Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The American Spectator)   Conservatives are upset that 12 Years a Slave didn't represent a 'kind master or a contented slave'... because you know... most slaves were happy   (spectator.org ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Years a Slave, stop and frisk, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Steve McQueen, New York Police Department  
•       •       •

10676 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:22 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



469 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-10 03:48:29 PM  
FTA: If ever in slavery's 250-year history in North America there were a kind master or a contented slave, as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen does not want us to hear about it.

Wow. And of course there is a Hannity pop-up telling us to pay for and support this garbage.
 
2014-03-10 03:51:10 PM  
Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?
 
2014-03-10 03:51:50 PM  
I admire this author's testicular fortitude to stand up for slave-owners everywhere.  Now where's the c*nt-punt girl when you need her?
 
2014-03-10 03:53:27 PM  
Apparently the opinion of Mr. Ford(violin gifter) was more favorable in the book than it was even in the movie.
 
2014-03-10 03:55:24 PM  
If ever in slavery's the Holocaust's 250-year 5 year history in North America Germany there were a kind master Camp Commandant or a contented slave Jew , as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen Spielberg does not want us to hear about it.

Why didn't that liberal hack Spielberg not show us the other side of the Holocaust? Too busy with his own agenda, I'd wager. Eh, Mr Bowman?
 
2014-03-10 03:55:45 PM  
When my mom was in her early teens, she got into an argument with my great-grandmother over this. My mom just found out that her great-grandfather owned plantations with slaves (he was a colonel for the confederate army).

Mom: Wait, so great-grandpa owned slaves?!
GG: Yes, but they all loved him!
Mom: Of course they did! They were forced to! I'd say I loved anyone if it meant I wouldn't be beaten or sold!
GG: THEY! LOVED! HIM! I WILL NOT HAVE YOU SAY OTHERWISE! *she starts shaking at this point*
Mom's mom: Shush. Don't agitate your grandma!

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.
 
2014-03-10 03:56:15 PM  
"And in 'Roots' why didn't they ever show Toby thanking the benevolent men for taking away that mouthful of a moniker and giving him a name so easily found on gift-shop keychains and novelty license plates?"
 
2014-03-10 03:57:17 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


I could swear certain circles have bemoaned the lack of kind masters and contented slaves ever since American slavery was written about.
 
2014-03-10 04:01:52 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


They're in the midst of a major outreach to minorities and women.

And let's be honest - compassionate slave owners and content slaves certainly qualify as a minority.
 
2014-03-10 04:05:06 PM  
So, I'm guessing if Bowman and crew could find one kind slavemaster or one contented slave in the history of American slavery, that would make the diseased and rotten edifice of slavery okay?  What would these revisionists have McQueen do, stray away from Northrup's narrative to create the anti-version of slavery -- a plantation where the slaves were treated with dignity and never mistreated and never having offspring sold off to other slaveowners and where all the slaves went to bed peacefully each night, well fed and rested for another voluntary day of paying for their keep?

Who besides kooks like Hanitty would even believe such an alternate universe existed?
 
2014-03-10 04:05:16 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


Wait... this was written by a freedom-loving conservative?  How can someone that eats and breathes freedom 24/7 ever desire to hear a good thing about placing humans in bondage?  Why do they feel the need to defend every f*cking reprehensible character simply because they weren't agitating for change in society?
 
2014-03-10 04:06:22 PM  
See, there are some pretty obvious differences between slavery as practiced in the U.S. a century and a half ago and today's "prison population"

Sure there are differences. Just like there were differences between slavery and the child labor sweatshops running in New England at the time, but they were both abhorrent and not something we should celebrate.
 
2014-03-10 04:07:06 PM  
Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged
 
2014-03-10 04:07:10 PM  
and kids used to love working in coal mines,
wives used to love being owned by their husbands,
dont get me started with how much whores love working in brothels and being concubines
 
2014-03-10 04:09:47 PM  
hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.
 
2014-03-10 04:10:31 PM  
oh, yeah, how's that outreach coming, republicans?
 
2014-03-10 04:11:45 PM  

FlashHarry: hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.


Why not?  I can understand explaining slavery but not defending slavery.
 
2014-03-10 04:13:27 PM  

Prey4reign: I can understand explaining slavery but not defending slavery.


exactly. just as you can explain the holocaust, but you can't defend it.
 
2014-03-10 04:15:24 PM  
Huh. Where are all of our Fark Independents™? One of their fellow conservatives is being called a racist, and surely they cannot stand for that.
 
2014-03-10 04:18:19 PM  
Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?
 
2014-03-10 04:20:02 PM  

Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?


They got fed regular ... sometimes.
 
2014-03-10 04:22:24 PM  
Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 04:22:43 PM  

Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?


Their owners probably had to.  Which means the slaves were really living under socialism.  Because that's how bad socialism is.  It's just like slavery.
 
2014-03-10 04:23:00 PM  

Prey4reign: FlashHarry: hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.

Why not?  I can understand explaining slavery but not defending slavery.


I guess that you could argue that a person could be describing history or how people rationalized slavery.
"My slaves are treated as well as my dogs or livestock and are quite happy."
or
"I know that my grandparents slave were always happy. They smiled whenever they saw me."

But these would be comments on history or rationalizations, not actual statements of what the slaves felt.

THAT being said, brainwashing is brainwashing.
Maybe they WERE happy, when they saw what the alternative was, beaten, raped, killed, sold off, etc etc etc.

In the vein of thank god I only lost both my legs and am still alive kind of happy.

/at least the GOP outreach program is working!! They have made huge strides in pushing women and minorities even further away. I mean that is their goal, right?
 
2014-03-10 04:23:17 PM  
I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.
 
2014-03-10 04:26:52 PM  
Sorry guys, but no matter how hard you try, you're not going to white-wash slavery.
 
2014-03-10 04:28:31 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.


I can just picture him putting down his brandy snifter he had just sipped his Hennesey from, straightening out his smoking jacket and puffing on his meerschaum pipe before his typed that out on his keyboard.
 
2014-03-10 04:28:37 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"


Basically, this!
 
2014-03-10 04:29:42 PM  
republicans: on the right side of history in 1863, on the wrong side today.
 
2014-03-10 04:31:43 PM  
250 years? Aren't we at least 150 short? You think Christopher Columbus was using Spanish labor to find his gold? And if we include sharecropping, we can add another 100 years to that.

I understand why societies in the past used slavery- cheap labor to produce what couldn't be done other wise. Here in North America it was turned into a racial thing. Why THIS part of the argument has to be defended is beyond me.
 
2014-03-10 04:31:59 PM  
The practice of slavery was, at its nature, dehumanizing and cruel. kindness would be the exception, not the rule.
 
2014-03-10 04:34:33 PM  

Ambivalence: The practice of slavery was, at its nature, dehumanizing and cruel. kindness would be the exception, not the rule.


No, see, it's totally cool to have someone completely in your power as long as you're nice to them. It's not like anything can go wrong at all under such a system. Plus if you're mean to your slaves the other slave owners won't let you sip mint juleps on their porches, so the market corrects these things.
 
2014-03-10 04:35:09 PM  
i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."
 
2014-03-10 04:38:44 PM  
The book the movie is based on is anti- slavery propaganda.

Why don't they show both sides of the story, the pros AND cons of slavery, and then let people decide which side they want to believe?
 
2014-03-10 04:39:27 PM  

Ambivalence: The practice of slavery was, at its nature, dehumanizing and cruel. kindness would be the exception, not the rule.

Today, it is hard to imagine how terribly violent slavery was. Slaves feared the violence of masters. Masters feared slave revolts. Worse, whites knew that any small provocation might ignite the spark. Look at the following Virginia Gazette description of a slave revolt on Bowler Cocke's Hanover County, Virginia, plantation in 1770. It began because a slave did not light the morning fire soon enough

S

lave owners lived in constant fear of slave revolts.

Anyone wanna guess why the US still dislikes Haiti? You know, the one nation that proclaimed freedom via a slave revolt?
 
2014-03-10 04:39:38 PM  

vernonFL: The book the movie is based on is anti- slavery propaganda.

Why don't they show both sides of the story, the pros AND cons of slavery, and then let people decide which side they want to believe?


All these Farklibs afraid of people asking questions...tragic.
 
2014-03-10 04:39:44 PM  

vernonFL: The book the movie is based on is anti- slavery propaganda.

Why don't they show both sides of the story, the pros AND cons of slavery, and then let people decide which side they want to believe?


that reminds me of one of my favorite Onion op-ed pieces, "Child Abuse: How Much is Too Much?"
 
2014-03-10 04:40:02 PM  
This formatting bar blows ...
 
2014-03-10 04:42:22 PM  
See, there are some pretty obvious differences between slavery as practiced in the U.S. a century and a half ago and today's "prison population" or Trayvon Martin, not to mention stop and frisk.

While technically true, the writer here engages in the equivalent of fantasizing about boys while spraying cum all over his wife's body and face in the desperate hope he can impregnate her.
 
2014-03-10 04:43:49 PM  
I...uh...what?  But it was his own farking memoir of the experience.  Should he have written in a dance number with singing animals just to make people feel better about his life?
 
2014-03-10 04:44:53 PM  

FlashHarry: i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."


Didn't Hollywood already do that back in the 1930s?  Gone With The Wind was as much a mythical remembrance of the gentility and kindness of Southerners as it was a grand, sweeping romance (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little).  After all, Scarlet, her dad, Ashley and the rest of the plantation owners were a bunch of refined gentlemen and women and the only awful and evil white Southerner was the overseer everyone seemed to frown on.  It wasn't the stupidity of the plantation set that brought the South to ruin -- it was that demon Sherman and his uncouth and loutish soldiers.  And didn't all the slaves stick around to help Scarlet resurrect Tara?  Oh right, except for the field slaves (not even shown in the movie).  They became pawns in the hands of the likes of the overseer everyone disapproved of who became a carpet bagger.
 
2014-03-10 04:45:47 PM  

Nadie_AZ: You think Christopher Columbus was using Spanish labor to find his gold


He enslaved the local population the moment he set foot on solid ground.
 
2014-03-10 04:46:52 PM  
this has to be satire or a hack by some liberal group. this cannot be real.
 
2014-03-10 04:47:12 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Ambivalence: The practice of slavery was, at its nature, dehumanizing and cruel. kindness would be the exception, not the rule.

Today, it is hard to imagine how terribly violent slavery was. Slaves feared the violence of masters. Masters feared slave revolts. Worse, whites knew that any small provocation might ignite the spark. Look at the following Virginia Gazette description of a slave revolt on Bowler Cocke's Hanover County, Virginia, plantation in 1770. It began because a slave did not light the morning fire soon enough

Slave owners lived in constant fear of slave revolts.

Anyone wanna guess why the US still dislikes Haiti? You know, the one nation that proclaimed freedom via a slave revolt?


Real Americans traditionally dislike when chattel refuses to remain chattel.
 
2014-03-10 04:47:47 PM  

Prey4reign: FlashHarry: i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."

Didn't Hollywood already do that back in the 1930s?  Gone With The Wind was as much a mythical remembrance of the gentility and kindness of Southerners as it was a grand, sweeping romance (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little).  After all, Scarlet, her dad, Ashley and the rest of the plantation owners were a bunch of refined gentlemen and women and the only awful and evil white Southerner was the overseer everyone seemed to frown on.  It wasn't the stupidity of the plantation set that brought the South to ruin -- it was that demon Sherman and his uncouth and loutish soldiers.  And didn't all the slaves stick around to help Scarlet resurrect Tara?  Oh right, except for the field slaves (not even shown in the movie).  They became pawns in the hands of the likes of the overseer everyone disapproved of who became a carpet bagger.


img.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-10 04:48:56 PM  
This guy got a writing gig?
 
2014-03-10 04:49:02 PM  

bdub77: See, there are some pretty obvious differences between slavery as practiced in the U.S. a century and a half ago and today's "prison population" or Trayvon Martin, not to mention stop and frisk.

While technically true, the writer here engages in the equivalent of fantasizing about boys while spraying cum all over his wife's body and face in the desperate hope he can impregnate her.


I'm thinking, a guy with your kind of mind...should have the land crab.
 
2014-03-10 04:50:29 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Anyone wanna guess why the US still dislikes Haiti? You know, the one nation that proclaimed freedom via a slave revolt?


And this.  fark those freedom loving assholes, huh?  Sugar slavery was a thing in the nearby areas up until the 1940s.  And possibly even more recent than that.

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/12 /i s-sugar-production-modern-day-slavery.html
 
2014-03-10 04:52:06 PM  

WI241TH: This guy got a writing gig?


My favorite sentence from that article:

"He also told Think Progress that African-Americans "should be allowed to vote in Africa" and that he supported Rick Santorum for president in 2012."

Bag of Fail.
 
2014-03-10 04:52:37 PM  
Lordy Lordy Massa! Das a fine article dat is!

*Throws up*
 
2014-03-10 04:56:47 PM  

factoryconnection: lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?

Wait... this was written by a freedom-loving conservative?  How can someone that eats and breathes freedom 24/7 ever desire to hear a good thing about placing humans in bondage?  Why do they feel the need to defend every f*cking reprehensible character simply because they weren't agitating for change in society?


I wonder if this person has ever uttered those famous conservative words, "Taxation is slavery"?
 
2014-03-10 04:57:20 PM  
Hi! Mind if I kidnap your daughter and keep her against her will for the rest of her life? I promise that I'll be really nice to her!
 
2014-03-10 04:57:33 PM  
I love the condescension this clown has for the history profession. "Oh, sure, this historian says it's representative of the period, and that professional academic who studies this stuff agrees, and all the rest of the profession accepted it as a reasonably representative depiction of slavery in the US south, but f*ck them. I'm some piece of sh*t racist movie critic and it's painfully obvious that I know better than those snooty ivory-tower elites who value facts and evidence over my inherent biases and prejudices."

What a cock.
 
2014-03-10 05:05:50 PM  
Perhaps the author would like to come work for me for a spell? I have plenty of chores to do around the house. I won't pay him, of course, but free room and board! And I promise to treat him with kindess and respect.

Of course the author would find this agreeable, why woudn't he? Think I'll go round up some friends and get him.
 
2014-03-10 05:06:40 PM  

scottydoesntknow: When my mom was in her early teens, she got into an argument with my great-grandmother over this. My mom just found out that her great-grandfather owned plantations with slaves (he was a colonel for the confederate army).

Mom: Wait, so great-grandpa owned slaves?!
GG: Yes, but they all loved him!
Mom: Of course they did! They were forced to! I'd say I loved anyone if it meant I wouldn't be beaten or sold!
GG: THEY! LOVED! HIM! I WILL NOT HAVE YOU SAY OTHERWISE! *she starts shaking at this point*
Mom's mom: Shush. Don't agitate your grandma!

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.


Agreed.  One of my father's 2nd or 3rd cousin made a book about the history of one of our ancestors who was the daughter of a plantation owner near New Orleans.  The only mention of the "workers" in the book, is how well they were treated and how much the kids loved their nounou.  curiously, none of these mentions carry footnotes, whereas the most incipid detail in the rest of the book has all kinds of supporting evidence.
 
2014-03-10 05:09:25 PM  

Kome: I love the condescension this clown has for the history profession. "Oh, sure, this historian says it's representative of the period, and that professional academic who studies this stuff agrees, and all the rest of the profession accepted it as a reasonably representative depiction of slavery in the US south, but f*ck them. I'm some piece of sh*t racist movie critic and it's painfully obvious that I know better than those snooty ivory-tower elites who value facts and evidence over my inherent biases and prejudices."

What a cock.


They have the same attitude towards climate change, economics, sicence, etc.  Why are you expecting they would treat history differently than other topics?
 
2014-03-10 05:11:27 PM  
It's a good thing that not very many slaves vote.
 
2014-03-10 05:12:19 PM  
These people think Song of the South is a documentary. This isn't surprising.
 
2014-03-10 05:16:40 PM  
have any of the usual fark independents™ popped in to defend this piece of shiat yet? they seem strangely silent.
 
2014-03-10 05:26:36 PM  
misfit120.files.wordpress.com
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay.  My oh my, what a wonderful day!
 
2014-03-10 05:26:55 PM  
should have the obvious tag, subs.
 
2014-03-10 05:30:00 PM  

Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?


Their income was taxed at 100%.
 
2014-03-10 05:30:53 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged


It's this kind of shiat that is making me narrow where I want to end up in journalism, exactly. Because, frankly, if I had to get assigned to cover some diarrhea-spewing Republican twit, I'd likely open any interviews by beating said twit with the largest blunt object available.
 
2014-03-10 05:31:12 PM  
People learn to love their chains.
 
2014-03-10 05:31:20 PM  

Prey4reign: So, I'm guessing if Bowman and crew could find one kind slavemaster or one contented slave in the history of American slavery, that would make the diseased and rotten edifice of slavery okay?  What would these revisionists have McQueen do, stray away from Northrup's narrative to create the anti-version of slavery -- a plantation where the slaves were treated with dignity and never mistreated and never having offspring sold off to other slaveowners and where all the slaves went to bed peacefully each night, well fed and rested for another voluntary day of paying for their keep?

Who besides kooks like Hanitty would even believe such an alternate universe existed?


This puts Blackfish into a whole new perspective.
 
2014-03-10 05:31:46 PM  
i'm sure the author thinks he treats the girls in his sex dungeon well too
 
2014-03-10 05:32:03 PM  

shanrick: It's a good thing that not very many slaves vote.


I'll give you 3/5 of a point...
 
2014-03-10 05:32:31 PM  
This asshat needs to spend a few decades toiling under the lash.

If he likes it, he can stay there.
 
2014-03-10 05:32:51 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: i'm sure the author thinks he treats the girls in his sex dungeon well too


Conservative pundit, so, I'm betting against girls.
 
2014-03-10 05:33:03 PM  
If you find yourself thinking

"But who is going to stick up for the good Christian slave-owners? I should write an article about this..."

you need to take a step back and literally fark your own face.
 
2014-03-10 05:33:39 PM  
It's not kind to enslave a person. A kind slave owner wouldn't own slaves for long.
 
2014-03-10 05:33:43 PM  

Clutch2013: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged

It's this kind of shiat that is making me narrow where I want to end up in journalism, exactly. Because, frankly, if I had to get assigned to cover some diarrhea-spewing Republican twit, I'd likely open any interviews by beating said twit with the largest blunt object available.


But enough about Rush Limbaugh.
 
2014-03-10 05:33:47 PM  
I remember when 'Dances with Wolves' came out, they portrayed the Injuns- oh, excuse me, PC police- "Native Americans", as victims of some kind of vast government conspiracy to kill them and take their land!

Farking Hollywood.
 
2014-03-10 05:34:05 PM  
While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!
 
2014-03-10 05:34:11 PM  
"I can't wait to see Bowman's defense of Darth Vader. Just kidding, Vader's black." - from the comments :D
 
2014-03-10 05:34:38 PM  
There is no suck thing as a kind master or a contented slave.

A master isn't kind until he frees the slave and a salve isn't content until he's free.


/conservative
 
2014-03-10 05:34:49 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 05:34:55 PM  
Just remember kiddies, this isn't what conservatives have been driven to just now; this is what has been at their core all along. This is what they're fighting to protect and even to bring back. This is what they're willing to sacrifice the good of the nation for.

Remember.
 
2014-03-10 05:35:23 PM  
*such

boy that was a bad slip.
 
2014-03-10 05:35:37 PM  
Benedict Cumberbatch's character was kind and sympathetic in a partiarchal sort of way. He didn't want to split a family, he saw to it that his slaves were well kept, he listened to their opinion. He even gave one a fiddle as a reward for good work and stood guard over him with a shotgun to protect him from a field hand. Yeah he was a slave owner and yeah he was flawed, but I think in the movie's setting he was a good guy
 
2014-03-10 05:36:05 PM  
Some slave owners were downright playful with the property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_LaLaurie
 
2014-03-10 05:36:40 PM  
My grandfather's grandfather was a slave owner, they worked his plantation down in Mississippi. My grandfather grew up being dressed, bathed, and fed by a "mammy". I never heard by grandfather complain.
 
2014-03-10 05:37:11 PM  
There's something to be said for the idea that not every moment of every enslaved African-American's life was utter misery and degradation. This doesn't detract from the horror of slavery, it reflects the fact that people are good at finding meaning and happiness in objectively horrible situations. It shows the strength and resourcefulness of slaves that they were able to have any happy times at all. Or to take a totally different example, Anne Frank's story is such a gut-punch because her life ended even as she was making a semblance of a normal adolescent life for herself in that attic.

But yeah, as a rule, fark anyone who talks about slavery being a happy thing in general. Fark them indecorously in their ear.
 
2014-03-10 05:37:20 PM  
*slave

Of forget, I can't type today.  Ignore my post
 
2014-03-10 05:37:55 PM  
Just watched this last night for the first time. His first owner didn't seem like a total shiat heel, some of his help were farking horrible but the actual owner could have sucked a whole lot more as evidenced by Michael Fassbenders character. Not sure why you would ever need to white knight slave owners though. Oh wait yes I do know why you would need to, having your own prejudices confronted usually leads to negative emotions and possible questioning of ones beliefs and we can't have that now can we?
 
