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  
•       •       •

10612 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:22 PM (29 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
 
2014-03-11 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 Republicans start going "but but but Lincoln!"

Lincoln was a racist.  He was more vocally racist than today's Republicans, but in some ways I doubt he was any more racist than most of them.

But don't take my word for it, take Abraham Lincoln's words:

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

Abraham Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858


There's your "but we're not racists" card.  See how stupid you look?
 
2014-03-11 02:30:59 AM

SweetSaws: "I can't wait to see Bowman's defense of Darth Vader. Just kidding, Vader's black." - from the comments :D


Vader was a Regan conservative.
 
2014-03-11 02:43:35 AM

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist.

img.fark.net

You cannot compare the modern day conservative movement to anything that occurred 250+ year ago.

weknowmemes.com

 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".

img.fark.net

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.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-11 02:52:31 AM

Gyrfalcon: 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.


That paragraph just reminded me why I became a vegetarian.
 
2014-03-11 02:53:35 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged


American conservatives have been huffing their own farts for 40 years. They're out of their minds at this point.

DarkVader: Lincoln was a racist. He was more vocally racist than today's Republicans, but in some ways I doubt he was any more racist than most of them.


As I've said there are all sorts of characters in the mad fever swamps of history. Some of them covered in filth struggled to pull the ship of humanity some small distance out. I'd rather judge on the direction they went not the situation they were in.
 
2014-03-11 02:55:25 AM

Meesterjojo: 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're an idiot.

And not because there isn't a problem with underpaid workers in some places.

You're an idiot because you're comparing being paid bad wages with actually being owned as a piece of property.

And you're an idiot because you're just plain flat out wrong.  The iStuff workers are getting about $700/month in base salary, plus overtime.  And yes, you can buy a meal with the hourly, not daily wage.  In the US, you'd be dirt poor, of course the cost of living in China is less expensive than the US.
 
2014-03-11 03:23:27 AM

gibbon1: DarkVader: Lincoln was a racist. He was more vocally racist than today's Republicans, but in some ways I doubt he was any more racist than most of them.

As I've said there are all sorts of characters in the mad fever swamps of history. Some of them covered in filth struggled to pull the ship of humanity some small distance out. I'd rather judge on the direction they went not the situation they were in.


My point, very simply, is that the Republicans are trying to claim they aren't racists based on a President 150 years ago who, while he managed to end the crime against humanity known as slavery in this country, he was absolutely an unapologetic racist.

They chose to drag him into this, they chose to bring it out of the historical context by using him to make a point today by calling themselves the "party of Lincoln", and now they can live with the consequences of that decision.

Yes, they're the party of Lincoln, which makes them the party of racism.

Abraham Lincoln was a racist.

"There is an unwillingness on the part of our people," Lincoln told them, "harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.... I do not propose to discuss this, but to propose it as a fact with which we have to deal.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."  - Abraham Lincoln, 1862, suggesting free blacks emigrate to Africa, Haiti or Central America.

The "party of Lincoln" is the party of racism.
 
2014-03-11 03:36:23 AM

Langdon_777: Gyrfalcon: 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.

That paragraph just reminded me why I became a vegetarian.


???

Oh....

Took me a minute. Well, feel free to borrow and amend as needed.
 
2014-03-11 03:51:28 AM

DarkVader: Abraham Lincoln was a racist.

"There is an unwillingness on the part of our people," Lincoln told them, "harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.... I do not propose to discuss this, but to propose it as a fact with which we have to deal.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862, suggesting free blacks emigrate to Africa, Haiti or Central America.

The "party of Lincoln" is the party of racism.


That doesnt convince me Lincoln was racist.  Only that he believed it would be better to be separated than immediately begin a desegregated society- at that time.  And he may have been right.  We know what happened and can only speculate on what may have otherwise happened.

What else have you got suggesting Lincoln was overtly racist in policy?

/I'm somewhat familiar with the writings of Frederick Douglass.  He mentions working  amicably with Lincoln even when they didnt agree on issues.  Is that the behavior of a racist?
 
2014-03-11 04:10:40 AM

Frederick: DarkVader: Abraham Lincoln was a racist.

"There is an unwillingness on the part of our people," Lincoln told them, "harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.... I do not propose to discuss this, but to propose it as a fact with which we have to deal.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862, suggesting free blacks emigrate to Africa, Haiti or Central America.

The "party of Lincoln" is the party of racism.

That doesnt convince me Lincoln was racist.  Only that he believed it would be better to be separated than immediately begin a desegregated society- at that time.  And he may have been right.  We know what happened and can only speculate on what may have otherwise happened.

What else have you got suggesting Lincoln was overtly racist in policy?

/I'm somewhat familiar with the writings of Frederick Douglass.  He mentions working  amicably with Lincoln even when they didnt agree on issues.  Is that the behavior of a racist?


