America live better than the vast majority in Africa. When Rock says it, people nod and say, "he's got a point," but this politician guy gets branded as being "pro-slavery" and a racist for saying the same thing

It's a rather odd argument, isn't it? For a start, the people who were enslaved are not the same people who are currently enjoying their iPhone 5s. It's like saying "The Holocaust was like totes worth it because Israel has these like really amazing beaches".

It also assumes that without slavery, no black people would have found their way to America. Bad sense of direction? We have lots of black and brown and yellow people in the UK, and none of them are the descendants of slaves here - though some, I grant you, are descendants of slaves elsewhere in the British Empire.

If it wasn't for Hitler and Stalin, I wouldn't exist. Does that mean I should think they were good people?


Are you implying that I think slavery was good? Because I never said that. Neither did Chris Rock. True, most people under the age of 50 wouldn't be here if it weren't for Hitler and Stalin (unless there is reincarnation, then we'd be here, but we'd be different people, or some other animal). I wouldn't say that that makes them good, but I'm sure glad to be alive and me.
 
2012-10-09 02:59:52 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Huh, I've seen that graph posted dozens of times at least, but this is the first time I ever noticed that the numbers are (presumably) wrong for the number of pirates, as it is actually showing an INCREASE in the number of pirates from 1820-1860 from 35,000 to 45,000. After that the numbers are sequentially smaller... Now I am left wondering if it was done intentionally to make the graph even more LULZworthy, or if it was just an honest mistake by the creator, who made a quick and dirty graph, never imagining that it would become a permanent meme posted and reposted across the intertubes.


...or maybe its correct? I don't know anything about the history of piracy, but I can't think of any reason why there absolutely *must* be fewer pirates in 1860 vs. 1820. Maybe there really was a temproary increase?
 
2012-10-09 03:00:08 PM
EVERYONE IS SOME RACISM, NOT CONFESSION TO INHERENT HOMINID FLAWS MAKES DENIAL DOUCHES, PRETENTIOUS DUDES, ONLY FISH ON FRIDAY, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN DISAGREEMENTS MAKE HUMANKIND EQUAL AND WHOLE "33"
 
2012-10-09 03:10:08 PM
If he loves slavery so much he is in the wrong party. The Republic party came about over the divide of the Democratic party on the issue of Slavery with the Republic party mainly against it. The main reason the Republic party was against slavery wasn't due to the plight of the black man, but because they did not want slave owners to enter into the new western states with their slaves. Having slave owners allowed to bring their slaves into the western states would allow them a decide advantage in working the land.

If we never practiced slavery in this Nation we would have very few if any black people living in this country since they would have never migrated in mass on their own.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report