2014-03-10 05:37:59 PM  
Allegedly there's lots of movies about happy slaves on internets
 
2014-03-10 05:38:13 PM  

buckeyebrain: [misfit120.files.wordpress.com image 640x480]
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay.  My oh my, what a wonderful day!




www.morethings.com
 
2014-03-10 05:38:31 PM  

Kome: I love the condescension this clown has for the history profession. "Oh, sure, this historian says it's representative of the period, and that professional academic who studies this stuff agrees, and all the rest of the profession accepted it as a reasonably representative depiction of slavery in the US south, but f*ck them. I'm some piece of sh*t racist movie critic and it's painfully obvious that I know better than those snooty ivory-tower elites who value facts and evidence over my inherent biases and prejudices."

What a cock.


Yeah, sure, that's what a liberal historian would say.

What about the fair and balanced side? Every story has two sides right?

Because no one will risk their credibility to stand up and tell me I'm farking retarded and wrong... there must be two sides.

/teach the 'happy slaves' controversy
 
2014-03-10 05:39:00 PM  
This is just an indication to me that the GOP has given up any pretense of trying to gain the black vote.  They're not even trying to avoid appearing racist anymore.
 
2014-03-10 05:39:35 PM  

semiotix: There's something to be said for the idea that not every moment of every enslaved African-American's life was utter misery and degradation. This doesn't detract from the horror of slavery, it reflects the fact that people are good at finding meaning and happiness in objectively horrible situations.


Well it produced some pretty good music. That the white man stole.
 
2014-03-10 05:40:06 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


Well, that, and "Please don't mention rape at CPAC!"
 
2014-03-10 05:40:27 PM  

MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!


Never mind the fact that they had no education, transferable skills (beyond farm work), support system, or communities that would welcome them. Ya know, things most people would need when being thrust into a new world.

Just because they couldn't handle life outside of the plantation does not make life inside the plantation enjoyable. It's just familiar. Better the devil you know...
 
2014-03-10 05:40:36 PM  
In fairness to the author, the movie did make slavery look pretty bad.
 
2014-03-10 05:41:07 PM  
Big Daddy approves this message

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-10 05:41:54 PM  
Yes, there was much cruelty and hardship in the slave-owning South, as there has been in most of the rest of the world most of the time, and Mr. McQueen's camera is all over that. But it strains ordinary credulity to suppose that there was nothing else.

I highly encourage the conservative grift movement to bankroll a film showing all the feel good times that slavery produced during that period.
 
2014-03-10 05:41:58 PM  
typical dirty Liberal tricks, projecting their ideas of what it really meant to be a slave on actual slaves.

every Southern slave owner who was kind enough to house, feed & lend a gentle educational correction to black slaves was a saint and should be exonerated (I know, big word for you sheep) from the absolutely false depiction of what owning humans as chattel really was.

you are more of a slave as a tax payer today than any bought and paid for slave who did so on his/her own accord after some mild convincing, during America's great period of unprecedented growth that was a testament to and of the hard work that Americans used to do that made this country what it is today.
 
2014-03-10 05:43:18 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes, there was much cruelty and hardship in the slave-owning South, as there has been in most of the rest of the world most of the time, and Mr. McQueen's camera is all over that. But it strains ordinary credulity to suppose that there was nothing else.

I highly encourage the conservative grift movement to bankroll a film showing all the feel good times that slavery produced during that period.


A musical, perhaps?
 
2014-03-10 05:43:40 PM  

Infernalist: This is just an indication to me that the GOP has given up any pretense of trying to gain the black vote.  They're not even trying to avoid appearing racist anymore.


Oh, they're trying. They just don't realize that they're failing to avoid it. They are what they are, and that's how they act. The fact that Barry Soetoro is president pushes their button so hard, they have to act out.

They're going to be butthurt a long time because America decided to "Re-Nig" in 2012.
 
2014-03-10 05:43:51 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]


Wow; not a single response.

/not all conservatives are the same, dammit
//not much of a conservative
 
2014-03-10 05:44:34 PM  

vernonFL: I remember when 'Dances with Wolves' came out, they portrayed the Injuns- oh, excuse me, PC police- "Native Americans", as victims of some kind of vast government conspiracy to kill them and take their land!

Farking Hollywood.


You're just going to keep trying? Is it because this is on the Main page?
 
2014-03-10 05:44:59 PM  

MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!


Yes, let's talk about sharecropping, shall we?
 
2014-03-10 05:45:05 PM  

FlashHarry: i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."


Wasn't that "Song of the South?"
 
2014-03-10 05:45:12 PM  
Mr T is growing weary with this shiat.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 05:45:24 PM  
I'm sure a few were just like there were blacks who owned slaves, but that does nothing to validate the abhorrent practice of slavery.
 
2014-03-10 05:45:33 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I highly encourage the conservative grift movement to bankroll a film showing all the feel good times that slavery produced during that period.


and as it might be tough to find african-american actors to star in such a film, it might be necessary to have white actors made up to look like african slaves... "blackface," if you will.
 
2014-03-10 05:45:54 PM  
I would like to hear more of this man's opinions.

I think he should start an honest dialog about rape.
 
2014-03-10 05:45:58 PM  

Prey4reign: SecretAgentWoman: I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.

I can just picture him putting down his brandy snifter he had just sipped his Hennesey from, straightening out his smoking jacket and puffing on his meerschaum pipe before his typed that out on his keyboard.


... Oblivious to the many typos.

/what a pos. Ass cancer is required.
 
2014-03-10 05:46:03 PM  
timujin:

I wonder if this person has ever uttered those famous conservative words, "Taxation is slavery"?

static01.mediaite.com

"You think it is immoral for the Government to reach into your pocket and rip it from its warm home and claim it for its own property. Money that used to enjoy unfettered freedom is now conscripted to do whatever its new owner tells it to.
Now, I know this is going to be a leap, but you know that sadness and rage you feel about your money?  Well, that's the way some of us feel about people."
 
2014-03-10 05:46:24 PM  

det0321: Some slave owners were downright playful with the property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_LaLaurie


I wonder if that person was the inspiration for Katy Bates' character in AHS The Coven?
 
2014-03-10 05:46:54 PM  

FlashHarry: HotWingConspiracy: I highly encourage the conservative grift movement to bankroll a film showing all the feel good times that slavery produced during that period.

and as it might be tough to find african-american actors to star in such a film, it might be necessary to have white actors made up to look like african slaves... "blackface," if you will.


The sad thing is I wouldn't even be a little surprised if someone actually did this.
 
2014-03-10 05:46:56 PM  

wambu: just like there were blacks who owned slaves


i... don't even want to google that. care to back up that assertion?
 
2014-03-10 05:47:09 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.


And another cockpunch for using "unwrung withers".
 
2014-03-10 05:47:23 PM  

LeroyBourne: det0321: Some slave owners were downright playful with the property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_LaLaurie

I wonder if that person was the inspiration for Katy Bates' character in AHS The Coven?


Um...
 
2014-03-10 05:47:26 PM  

MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!


I pray you're trolling.

Either way, you are a vile specimen.
 
2014-03-10 05:47:52 PM  
George Washington had 300 slaves.
 
2014-03-10 05:47:55 PM  
Did the author even watch the movie? There were several "contented" slaves depicted. I use that term in quotes to mean slaves who were resigned to their position and making the most out of it. Some of them were depicted as leading lives in comfort, with servants of their own and more luxury than a large number of free people had at the time.  In some cases, the price paid for this life was to be the master's mistress.

Are these people truly 'content'? I would say that the movie leaves that to the audience to decide. Would we choose to place ourselves in that position in exchange for a life of luxury? Would we place our children there? Hell no. Slavery is slavery, regardless of the perks, and the costs are lifelong pseudo-consentual rape.

Point being, the movie seemed to me to be an honest depiction. No sugar coating, and no demonization. Even Michael Fassbender's character wasn't truly evil - he was in love with one of his slaves, insanely jealous, and brow beaten by a spiteful wife (who could see his love for the girl).  He is not depicted as a nice man, but nor is he demonized as purely evil.

The most incredible thing I found about Solomon Northup's story is how evenly it is told. No godwinning here.
 
2014-03-10 05:48:11 PM  

Isitoveryet: typical dirty Liberal tricks, projecting their ideas of what it really meant to be a slave on actual slaves.

every Southern slave owner who was kind enough to house, feed & lend a gentle educational correction to black slaves was a saint and should be exonerated (I know, big word for you sheep) from the absolutely false depiction of what owning humans as chattel really was.

you are more of a slave as a tax payer today than any bought and paid for slave who did so on his/her own accord after some mild convincing, during America's great period of unprecedented growth that was a testament to and of the hard work that Americans used to do that made this country what it is today.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 05:48:24 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


The whole concept of conservatism, of which there was once an actual progressive strain, has been hijacked and distorted by zealous demagogues. Or so it seems to me.

The writer seemed unaware that 12 Years a Slave was essentially an autobiography. With that kind of logic, female slaves would've been happy to be raped by their masters because it made a nice little break from picking cotton or digging ditches.

" I have no comments to make upon the subject of Slavery. Those who read this book may form their own opinions of the "peculiar institution". What it may be in other States, I do not profess to know; what it is in the region of Red River, is truly and faithfully delineated in these pages. This is no fiction, no exaggeration. If I have failed in anything, it has been in presenting to the reader too prominently the bright side of the picture."-Solomon Northup

Well, zippety-farking-doo-dah.
 
2014-03-10 05:48:42 PM  
img.fark.net
Of course!  But MAYbe...
 
2014-03-10 05:48:58 PM  

Maud Dib: buckeyebrain: [misfit120.files.wordpress.com image 640x480]
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay.  My oh my, what a wonderful day!

[www.morethings.com image 320x240]


I was waiting for this.
 
2014-03-10 05:49:05 PM  
Movies are two dimensional portrayals of real life.  Why should this one be any different?
 
2014-03-10 05:49:13 PM  

scottydoesntknow: When my mom was in her early teens, she got into an argument with my great-grandmother over this. My mom just found out that her great-grandfather owned plantations with slaves (he was a colonel for the confederate army).

Mom: Wait, so great-grandpa owned slaves?!
GG: Yes, but they all loved him!
Mom: Of course they did! They were forced to! I'd say I loved anyone if it meant I wouldn't be beaten or sold!
GG: THEY! LOVED! HIM! I WILL NOT HAVE YOU SAY OTHERWISE! *she starts shaking at this point*
Mom's mom: Shush. Don't agitate your grandma!

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.


Yup.  That's still a common image in the South in a lot of places, that slaves were happy, well fed, well treated, and loved their masters dearly and there was nothing wrong with the system. . .till those liberal Damn Yankees came and ruined everything by violating State's Rights with their evil Big Government.

/Sadly, that is NOT hyperbole, I've heard such attitudes articulated more than once.
 
2014-03-10 05:49:17 PM  
Maybe the writer can have this discussion with the (admittedly-fictional) Django Freeman and his wife. I am sure they would have a rational and peaceful conversation on the subject.
 
2014-03-10 05:50:26 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: These people think Song of the South is a documentary. This isn't surprising.


Just like to point out that that movie took place during reconstruction. Uncle Remus wasn't a slave.
 
2014-03-10 05:50:47 PM  

Clash City Farker: George Washington had 300 slaves.


And he was the Father of Our Country. So slavery, as an institution, can't be all bad.
 
2014-03-10 05:51:05 PM  

miss diminutive: If ever in slavery's the Holocaust's 250-year 5 year history in North America Germany there were a kind master Camp Commandant or a contented slave Jew , as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen Spielberg does not want us to hear about it.

Why didn't that liberal hack Spielberg not show us the other side of the Holocaust? Too busy with his own agenda, I'd wager. Eh, Mr Bowman?


People born into 4th generation slavery might very well have been content with their situation. They never knew anything else than slavery after all.

So I don't think your Jew example works.

---

I am not really sure I understand what people are getting so riled up about. Obviously people in the South believed in slavery as the natural state, as you can see in their arguments for it from the time. And it stands to reason that slaves could hold the same belief, and be content in their life. As could a slave owner be a nice person, and treat his slaves well.
 
2014-03-10 05:51:26 PM  

meat0918: Big Daddy approves this message

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 675x404]


Is that Colonel Angus?
 
2014-03-10 05:51:29 PM  

semiotix: There's something to be said for the idea that not every moment of every enslaved African-American's life was utter misery and degradation. This doesn't detract from the horror of slavery, it reflects the fact that people are good at finding meaning and happiness in objectively horrible situations. It shows the strength and resourcefulness of slaves that they were able to have any happy times at all. Or to take a totally different example, Anne Frank's story is such a gut-punch because her life ended even as she was making a semblance of a normal adolescent life for herself in that attic.

But yeah, as a rule, fark anyone who talks about slavery being a happy thing in general. Fark them indecorously in their ear.


This.  You can also make the valid points that lots of slaves were originally sold by their fellow Africans...and that those slaves' descendants are doing better, on average, than the descendants of the people who sold them, Africa being mostly a shiathole these days.

But step beyond that at your peril.
 
2014-03-10 05:51:46 PM  

miss diminutive: If ever in slavery's the Holocaust's 250-year 5 year history in North America Germany there were a kind master Camp Commandant or a contented slave Jew , as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen Spielberg does not want us to hear about it.

Why didn't that liberal hack Spielberg not show us the other side of the Holocaust? Too busy with his own agenda, I'd wager. Eh, Mr Bowman?


He did, unless you missed the part where Schindler was a Nazi and the Jrws celebrated him. Your comparison fails.

Seems to me this giys beef is with Historians claiming the film showed the only reality about slavery when that claim is factually incorrect. He plainly stayes that chattel slavery at large was cruel.

My problem with his argument is that even though there were some kindasyers and contented slaves, they were such a minority that it seems inappropriate to biatch about an ant-slavery movie not addressing it.

/heck Jefferson Davis was one iirc. Treated his slaves very well and worked along side them.
 
2014-03-10 05:52:08 PM  
Clash City Farker
George Washington had 300 slaves.


And in his will I think they were to be given freedom upon the death of his wife. For some reason she gave them freedom before her death.

Did you know that Jefferson had slaves too.
 
2014-03-10 05:52:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!

Never mind the fact that they had no education, transferable skills (beyond farm work), support system, or communities that would welcome them. Ya know, things most people would need when being thrust into a new world.

Just because they couldn't handle life outside of the plantation does not make life inside the plantation enjoyable. It's just familiar. Better the devil you know...


While I would need to look up all of the details of the history, my family's history in North America dates back to the Mayflower (and one branch of the family is American Indian, so much longer than that). I had ancestors who were both northerners and southerners - including plantation owners. By all accounts of what we can find, the plantation owners were pretty good to their slaves: they were literate, were allowed to earn their freedom, and were paid fairly. Most kept on at the plantation as freemen. I certainly agree with you that the cards were stacked against non-whites in the South (especially with the specter of being sold back into slavery).

Of course, it wasn't too long before my other ancestors from the North came down, kicked some ass, and made things right.

Plus Hollywood doesn't like stories from that era that lack gratuitous whippings and beatings - so modern society largely loses reference to peoples' decisions based on their time and social mores.
 
2014-03-10 05:52:18 PM  

Kome: I love the condescension this clown has for the history profession. "Oh, sure, this historian says it's representative of the period, and that professional academic who studies this stuff agrees, and all the rest of the profession accepted it as a reasonably representative depiction of slavery in the US south, but f*ck them. I'm some piece of sh*t racist movie critic and it's painfully obvious that I know better than those snooty ivory-tower elites who value facts and evidence over my inherent biases and prejudices."

What a cock.


 Watch those same people swell with pride when they find one historian or scientist who seems to support their [insert lost cause]. "See? He's a professor!Whaddya make of THAT, libs!? Who's the smart one now?"

 /most common current example is citing Newt Gingrich's academic career, while everyone else is just an ivory tower elite
 
2014-03-10 05:52:40 PM  

FlashHarry: Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us

s.mcstatic.com

 
2014-03-10 05:52:59 PM  
Conservatives REALLY hate it when Reality keeps showing it's left-wing bias.
 
2014-03-10 05:53:36 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]


There probably were slave owners who were "kind", except, you know, about the part about owning other people. Still can't excuse it.
 
2014-03-10 05:53:38 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


Oh, this rabbit hole goes far, far deeper, my friend.
 
2014-03-10 05:53:46 PM  

Clash City Farker: George Washington had 300 slaves.


But Michele Bachmann told me that "the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. " video
 
2014-03-10 05:54:09 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: meat0918: Big Daddy approves this message

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 675x404]

Is that Colonel Angus?


1.bp.blogspot.com

This is Colonel Angus, and he goes by Ennol now.
 
2014-03-10 05:54:20 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: "And in 'Roots' why didn't they ever show Toby thanking the benevolent men for taking away that mouthful of a moniker and giving him a name so easily found on gift-shop keychains and novelty license plates?"


AND helping him save money on shoes.
 
2014-03-10 05:54:23 PM  

Clash City Farker: George Washington had 300 slaves.


And 30 goddamn dicks.
 
2014-03-10 05:55:07 PM  

FlashHarry: oh, yeah, how's that outreach coming, republicans?


It was never really "outreach" as it was "striking distance".
 
2014-03-10 05:55:37 PM  
Probably already been mentioned, and I can't really argue it, as I haven't seen the movie yet, but I thought Smaug Holmes was supposed to be a decent master, as far as someone who owns people can be...
 
2014-03-10 05:56:12 PM  

skrame: InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]

Wow; not a single response.



No one's interested in his opinion.
 
2014-03-10 05:56:14 PM  
Yeah, and how about how hard Democrats kept fighting to keep blacks down?  F*cking liberals.
 
2014-03-10 05:56:20 PM  

FlashHarry: wambu: just like there were blacks who owned slaves

i... don't even want to google that. care to back up that assertion?


That's sadly correct, even ignoring the vast slave markets in Africa; most slaves were initially bought from fellow blacks after being captured in tribal raids.  Also, some parts of the South (and other parts of the world) had fairly intricate social caste systems, based on "how black" you were; quadroon, octaroon, etc.

For instance, some 1/4 blacks would think it quite proper to own 1/2 blacks, since they were obviously "better" than their property.
 
2014-03-10 05:56:28 PM  
If you watched that movie and your reaction was one of outrage at the persecution ... of slavers, you might be a racist.
 
2014-03-10 05:57:02 PM  
Back in 2009, I got into an argument here on Fark with a Farkette named TheDumbBlonde, who defended the conditions of slavery, before finally admitting that she came from "a long line of slaveowners" in Virginia and Barbados.

The denialism of Southerners about the horrors of slavery continues today.
 
2014-03-10 05:57:05 PM  

MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!


wait... so you're saying that owning of human beings as property isn't all that bad?
 
2014-03-10 05:58:20 PM  
i60.tinypic.com

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-03-10 05:58:47 PM  
This type of tripe definitely falls into the category of "stop talking about rape if you want to win elections".  Farking dumbasses.
 
2014-03-10 05:58:58 PM  

FlashHarry: MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!

wait... so you're saying that owning of human beings as property isn't all that bad?

Yep - that's exactly what I said . . . if you chose to ignore what was written.
 
2014-03-10 05:59:07 PM  

Molavian: Yeah, and how about how hard Democrats kept fighting to keep blacks down?  F*cking liberals.


Yeah, like how the Democrats packed the SCOUTUS with a bunch of biased hacks and shot holes in key pieces of the Voting Rights Act so that the South could go back to disenfranchising their black communities.
 
2014-03-10 05:59:42 PM  

skrame: InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]

Wow; not a single response.

/not all conservatives are the same, dammit
//not much of a conservative


Stockholm syndrome?
 
2014-03-10 05:59:45 PM  
African Americans should just get over the issues of slavery and racism because that happened long ago and we are past that now.

However never forget the War of Northern Aggression because that is a matter of honor.
 
2014-03-10 05:59:54 PM  

PunGent: That's sadly correct, even ignoring the vast slave markets in Africa; most slaves were initially bought from fellow blacks after being captured in tribal raids.


i was aware that tribes sold their enemies into slavery in west africa, which is of course abhorrent. but he was implying that american blacks owned slaves.
 
2014-03-10 06:00:11 PM  
Am I the only one thinking of Granny Cuyler from "Squidbillies" in the episode where it's revealed that she was a slave? This article reminded me a HELL of a lot of that episode, lol.
 
2014-03-10 06:01:08 PM  
What a load of crap.  The real outrage here is that some black guy is using Steve McQueen's name.

This is Steve McQueen:

2.bp.blogspot.com

He's the friggin' King of Cool.

The Great Escape
Bullit
Towering Inferno
Pappillon
Le Mans
The Blob

What's next?

Is some black kid from England going to be the next John Wayne?
 
2014-03-10 06:01:20 PM  

Makh: I...uh...what?  But it was his own farking memoir of the experience.  Should he have written in a dance number with singing animals just to make people feel better about his life?


You'd be amazed how many people think being annoyed at someone for having a shiatty life is a valid point of view.
 
2014-03-10 06:03:57 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-10 06:05:02 PM  
The Republican minority outreach initiative is going to pay off any day now.
 