I see you missed the other Lincoln quote I posted.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man. "

Abraham Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

And you're suggesting that a policy of "separate but equal" might have been the best policy?  The South tried that.  It was a really horrible mess.

Oh, and since you brought it up, let's see what Frederick Douglass had to say about Lincoln:

"He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country."

The "party of Lincoln" is the party of racism.
 
2014-03-11 04:45:38 AM

DarkVader: I see you missed the other Lincoln quote I posted.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man. "

Abraham Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858


Whew...that one is much more damning.

DarkVader: "He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country."


Yes, I'm familiar with that quote.  The bolded part is the point Douglas was making though.  Lincoln, according to Douglas, progressed favorably beyond that stance later.  I believe Douglass was ultimately favorable of Lincoln.

Furthermore, I personally believe, Lincoln would have progressed even more favorably on the issue if allowed.  He was not an ignorant or insensitive person.  And I believe logic would have prevailed with his policies.
 
2014-03-11 08:38:49 AM

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!



So once they were free to go and were paid for their work they stayed. Sounds like "not being a slave" agreed with them.
 
2014-03-11 08:47:11 AM
Liberals seem perfectly content to be slaves. Whatchu talking about Willis? You certainly don't think Americans should have freedom.
 
2014-03-11 09:22:21 AM
moogov.com
 
2014-03-11 09:25:25 AM

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.


If you're talking about the Tea Party, that's flatly un-true.  I'll grant there are SOME genuine fiscal conservatives in the mix, but most are whining about financial policies under Obama that they cheered for under Bush.

We've even got Republican senators ON TAPE complaining about "Obama's bank bailout"....which happened on Bush's watch, and THEY VOTED FOR.

When the only policy difference is the color of the guy involved...it sure SMELLS like racism.

The other option is serious brain damage, and that's not really much of an improvement...
 
2014-03-11 09:31:02 AM

sobriquet by any other name: (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.


www.battlestargalactica.us

Indeed.
 
2014-03-11 09:35:13 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.

This is the biggest problem in American politics today -- people who believe that people are "one or the other", and politicians are all mindless automatons performing the will of their "party".  To champion such simple-minded thought makes a person look ignorant, and is contrary to the plight of all who are desperately trying to dispel that fallacy.  Politics is rife with nuance.  All Democrats are not Liberals.  All Republicans are not Conservatives.  And there is a giant swath of non party-affiliated people who believe in certain ideals from both ideologies. 

And lastly -- Abraham Lincoln was a great, free-thinking man who was way ahead of the current times when it came to his political policy. He was not afraid to challenge his colleagues to reject antiquated thought.  The Republican Party of yore does not even come close to mirroring what the Republican Party espouses today.
 
2014-03-11 09:50:51 AM

MooOnYou: [moogov.com image 400x299]


I know it's late in the thread, but that made me laugh.

Good job.
 
2014-03-11 10:02:50 AM
It may well be that for the most part, slaves weren't mistreated.  Not saying there weren't some that were.

Thing of it is, if you want a career as a victim, saying your slave ancestors were happy doesn't add to your victim credentials.

I just found out I had ancestors who owned slaves in Maryland.  I shrugged.  So what?  I don't feel guilty.

/lifelong yankee
//we should've picked our own cotton
 
2014-03-11 10:04:07 AM

CanisNoir: 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.


i'm not asserting that republicans in general are racist. i am however asserting that the vast majority of racists are republican.
 
2014-03-11 10:12:46 AM
"Freedom" is the greatest lie of all. No bills, few decisions to make, meals taken care of...they were happy.
 
2014-03-11 10:44:49 AM

doubled99: "Freedom" is the greatest lie of all. No bills, few decisions to make, meals taken care of...they were happy.


Aren't you a bit late to be trolling the thread?
 
2014-03-11 12:18:07 PM

Miss Alexandra: It may well be that for the most part, slaves weren't mistreated.  Not saying there weren't some that were.

Thing of it is, if you want a career as a victim, saying your slave ancestors were happy doesn't add to your victim credentials.

I just found out I had ancestors who owned slaves in Maryland.  I shrugged.  So what?  I don't feel guilty.

/lifelong yankee
//we should've picked our own cotton


Having exactly zero choice in how to live your life: not being mistreated.  I think it's entirely warranted to say "fark you, you racist piece of shiat" in this particular case.
 
2014-03-11 12:21:13 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: 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 image 278x240]

"We have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago - or Kenya." ~ Jason Thompson

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x937]

"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 image 500x482]

What was that?  I can't hear you over how not-racist modern conservatives are.


