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 469
    More: Asinine, Years a Slave, stop and frisk, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Steve McQueen, New York Police Department  
•       •       •

10610 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:22 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.)
 
Displayed 50 of 469 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report