2014-03-10 06:05:06 PM  
remember when conservatives were all about compassionate conservatism?

lol
 
2014-03-10 06:06:17 PM  
MrSteve007:
Yep - that's exactly what I said . . . if you chose to ignore what was written.

if you agree that slavery is terrible, your point about slaves staying on is moot. the reason they were there in the first place is because they were slaves.

after a lifetime in bondage, a slave likely had no money or ability to be on his own. and he certainly didn't feel african at that point - especially if he was 3rd or 4th generation. so he was stuck - and staying with his former captor may have been his only option.

if i kidnap your 2 year old daughter and keep her in isolation for 25 years, does the fact that she wants to stay with me because i'm the only person she knows make it any better?
 
2014-03-10 06:06:38 PM  
anyone care about white slavery and the millions of whities sold into slavery ?

"Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe " ...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
 
2014-03-10 06:07:09 PM  

Corn_Fed: The denialism of Southerners about the horrors of slavery continues today.


I can kinda understand it to a point. A lot of people have slave owners in their family history, and a lot of them don't want to view their ancestors in a negative light. Being a slave owner is inherently negative, so they try to fashion it in some way to make it a little better on their own psyches.

My great-great-(great?) grandfather was a colonel in the confederate army (Haley M. Carter) and owned slaves. His granddaughter vehemently believed that he treated his slaves like family.

My grandmother felt it was better to not talk about it at all.

My mom had no qualms in calling him out as a racist douchebag and neither do I. The further away you get, the easier it should be to denounce their actions. Doesn't excuse people in their 20s-50s from defending it though.
 
2014-03-10 06:08:46 PM  

bughunter: Mr T is growing weary with this shiat.

[img.fark.net image 500x346]


Weary of. Irritated with.
 
2014-03-10 06:17:05 PM  
Even a kind master and content slave is a dehumanizing and clearly exploitive situation.  As much as some people seem to honestly believe it, there is no racial sub-species of humanity that are better off being controlled and appropriated. No amount of reversing the clock or societal/economic/technological gap will ever justify or excuse the level of exploitation.
 
2014-03-10 06:18:46 PM  

ozzie_stu: anyone care about white slavery and the millions of whities sold into slavery ?

"Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe " ...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade



from your own link:

European and American historians assert that between the 8th and 19th century, 10 to 18 million peoples were bought by Arab slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert.

a lot of white folks in africa back in those days were there?
 
2014-03-10 06:19:53 PM  
Like Uncle Beauregard said, "You can't be born too white."
 
2014-03-10 06:20:26 PM  

FlashHarry: PunGent: That's sadly correct, even ignoring the vast slave markets in Africa; most slaves were initially bought from fellow blacks after being captured in tribal raids.

i was aware that tribes sold their enemies into slavery in west africa, which is of course abhorrent. but he was implying that american blacks owned slaves.


Also correct, sadly.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2821/before-the-civil-war-w er e-some-slave-owners-black
 
2014-03-10 06:21:27 PM  

jigger: Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?

Their income was taxed at 100%.


And yet they still worked, proving Laffer wrong.
 
2014-03-10 06:21:30 PM  
FTA: "See, there are some pretty obvious differences between slavery as practiced in the U.S. a century and a half ago and today's "prison population" or Trayvon Martin, not to mention stop and frisk. The only connection between these things and slavery is that the presumptive moral debt owed to the descendants of slavery's victims and the moral authority conferred on them by it may be applied to the disapproval and eventually the disappearance of things its beneficiaries don't like or find objectionable or irksome, on account of the sufferings of their ancestors."

What this mental midget can't seem to grasp is that the issues between the races aren't just about what happened THEN, they are about what's happening NOW. That NOW is within the lifetimes of people still alive, like my 76 year old father. To them, Selma is NOW, as was Montgomery and the deaths of the Kennedys and Dr King,
Stop and Frisk is NOW, Driving While Black is NOW. The murder of Amadou Diallo is NOW. The rape of Abner Louima by police with nightsticks is NOW. Zimmerman and others shooting down black people in cold blood is NOW. James Byrd Jr being dragged behind a pickup truck to his death is NOW.

The leap in logic that seems to be impossible for people like this is simple: what happened in the past might be a lot more forgivable (although never forgettable) if the same sh*t wasn't still happening NOW.

One other thing... under WHAT conditions can keeping another person as a slave be considered "pleasant" for the enslaved?
 
2014-03-10 06:24:27 PM  

FlashHarry: PunGent: That's sadly correct, even ignoring the vast slave markets in Africa; most slaves were initially bought from fellow blacks after being captured in tribal raids.

i was aware that tribes sold their enemies into slavery in west africa, which is of course abhorrent. but he was implying that american blacks owned slaves.


A more scholarly link, with footnotes, even:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_d id _they_exist.html
 
2014-03-10 06:26:24 PM  
You callin my pappy a liar?
 
2014-03-10 06:27:02 PM  
Hmm, that headline sounds unbelievable. No, like I literally do not believe you.

i.imgur.com

Ah, yeah, not "conservatives" but "one dude on some blog somewhere".
 
2014-03-10 06:28:16 PM  
fc08.deviantart.net
 
2014-03-10 06:28:41 PM  

skrame: InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]

Wow; not a single response.

/not all conservatives are the same, dammit
//not much of a conservative


Fine, I'll handle it.  Highlight the last line instead.  "If only everyone was as nice as this guy, this horrible and soul crushing institution would a institution that was less (but certainly still) horrible and soul crushing.
 
2014-03-10 06:29:00 PM  

rewind2846: FTA: "See, there are some pretty obvious differences between slavery as practiced in the U.S. a century and a half ago and today's "prison population" or Trayvon Martin, not to mention stop and frisk. The only connection between these things and slavery is that the presumptive moral debt owed to the descendants of slavery's victims and the moral authority conferred on them by it may be applied to the disapproval and eventually the disappearance of things its beneficiaries don't like or find objectionable or irksome, on account of the sufferings of their ancestors."

What this mental midget can't seem to grasp is that the issues between the races aren't just about what happened THEN, they are about what's happening NOW. That NOW is within the lifetimes of people still alive, like my 76 year old father. To them, Selma is NOW, as was Montgomery and the deaths of the Kennedys and Dr King,
Stop and Frisk is NOW, Driving While Black is NOW. The murder of Amadou Diallo is NOW. The rape of Abner Louima by police with nightsticks is NOW. Zimmerman and others shooting down black people in cold blood is NOW. James Byrd Jr being dragged behind a pickup truck to his death is NOW.

The leap in logic that seems to be impossible for people like this is simple: what happened in the past might be a lot more forgivable (although never forgettable) if the same sh*t wasn't still happening NOW.

One other thing... under WHAT conditions can keeping another person as a slave be considered "pleasant" for the enslaved?


Well, maybe not "pleasant", but Alfred Krupp's defense attorneys at Nuremberg argued that using slave labor in his factories saved them from the death camps.  (Oddly, they didn't bring up the fact that some of his factories were located IN the death camps.)

Yeah, he was convicted, but hey...they made the argument.

You might feel better about humanity after said conviction, but we let him out again, right quick, since we had to re-arm Germany against Russia.

A cardinal subsequently pinning a gold medal on him for service to humanity was a nice touch, I think...just the little salt on the wound that makes WWII such a fun time   :)

(The Arms of Krupp is a fascinating read, as is Manchester's memoir, Goodbye Darkness.)
 
2014-03-10 06:29:51 PM  
Just look at all those happy happy slaves, going on a cruise hosted by their kind master!

0.tqn.com
 
2014-03-10 06:30:31 PM  

AdamK: remember when conservatives were all about compassionate conservatism?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_conservatism#Criticism
... referencing Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion, who believed the poor must help themselves and that poverty was the fault not of society but of the poor and of social workers. Krugman endorses Digby's analysis that right-wing compassionate 'charity' assumes that the giver has the right to investigate and dictate the life of the receiver, even for the smallest charity.

And the Digby URL?  http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/post-modern-slavery-by-digby-t o day-amy.html
 
2014-03-10 06:31:28 PM  
You know something, the Plagues that swept through Europe in the 16th century weren't ALL bad,,,
 
2014-03-10 06:32:14 PM  
Reading the comments here, I learned that this American Spectator piece represents what all conservatives believe. Usually farkers are good about picking up on such things. In clicking the author's name I see he is a movie guy, mostly.

In looking at his take on Nebraska, I was expecting nothing but praise for this all-white film of the highest order. Instead, I see this:

David's decision to drop everything and undertake this journey with his half-crazy parent is one of the weaker spots in Mr. Nelson's plot, like the defining but distracting sexual assault conviction of David's doltish cousin Cole (Devin Ratray), though less obtrusively so.

Now, the way they slipped in the sexual assault thing was brilliant, I thought, with the mother finally just laying out the truth later. Also, how the hell was that a defining moment in the movie? So, I have concluded that rather than being representative of all conservatives, this guy is representative of all bad movie reviewers.
 
2014-03-10 06:36:02 PM  

Clutch2013: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged

It's this kind of shiat that is making me narrow where I want to end up in journalism, exactly. Because, frankly, if I had to get assigned to cover some diarrhea-spewing Republican twit, I'd likely open any interviews by beating said twit with the largest blunt object available.


loschaos.com
Approves.

Of course, Democrats weren't safe around him either.
 
2014-03-10 06:36:31 PM  
A few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.  This is the problem of trying to portray a morality that is 250 years old in this country and longer in other countries.  In many areas of the country, including the North, mind you, people would have paid little to no attention to a single slave and slave owner.  It was common back then.  Not so much as in the North, but there were slaves and slave owners in the North.  Also, people from the South traveled with their slaves to the North all the time prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.  It's very difficult for us to even consider something as morally repugnant as slavery as being commonplace and accepted in society.  The truth is it was at one time.

2nd, Hollywood's job is entertainment, not telling accurate history.  I wouldn't expect accuracy out of Hollywood.  An accurate account isn't all that exciting most of the time.  Nor does it sell tickets.  It's great on a documentary.  Not so much for big box office hits.

The article is probably better placed in a more scholarly journal than in The American Spectator because, 3rd, whining about how liberal Hollywood is does nothing and will accomplish nothing.

4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

5th, the article doesn't support slavery.  It merely points out an obvious flaw in the telling of the story.  It's a no duh flaw, but a flaw none the less.  I'm a conservative and I certainly don't support slavery, nor am I racist, bigot, homophobe, etc.  Nor are any conservatives that I know of.  All the bigots and racists I know are on the left.  They do a masterful job of portraying conservatives as wannabe slave owners thanks to a very biased media.  That too is a no duh.  Yes, people realize there is a media bias.  Hence why many people turn away from mainstream media to alternative media.  Is Fox News conservatively biased?  About as much as CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and 90% of the large newspaper organizations have a liberal bias.  However, I find that Fox has a better balanced coverage than all of the mainstream media plus the multitude of liberal "news" websites.  Combined.

As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another "bash conservatives" thread.  Well liberals, I'll leave you with this image.  Reflect upon it.
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 06:36:48 PM  

ozzie_stu: anyone care about white slavery and the millions of whities sold into slavery ?

"Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe " ...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade


Apparently those historians do. Whatever that has to do with trying to whitewash American slavery is beyond me, though. I seriously doubt anyone on the internet would be so callous as to intentionally throw out a red herring to distract from the actual topic.
 
2014-03-10 06:37:55 PM  

doyner: vernonFL: The book the movie is based on is anti- slavery propaganda.

Why don't they show both sides of the story, the pros AND cons of slavery, and then let people decide which side they want to believe?

All these Farklibs afraid of people asking questions...tragic.


Favorited: Married toothy homeschool lady
 
2014-03-10 06:38:35 PM  
"When you was slaves, you sang like birds."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0mE745qmNE
 
2014-03-10 06:38:37 PM  

Cletus C.: Reading the comments here, I learned that this American Spectator piece represents what all conservatives believe. Usually farkers are good about picking up on such things. In clicking the author's name I see he is a movie guy, mostly.

In looking at his take on Nebraska, I was expecting nothing but praise for this all-white film of the highest order. Instead, I see this:

David's decision to drop everything and undertake this journey with his half-crazy parent is one of the weaker spots in Mr. Nelson's plot, like the defining but distracting sexual assault conviction of David's doltish cousin Cole (Devin Ratray), though less obtrusively so.

Now, the way they slipped in the sexual assault thing was brilliant, I thought, with the mother finally just laying out the truth later. Also, how the hell was that a defining moment in the movie? So, I have concluded that rather than being representative of all conservatives, this guy is representative of all bad movie reviewers.


well at least you aren't taking this whole thing personally
 
2014-03-10 06:39:01 PM  

Cletus C.: Reading the comments here, I learned that this American Spectator piece represents what all conservatives believe. Usually farkers are good about picking up on such things. In clicking the author's name I see he is a movie guy, mostly.

In looking at his take on Nebraska, I was expecting nothing but praise for this all-white film of the highest order. Instead, I see this:

David's decision to drop everything and undertake this journey with his half-crazy parent is one of the weaker spots in Mr. Nelson's plot, like the defining but distracting sexual assault conviction of David's doltish cousin Cole (Devin Ratray), though less obtrusively so.

Now, the way they slipped in the sexual assault thing was brilliant, I thought, with the mother finally just laying out the truth later. Also, how the hell was that a defining moment in the movie? So, I have concluded that rather than being representative of all conservatives, this guy is representative of all bad movie reviewers.


Have you ever been right, or even relevant, to anything at all?
 
2014-03-10 06:39:10 PM  
More movies should be made about the heros who freed the slaves.

How about movies about the Africans who captured other Africans? Truly sad. Maybe a movie about freed slaves who owned slaves themselves? Maybe a movie about Mamleuks = white slaves in Africa?
 
2014-03-10 06:40:03 PM  
Cletus C.~

When I first saw the cousins I expected banjo music.
 
2014-03-10 06:41:13 PM  

bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery. It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery. Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives. And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.


www.amsterdamtrader.com
 
2014-03-10 06:41:24 PM  
Remember that time when a slave owner sent a letter to his former slave, asking him to come back to the South with his family and work for him again? The letter that was sent back in reply was Epic beyond comprehension.

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir,

I got your letter and was glad to find you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Col. Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here; I get $25 a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy, -the folks here call her Mrs. Anderson),-and the children-Milly, Jane and Grundy-go to school and are learning well; the teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday- School, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated; sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks, but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Col. Anderson. Many darkies would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now, if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost- Marshal- General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you are sincerely disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages has been kept back and deduct what you paid for our clothing and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night, but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the Negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve, and die if it comes to that, than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood, the great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

P.S. -Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson
 
2014-03-10 06:41:27 PM  

Joe Peanut: Just look at all those happy happy slaves, going on a cruise hosted by their kind master!

[0.tqn.com image 700x424]


At least it's better than Carnival Cruises.

/aisle seat, please
 
2014-03-10 06:42:55 PM  
Maybe if you libs stopped foc using on the plight of poor man and spent more time dissecting real history films like Flags of our Fathers you'd understand the real history mullets of our country. But Yay. .. continue to ignore that people voted overwhelming Republican in the last mid terms and only last three Senate Thanks to Acorn.
 
2014-03-10 06:43:33 PM  

someonelse: Clash City Farker: George Washington had 300 slaves.

And he was the Father of Our Country. So slavery, as an institution, can't be all bad.


History is written by the victors.
 
2014-03-10 06:45:14 PM  

karmaceutical: Cletus C.: Reading the comments here, I learned that this American Spectator piece represents what all conservatives believe. Usually farkers are good about picking up on such things. In clicking the author's name I see he is a movie guy, mostly.

In looking at his take on Nebraska, I was expecting nothing but praise for this all-white film of the highest order. Instead, I see this:

David's decision to drop everything and undertake this journey with his half-crazy parent is one of the weaker spots in Mr. Nelson's plot, like the defining but distracting sexual assault conviction of David's doltish cousin Cole (Devin Ratray), though less obtrusively so.

Now, the way they slipped in the sexual assault thing was brilliant, I thought, with the mother finally just laying out the truth later. Also, how the hell was that a defining moment in the movie? So, I have concluded that rather than being representative of all conservatives, this guy is representative of all bad movie reviewers.

Have you ever been right, or even relevant, to anything at all?


So, this IS what all conservatives believe. Now that's relevant!
 
2014-03-10 06:47:05 PM  

bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.


Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!
 
2014-03-10 06:50:28 PM  
Yes, yes, we all know that slavery was bad, and we all know the sky is blue and the ocean is full of salt water.

Could we get off of it fer cryin' out loud?
 
2014-03-10 06:50:31 PM  

ozzie_stu: anyone care about white slavery and the millions of whities sold into slavery ?

"Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe " ...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade


Would you care to stick to the topic already laid out in this thread or are you feeling a bit sad that white people are being left out?
 
2014-03-10 06:50:48 PM  
Hey I will keep you as a slave but because I won't beat or rape you its OK right?  Morons.
 
2014-03-10 06:51:49 PM  

hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!


Not to mention that morons who try to argue that seem to forget the fact that it was conservative Democrats who wanted slavery. Conservative Republicans were on the fence about it, they certainly didn't hate it, and they decried Lincoln for taking "extreme" measures like making slavery illegal in the Union states and allowing his military to free slaves of any plantations they came across. Lincoln was somewhat moderate, very liberal. But don't let any pesky historic facts get in the way of modern-day GOP trying to prove that there's not racism in their midst.
 
2014-03-10 06:52:57 PM  

snowshovel: Maybe if you libs stopped foc using on the plight of poor man and spent more time dissecting real history films like Flags of our Fathers you'd understand the real history mullets of our country. But Yay. .. continue to ignore that people voted overwhelming Republican in the last mid terms and only last three Senate Thanks to Acorn.


Take your meds.
 
2014-03-10 06:53:32 PM  

hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!


Lyndon Johnson could not get the 1964 Civil Rights act passed because so many southern Democrats were blocking it.  He eventually persuaded the Republicans to pass it.
 
2014-03-10 06:54:16 PM  
There needs to be a bingo sheet of people getting defensive when there's a discussion about slavery in the United States

"Most slaves were happy"

"Africa started it"

"Emancipation Proclamation not needed because slavery was going to fade out anyway"

"Civil War was over states rights"

"Whites were slaves In America, too"
 
2014-03-10 06:57:57 PM  

olddinosaur: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

Lyndon Johnson could not get the 1964 Civil Rights act passed because so many southern Democrats were blocking it.  He eventually persuaded the Republicans to pass it.


I don't want to alarm you, but that was 50 years ago. You may need to get out moar.
 
2014-03-10 06:58:21 PM  
Ahhh the modern Conservative, trying desperately to point out that it's the Democratic Party that are the racists! not the GOP! as if having to defend reality is too much to bear.

it's awesome, they tell you Lincoln was a Republican! then emancipation proclamation! and it pretty much ends right there.... right where it should end, because if they went any further, they'd show how Republicans are the real racists AND THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE!

you know what they want to do is start off by saying African Americans are soooo stupid (but not exactly those words), they vote (D) when it was the (R) that set them free!   why, they should be voting (R)!!!!
 
2014-03-10 06:59:32 PM  

wyltoknow: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

Not to mention that morons who try to argue that seem to forget the fact that it was conservative Democrats who wanted slavery. Conservative Republicans were on the fence about it, they certainly didn't hate it, and they decried Lincoln for taking "extreme" measures like making slavery illegal in the Union states and allowing his military to free slaves of any plantations they came across. Lincoln was somewhat moderate, very liberal. But don't let any pesky historic facts get in the way of modern-day GOP trying to prove that there's not racism in their midst.


Technically very few hated it as the argument at the time was about limiting it's expansion into the territories. Some in the South felt that Lincolns splinter group of Wigs and marginalized Democrats would force abolition, but during his run up to presidential nomination, Lincoln went out of his way to say he was not for abolition. Stopping the expansion though was just as bad to the Southern Elite, because without new markets for slaves, they stood to lose a farkton of money.
 
Ral
2014-03-10 06:59:49 PM  
I'm sure that there indeed were contented slaves and benevolent masters.  That does not, however, mitigate the evil of slavery.  If anything, that makes it all the more horrifying.
 
2014-03-10 07:01:21 PM  

serpent_sky: lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?

They're in the midst of a major outreach to minorities and women.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 07:01:37 PM  

Cletus C.: Reading the comments here, I learned that this American Spectator piece represents what all conservatives believe. Usually farkers are good about picking up on such things. In clicking the author's name I see he is a movie guy, mostly.

In looking at his take on Nebraska, I was expecting nothing but praise for this all-white film of the highest order. Instead, I see this:

David's decision to drop everything and undertake this journey with his half-crazy parent is one of the weaker spots in Mr. Nelson's plot, like the defining but distracting sexual assault conviction of David's doltish cousin Cole (Devin Ratray), though less obtrusively so.

Now, the way they slipped in the sexual assault thing was brilliant, I thought, with the mother finally just laying out the truth later. Also, how the hell was that a defining moment in the movie? So, I have concluded that rather than being representative of all conservatives, this guy is representative of all bad movie reviewers.


I think your voice of reason will be lost in the wilderness that is subby's mind.

/slavery was an abomination, regardless of how it was practiced in different places. I can't be perturbed that a movie may have chosen a harsher, more shocking than average story that's what movies are for - they dramatize..
 
2014-03-10 07:02:11 PM  
I was rather surprised that most of the comments to the article -- at least the ones I read -- condemned the article and expressed pretty reasonable sentiments.  The site must be overrun by RINOs.
 
2014-03-10 07:02:57 PM  
Up for Inglorious Basterds II, where they go after the scum on American's own shore, and throw in a few scenes for all those racist agitprop mechanics -- something that might even elicit a little empathy as they watch their fellow "news reporters" turn into meat sauce.
 
2014-03-10 07:02:59 PM  
dailypicksandflicks.com
 
2014-03-10 07:03:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Remember that time when a slave owner sent a letter to his former slave, asking him to come back to the South with his family and work for him again? The letter that was sent back in reply was Epic beyond comprehension.

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir,

I got your letter and was glad to find you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Col. Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.


Check this, 140 years after the fact, these unreconstructed rebs are still biatching about it!
Prior to 2006, historian, Raymond Winbush, tracked down the living relatives of the Colonel in Big Spring, reporting that they "are still angry at Jordan for not coming back," knowing that the plantation was in serious disrepair after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Anderson
 
2014-03-10 07:03:19 PM  

Ral: I'm sure that there indeed were contented slaves and benevolent masters.  That does not, however, mitigate the evil of slavery.  If anything, that makes it all the more horrifying.


Nicely said.
 
2014-03-10 07:04:32 PM  

miss diminutive: Why didn't that liberal hack Spielberg not show us the other side of the Holocaust? Too busy with his own agenda, I'd wager. Eh, Mr Bowman?


SURELY there must have been SOME contented concentration camp inhabitants, no?
 
2014-03-10 07:05:42 PM  

bobothemagnificent: A few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.  This is the problem of trying to portray a morality that is 250 years old in this country and longer in other countries.  In many areas of the country, including the North, mind you, people would have paid little to no attention to a single slave and slave owner.  It was common back then.  Not so much as in the North, but there were slaves and slave owners in the North.  Also, people from the South traveled with their slaves to the North all the time prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.  It's very difficult for us to even consider something as morally repugnant as slavery as being commonplace and accepted in society.  The truth is it was at one time.

2nd, Hollywood's job is entertainment, not telling accurate history.  I wouldn't expect accuracy out of Hollywood.  An accurate account isn't all that exciting most of the time.  Nor does it sell tickets.  It's great on a documentary.  Not so much for big box office hits.

The article is probably better placed in a more scholarly journal than in The American Spectator because, 3rd, whining about how liberal Hollywood is does nothing and will accomplish nothing.

4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

5th, the article doesn't support slavery.  It merely points out an obvious flaw in the telling of the story.  It's a no duh flaw, but a flaw none the less.  I ...


Apparently you have no clue what the word "liberal" means. Otherwise it's a nice screed against imaginary foes though, you play the victimized conservative well.
 
2014-03-10 07:05:57 PM  

FlashHarry: PunGent: That's sadly correct, even ignoring the vast slave markets in Africa; most slaves were initially bought from fellow blacks after being captured in tribal raids.

i was aware that tribes sold their enemies into slavery in west africa, which is of course abhorrent. but he was implying that american blacks owned slaves.


They did.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

/also wondering where all the Fark Independents are.  Are they ok?
 
2014-03-10 07:06:00 PM  
"Contend slave"/"Kind master" seems like "the exception that proves the rule."
 
2014-03-10 07:07:22 PM  

scottydoesntknow: When my mom was in her early teens, she got into an argument with my great-grandmother over this. My mom just found out that her great-grandfather owned plantations with slaves (he was a colonel for the confederate army).

Mom: Wait, so great-grandpa owned slaves?!
GG: Yes, but they all loved him!
Mom: Of course they did! They were forced to! I'd say I loved anyone if it meant I wouldn't be beaten or sold!
GG: THEY! LOVED! HIM! I WILL NOT HAVE YOU SAY OTHERWISE! *she starts shaking at this point*
Mom's mom: Shush. Don't agitate your grandma!

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.


there is a free E-book floating around that is a compilation of first person narratives of former slaves that were collected by WPA workers.  What struck me is that many former slaves SAID at least that they were happy, and many resented the union soldiers that came through (though occupying armies are rarely welcomed) one in particular made it clear that he felt that as the slave of one of the richest man in town that he was of a much higher class than the "poor white trash" at the other end of town.

But two things struck me: one these were elderly people and slavery was their whole world so of course they absorbed cultural expectations of where they were raised, and the other is that even the ones who were happy we're utterly at the whims of their owners and subject to their fortunes.  If one was a piss-poor businessman, or had a crop failure or just felt like it, a slaves' family could get ripped apart or their whole world could change
 
2014-03-10 07:07:48 PM  

Isitoveryet: Ahhh the modern Conservative, trying desperately to point out that it's the Democratic Party that are the racists! not the GOP! as if having to defend reality is too much to bear.

it's awesome, they tell you Lincoln was a Republican! then emancipation proclamation! and it pretty much ends right there.... right where it should end, because if they went any further, they'd show how Republicans are the real racists AND THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE!

you know what they want to do is start off by saying African Americans are soooo stupid (but not exactly those words), they vote (D) when it was the (R) that set them free!   why, they should be voting (R)!!!!


Ah the modern Democrat, who has figured out that, since 45% of the population is non-white and naturally distrustful of conservatives, liberals should never miss an opportunity to use race-baiting to convince that part of the electorate that all conservatives are evil racists bent on keeping them down!! If you put half as much energy into working on the real problems, we'd actually be solving them, instead of falling behind.
 
2014-03-10 07:08:51 PM  

bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery. It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery. Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.


Oh look, it's someone who doesn't know anything about history.
In a nutshell: during that time the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats were conservative.
The parties didn't become even close to what they are now until well into the 1930s.
 
2014-03-10 07:10:34 PM  
That was a movie review?
 
2014-03-10 07:11:12 PM  
From the folks who claim moral high ground.
 
2014-03-10 07:14:00 PM  

olddinosaur: Lyndon Johnson could not get the 1964 Civil Rights act passed because so many southern Democrats were blocking it.


Oh gee, racists in the South.  You don't say.
Except the votes were divided more by geography than by party.  Even then, Democrats outvoted Republicans FOR the Voting Rights Act in every single region.  Southern Republicans voted against it at an even greater rate than Southern Democrats (100%, in fact).
 
2014-03-10 07:14:38 PM  

vygramul: jigger: Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?

Their income was taxed at 100%.

And yet they still worked, proving Laffer wrong.


Well, it helped that there was no minimum wage to penalize the job creators.
 
2014-03-10 07:14:43 PM  

Animatronik: Isitoveryet: Ahhh the modern Conservative, trying desperately to point out that it's the Democratic Party that are the racists! not the GOP! as if having to defend reality is too much to bear.

it's awesome, they tell you Lincoln was a Republican! then emancipation proclamation! and it pretty much ends right there.... right where it should end, because if they went any further, they'd show how Republicans are the real racists AND THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE!

you know what they want to do is start off by saying African Americans are soooo stupid (but not exactly those words), they vote (D) when it was the (R) that set them free!   why, they should be voting (R)!!!!

Ah the modern Democrat, who has figured out that, since 45% of the population is non-white and naturally distrustful of conservatives, liberals should never miss an opportunity to use race-baiting to convince that part of the electorate that all conservatives are evil racists bent on keeping them down!! If you put half as much energy into working on the real problems, we'd actually be solving them, instead of falling behind.


1) Republicans are not all racists, but there is no denying that there is a racist element to the GOP. If you think this is unfair, purge the doghistling bigots from the party(hell, sometimes they don't even dog whistle and balteyl espouse racists views) . Until this happens, the Republicans will remain an easy target on this issue.

"If you put half as much energy into working on the real problems, we'd actually be solving them, instead of falling behind."

2) Wow, this is rich. What exactly is the Republican agenda for doing anything but obstructing the president? The GOP simply has no discernible platform from what I can tell. for all the Democrats flaws (I am not a Democrat btw), at least policy and governance are ostensible goals for the party.

But it those Democrats (who are the real racists anyway) that are the problem somehow, amiright?
 
2014-03-10 07:14:54 PM  

FlashHarry: hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.  Subhuman asshole.



FTFY
 
2014-03-10 07:15:23 PM  
To all you farkwits saying "Oh but there were some *nice* slave owners who treated their slaves well!"

If they treated their slaves well,

THEY WOULDN'T farkING OWN SLAVES BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE FREED THEM.
 
2014-03-10 07:15:29 PM  

WizardofToast: There needs to be a bingo sheet of people getting defensive when there's a discussion about slavery in the United States

"Most slaves were happy"

"Africa started it"

"Emancipation Proclamation not needed because slavery was going to fade out anyway"

"Civil War was over states rights"

"Whites were slaves In America, too"


To address your points:
1: The notion that slaves were happy was a common theme in the South but failed to hold water when the fear the South had pver slave revolts is pointed out. Very few, if anyone, today believe that most slaves were happy.
2: Nobody claims Africa started it. They do point put the active complicity of African tribes though. Speaking of American chattel slavery, it would be more accurate to da Europe started it.
3: Most did at the time believe that the institution would die out on it's own. They were wrong.
4: The civil war was faught over fisunion. Southern states seceded to protect slavery and the North went to war to preserve the Union.
5: I don't see how pointing this out as historical fact detracts from the horror of slavery as an institution.
 
2014-03-10 07:15:47 PM  

Gawdzila: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery. It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery. Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.

Oh look, it's someone who doesn't know anything about history.
In a nutshell: during that time the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats were conservative.
The parties didn't become even close to what they are now until well into the 1930s.


The people of the south changed parties that's all.
 
2014-03-10 07:16:34 PM  

Magorn: But two things struck me: one these were elderly people and slavery was their whole world so of course they absorbed cultural expectations of where they were raised, and the other is that even the ones who were happy we're utterly at the whims of their owners and subject to their fortunes. If one was a piss-poor businessman, or had a crop failure or just felt like it, a slaves' family could get ripped apart or their whole world could change


It seems something like Stockholm Syndrome.
 
2014-03-10 07:16:51 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 250 years? Aren't we at least 150 short? You think Christopher Columbus was using Spanish labor to find his gold? And if we include sharecropping, we can add another 100 years to that.

I understand why societies in the past used slavery- cheap labor to produce what couldn't be done other wise. Here in North America it was turned into a racial thing. Why THIS part of the argument has to be defended is beyond me.


I think Egypt may have beaten Europeans in North America to the punch on that.
 
2014-03-10 07:17:09 PM  

FlashHarry: wambu: just like there were blacks who owned slaves

i... don't even want to google that. care to back up that assertion?


Read about Anthony Johnson and specifically the Casor Suit.  The first American slave owner was a black man from Massachusetts.  And he is the one responsible for getting ownership of another human being legally recognized.
 
2014-03-10 07:18:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!


img.fark.netimg.fark.netimg.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 07:20:39 PM  
So I get this pop-up that said "Support conservative journalism .... yada yada yada ... Hillary derp derp derp" and it gives me only two choices: "Donate Now" and "No thanks". Where's the "F*ck You" button?
 
2014-03-10 07:23:26 PM  

Geotpf: This type of tripe definitely falls into the category of "stop talking about rape if you want to win elections".  Farking dumbasses.


conservative 1: *opens letter* well, looks like the folks in charge don't want us writing anything pro-rape anymore.
conservative 2: what!? well then what the hell are we going support!?
conservative 3: i dunno, we could support slavery.
all pundits: great idea!
 
2014-03-10 07:23:41 PM  

bobothemagnificent: hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.


THEN WHY ARE THEY THE ONES DEFENDING IT TODAY?
 
2014-03-10 07:24:58 PM  

bobothemagnificent: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

[img.fark.net image 350x356][img.fark.net image 249x398][img.fark.net image 297x119]
[img.fark.net image 640x437]


You seem rather defensive about this.

Let me pose you a question. Which party would have more to lose by actively eschewing the racist elements in its voting base?
 
2014-03-10 07:25:12 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.


Yeah, I kind of stopped reading it right there.
Also the part where he was whitewashing farking slavery.
 
2014-03-10 07:26:21 PM  

kapaso: The people of the south changed parties that's all.


Not quite true; New Deal politics polarized fiscal conservatives and liberals in both parties, with the liberals joining the New Deal coalition with FDR in the Democratic party, and Republicans aligning against him.
 
2014-03-10 07:28:24 PM  
bobothemagnificent:

you're new here, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

i'm not sure if you're trolling or just farking stupid - but you might want to know that there was a sea-change in political identification after the civil rights acts passed in the mid sixties. prior to this, the southern democratic party - the "dixicrats," as they were known - was largely a racist, segregationist institution with its roots in the old confederate south.

however, AFTER the passage of the civil rights acts, most southern democrats became republicans. jesse helms was a democrat at one time. strom thurmond too. so your digging up a dead democratic senator who apologized up and down for his unfortunate involvement in the KKK 60 years ago, doesn't really bolster your case any, d'you see?
 
2014-03-10 07:31:38 PM  

Callous: FlashHarry: wambu: just like there were blacks who owned slaves

i... don't even want to google that. care to back up that assertion?

Read about Anthony Johnson and specifically the Casor Suit.  The first American slave owner was a black man from Massachusetts.  And he is the one responsible for getting ownership of another human being legally recognized.


I'm going to assume that you have applied a particularly ignorant troll, rather than assuming you are too ignorant to have read the link you posted.
 
2014-03-10 07:33:05 PM  
bobothemagnificent:

btw, i'm not sure what the mcgovern pin has to do with anything. he was one of the most libbbiest libs who ever libbed. want to guess how many states he carried in '72?

don't bother; here's a map:
 
2014-03-10 07:33:48 PM  
www.270towin.com
 
2014-03-10 07:33:54 PM  

karmaceutical: Callous: FlashHarry: wambu: just like there were blacks who owned slaves

i... don't even want to google that. care to back up that assertion?

Read about Anthony Johnson and specifically the Casor Suit.  The first American slave owner was a black man from Massachusetts.  And he is the one responsible for getting ownership of another human being legally recognized.

I'm going to assume that you have applied a particularly ignorant troll, rather than assuming you are too ignorant to have read the link you posted.


I did that on purpose to see if anyone would actually read it.
 
2014-03-10 07:34:20 PM  

bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 249x398]


You know that image is a photoshop, right?

Byrd publicly disavowed White Nationalism over 30 years ago, and his voting record supported that. You're going to have to find a better "but-but-but" when Conservatives still have publications like American Spectator running around.
 
2014-03-10 07:34:32 PM  

bobothemagnificent: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

[img.fark.net image 350x356][img.fark.net image 249x398][img.fark.net image 297x119]
[img.fark.net image 640x437]



Apparently the 60's never happened in your head.  You're arguing against a party based on what it did 40+ years ago, we're arguing against what a party is doing RIGHT NOW.  See the difference?  No?  That's okay.  I don't really think you could even if you scrunched up your face and thought about it really hard.
 
2014-03-10 07:34:34 PM  

Animatronik: If you put half as much energy into working on the real problems, we'd actually be solving them, instead of falling behind.


well then i suppose that the only problem we face today is that there isn't a sitting Republican President.

/this reply based on the shenanigans of the current GOP in congress.
 
2014-03-10 07:34:40 PM  

bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 297x119]


Let's see, how about we break down that voting tally just a little bit?

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85-15%)

Oh look, the only reason that Republicans had a larger % of the vote was because of the overwhelming majority of Dixiecrats in the South, who mostly voted against it.  Racists in the SOUTH?

stickerish.com

Yet in both regions, Democrats still voted FOR the CRA at a higher rate than Republicans.
Sorry, try again.
 
2014-03-10 07:35:09 PM  

Hickory-smoked: bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 249x398]

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

Byrd publicly disavowed White Nationalism over 30 years ago, and his voting record supported that. You're going to have to find a better "but-but-but" when Conservatives still have publications like American Spectator running around.


don't bother - the more i think about it, the more i realize that he's a troll. nobody can be that ignorant.
 
2014-03-10 07:35:30 PM  

snowshovel: Maybe if you libs stopped foc using on the plight of poor man and spent more time dissecting real history films like Flags of our Fathers you'd understand the real history mullets of our country. But Yay. .. continue to ignore that people voted overwhelming Republican in the last mid terms and only last three Senate Thanks to Acorn.


Drunk posting is so sad.
 
2014-03-10 07:36:12 PM  
 
2014-03-10 07:36:16 PM  

FlashHarry: bobothemagnificent:

btw, i'm not sure what the mcgovern pin has to do with anything. he was one of the most libbbiest libs who ever libbed. want to guess how many states he carried in '72?

don't bother; here's a map:


I couldn't see the map, but I think it's safe to say that neither party is free of a racist minority.
 
2014-03-10 07:36:54 PM  

CanisNoir: WizardofToast: There needs to be a bingo sheet of people getting defensive when there's a discussion about slavery in the United States

"Most slaves were happy"

"Africa started it"

"Emancipation Proclamation not needed because slavery was going to fade out anyway"

"Civil War was over states rights"

"Whites were slaves In America, too"

To address your points:
1: The notion that slaves were happy was a common theme in the South but failed to hold water when the fear the South had pver slave revolts is pointed out. Very few, if anyone, today believe that most slaves were happy.
2: Nobody claims Africa started it. They do point put the active complicity of African tribes though. Speaking of American chattel slavery, it would be more accurate to da Europe started it.
3: Most did at the time believe that the institution would die out on it's own. They were wrong.
4: The civil war was faught over fisunion. Southern states seceded to protect slavery and the North went to war to preserve the Union.
5: I don't see how pointing this out as historical fact detracts from the horror of slavery as an institution.


1. Welcome back. We haven't seen you in a while.
2. Your typing seems worse than I remember it. Did something happen to you, or is it beer o'clock already?
 
2014-03-10 07:36:55 PM  
 
2014-03-10 07:38:40 PM  

lockers: Is this what conservatives libertarians have been reduced to?

 
2014-03-10 07:39:01 PM  
I'm confused.
Republicans freed the slaves and were the first to suggest giving women the vote.

Who's the conservative?
 
2014-03-10 07:40:05 PM  

scottydoesntknow: When my mom was in her early teens, she got into an argument with my great-grandmother over this. My mom just found out that her great-grandfather owned plantations with slaves (he was a colonel for the confederate army).

Mom: Wait, so great-grandpa owned slaves?!
GG: Yes, but they all loved him!
Mom: Of course they did! They were forced to! I'd say I loved anyone if it meant I wouldn't be beaten or sold!
GG: THEY! LOVED! HIM! I WILL NOT HAVE YOU SAY OTHERWISE! *she starts shaking at this point*
Mom's mom: Shush. Don't agitate your grandma!

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.


That's nothing.  My step-father's family owns thousands of acres in southern Alabama, and a small black family lives on that land.  That black family is, as a matter of fact, the indentured descendants of the original slaves who worked on that land.  They get payed to help with the crops and are treated generously by the family, but as far as anyone in the family is concerned, the civil war never happened.
 
2014-03-10 07:41:00 PM  

CanisNoir: I couldn't see the map, but I think it's safe to say that neither party is free of a racist minority.


the map is the big red thing below my post. red for republican.

as for both parties, while i'm sure you're correct, i would wager that 98 percent of the country's racists self-identify as conservative republicans. so you're comparing a grain of sand to the sahara desert.
 
2014-03-10 07:42:33 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Apparently the opinion of Mr. Ford(violin gifter) was more favorable in the book than it was even in the movie.


It is.  Ford is referred to as a "good man" a few times throughout the book.  I thought movie did a good job of showing the contrast between Ford's reading of the Bible to his slaves to give them hope and some degree or feeling of dignity and Epps' reading it to justify his mistreatment of them.
 
2014-03-10 07:43:21 PM  
But to be fair, conservatives are also upset that they quit selling Ovaltine.
 
2014-03-10 07:43:54 PM  
It doesn't boggle my mind that a white man would have this argument in his head in this day and age.  It boggles my mind that he thought it was worth writing about in such a manner.  Note how he dismisses Northrop's memoir as propoganda:

The historical Solomon's memoir of the same title as the movie was avowedly and understandably anti-slavery propaganda and was made much of, along with Uncle Tom's Cabin, by abolitionists in the North.

It may have been used as propaganda, but the story was terrifying and outlined the cruelty and absurdity of slavery in the US.  No one disputes what happened to him.
 
2014-03-10 07:44:16 PM  

FlashHarry: hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.

stupid person who shouldn't be allowed to breathe.

Slavery is one of the darkest evils in our world. The fact that it still exists in places is repulsive and disgusting.
 
2014-03-10 07:44:35 PM  

FlashHarry: bobothemagnificent: hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.

THEN WHY ARE THEY THE ONES DEFENDING IT TODAY?


The former Confederacy was solidly Democratic until national Democratic leaders in the 1940s and 1960s embraced civil rights for blacks, which eroded support for Democratic presidents in the South and inspired Richard Nixon and later Republicans to consciously appeal to these lifelong Democratic voters to vote Republican for president, which they did. Southerners were slower to actually give up their Democratic identity and it wasn't until the 1990s that Southern congressional delegations and state offices were flipped Republican en masse.
 
2014-03-10 07:45:18 PM  

Prey4reign: FlashHarry: i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."

Didn't Hollywood already do that back in the 1930s?  Gone With The Wind was as much a mythical remembrance of the gentility and kindness of Southerners as it was a grand, sweeping romance (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little).  After all, Scarlet, her dad, Ashley and the rest of the plantation owners were a bunch of refined gentlemen and women and the only awful and evil white Southerner was the overseer everyone seemed to frown on.  It wasn't the stupidity of the plantation set that brought the South to ruin -- it was that demon Sherman and his uncouth and loutish soldiers.  And didn't all the slaves stick around to help Scarlet resurrect Tara?  Oh right, except for the field slaves (not even shown in the movie).  They became pawns in the hands of the likes of the overseer everyone disapproved of who became a carpet bagger.


I think you forgot Birth of a Nation before that which was a silent film.
 
2014-03-10 07:45:58 PM  
Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.
 
2014-03-10 07:51:39 PM  

Animatronik: Isitoveryet: Ahhh the modern Conservative, trying desperately to point out that it's the Democratic Party that are the racists! not the GOP! as if having to defend reality is too much to bear.

it's awesome, they tell you Lincoln was a Republican! then emancipation proclamation! and it pretty much ends right there.... right where it should end, because if they went any further, they'd show how Republicans are the real racists AND THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE!

you know what they want to do is start off by saying African Americans are soooo stupid (but not exactly those words), they vote (D) when it was the (R) that set them free!   why, they should be voting (R)!!!!

Ah the modern Democrat, who has figured out that, since 45% of the population is non-white and naturally distrustful of conservatives, liberals should never miss an opportunity to use race-baiting to convince that part of the electorate that all conservatives are evil racists bent on keeping them down!! If you put half as much energy into working on the real problems, we'd actually be solving them, instead of falling behind.


If conservatives really cared about so-called "race baiting", they shouldn't be giving the liberals so much ammunition.
 
2014-03-10 07:51:46 PM  

Kozmopoliskepticalopsis: snowshovel: Maybe if you libs stopped foc using on the plight of poor man and spent more time dissecting real history films like Flags of our Fathers you'd understand the real history mullets of our country. But Yay. .. continue to ignore that people voted overwhelming Republican in the last mid terms and only last three Senate Thanks to Acorn.

Drunk Stupid posting is so sad.


The alcohol has nothing to do with teh sad.
 
2014-03-10 07:51:46 PM  

TrixieDelite: serpent_sky: lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?

They're in the midst of a major outreach to minorities and women.

[img.fark.net image 599x338]


...and this is why you're green...
 
2014-03-10 07:51:47 PM  
1.  I liked the movie.
2.  It was an historical account, Hollywood dramatization notwithstanding.  I haven't read the book (I'm going to), but I'm willing to bet the original story wasn't changed too much, unlike, say, "Lawnmower Man".
3.  To claim it was propaganda, particularly from a movie critic, is, well, just dumb.  Propaganda is "We've always been at war with Eastasia; they are our enemy".  Northrup's account (in the movie) does not overtly say slavery is bad, it merely relates his personal story.  The audience decides which side of the moral fence they stand on.  Indeed, it is the antithesis of propaganda.
4.  Freedom and happiness are two different things; rational people would agree that the latter depends on the former.  For Bowman to suggest that subjugation can breed contentment is utterly bizarre.
5.  Bowman is a farktard.
 
2014-03-10 07:56:26 PM  

Flab: CanisNoir: WizardofToast: There needs to be a bingo sheet of people getting defensive when there's a discussion about slavery in the United States

"Most slaves were happy"

"Africa started it"

"Emancipation Proclamation not needed because slavery was going to fade out anyway"

"Civil War was over states rights"

"Whites were slaves In America, too"

To address your points:
1: The notion that slaves were happy was a common theme in the South but failed to hold water when the fear the South had pver slave revolts is pointed out. Very few, if anyone, today believe that most slaves were happy.
2: Nobody claims Africa started it. They do point put the active complicity of African tribes though. Speaking of American chattel slavery, it would be more accurate to da Europe started it.
3: Most did at the time believe that the institution would die out on it's own. They were wrong.
4: The civil war was faught over fisunion. Southern states seceded to protect slavery and the North went to war to preserve the Union.
5: I don't see how pointing this out as historical fact detracts from the horror of slavery as an institution.

1. Welcome back. We haven't seen you in a while.
2. Your typing seems worse than I remember it. Did something happen to you, or is it beer o'clock already?


Thanks :) typing sux because I'm relegated to posting from my phone at the moment.
 
2014-03-10 07:57:52 PM  

cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick.


Both sides are bad, so vote slavery?
 
2014-03-10 07:58:57 PM  
Slavery?  Hey!  Free sex.

/I'm going to go wash my hands about a dozen times now.
 
2014-03-10 07:59:27 PM  

FlashHarry: CanisNoir: I couldn't see the map, but I think it's safe to say that neither party is free of a racist minority.

the map is the big red thing below my post. red for republican.

as for both parties, while i'm sure you're correct, i would wager that 98 percent of the country's racists self-identify as conservative republicans. so you're comparing a grain of sand to the sahara desert.


The map hadn't shon up when I posted but after the refresh. While you may be correct that more racists identify as Republican, they make up a tiny minority of the party, and the notion that Republicans in general are racist is laughably false.
 
2014-03-10 08:01:26 PM  
When George Washington died and his 300 slaves became free, it caused some problems because some were MARRIED to other slaves in neighboring plantations who were still slaves.
 
2014-03-10 08:07:49 PM  
Wow.
 
2014-03-10 08:08:14 PM  

Latinwolf: Prey4reign: FlashHarry: i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."

Didn't Hollywood already do that back in the 1930s?  Gone With The Wind was as much a mythical remembrance of the gentility and kindness of Southerners as it was a grand, sweeping romance (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little).  After all, Scarlet, her dad, Ashley and the rest of the plantation owners were a bunch of refined gentlemen and women and the only awful and evil white Southerner was the overseer everyone seemed to frown on.  It wasn't the stupidity of the plantation set that brought the South to ruin -- it was that demon Sherman and his uncouth and loutish soldiers.  And didn't all the slaves stick around to help Scarlet resurrect Tara?  Oh right, except for the field slaves (not even shown in the movie).  They became pawns in the hands of the likes of the overseer everyone disapproved of who became a carpet bagger.

I think you forgot Birth of a Nation before that which was a silent film.


If I recall correctly, there wasn't a whole lot of ex-slaves exclaiming how well "Massuh" had treated them.  I think it depicted the reemergence of the noble Southerner and his reaction and retribution against the dreaded Yankees and their carpetbagger agents who were responsible for fomenting sedition and treason amongst the freed black slaves.
 
2014-03-10 08:10:52 PM  
bobothemagnificent: few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.

They taxed their possessions at 100% and let them keep a ribbon in their bonnet - after they were deflowered/broken?

I'm not sure what's more offensive - your perversion of history, or your perversion of character.

why not both?
 
2014-03-10 08:12:23 PM  

FnkyTwn: [upload.wikimedia.org image 231x413]


thank you white jesus !!
and 

SEASON 4  is COMING SOON!!!
 
2014-03-10 08:13:27 PM  

wyltoknow: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

Not to mention that morons who try to argue that seem to forget the fact that it was conservative Democrats who wanted slavery. Conservative Republicans were on the fence about it, they certainly didn't hate it, and they decried Lincoln for taking "extreme" measures like making slavery illegal in the Union states and allowing his military to free slaves of any plantations they came across. Lincoln was somewhat moderate, very liberal. But don't let any pesky historic facts get in the way of modern-day GOP trying to prove that there's not racism in their midst.


I also recall many of those same Liberal Republicans, including Lincoln himself, support the sending of slaves back to Africa.  The fundamental forming of the Republican Party was stopping of slavery in the territories.  The real radicals were people like William Garrison Lloyd, who incidentally wasn't a Republican, advocating for abolition because in those days that was considered an extreme view.  Again, your using our modern day morality and applying it to an issue that is 250+ years in the past.  Nobody, with very few exceptions (Frederick Douglas springs immediately to mind) was a saint during those days.  William Lloyd Garrison was better than most, but even he had some pretty racial views according to Frederick Douglas, and he regularly associated with Garrison.  The conservative republicans you're mentioning opposed slavery on economic grounds primarily, realizing that it was in the end, unsustainable.  They were also unsure that Lincoln had the authority to free the slaves through what was, essentially, and executive order.  In the end, they did support him.  At any rate, you can't take the morality of today and impose it on the distant past.  It's like going up to the early Christians who decided to make everyone in Europe a Christian by sword to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs.  They'll smile and cut you down as being a heretic.  It doesn't work.  That's what the article is trying to point out, but does a very poor job of it.  It's also what pisses me off when conservatives are called racist when in reality nothing is further from the truth, especially when the irony the Democrats, who originally supported slavery, call Republicans, who originally supported stopping the expansion of slavery and then ended up ending slavery, racists.

As for the Southern Strategy, you also fail to recognize that modern day conservatism is not the same as it was 250 years ago.  Keep in mind that based on the European model of the political spectrum, even our most conservative is a raging liberal by their standards.  The origin of modern day progressivism is, in fact, founded along the lines of conservative European thinking that an aristocracy is needed because we the peons don't know what's best for us.  Oh they can't come out and say it, but deep down that's what they believe.  You see it with the infamous Nanny State concept of making anything that can be construed as bad for you high regulated or even illegal, and I'm not talking about narcotics.  I'm talking about meat, salt, caffeine, sugar, etc.  You see it in the need for everything to be made into a Gov't program because you know, if left to their own devices, nobody will help anyone else out.  I, on the other hand, follow a more liberal (again, by European standards) idea that every person is capable of making their own choices.  I also believe in charitable giving, and I do give both money and time.   1st, nobody in the conservative movement wants to bring back slavery or go back to segregation.  2nd, we believe in a limited government as designed by the constitution.  If you want to change the constitution, go through an amendment process.  Don't do it through the courts, through executive orders, or half-assed ill thought out pieces of legislation that grant powers or rights that was never intended to be given to the government in the first place.
 
2014-03-10 08:14:20 PM  
Let's just agree that none of us were alive in America's slavery days, so it's impossible for us to truly "know" if it was as bad as some might claim. We also weren't at Dachau, so who's to say if Jews were worked a little too hard on occasion. Some people agree with the Earth being God's creation and only about 6000 years old, and some would disagree with that. We won't know the answers to a lot of questions until we're in Heaven my friends.
 
2014-03-10 08:15:13 PM  

Pedro's Rooster: cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick.

Both sides are bad, so vote slavery?


Naw, that really isn't my point. My point is that maybe we need to focus on fixing the dehumanizing aspects of modern life and the human condition instead of whining about crap that happened 100+ years ago.
 
2014-03-10 08:15:34 PM  

FlashHarry: Hickory-smoked: bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 249x398]

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

Byrd publicly disavowed White Nationalism over 30 years ago, and his voting record supported that. You're going to have to find a better "but-but-but" when Conservatives still have publications like American Spectator running around.

don't bother - the more i think about it, the more i realize that he's a troll. nobody can be that ignorant.


Never underestimate the willful ignorance of a Teabagger.
 
2014-03-10 08:17:03 PM  

cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.


Oh yes they would - but you'd get shot instead of "endin' up a rebel kneegro"
 
2014-03-10 08:18:59 PM  
(that said, if you compare the wealth distrubution in the US today to the wealth distribution to the era of slavery in the regional south, they are related as a ratio.

that is, to say, slavery has benefitted from the era of petroleum and mass production to provide better food and shelter for the slaves.

This has happened before and it will happen again.
 
2014-03-10 08:20:04 PM  

FlashHarry: HotWingConspiracy: I highly encourage the conservative grift movement to bankroll a film showing all the feel good times that slavery produced during that period.

and as it might be tough to find african-american actors to star in such a film, it might be necessary to have white actors made up to look like african slaves... "blackface," if you will.


They can hire Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas.
 
2014-03-10 08:21:48 PM  
"A wedding is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not argue and bicker over who killed who."

What good reason is there for trying to downplay the horrors of slavery? I used to get this stuff from my father (who was from Louisiana) when I was a kid. "Uncle Tom's Cabin was propaganda. People didn't beat their slaves, they were valuable property! But my father was extremely racist. He only had one black friend that I knew of, and "Roscoe's not like the others."
 
2014-03-10 08:22:11 PM  
And might I add to those Americans ashamed of our past take pride in these facts...
1: America struggled with the morality of the institution of slavery since it's creation and ended up fighting one of the bloodiest civil wars with that institution being a major factor.
2: As I pointed out in the Cosmos thread last night, less than 200 years ago it was illegal to teach a black person to read. Last night the President of the United States introduced an Astronomer as Americas primary communicator for the sciences, and both men were black.

There is plenty to take pride in without wallowing in guilt over our lesser socially evolved forefathers.
 
2014-03-10 08:23:13 PM  

miss diminutive: If ever in slavery's the Holocaust's 250-year 5 year history in North America Germany there were a kind master Camp Commandant or a contented slave Jew , as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen Spielberg does not want us to hear about it.

Why didn't that liberal hack Spielberg not show us the other side of the Holocaust? Too busy with his own agenda, I'd wager. Eh, Mr Bowman?


img.fark.net


I'll see your 20th Century Holocaust, and raise you the Original- something all of us Sephardim know very well. And hey, looks like someone hit on the lighter side of it.
 
2014-03-10 08:23:16 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Apparently


The slaves loved their master, just like 100% of the North Koreans love the porker in charge.
 
2014-03-10 08:25:06 PM  

FlashHarry: bobothemagnificent:

btw, i'm not sure what the mcgovern pin has to do with anything. he was one of the most libbbiest libs who ever libbed. want to guess how many states he carried in '72?

don't bother; here's a map:


Yeah, wrong pin there.  Meant this one:
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 08:25:45 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.

Oh yes they would - but you'd get shot instead of "endin' up a rebel kneegro"


Maybe, but then again you have to remember that the slave is essentially their tractor/oven/heavy machinery. Most businessmen won't intentionally break their capital equipment, but will shiat on expendables. Slaves were not expendables- they were expensive to purchase and maintain, whereas wage slaves are expendable and are cheaply and easily replaced.

I am by no means advocating slavery, it sucked. I just think we need to move beyond the sins of our great-great-great-grandfathers and focus on our own sins.
 
2014-03-10 08:26:38 PM  

bobothemagnificent: The origin of modern day progressivism is, in fact, founded along the lines of conservative European thinking that an aristocracy is needed because we the peons don't know what's best for us. Oh they can't come out and say it, but deep down that's what they believe. You see it with the infamous Nanny State concept of making anything that can be construed as bad for you high regulated or even illegal, and I'm not talking about narcotics. I'm talking about meat, salt, caffeine, sugar, etc.


Nice strawman you got there.
 
2014-03-10 08:27:58 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: bobothemagnificent: few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.

They taxed their possessions at 100% and let them keep a ribbon in their bonnet - after they were deflowered/broken?

I'm not sure what's more offensive - your perversion of history, or your perversion of character.

why not both?


Did every single slave owner do that?
 
2014-03-10 08:29:38 PM  

bobothemagnificent: FlashHarry: bobothemagnificent:

btw, i'm not sure what the mcgovern pin has to do with anything. he was one of the most libbbiest libs who ever libbed. want to guess how many states he carried in '72?

don't bother; here's a map:

Yeah, wrong pin there.  Meant this one:
[img.fark.net image 434x434]




I don't think a campaign button from 1968, when George Wallace was running as the candidate of The American Independent Party helps to make your point, whatever your point was.
 
2014-03-10 08:29:54 PM  

FlashHarry: bobothemagnificent:


[img.fark.net image 399x366]


img.fark.net
This whole thread was a troll thread from the get go.
 
2014-03-10 08:30:11 PM  
scottydoesntknow:

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.

img.fark.net

You clearly fail to see how awesome slavery was. Clearly these folks felt that slavery was a grand thing- my people built their pyramids, and they made a catchy music video about it using comedians, basket ball players, and runway models.

They can justify mocking Jews, so lets let the conservatives have their fun too. Fair is fair, not just when you don't feel like it.

Also- how many items are you using are slave free? If you're in a first world country, not many: all first world countries are built on slavery. Enjoy.
 
2014-03-10 08:32:10 PM  

bobothemagnificent: sobriquet by any other name: bobothemagnificent: few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.

They taxed their possessions at 100% and let them keep a ribbon in their bonnet - after they were deflowered/broken?

I'm not sure what's more offensive - your perversion of history, or your perversion of character.

why not both?

Did every single slave owner do that?


Do you give modern day slave owners a pass if they treat their slaves well (that is, only subject them to forced labor, without raping or torturing them)?
 
2014-03-10 08:33:22 PM  
Ugh, so tired of this bullshiat.  I wish people would stop exaggerating about THE OTHER SIDE when it comes to politics.
 
2014-03-10 08:34:30 PM  

cybrwzrd: sobriquet by any other name: cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.

Oh yes they would - but you'd get shot instead of "endin' up a rebel kneegro"

Maybe, but then again you have to remember that the slave is essentially their tractor/oven/heavy machinery. Most businessmen won't intentionally break their capital equipment, but will shiat on expendables. Slaves were not expendables- they were expensive to purchase and maintain, whereas wage slaves are expendable and are cheaply and easily replaced.

I am by no means advocating slavery, it sucked. I just think we need to move beyond the sins of our great-great-great-grandfathers and focus on our own sins.


you dont seem to connect how we treat horses to how they treated slaves. Think about it and get back to us.
 
2014-03-10 08:35:06 PM  

bobothemagnificent: wyltoknow: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

Not to mention that morons who try to argue that seem to forget the fact that it was conservative Democrats who wanted slavery. Conservative Republicans were on the fence about it, they certainly didn't hate it, and they decried Lincoln for taking "extreme" measures like making slavery illegal in the Union states and allowing his military to free slaves of any plantations they came across. Lincoln was somewhat moderate, very liberal. But don't let any pesky historic facts get in the way of modern-day GOP trying to prove that there's not racism in their midst.

I also recall many of those same Liberal Republicans, including Lincoln himself, support the sending of slaves back to Africa.  The fundamental forming of the Republican Party was stopping of slavery in the territories.  The real radicals were people like William Garrison Lloyd, who incidentally wasn't a Republican, advocating for abolition because in those days that was considered an extreme view.  Again, your using our modern day morality and applying it to an issue that is 250+ years in the past.  Nobody, with very few exceptions (Frederick Douglas springs immediately to mind) was a saint during those days.  William Lloyd Garrison was better than most, but even he had some pretty racial views according to Frederick Douglas, and he regularly associated with Garrison.  The conservative ...


You're way off the deep end, aren't you? You're trying desperately to get some foothold, it appears, with a great mess of tangential "but I know stuff!" that is considerably more tedious than it is relevant. It's nice and all that you dredge up these fun "facts", but a blurring gob of text like that doesn't win you any points. "Hey, I disagree with this fellow, but, my, he certainly knows his shiat!" -- Uh, no. Not going to happen. No-one is impressed.
 
2014-03-10 08:35:32 PM  

FnkyTwn: Let's just agree that none of us were alive in America's slavery days, so it's impossible for us to truly "know" if it was as bad as some might claim. We also weren't at Dachau, so who's to say if Jews were worked a little too hard on occasion. Some people agree with the Earth being God's creation and only about 6000 years old, and some would disagree with that. We won't know the answers to a lot of questions until we're in Heaven my friends.


First, there's the historical record about slavery and what that institution meant for the lives of the thousands victimized by it.  Likewise, there's the more recent and well documented facts of the holocaust with its six million Jewish victims, not to mention the additional million or so communists, anarchists, gypsies and Slavic untermensch.  Certainly nobody alive lived during the creation of the earth, but we have the scientific record that tells us the age of the earth goes back billions of years, not several decades.  People who deny this, knowing the science of things are willfully denying the facts in favor of faith.

Those, such as you seem to be, who say "who can really know what happened when you weren't there" are just being ignorant.  Because one of the wonderful things that history gives us is a memory of what happened and it's a memory accompanied with some sort of valuation as to whether slavery was good or bad or the holocaust was good or evil.  And it is that memory that Santayana says we should invoke and remember so we do not commit the same awful mistake again.
 
2014-03-10 08:37:47 PM  

bobothemagnificent: sobriquet by any other name: bobothemagnificent: few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.

They taxed their possessions at 100% and let them keep a ribbon in their bonnet - after they were deflowered/broken?

I'm not sure what's more offensive - your perversion of history, or your perversion of character.

why not both?

Did every single slave owner do that?


If the owners didn't do it, they got those slaves to act that way by a society that did it to their forebears, their grandparent, their parents, and in their early life.

You don't call it freedom when you chain a wolf and train it to beg for food especially to defend the people by saying "at least he was eating!"

It's the conditions that make the crime, not some horseshiat 2 year period the brainwashing is working fine.
 
2014-03-10 08:40:09 PM  

cybrwzrd: sobriquet by any other name: cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.

Oh yes they would - but you'd get shot instead of "endin' up a rebel kneegro"

Maybe, but then again you have to remember that the slave is essentially their tractor/oven/heavy machinery. Most businessmen won't intentionally break their capital equipment, but will shiat on expendables. Slaves were not expendables- they were expensive to purchase and maintain, whereas wage slaves are expendable and are cheaply and easily replaced.

I am by no means advocating slavery, it sucked. I just think we need to move beyond the sins of our great-great-great-grandfathers and focus on our own sins.


You know it's ironic that Slavery is one of the causes for the Confederacy losing the war. With slave labor, Southern plantations ignored the technological advancements in farming and soon the smaller number of Northern farmers were able to out strip Southern farmers in production. Not to mention the Southern rail system ran North South to move cotton and slaves to and from the port cities to the interior while Northen rail was primarily East West. There were cases of Confederate soldiers dying of starvation while food rotted in ports.
 
2014-03-10 08:41:58 PM  

Prey4reign: First, there's the historical record


That was written by a victorious North eager to paint the noble South as a bunch of backwoods racists.
 
2014-03-10 08:43:36 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: cybrwzrd: sobriquet by any other name: cybrwzrd: Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.

Oh yes they would - but you'd get shot instead of "endin' up a rebel kneegro"

Maybe, but then again you have to remember that the slave is essentially their tractor/oven/heavy machinery. Most businessmen won't intentionally break their capital equipment, but will shiat on expendables. Slaves were not expendables- they were expensive to purchase and maintain, whereas wage slaves are expendable and are cheaply and easily replaced.

I am by no means advocating slavery, it sucked. I just think we need to move beyond the sins of our great-great-great-grandfathers and focus on our own sins.

you dont seem to connect how we treat horses to how they treated slaves. Think about it and get back to us.


Horses were significantly cheaper than slaves. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I think you are missing my point.
 
2014-03-10 08:46:50 PM  

Animatronik: Isitoveryet: Ahhh the modern Conservative, trying desperately to point out that it's the Democratic Party that are the racists! not the GOP! as if having to defend reality is too much to bear.

it's awesome, they tell you Lincoln was a Republican! then emancipation proclamation! and it pretty much ends right there.... right where it should end, because if they went any further, they'd show how Republicans are the real racists AND THAT DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE!

you know what they want to do is start off by saying African Americans are soooo stupid (but not exactly those words), they vote (D) when it was the (R) that set them free!   why, they should be voting (R)!!!!

Ah the modern Democrat, who has figured out that, since 45% of the population is non-white and naturally distrustful of conservatives, liberals should never miss an opportunity to use race-baiting to convince that part of the electorate that all conservatives are evil racists bent on keeping them down!! If you put half as much energy into working on the real problems, we'd actually be solving them, instead of falling behind.


Conservative ass kissing at it's finest.
 
2014-03-10 08:48:09 PM  

FlashHarry: Hickory-smoked: bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 249x398]

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

Byrd publicly disavowed White Nationalism over 30 years ago, and his voting record supported that. You're going to have to find a better "but-but-but" when Conservatives still have publications like American Spectator running around.

don't bother - the more i think about it, the more i realize that he's a troll. nobody can be that ignorant.


I knew it was photoshopped.  I also know what Byrd's record was.  It doesn't change the fact that he was a grand wizard.  It also goes to show you that democrats have just as many skeletons in their closet, to.  Hence, not throwing stones at glass houses.  I also know that Republicans aren't racist as they are made out to be.  I also know that I get more racial crap from a liberal any day of the week than I do from any conservative I know.

I will say it again, apparently the liberals around here are either A) more ignorant than they call other people or B) unable to perform basic reading comprehension or C) both

The modern day conservative movement is not racist.  You cannot compare the modern day conservative movement to anything that occurred 250+ year ago. We believe that race is a non-issue, should be a non-issue, and those who attempt to play the race card have no better defense for their ideals rather than scream "that's racist".  The idea of racism is repugnant, outdated, and foisted on an angry left that really can't get over the idea that just because we don't believe in government programs to solve every single problem in the world we are racist.
 
2014-03-10 08:49:09 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: Wow. And of course there is a Hannity pop-up telling us to pay for and support this garbage.


The pop-up I got wanted my help in "holding Hillary's feet to the fire". But I assume this would be in a loving way and purely for her own good.
 
2014-03-10 08:52:50 PM  

FnkyTwn: Prey4reign: First, there's the historical record

That was written by a victorious North eager to paint the noble South as a bunch of backwoods racists.


Ummm... they were, have you not read their reasons for secession?
 
2014-03-10 08:54:14 PM  

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist.


Their responses to Nelson Mandela dying really showed that.
 
2014-03-10 08:55:48 PM  

bobothemagnificent: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

[img.fark.net image 350x356][img.fark.net image 249x398][img.fark.net image 297x119]
[img.fark.net image 640x437]


Your response shows that you are indeed ignorant of the "Southern Strategy".
 
2014-03-10 09:00:03 PM  

DrBenway: bobothemagnificent: wyltoknow: hardinparamedic: bobothemagnificent: 4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!

Not to mention that morons who try to argue that seem to forget the fact that it was conservative Democrats who wanted slavery. Conservative Republicans were on the fence about it, they certainly didn't hate it, and they decried Lincoln for taking "extreme" measures like making slavery illegal in the Union states and allowing his military to free slaves of any plantations they came across. Lincoln was somewhat moderate, very liberal. But don't let any pesky historic facts get in the way of modern-day GOP trying to prove that there's not racism in their midst.

I also recall many of those same Liberal Republicans, including Lincoln himself, support the sending of slaves back to Africa.  The fundamental forming of the Republican Party was stopping of slavery in the territories.  The real radicals were people like William Garrison Lloyd, who incidentally wasn't a Republican, advocating for abolition because in those days that was considered an extreme view.  Again, your using our modern day morality and applying it to an issue that is 250+ years in the past.  Nobody, with very few exceptions (Frederick Douglas springs immediately to mind) was a saint during those days.  William Lloyd Garrison was better than most, but even he had some pretty racial views according to Frederick Douglas, and he regularly associated with Garrison ...


If I cared about impressing someone, I tow the line that all conservatives are racist.  Since I don't really care about impressing anyone, consider it noted and rejected.  This is one of those few things that will really piss me off and frankly I'm tired of the lie.  I will respond in kind to accusations of racism by conservatives.
 
2014-03-10 09:02:26 PM  
The pendulum of justice swings too far in both directions, often.  When oppressed people finally start to get their rights, there will always be some who take it too far.  And when the other side notices them taking it too far, there will be backlash, and some from the other side will take this backlash too far.

But when I once found myself irritated at some in the anti-racism movement taking things a bit too far, and I was about to call them out on it, a wise man once told me "Hang on, son.  Look, these people have had their lives and spirits stolen and raped for generations.  They are mourning the loss of their parents' souls, their grandparents' souls.  As long as they don't go around lynching people just for being white, just let them mourn."
 
2014-03-10 09:05:41 PM  

bobothemagnificent: FlashHarry: Hickory-smoked: bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 249x398]

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

Byrd publicly disavowed White Nationalism over 30 years ago, and his voting record supported that. You're going to have to find a better "but-but-but" when Conservatives still have publications like American Spectator running around.

don't bother - the more i think about it, the more i realize that he's a troll. nobody can be that ignorant.

I knew it was photoshopped.  I also know what Byrd's record was.  It doesn't change the fact that he was a grand wizard.  It also goes to show you that democrats have just as many skeletons in their closet, to.  Hence, not throwing stones at glass houses.  I also know that Republicans aren't racist as they are made out to be.  I also know that I get more racial crap from a liberal any day of the week than I do from any conservative I know.

I will say it again, apparently the liberals around here are either A) more ignorant than they call other people or B) unable to perform basic reading comprehension or C) both

The modern day conservative movement is not racist.  You cannot compare the modern day conservative movement to anything that occurred 250+ year ago. We believe that race is a non-issue, should be a non-issue, and those who attempt to play the race card have no better defense for their ideals rather than scream "that's racist".  The idea of racism is repugnant, outdated, and foisted on an angry left that really can't get over the idea that just because we don't believe in government programs to solve every single problem in the world we are racist.


Christ man.  What in the world gives you some kind of satisfaction in posting garbage like this?  Do you really think people buy this stuff?  Do you really think people in general are  thatdim?  What kind of sick person would post something like that for sport?
 
2014-03-10 09:06:24 PM  

Ral: I'm sure that there indeed were contented slaves and benevolent masters.  That does not, however, mitigate the evil of slavery.  If anything, that makes it all the more horrifying.


The very act of keeping another human being in bondage for any reason makes the description "benevolent" meaningless.
As for "contented", anyone can be this way given a set of circumstances when that is all they know. That is called "ignorance".
 
2014-03-10 09:07:20 PM  

bobothemagnificent: FlashHarry: bobothemagnificent:


[img.fark.net image 399x366]

[img.fark.net image 496x598]
This whole thread was a troll thread from the get go.


The article is genuine and the person who wrote it believes in their article, So thread is not trolling but rather presenting a sitting duck.
 
2014-03-10 09:09:11 PM  

jnapier: I'm confused.
Republicans freed the slaves and were the first to suggest giving women the vote.

Who's the conservative?


They also supported the Equal Rights Amendment until Saint Ronny ran for and became President, it went downhill from there.
 
2014-03-10 09:11:16 PM  

Ambivalence: The practice of slavery was, at its nature, dehumanizing and cruel. kindness would be the exception, not the rule.


No matter how kind my "owner" was, I believe I might still have some trouble being content. You know, being "owned" and all kinda puts a damper on the contentment.
 
2014-03-10 09:12:46 PM  
bobothemagnificent:

The modern day conservative movement is not racist.  You cannot compare the modern day conservative movement to anything that occurred 250+ year ago. We believe that race is a non-issue, should be a non-issue, and those who attempt to play the race card have no better defense for their ideals rather than scream "that's racist".  The idea of racism is repugnant, outdated, and foisted on an angry left that really can't get over the idea that just because we don't believe in government programs to solve every single problem in the world we are racist.

Let them mourn.  They aren't lynching white people.
 
2014-03-10 09:14:11 PM  

bobothemagnificent: If I cared about impressing someone, I tow the line that all conservatives are racist. Since I don't really care about impressing anyone, consider it noted and rejected. This is one of those few things that will really piss me off and frankly I'm tired of the lie. I will respond in kind to accusations of racism by conservatives.


So, it's more akin to a sort of keyboard diarrhea where you can't stop typing once you get started then? Noted. Still neither impressive nor convincing. What I take away from all your efforts is a lot of flop sweat.
 
2014-03-10 09:15:15 PM  

bobothemagnificent: As for the Southern Strategy, you also fail to recognize that modern day conservatism is not the same as it was 250 years ago.


I like how you say this in the same thread that you pulled the Byrd card.

So it's cool for you to judge based on no longer relevant history, but not for other people?

What was that you were saying about glass houses?
 
2014-03-10 09:17:07 PM  

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist.


*Ahem*

The modern day conservative movement, in and of itself, may not be racist, just like the modern day liberal movement, in and of itself, may not be racist, either.  But don't try to deny that there are racists on both sides of the aisle.  TODAY.
 
2014-03-10 09:17:11 PM  

Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids


I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.
 
2014-03-10 09:17:28 PM  

ozzie_stu: anyone care about white slavery and the millions of whities sold into slavery ?

"Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe " ...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade


Yes, douchebag.

No person should ever own another.  Is that all you want someone to say?
 
2014-03-10 09:19:23 PM  

Prey4reign: So, I'm guessing if Bowman and crew could find one kind slavemaster or one contented slave in the history of American slavery, that would make the diseased and rotten edifice of slavery okay?  What would these revisionists have McQueen do, stray away from Northrup's narrative to create the anti-version of slavery -- a plantation where the slaves were treated with dignity and never mistreated and never having offspring sold off to other slaveowners and where all the slaves went to bed peacefully each night, well fed and rested for another voluntary day of paying for their keep?

Who besides kooks like Hanitty would even believe such an alternate universe existed?


It would be completely irrelevant. There may well have been "kind" slaveowners and "contented" slaves in America (most of them, likely, since the majority of slaveowners had fewer than ten slaves--although "indifferent" is probably a better term). Slaveowners weren't beating and raping their slaves 24/7 if that's the definition of "mean" slavemaster. But none of that matters. Slaves could have lived in luxury and been waited on hand and foot instead once they were bought, and it would have been just as bad.

The wrong and evil thing about slavery was not how badly slaves were treated physically. It was their status as property. It was not whether their owner was kind or cruel, whether they were well-fed or ill-fed, overworked or underworked--it's that they were OWNED. It is that they were reduced by law to less than human. Anything after that is a result of that status. So arguing about whether there were kind slaveowners is the wrong argument--there probably were, and probably  most of them were kind (or, as I say, indifferent), assuming by kind you mean they weren't beating their slaves all the time. But that means nothing because they were OWNERS, and by definition, the owners of other people are not good people.

Now since Hollywood likes spectacle, and because it's hard to show abstract concepts like ownership and chatteldom on film, they play up the cruel aspects of slavery (beating, rape, abuse) because that sells tickets; and a film about the daily routine on a plantation would be pretty dull anyway. It wouldn't show the ugly reality of being property and being treated as property every day because there's no way to show that state of mind without showing some kind of unthinking abuse. But that doesn't mean it was ubiquitous (or that it didn't happen); just that it's not the most important thing about slavery. But there weren't "kind" slavemasters or "happy" slaves either. Sorry.
 
2014-03-10 09:19:34 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: "And in 'Roots' why didn't they ever show Toby thanking the benevolent men for taking away that mouthful of a moniker and giving him a name so easily found on gift-shop keychains and novelty license plates?"


And I'm sure he walked just fine with half a foot after he done tried to run away... he probably had a mess of corns and bunions that were painin' him somethin' bad...
 
2014-03-10 09:21:27 PM  

bobothemagnificent: We believe that race is a non-issue


Ignoring the institutional racism ingrained in our socioeconomic and political systems is itself racist. "I don't see race" doesn't help to fix this racism, it's just a feel-good phrase for those who are not on the receiving end of it.
 
2014-03-10 09:21:38 PM  

grumpfuff: bobothemagnificent: As for the Southern Strategy, you also fail to recognize that modern day conservatism is not the same as it was 250 years ago.

I like how you say this in the same thread that you pulled the Byrd card.

So it's cool for you to judge based on no longer relevant history, but not for other people?

What was that you were saying about glass houses?


That, and he wants to play the race card... as long as it is pinned on the other team.  He can decry the "race card" as something bad... until you want to pin realracism on "the left."  Then its race cards away.  These guys, I swear... it would be funny if they weren't so farking ugly.
 
2014-03-10 09:23:37 PM  

grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-10 09:28:32 PM  

karmaceutical: grumpfuff: bobothemagnificent: As for the Southern Strategy, you also fail to recognize that modern day conservatism is not the same as it was 250 years ago.

I like how you say this in the same thread that you pulled the Byrd card.

So it's cool for you to judge based on no longer relevant history, but not for other people?

What was that you were saying about glass houses?

That, and he wants to play the race card... as long as it is pinned on the other team.  He can decry the "race card" as something bad... until you want to pin realracism on "the left."  Then its race cards away.  These guys, I swear... it would be funny if they weren't so farking ugly.


To be fair his position is a fair rebuttal of those in the thread (quite a few I might add) eho were claiming that Republicans and only Republicans are racist. A position just as ludicrous.
 
2014-03-10 09:29:07 PM  

Fissile: TV's Vinnie: Remember that time when a slave owner sent a letter to his former slave, asking him to come back to the South with his family and work for him again? The letter that was sent back in reply was Epic beyond comprehension.

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir,

I got your letter and was glad to find you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Col. Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

Check this, 140 years after the fact, these unreconstructed rebs are still biatching about it!
Prior to 2006, historian, Raymond Winbush, tracked down the living relatives of the Colonel in Big Spring, reporting that they "are still angry at Jordan for not coming back," knowing that the plantation was in serious disrepair after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Anderson


Ain't no butthurt like Southern Butthurt.
 
2014-03-10 09:32:08 PM  
I stopped reading at "Trayon Martin,"
 
2014-03-10 09:32:10 PM  

CanisNoir: karmaceutical: grumpfuff: bobothemagnificent: As for the Southern Strategy, you also fail to recognize that modern day conservatism is not the same as it was 250 years ago.

I like how you say this in the same thread that you pulled the Byrd card.

So it's cool for you to judge based on no longer relevant history, but not for other people?

What was that you were saying about glass houses?

That, and he wants to play the race card... as long as it is pinned on the other team.  He can decry the "race card" as something bad... until you want to pin realracism on "the left."  Then its race cards away.  These guys, I swear... it would be funny if they weren't so farking ugly.

To be fair his position is a fair rebuttal of those in the thread (quite a few I might add) eho were claiming that Republicans and only Republicans are racist. A position just as ludicrous.


No one has made that claim.
 
2014-03-10 09:35:29 PM  

Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.
 
2014-03-10 09:35:49 PM  
Anyone see the SNL sketch with Jim Parsons about the 12 Years a Slave casting sessions?

/my bookmark
 
2014-03-10 09:38:42 PM  

Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?


Not to a government, no. But they had to pay for their food. To the company store, so to speak.
 
2014-03-10 09:50:40 PM  
Dammit subby, I clicked on that link and read half of that article.  I was only able to read half because I literally lost my cognitive skills from the sheer stupidity of it, and I forgot how to read at that point.  Only just figured out that the square peg can't go in the round hole.
 
2014-03-10 09:53:43 PM  

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist. You cannot compare the modern day conservative movement to anything that occurred 250+ year ago. We believe that race is a non-issue, should be a non-issue, and those who attempt to play the race card have no better defense for their ideals rather than scream "that's racist".


Right, which is why we just had 5+ years of innuendo reported as fact about the first black president being not a real American.....
 
2014-03-10 09:53:47 PM  

jigger: Mugato: Slaves didn't have to pay taxes, right?

Their income was taxed at 100%.


And look how hard they worked, too. When you tax the poor at a high rate, they'll be forced to work harder.
 
2014-03-10 09:54:45 PM  

grumpfuff: Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]

While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.


You looking fro brawn, look no further than

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-10 09:57:40 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Keep in mind that based on the European model of the political spectrum, even our most conservative is a raging liberal by their standards.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-03-10 09:59:49 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: grumpfuff: Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]

While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.

You looking fro brawn, look no further than

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x727]


wtfisthisshiat.jpg
 
2014-03-10 10:00:42 PM  

fusillade762: bobothemagnificent: Keep in mind that based on the European model of the political spectrum, even our most conservative is a raging liberal by their standards.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 563x650]


The really funny part is how ass-backwards that statement is. Our liberals are their conservatives.
 
2014-03-10 10:00:52 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: grumpfuff: Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]

While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.

You looking fro brawn, look no further than

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x727]


My gut reaction was someone is trolling YEC with that.
 
2014-03-10 10:03:08 PM  
I've often wondered about this.  It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them.  Giving at least as much attention to their health as you would a team of horses.  Not housing them in such a way that you were guaranteed to lose half each winter.  And not working them to death as wouldn't need explaining.  Once a slave had been transported there would be, not just the prospect of escape but also the difficulty of a long, unaided journey that must be done undetected which would help put some pressure on a slave not to attempt.  You'd have to hire some men to watch them and discipline them.  So you would end up with the occasion gungho sadistic fark.  It seems given all the possible defining dynamics that a great range of possible plantation environments could come about.

But we will never know the unbiased truth about it.  Ever.  Best case scenario I figure would be some kind of complacent Stockholm syndrome.  And that's a really bad best case.
 
2014-03-10 10:03:15 PM  

FlashHarry: republicans: on the right side of history in 1863, on the wrong side today.


You. Are. Awesome.

Anyway, it's too far into this thread to matter but I wanted to say my faith in you Farkers is partly rehabilitated if not really restored.  I scrolled the first page of comments and it is mostly full of sanity, plus a few trolls who were basically ignored.
 
2014-03-10 10:06:47 PM  

meat0918: InterruptingQuirk: grumpfuff: Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]

While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.

You looking fro brawn, look no further than

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x727]

My gut reaction was someone is trolling YEC with that.


Possible, but it would be a terrible job of it. The last of the mammoths died out somewhere around 2000 BCE. While the majority of them died out during the Quaternary extinction(around 10,000 BCE), small pockets survived on islands..somewhere. Alaska, I want to say.
 
2014-03-10 10:07:28 PM  

grumpfuff: wtfisthisshiat.jpg


meat0918: My gut reaction was someone is trolling YEC with that.


The last ones died out less than 4,000 years ago. Granted, that was near the Arctic Circle. . .


/it's fun to dream
//jus sayin
///slashies
 
2014-03-10 10:10:04 PM  

grumpfuff: InterruptingQuirk: grumpfuff: Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]

While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.

You looking fro brawn, look no further than

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x727]

wtfisthisshiat.jpg


It is the best kind of correct
 
2014-03-10 10:16:20 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: grumpfuff: wtfisthisshiat.jpg

meat0918: My gut reaction was someone is trolling YEC with that.

The last ones died out less than 4,000 years ago. Granted, that was near the Arctic Circle. . .


/it's fun to dream
//jus sayin
///slashies


My reaction was more in the hope you(or the creator of that image), was not trying to say 10,000 BC was based on a true story.
 
2014-03-10 10:16:36 PM  

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist.


Which is why 90% of their anto-Obama shtick revolves around his ethnicity and birth certificate.
 
2014-03-10 10:18:23 PM  
trappedspirit: I've often wondered about this.  It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them.  Giving at least as much attention to their health as you would a team of horses.  Not housing them in such a way that you were guaranteed to lose half each winter.  And not working them to death as wouldn't need explaining.  Once a slave had been transported there would be, not just the prospect of escape but also the difficulty of a long, unaided journey that must be done undetected which would help put some pressure on a slave not to attempt.  You'd have to hire some men to watch them and discipline them.  So you would end up with the occasion gungho sadistic fark.  It seems given all the possible defining dynamics that a great range of possible plantation environments could come about.

But we will never know the unbiased truth about it.  Ever.  Best case scenario I figure would be some kind of complacent Stockholm syndrome.  And that's a really bad best case.


....Please be a troll, please be a troll...

What do we do with horses that get sick and can't work?
 
2014-03-10 10:18:28 PM  

bobothemagnificent: If you want to change the constitution, go through an amendment process. Don't do it through the courts, through executive orders, or half-assed ill thought out pieces of legislation that grant powers or rights that was never intended to be given to the government in the first place.


Maybe you should look up the phrase "checks and balances". What you propose is essentially "rule by the stupid". We have that here in California with our ballot initiative process and it has brought many, many ills to this state, with people voting on things that really really should have been left to those who occasionally crack a book. On the national level some things, like the civil rights act and the voting rights act, would never have passed an amendment process because people are generally idiots, and the popular vote would not work. This is why there are courts (to interpret the law) and legislators (to write the law) and the executive (to judge the law), and there's really good reasons for that system.

Sometimes you have to get around the stupid to do what's right. But then again you're probably (from your posts) someone who thinks that the government (probably the federal government) shouldn't be in your life at all, but you don't mind if it's in someone else's life if they are doing something you don't like.
 
2014-03-10 10:21:57 PM  

grumpfuff: InterruptingQuirk: grumpfuff: wtfisthisshiat.jpg

meat0918: My gut reaction was someone is trolling YEC with that.

The last ones died out less than 4,000 years ago. Granted, that was near the Arctic Circle. . .


/it's fun to dream
//jus sayin
///slashies

My reaction was more in the hope you(or the creator of that image), was not trying to say 10,000 BC was based on a true story.


It goes without saying that I greatly enjoyed that movie. It gave me hope of Julian May's epic tale possibly being made into film one day.
 
2014-03-10 10:24:48 PM  

trappedspirit: I've often wondered about this.  It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them.  Giving at least as much attention to their health as you would a team of horses.  Not housing them in such a way that you were guaranteed to lose half each winter.  And not working them to death as wouldn't need explaining.  Once a slave had been transported there would be, not just the prospect of escape but also the difficulty of a long, unaided journey that must be done undetected which would help put some pressure on a slave not to attempt.  You'd have to hire some men to watch them and discipline them.  So you would end up with the occasion gungho sadistic fark.  It seems given all the possible defining dynamics that a great range of possible plantation environments could come about.

But we will never know the unbiased truth about it.  Ever.  Best case scenario I figure would be some kind of complacent Stockholm syndrome.  And that's a really bad best case.


You've just described our reatil/hospitality job landscape.
 
2014-03-10 10:37:43 PM  
I am just glad the comments on that article showed a high willingness to linch the author or at least put him in a special home for his own protection (cause surely he is incapable of feeding himself or wiping his own butt.)
 
2014-03-10 10:44:39 PM  

FnkyTwn: Let's just agree that none of us were alive in America's slavery days, so it's impossible for us to truly "know" if it was as bad as some might claim. We also weren't at Dachau, so who's to say if Jews were worked a little too hard on occasion. Some people agree with the Earth being God's creation and only about 6000 years old, and some would disagree with that. We won't know the answers to a lot of questions until we're in Heaven my friends.


Are you new?
 
2014-03-10 10:44:47 PM  

Langdon_777: I am just glad the comments on that article showed a high willingness to linch the author or at least put him in a special home for his own protection (cause surely he is incapable of feeding himself or wiping his own butt.)


So i just... gasp... looked... how can we all disagree with a nice font like that??

/American Spec. tater's everywhere
 
2014-03-10 10:48:17 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: I've often wondered about this.  It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them.  Giving at least as much attention to their health as you would a team of horses.  Not housing them in such a way that you were guaranteed to lose half each winter.  And not working them to death as wouldn't need explaining.  Once a slave had been transported there would be, not just the prospect of escape but also the difficulty of a long, unaided journey that must be done undetected which would help put some pressure on a slave not to attempt.  You'd have to hire some men to watch them and discipline them.  So you would end up with the occasion gungho sadistic fark.  It seems given all the possible defining dynamics that a great range of possible plantation environments could come about.

But we will never know the unbiased truth about it.  Ever.  Best case scenario I figure would be some kind of complacent Stockholm syndrome.  And that's a really bad best case.

....Please be a troll, please be a troll...

What do we do with horses that get sick and can't work?


It depends on if we can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me something, I just described a best possible scenario as a plantation owner with captive people exhibiting Stockholm syndrome.  Why do I need to be a troll in your mind?
 
2014-03-10 11:00:22 PM  

trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me


simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.
 
2014-03-10 11:06:05 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.


I never suggested that slave owners treated their slaves like employees.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I am certain that a vast majority of slaves would have loved to have been treated as employees.  But they weren't.
 
2014-03-10 11:08:17 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.


In the case of Davis, he treated his slaves humanely and used a slave for his overseer out of the belief that they would be more likely to produce better and not try to run away if they were treated well. Sounds like a business decision to me. He learned that from his older brother, and worked the fields with his slaves.
 
2014-03-10 11:10:23 PM  

trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.

I never suggested that slave owners treated their slaves like employees.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I am certain that a vast majority of slaves would have loved to have been treated as employees.  But they weren't.


"It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.
 
2014-03-10 11:11:26 PM  
If you're trying to say that a businessman would want to keep his investment in stock - just remember what we do today to bad stock at the drop of a hat, entire herds, before you call any of that a "best case scenario"
 
2014-03-10 11:20:06 PM  

CanisNoir: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.

In the case of Davis, he treated his slaves humanely and used a slave for his overseer out of the belief that they would be more likely to produce better and not try to run away if they were treated well. Sounds like a business decision to me. He learned that from his older brother, and worked the fields with his slaves.


Bull. Shiat. Were they paid for their labor? Were they allowed to leave at will?

No? Then they weren't treated humanely. You think he should get a cookie because he may not have physically tortured his wards? EABOD.
 
2014-03-10 11:23:38 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.

I never suggested that slave owners treated their slaves like employees.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I am certain that a vast majority of slaves would have loved to have been treated as employees.  But they weren't.

"It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.


I don't know if you have ever seen the movie 1776, but it in it there is this scene where Adams gets into a scuffle with Rutledge and Rodney of Delaware gets in between them and tells that the enemy is not here, it is out there.

img.fark.net

/great movie
 
2014-03-10 11:24:37 PM  

udhq: CanisNoir: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.

In the case of Davis, he treated his slaves humanely and used a slave for his overseer out of the belief that they would be more likely to produce better and not try to run away if they were treated well. Sounds like a business decision to me. He learned that from his older brother, and worked the fields with his slaves.

Bull. Shiat. Were they paid for their labor? Were they allowed to leave at will?

No? Then they weren't treated humanely. You think he should get a cookie because he may not have physically tortured his wards? EABOD.


Please do try to keep up. We're talkung about in the context of the time and within the institution itself. There is nothing humane about chattel slavery, we understand this now. My point wss that his decision to treat them well (within context) was a business decision and not primarily moral.
 
2014-03-10 11:27:57 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me

simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.

if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.

I never suggested that slave owners treated their slaves like employees.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I am certain that a vast majority of slaves would have loved to have been treated as employees.  But they weren't.

"It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

I don't know if you have ever seen the movie 1776, but it in it there is this scene where Adams gets into a scuffle with Rutledge and Rodney of Delaware gets in between them and tells that the enemy is not here, it is out there.

[img.fark.net image 850x366]

/great movie


You know, i did see it, when I was really young. I'm pretty sure the context was beyond me then :) Care to share it?
 
2014-03-10 11:33:07 PM  

FlashHarry: this has to be satire or a hack by some liberal group. this cannot be real.



This is a typical reaction when a conservative is confronted with the insanity of other conservatives.  When that nutty lady told McCain that Obama was a muslim, conservatives claimed she was planted by the Democratic party.
 
2014-03-10 11:33:44 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: You know, i did see it, when I was really young. I'm pretty sure the context was beyond me then :) Care to share it?


The person is describing how a buisnessman might callously but logically approach slave buying. He never, EVER implied they were treated as 'employees': Just because a person is a business man does not preclude them *from purchasing slaves to use in their buisness*. You.. sort of made this weird logical leap to "OMG ARE YOU SAYING HE TREATED SLAVES LIKE EMPLOYEES? BS!" and then got... very angry and accusatory.

He was basically trying to lay out how a slave *could* consider themselves treated well and 'love' their master (Stockholme syndrome) while still being *treated as a thing*, which is wrong.
 
2014-03-10 11:34:19 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: InterruptingQuirk:
I don't know if you have ever seen the movie 1776, but it in it there is this scene where Adams gets into a scuffle with Rutledge and Rodney of Delaware gets in between them and tells that the enemy is not here, it is out there.

[img.fark.net image 850x366]

/great movie

You know, i did see it, when I was really young. I'm pretty sure the context was beyond me then :) Care to share it?


Rutledge of South Carolina(the voice of the South) and Adams(the voice of the North) get into a short bout of fancypants fisticuffs. Rutledge declaims that Adams is an enemy of the colonies. Rodney(who is dying from mouth cancer)steps in between these two blowhards and declares that the enemy is not within, but rather without, namely England, closing in.
 
2014-03-10 11:34:57 PM  
InterruptingQuirk: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: e can recognize the problem and have a solution.  Tell me
simply because positing that slavers treated their "stock" like businessmen and employees happens to make me sick, so i was hoping it meant to inflame rather than being sincere.
if that doesn't make sense to you i don't really apologize, but i'd rather this be a moment of reflection rather than argument.
I never suggested that slave owners treated their slaves like employees.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I am certain that a vast majority of slaves would have loved to have been treated as employees.  But they weren't.
"It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"
Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.
I don't know if you have ever seen the movie 1776, but it in it there is this scene where Adams gets into a scuffle with Rutledge and Rodney of Delaware gets in between them and tells that the enemy is not here, it is out there.
[img.fark.net image 850x366]
/great movie


perhaps you brought it up just to mention that line, which I hear you on To wax philosophically, i suppose the battles of the future will be PR-based, and if so, we're on the battlefield, if not the warzone :)

/would you like to know more?
 
2014-03-10 11:37:09 PM  

Felgraf: sobriquet by any other name: You know, i did see it, when I was really young. I'm pretty sure the context was beyond me then :) Care to share it?

The person is describing how a buisnessman might callously but logically approach slave buying. He never, EVER implied they were treated as 'employees': Just because a person is a business man does not preclude them *from purchasing slaves to use in their buisness*. You.. sort of made this weird logical leap to "OMG ARE YOU SAYING HE TREATED SLAVES LIKE EMPLOYEES? BS!" and then got... very angry and accusatory.

He was basically trying to lay out how a slave *could* consider themselves treated well and 'love' their master (Stockholme syndrome) while still being *treated as a thing*, which is wrong.


I wonder why i associate the phrase "purchase good quality slaves and retain them" with an employer--employee relationship, a real whitewashing of the actual situation.

Any ideas?
 
2014-03-10 11:38:16 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.


Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.
 
2014-03-10 11:40:17 PM  

trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.


Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?
 
2014-03-10 11:44:10 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?


... No, he isn't ignorant. Because <i> he himself </i> said they were being retained at threat to loss of limbs, life, or family.

You are in violent agreement here, and are getting irritated at the *way* he's describing something. He is basically saying. "Here's how the white businessmen purchasing slaves probably approached this, and felt like they were doing a GOOD thing! Clinical, dry, as if they were purchasing a useful asset, like a horse! And after a time, just because of how human nature worked, the slaves might come to love the master because of stockholme syndrome. And the white purchasers saw nothing wrong with that.". What he is perhaps not outright stating is "Man. That's farked up, isn't it?", but he is heavily implying that.
 
2014-03-10 11:44:29 PM  
trappedspirit:

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Also I love how you originally state it's about keeping good health of slaves for getting a good investment, then you get to the truth: "Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family "

Yeah, that's really healthy.
 
2014-03-10 11:47:19 PM  
"Giving at least as much attention to their health as you would a team of horses.  Not housing them in such a way that you were guaranteed to lose half each winter.  And not working them to death as wouldn't need explaining "

If i may be specific, i deny that they have any reason to "look out" for the health of slaves - most people lived until 19 or so in any case, then you'd have their sons and daughters to work with.

It's just so sanitary in your version. That's what I don't like, it's not personal.
 
2014-03-10 11:49:45 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: Also I love how you originally state it's about keeping good health of slaves for getting a good investment, then you get to the truth: "Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family "

Yeah, that's really healthy.

THAT IS THE POINT.

He is saying that the *White owner*, if a 'buisnessman', may view it as though it's just important to keep them healthy, like keeping a horse out of the rain. And they viewed puishing slaves as akin to whipping an ill-behaving horse.Because that IS How some of them viewed it. Because they viewed them as things, not people, and that is inherently horrible, which is the point he was trying to make. He was presenting the view, and implying (but not outright stating) "Holy shiat. This is all sortsa screwed, iddn't it?", but you sort of...launched off on the idea that he was saying "And it was OK that they did this, and GOOD!", which is.. not really a thing he said.
 
2014-03-10 11:50:22 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?


No he isn't but you appear to have a problem looking at hisfory in the context of the times. Nobody is defending slavery, but you have to judge people by the context of their times, not ours.

By your standards, everyone was an abhorant human being back then, including Lincoln.
 
2014-03-10 11:52:11 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?


Nah man, its cool.  It was a different world back then, so it is all good.  We're way past that, Which is why we are trying to sell people on the idea that we are post-race, while simultaneously working to dismantle the legislation was necessary to ameliorate institutional racism in the first place.
 
2014-03-10 11:56:04 PM  

CanisNoir: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?

No he isn't but you appear to have a problem looking at hisfory in the context of the times. Nobody is defending slavery, but you have to judge people by the context of their times, not ours.

By your standards, everyone was an abhorant human being back then, including Lincoln.


Yeah, no one is defending slavery... just saying it wasn't as bad as it sounds on paper.  Or perhaps that is was okay because it was the fashion of the time.  By that logic, I guess we can toss out laws based on more ancient morals.  I'm looking at you, 10 Commandments...
 
2014-03-10 11:57:59 PM  

Latinwolf: jnapier: I'm confused.
Republicans freed the slaves and were the first to suggest giving women the vote.

Who's the conservative?

They also supported the Equal Rights Amendment until Saint Ronny ran for and became President, it went downhill from there.


Pretty sure it started before Ronald Regan. He was just the marker for the end of the line.
 
2014-03-10 11:59:21 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]


William Ford was in the movie, so that doesn't really help this guy's argument.  And yes, he was nice and decent in the movie.
 
2014-03-11 12:00:54 AM  

sobriquet by any other name: Also I love how you originally state it's about keeping good health of slaves for getting a good investment, then you get to the truth: "Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family "

Yeah, that's really healthy.


Yeah, there's this thing called mental health that I didn't mention any care for.  Either your white guilt meter just went to 11 or...nah, it's probably that.  This is the exact reason a healthy discussion of this issue will not happen in the history of mankind.
 
2014-03-11 12:01:40 AM  

karmaceutical: CanisNoir: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?

No he isn't but you appear to have a problem looking at hisfory in the context of the times. Nobody is defending slavery, but you have to judge people by the context of their times, not ours.

By your standards, everyone was an abhorant human being back then, including Lincoln.

Yeah, no one is defending slavery... just saying it wasn't as bad as it sounds on paper.  Or perhaps that is was okay because it was the fashion of the time.  By that logic, I guess we can toss out laws based on more ancient morals.  I'm looking at you, 10 Commandments...


No one is saying it was just fine, simply that it wasn't black and white, and to truly appreciate the human journey, the shades of grey in history are important. To your last point, I don't remember anyone being jailed for coveting a neighbors wife so I have no clue what you're talking about.
 
2014-03-11 12:03:05 AM  

trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: Also I love how you originally state it's about keeping good health of slaves for getting a good investment, then you get to the truth: "Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family "

Yeah, that's really healthy.

Yeah, there's this thing called mental health that I didn't mention any care for.  Either your white guilt meter just went to 11 or...nah, it's probably that.  This is the exact reason a healthy discussion of this issue will not happen in the history of mankind.


Ya know, in the context of this article esp., your claim that "The Poor Ain't So Bad", which is how i read even your claim that business interests would ensure a minimum level of care on the average, should end you up in a French Prison, talking to a little bird on a ledge..

FFFFFFRRRRRRREeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
 
2014-03-11 12:03:27 AM  

CanisNoir: No one is saying it was just fine, simply that it wasn't black and white, and to truly appreciate the human journey, the shades of grey in history are important.


I'm sure during the Holocaust some of the Jews were asking for it.
 
2014-03-11 12:03:36 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?


Did you read the very next sentence after what you had highlighted?
 
2014-03-11 12:05:03 AM  
Normally I'd wince at the comment section of the American Spectator but even the usual nutters find Bowman's essay repulsive.
 
2014-03-11 12:06:22 AM  

FlashHarry: hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.


But I only deal in white slaves!
 
2014-03-11 12:12:34 AM  

FlashHarry: wambu: just like there were blacks who owned slaves

i... don't even want to google that. care to back up that assertion?


It did happen on several occasions. Very rarely in the south, which makes it that much worse that the North condoned it up until Emancipation, but I do recall several historical accounts of black slavers, usually trading along the upstart rail lines in the north.
 
2014-03-11 12:19:49 AM  

sobriquet by any other name: Ya know, in the context of this article esp., your claim that "The Poor Ain't So Bad", which is how i read even your claim that business interests would ensure a minimum level of care on the average, should end you up in a French Prison, talking to a little bird on a ledge..


At this point you've put so many words in my mouth I'm going to bow out and let you argue yourself.  You are dangerously close to mentioning the word "guillotine".  And we've seen how productive that line of talk has been in the last googolplex of threads.  But don't let me dissuade you from posting more of "what I really am trying to say".
 
2014-03-11 12:21:07 AM  

flondrix: InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

Did you read the very next sentence after what you had highlighted?


There's already one overblown reaction necessitating a defense of non existent claims in this thread, we don't need another.
 
2014-03-11 12:23:32 AM  
One guy writes writes a goofy movie review and now he speaks for conservatives?

For the record, slavery was evil. EVIL.

Alright, then what do we make of a black former slaves or freeborn blacks in the South who then became slave-owners themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison

"William Ellison Jr, born April Ellison, (C. April, 1790 - 5 December 1861) was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land."

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dubuclet

Dubuclet was born in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. He was the son of Antoine Dubuclet, Sr and Rosale (Belly), both were free blacks; his father was part owner of Cedar Grove, a successful sugar plantation. Upon his father's death Dubuclet took over his father's responsibilities and assisted in managing the plantation which held over 70 slaves.

The Straight Dope even did a column on the topic:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2821/before-the-civil-war-w er e-some-slave-owners-black

There was an interesting section on what Cecil Adams referred to as "benevolent slavery":

Free blacks were fairly common in the antebellum south, constituting 8 percent of southern blacks in 1840. Most had gained their freedom through manumission (especially common just after the Revolutionary War) or been born free to a free mother. Slaves who'd been permitted to earn money in their spare time sometimes made enough to buy their freedom. Another route was being bought and freed by free relatives or friends. But some who bought slaves in this way didn't formally free them for years, partly because freedmen paid higher taxes than slaves or whites. Courts since colonial times had recognized the right of free blacks to own slaves. This gave rise to an odd arrangement in which people lived as free but were legally someone else's property. This was benevolent slavery.

Between 1800 and 1830 slave states began restricting manumission, seeing free blacks as potential fomenters of slave rebellion. Now you could buy your friends, but you couldn't free them unless they left the state - which for the freed slave could mean leaving behind family still in bondage. So more free blacks took to owning slaves benevolently. Being a nominal slave was risky - among other things, you could be seized as payment for your nominal owner's debts. But at least one state, South Carolina, granted nominal slaves certain rights, including the right to buy slaves of their own.

Nobody's sure how many such arrangements existed. A widely cited but imperfect source is the 1830 federal census, chosen because it supposedly represents the high point of black slave ownership. One count, taking the data at face value, found 3,777 free black heads of household who had slaves living with them. If that's accurate, about 2 percent of southern free blacks owned slaves.


Then we have the fact that whites were also slaves. Per the publisher's description of White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America:  In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London's streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide "breeders" for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.

http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814 74 2963

Again, slavery was a monstrosity and our country paid a hefty price in blood to be rid of it. To me the real evil of slavery is that it could indeed produce a situation where a slave could come to love their master -- just like Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother.

Or, like the North Koreans who worship Dear Leader even as their countrymen starve to death.
 
2014-03-11 12:23:47 AM  

trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: Ya know, in the context of this article esp., your claim that "The Poor Ain't So Bad", which is how i read even your claim that business interests would ensure a minimum level of care on the average, should end you up in a French Prison, talking to a little bird on a ledge..

At this point you've put so many words in my mouth I'm going to bow out and let you argue yourself.  You are dangerously close to mentioning the word "guillotine".  And we've seen how productive that line of talk has been in the last googolplex of threads.  But don't let me dissuade you from posting more of "what I really am trying to say".


lol, haven't seen history of the world i take it. I mean, at first, it sounded like you learned your history from it so i just presumed... pardon me.

/what I sensed from your post, take it personal if you want, was that you sanitized the situation into a business equation, and forgot to reason that there are  plentyof bad things you can do without preventing from being able to work. Just wanting to keep the investment in their "stock" healthy in no way implies a standard of living and you know thiiiissss maaaaaaaan. Or you should.
 
2014-03-11 12:24:34 AM  
If you are a Republican, you are just a scumbag.
If you don't like the Democrats, fine, become independent or join another party.
But I don't know how anyone with any ethics can be a Republican.
 
2014-03-11 12:24:45 AM  

trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: Ya know, in the context of this article esp., your claim that "The Poor Ain't So Bad", which is how i read even your claim that business interests would ensure a minimum level of care on the average, should end you up in a French Prison, talking to a little bird on a ledge..

At this point you've put so many words in my mouth I'm going to bow out and let you argue yourself.  You are dangerously close to mentioning the word "guillotine".  And we've seen how productive that line of talk has been in the last googolplex of threads.  But don't let me dissuade you from posting more of "what I really am trying to say".


I tried to explain you were showing how they thought of it in clinical terms, to sort of...contrast with how horrible it actually was (I think it really makes it MORE horrible, that they just thought of it as a business transaction) buuuuttt he seems to have stopped listening to that.

(I apologize if I, too, was putting words in your mouth, that is just the gist I was getting.)
 
2014-03-11 12:28:20 AM  

Felgraf: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: Ya know, in the context of this article esp., your claim that "The Poor Ain't So Bad", which is how i read even your claim that business interests would ensure a minimum level of care on the average, should end you up in a French Prison, talking to a little bird on a ledge..

At this point you've put so many words in my mouth I'm going to bow out and let you argue yourself.  You are dangerously close to mentioning the word "guillotine".  And we've seen how productive that line of talk has been in the last googolplex of threads.  But don't let me dissuade you from posting more of "what I really am trying to say".

I tried to explain you were showing how they thought of it in clinical terms, to sort of...contrast with how horrible it actually was (I think it really makes it MORE horrible, that they just thought of it as a business transaction) buuuuttt he seems to have stopped listening to that.

(I apologize if I, too, was putting words in your mouth, that is just the gist I was getting.)


I don't understand the need to explain it as a clinical business situation like he did if that was the only point. Dont blame me for reading something into a post that otherwise made the most obvious statement of the year: businessmen watch their investments.

There were catch words like "retain" and "health" and "wont let them freeze" and I, for one, think that was whitewashing. If he didn't mean it, well, we're back to the most obvious statement of the year. His choice, if he cares to reply.
 
2014-03-11 12:30:29 AM  

Felgraf: sobriquet by any other name: Also I love how you originally state it's about keeping good health of slaves for getting a good investment, then you get to the truth: "Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family "

Yeah, that's really healthy.

THAT IS THE POINT. He is saying that the *White owner*, if a 'buisnessman', may view it as though it's just important to keep them healthy, like keeping a horse out of the rain. And they viewed puishing slaves as akin to whipping an ill-behaving horse.Because that IS How some of them viewed it. Because they viewed them as things, not people, and that is inherently horrible, which is the point he was trying to make. He was presenting the view, and implying (but not outright stating) "Holy shiat. This is all sortsa screwed, iddn't it?", but you sort of...launched off on the idea that he was saying "And it was OK that they did this, and GOOD!", which is.. not really a thing he said.


I said that up above.

There may well have been "good" slaveowners--because we today define a slaveowner as bad because they whipped, beat, raped, mutilated their slaves; and therefore ALL slaveowners abused their slaves. But in fact, a slave was an investment, and it would be insane to pay money for a machine and then beat it with a hammer so it couldn't execute the function you purchased it for. And also, the vast majority of slaveowners owned fewer than 10 slaves. Slaves were essentially owned servants, and when there were only three or four people working a farm, it's not cost-effective (to say the least) to have two or three of them beaten and working at less than maximum efficiency.

So chances are most slaveowners were "good" and most slaves were "content" because really they had no alternative--the laws prevented them from working anywhere, they couldn't own land, they had no marketable skills, what ELSE were they going to do besides be slaves? Humans will find ways to be happy in even the worst circumstances if they have no alternative. It's that or lie down and die. People found ways to exist contentedly in the Gulags and concentration camps, after all.

But even with all that, it DOES NOT MATTER. What was bad about slavery is NOT that slaves were abused or that slaveowners were mean; it does NOT matter that some slaveowners were good people and kind to their slaves or that some slaves were happy being slaves. What was bad about slavery is the very institution of slavery and the fact that it reduced human beings to chattel property. If the slave could not leave when he wanted, or sleep with whom she chose, if their children could be taken away at any time for no reason--then it doesn't matter how well they were treated, even if they lived in a golden palace and slept in silken beds and had servants of their own.

During the same time as America's "peculiar institution" was going on, there were, in fact, slaves who lived just that way: the harem women of the Ottoman sultan. They were bought in the slave markets of Arabia and locked in the plush quarters of the seraglio; one lucky woman's son might become Sultan himself. They were "well-treated" if you can call it that: They couldn't leave and were guarded constantly and unable to see their children after they were born. But they were waited on hand and foot. So that means slavery must be okay? Of course not.
 
2014-03-11 12:34:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Felgraf: sobriquet by any other name: Also I love how you originally state it's about keeping good health of slaves for getting a good investment, then you get to the truth: "Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family "

Yeah, that's really healthy.

THAT IS THE POINT. He is saying that the *White owner*, if a 'buisnessman', may view it as though it's just important to keep them healthy, like keeping a horse out of the rain. And they viewed puishing slaves as akin to whipping an ill-behaving horse.Because that IS How some of them viewed it. Because they viewed them as things, not people, and that is inherently horrible, which is the point he was trying to make. He was presenting the view, and implying (but not outright stating) "Holy shiat. This is all sortsa screwed, iddn't it?", but you sort of...launched off on the idea that he was saying "And it was OK that they did this, and GOOD!", which is.. not really a thing he said.

I said that up above.

There may well have been "good" slaveowners--because we today define a slaveowner as bad because they whipped, beat, raped, mutilated their slaves; and therefore ALL slaveowners abused their slaves. But in fact, a slave was an investment, and it would be insane to pay money for a machine and then beat it with a hammer so it couldn't execute the function you purchased it for. And also, the vast majority of slaveowners owned fewer than 10 slaves. Slaves were essentially owned servants, and when there were only three or four people working a farm, it's not cost-effective (to say the least) to have two or three of them beaten and working at less than maximum efficiency.

So chances are most slaveowners were "good" and most slaves were "content" because really they had no alternative--the laws prevented them from working anywhere, they couldn't own land, they had no marketable skills, what ELSE were they going to do besides be slaves? Humans will find ways to be happy in even the worst circumstances if ...


Thank you. Even framing it as good in their context is wrong, because this wasn't ever a case of Africans coming off the boat with a EULA granting custody. They knew it was wrong, and they just didn't care. To say it was anything otherwise is delusion of the sort they applied.

Thanks for saying it better.
 
2014-03-11 12:38:47 AM  

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist.  You cannot compare the modern day conservative movement to anything that occurred 250+ year ago. We believe that race is a non-issue, should be a non-issue, and those who attempt to play the race card have no better defense for their ideals rather than scream "that's racist".  The idea of racism is repugnant, outdated, and foisted on an angry left that really can't get over the idea that just because we don't believe in government programs to solve every single problem in the world we are racist.


"I had a picture one time of Obama sittin' on a stump as a witch doctor and I posted that on Facebook. I was making fun of the white half of Obama, not the black half." ~ Don Yelton

www.allthingsdemocrat.com

"We have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago - or Kenya." ~ Jason Thompson

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

"There's also a dark - a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean by that that they still sort of look down on minorities." ~ Colin Powell

"I don't want to  make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money." ~ Rick Santorum

"Keep America American" - KKK slogan
"We have on one side a president who wants to transform America into a European-style nation, and you have on other hand someone like myself that wants to turn around America and keep America America with the principals that made us the greatest nation on Earth." ~ Mitt Romney

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President." ~ Michelle Bachmann

littlegreenfootballs.com

What was that?  I can't hear you over how not-racist modern conservatives are.
 
2014-03-11 12:45:08 AM  

CanisNoir: karmaceutical: CanisNoir: sobriquet by any other name: trappedspirit: sobriquet by any other name: "It seems to me that if you were a decent businessman, you'd want to purchase good quality slaves and retain them"

Your words, not mine. Read a few posts up, you'll find your own post, jerky.

Yes, my words.  I fail to see how you construe 'retaining slaves' and employment.  Retaining slaves is about threat of loss of limbs, life or family.  I don't see that you have a salient point here.

Which is EXACTLY my point - there is  nothing "benign" about being - oh so nicely put - "retained". It was nasty, lethal, brutish, and deplorable, even when slaves agree to it out of fear and were glad they didn't have someone even worse.Are you really this ignorant to the reality of slavery?

No he isn't but you appear to have a problem looking at hisfory in the context of the times. Nobody is defending slavery, but you have to judge people by the context of their times, not ours.

By your standards, everyone was an abhorant human being back then, including Lincoln.

Yeah, no one is defending slavery... just saying it wasn't as bad as it sounds on paper.  Or perhaps that is was okay because it was the fashion of the time.  By that logic, I guess we can toss out laws based on more ancient morals.  I'm looking at you, 10 Commandments...

No one is saying it was just fine, simply that it wasn't black and white, and to truly appreciate the human journey, the shades of grey in history are important. To your last point, I don't remember anyone being jailed for coveting a neighbors wife so I have no clue what you're talking about.


You are right, no one is saying it was just fine.  You just moved the goalpoasts a bit.  I don't know why you feel the need to rationalize the indefensible.  Some things are just universally wrong, regardless of the law, or what everyone else was doing at the time, or whether or not they polite in the commission.
 
2014-03-11 12:46:50 AM  

Dude in Austin: One guy writes writes a goofy movie review and now he speaks for conservatives?

For the record, slavery was evil. EVIL.

Alright, then what do we make of a black former slaves or freeborn blacks in the South who then became slave-owners themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison

"William Ellison Jr, born April Ellison, (C. April, 1790 - 5 December 1861) was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land."

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dubuclet

Dubuclet was born in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. He was the son of Antoine Dubuclet, Sr and Rosale (Belly), both were free blacks; his father was part owner of Cedar Grove, a successful sugar plantation. Upon his father's death Dubuclet took over his father's responsibilities and assisted in managing the plantation which held over 70 slaves.

The Straight Dope even did a column on the topic:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2821/before-the-civil-war-w er e-some-slave-owners-black

There was an interesting section on what Cecil Adams referred to as "benevolent slavery":

Free blacks were fairly common in the antebellum south, constituting 8 percent of southern blacks in 1840. Most had gained their freedom through manumission (especially common just after the Revolutionary War) or been born free to a free mother. Slaves who'd been permitted to earn money in their spare time sometimes made enough to buy their freedom. Another route was being bought and freed by free relatives or friends. But some who bought slaves in this way didn't formally free them for years, partly because freedmen paid higher taxes than slaves or whites. Courts since colonial times had recognized the right of free blacks to own s ...


Wrong.

Slavery is completely awesome. Without it where would First World Countries get their endless supplies of iPhones, iPads, and other iToys? Where would we get our socks, our underwear, and even our food? Sure, we may say a person that gets paid by the piece is not a slave, but when the daily wage isn't enough to purchase a clean meal, is that still not slavery?

You are allowed to share your well meaning, but misguided opinion, because of slavery.

Because slavery exists, in all its glory, we can troll each other (as I have done), claim Mammoths died out in Alaska (it was an island in the Arctic in Siberia), and quietly ignore that our new cars, our new homes, our clothing, our food, our phones, our computers, our everything in life has some contribution by a slave. By some individual that earns next to nothing (and if from India, with their 24 million generational slaves, then absolutely nothing).

Every single person arguing against slavery is a fake, a phony, and dare I channel the hoary specter of Holden Caulfield, a hypocrite as well.

We are all living a lie, and hoping and praying that "someone" will address this issue. Meanwhile, back in the First World, we are at liberty to whine and cry and forgot such uncomfortable truths.

The truth is, as it always has been, and always shall be: Slavery is what allows us to exist in the First World.

You may not like it, but no one here is offering grand schemes on how to live without it.
 
2014-03-11 12:49:56 AM  
While there may have been the so-called "good slave owners," they were not good in the way you or I would consider good to our fellow man.

More than most slave owners grew up surrounded by slavery, so they never saw slaves as people. They were nice to their slaves the same way they were nice to an obedient dog or horse.  They were nice to them right up to the point where they stepped out of line.

Even in the movie, Master Ford thought he was helping save Solomons life by selling him off. The same way people sell off a dog that doesn't get along with the other animals or snaps at people.

A slave they liked was more akin to a pet than a person.

While slave owners may not have seen themselves as evil because they never knew anything different, what they were doing was, by definition, evil.
 
2014-03-11 01:16:25 AM  

stoli n coke: While there may have been the so-called "good slave owners," they were not good in the way you or I would consider good to our fellow man.

More than most slave owners grew up surrounded by slavery, so they never saw slaves as people. They were nice to their slaves the same way they were nice to an obedient dog or horse.  They were nice to them right up to the point where they stepped out of line.

Even in the movie, Master Ford thought he was helping save Solomons life by selling him off. The same way people sell off a dog that doesn't get along with the other animals or snaps at people.

A slave they liked was more akin to a pet than a person.

While slave owners may not have seen themselves as evil because they never knew anything different, what they were doing was, by definition, evil.


and if you can argue they didn't know they were doing something wrong -- and just didn't care -- i've got a bridge to sell that person.

In fact, the church went so far as to declare slaves "soulless" and "animals" so that the bible would not apply to them. That's evasion and delusion, not an innocent "misjudging" of the golden rule or something so cute. They knew. All of them; just like today, it's amazing what you can convince yourself of, but they knew.
 
2014-03-11 01:20:36 AM  
Happy times! We was all slaves back then, of course. And i, well I was the happiest slave of the bunch! We slaves used to have happy contests just to see how happy we could be. The prize was a kiss from Rhett Butler! Yeah, he had a reputation for sexin' up the slaves, and that made the slaves even happier!
 
2014-03-11 01:23:04 AM  

bobothemagnificent: .

4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.


And Sarah can swoon over Vlad's pecs, nose pressed to her Wasilla window, gone all damp in the panties, drowning in pooter's `overBering' gaze.

The Southern Dems loved their property & some State's Rights.  They `hung'-around through the Rebellion, the Reconstruction and right through the period of Reconciliation (1880-1963).  When Jimmy Crow got served, those Dems found a new home with George Wallace's American Independent Party (think tea party mid-60's style).  Nixon applied the the thumbscrews to Wallace after the `68 election (actually misused the IRS - assigning 75 agents to curry comb Wallace/immediate-extended family/audit every business that signed a contract with the State of Alabama while Wallace was governor - found dirt on George's brother and Wallace agreed not to run 3rd party in `72 - was shot while campaigning as a Dem, Maryland Primary).
Nixon & other cynical Big Govvers instituted the Southern Strategy - `law & order' `silent majority' `Country being stolen by lazy bums & godless radicals' - Nixon & Company swept up all of Wallace's white trash, whites only, snake handling bible beating know-nothing DEMS into the Republican party - this was an infection that took, complimented by the already extant Bircher & proto-rapturist cohort.

Now, the movie I'd make about slavery would be purely a `legitimate rape' by owner miscegenation loop for the jizz swabbers.  By 1850, there were so many `high yellow offspring, in Virginia, fathered by the landed/elected gentry that attempts to pass a `one drop rule' (any african blood at all - no rights period) met with angry denunciation by the `owner-operators'.  South Carolina attempted the same in the 1890's, causing one legislator to lay the swarthy sinning `symptoms out in public.

"If the law is made as it now stands respectable families in Aiken, Barnwell, Colleton, and Orangeburg will be denied the right to intermarry among people with whom they are now associated and identified. At least one hundred families would be affected to my knowledge. They have sent good soldiers to the Confederate Army, and are now landowners and taxpayers. Those men served creditably, and it would be unjust and disgraceful to embarrass them in this way. It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of... colored blood. The pure-blooded white has needed and received a certain infusion of darker blood to give him readiness and purpose..."

This sort of `liberty continued to be exercised with impunity right through the early 1960's How many complaints by women of color, in the South, related to sexual assault by white males are documented, as compared to the number of women who reported such once they had left the South?

Spirit of the Southern Dems rotted the Republican Party out from the Base - pretty much just a festering stigmata that shrinks & expands with the cynical baiting by those with the money to probe the fearful gerrymandered pockets of pus.
 
2014-03-11 01:29:35 AM  
Crazy Lee: bobothemagnificent: .

4th, hey liberals: it was republicans that abolished slavery.  It was democrats that opposed abolishment of a despicable, vile, and unholy institution of slavery.  Think about that before you start bashing republicans or conservatives.  And if you point out that today's republicans are all racists, I'll point out to you that one of the longest serving Senators was a grand wizard of the KKK and a liberal democrat.

And Sarah can swoon over Vlad's pecs, nose pressed to her Wasilla window, gone all damp in the panties, drowning in pooter's `overBering' gaze.

The Southern Dems loved their property & some State's Rights.  They `hung'-around through the Rebellion, the Reconstruction and right through the period of Reconciliation (1880-1963).  When Jimmy Crow got served, those Dems found a new home with George Wallace's American Independent Party (think tea party mid-60's style).  Nixon applied the the thumbscrews to Wallace after the `68 election (actually misused the IRS - assigning 75 agents to curry comb Wallace/immediate-extended family/audit every business that signed a contract with the State of Alabama while Wallace was governor - found dirt on George's brother and Wallace agreed not to run 3rd party in `72 - was shot while campaigning as a Dem, Maryland Primary).
Nixon & other cynical Big Govvers instituted the Southern Strategy - `law & order' `silent majority' `Country being stolen by lazy bums & godless radicals' - Nixon & Company swept up all of Wallace's white trash, whites only, snake handling bible beating know-nothing DEMS into the Republican party - this was an infection that took, complimented by the already extant Bircher & proto-rapturist cohort.

Now, the movie I'd make about slavery would be purely a `legitimate rape' by owner miscegenation loop for the jizz swabbers.  By 1850, there were so many `high yellow offspring, in Virginia, fathered by the landed/elected gentry that attempts to pass a `one drop rule' (any african bloo ...


Thanks for getting that - it's a like a pesky fly, all those republicans shamed and desperate for self-esteem who forget all the southern democrats became the republican party - because once slaves had rights, the idea of a direct representative government got a LOT less attractive, since now it meant everyone not just the white landed gentry.

It's all in the names, honestly, those interested in the republic back then were "liberals" who thought enlightened elected representatives should govern, and democrats were white landed owners who didn't want to dilute their voice - as long as it confined to them

With a little obvious backdrop like that, its no longer a mystery, and for godsake, the current Republicans had NOTHING to do with ending slavery - they were the "democratic party" back then rooting for all the power to stay with whites.
 
2014-03-11 01:36:44 AM  

bughunter: Mr T is growing weary with this shiat.

[img.fark.net image 500x346]



Well, let's face it.  He's got a lot of people to pity, and that does make one weary after a while.
 
2014-03-11 01:48:15 AM  

inclemency: MrSteve007: While there certainly were terrible slave owners (and the simple fact that slavery in itself is terrible), there were many cases where freed slaves stayed with the previous "owners" by choice, as paid servants.

But lets not let that get in the way of a good internet argument!

I pray you're trolling.

Either way, you are a vile specimen.


I don't want to kill your faith in humanity, but he wouldn't be the first Farker I favorited as "slavery apologist," nor is the first thread in which a Farker earned that sobriquet.
 
2014-03-11 02:09:49 AM  
Are all conservative congenital whiners?
 
2014-03-11 02:10:49 AM  

CheetahOlivetti: FTA: If ever in slavery's 250-year history in North America there were a kind master or a contented slave, as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen does not want us to hear about it.

Wow. And of course there is a Hannity pop-up telling us to pay for and support this garbage.


There was a pop up?  I must have missed it.
 
2014-03-11 02:21:20 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

[img.fark.net image 575x899]


so you decided to go with pre-emptive self pity?  interesting choice.
 
2014-03-11 02:24:32 AM  

Prey4reign: SecretAgentWoman: I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.

I can just picture him putting down his brandy snifter he had just sipped his Hennesey from, straightening out his smoking jacket and puffing on his meerschaum pipe before his typed that out on his keyboard.


You left out the 12 year old boy...
 
2014-03-11 02:29:19 AM  

WI241TH: This guy got a writing gig?


that dude is obviously a liberal plant
 
2014-03-11 02:30:00 AM  
It's always amusing when the racist Re