Oh and also:

www.idiotsholdingsigns.com
www.idiotsholdingsigns.com
www.idiotsholdingsigns.com
www.idiotsholdingsigns.com

Yeah, no more racism in the conservative camp. Nope nope nope.
 
2014-03-11 12:44:08 PM

ikanreed: Miss Alexandra: It may well be that for the most part, slaves weren't mistreated.  Not saying there weren't some that were.

Thing of it is, if you want a career as a victim, saying your slave ancestors were happy doesn't add to your victim credentials.

I just found out I had ancestors who owned slaves in Maryland.  I shrugged.  So what?  I don't feel guilty.

/lifelong yankee
//we should've picked our own cotton

Having exactly zero choice in how to live your life: not being mistreated.  I think it's entirely warranted to say "fark you, you racist piece of shiat" in this particular case.


I suppose we could look at this from the point of view of PETA. They believe that people should not own slaves pets.

Most slaves pet owners would declare that they take the best of care of their slaves pets, sometimes even better than themselves. Some even treat them like family members, allowing them all the comforts that any other family member are afforded.

Where do we go to acquire slaves pets? To the boutique dealers(slave pet shops), through private dealings(puppy mills), on the open market(dock sales).

Are they allowed to leave? Are they leashed and caged? Are they neutered, spayed, declawed, tail clipped, ears clipped, hair/fur cut by their own choosing? Are they tagged and labeled with the names they are given and trained to answer to that name alone? If they run away, are they tracked down and caught to be returned to their owners by the authorities of the land? Are they forced to breed when they don't want to? Are they prevented from breeding when they want to? Are they wapped on the nose with a rolled newspaper, sprayed with water, held fast by a choke collar? Even slave pet owners that beat their slaves pets if they feel it necessary to rein in their obstinate property.

Considering that most people today share the same mentality towards their pets that slaveowners had towards their slaves. . .and there are all types of pet owners too.

I don't agree with PETA, but mostly because I don't care about pets. I eat animals galore, and therefore don't feel I have the right to say what other people do with the animals they deny liberty to in their own way.
 
2014-03-11 12:52:16 PM

InterruptingQuirk: I suppose we could look at this from the point of view of PETA. They believe that people should not own slaves pets.

Most slaves pet owners would declare that they take the best of care of their slaves pets, sometimes even better than themselves. Some even treat them like family members, allowing them all the comforts that any other family member are afforded.

Where do we go to acquire slaves pets? To the boutique dealers(slave pet shops), through private dealings(puppy mills), on the open market(dock sales).

Are they allowed to leave? Are they leashed and caged? Are they neutered, spayed, declawed, tail clipped, ears clipped, hair/fur cut by their own choosing? Are they tagged and labeled with the names they are given and trained to answer to that name alone? If they run away, are they tracked down and caught to be returned to their owners by the authorities of the land? Are they forced to breed when they don't want to? Are they prevented from breeding when they want to? Are they wapped on the nose with a rolled newspaper, sprayed with water, held fast by a choke collar? Even slave pet owners that beat their slaves pets if they feel it necessary to rein in their obstinate property.

Considering that most people today share the same mentality towards their pets that slaveowners had towards their slaves. . .and there are all types of pet owners too.

I don't agree with PETA, but mostly because I don't care about pets. I eat animals galore, and therefore don't feel I have the right to say what other people do with the animals they deny liberty to in their own way.


Is this trying to highlight that I've been trolled or is this literally "black people are dogs"?
 
2014-03-11 01:04:09 PM

ikanreed: Is this trying to highlight that I've been trolled or is this literally "black people are dogs"?


I don't know what trolling looks like, there are too many genuinely farked up opinions in the world.

I was using the elevated and highly favorable view that some people have for their pets to illustrate the generational gap of misunderstanding taking place. It may be that in a hundred years time, we will all look back and deride and call out all the people that used to be pet owners. I was not using it to lower the status of any human being.
 
2014-03-11 01:16:33 PM
Conservative logic: if one anecdotal piece of evidence contradicts the vast majority of evidence, then there must be a liberal conspiracy behind the "truth"
 
2014-03-11 01:19:03 PM

InterruptingQuirk: ikanreed: Is this trying to highlight that I've been trolled or is this literally "black people are dogs"?

I don't know what trolling looks like, there are too many genuinely farked up opinions in the world.

I was using the elevated and highly favorable view that some people have for their pets to illustrate the generational gap of misunderstanding taking place. It may be that in a hundred years time, we will all look back and deride and call out all the people that used to be pet owners. I was not using it to lower the status of any human being.


I think the pet analogy in no ways states that african decended humanity are dogs, instead it highlights  exactly why it wasn't some case of  "gee their eating and have shelter, what else could some guy want?"

and in that way, it's correct - as we all should know by now, this article was bullshiat.
 
2014-03-11 01:35:36 PM

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.


And nobody ever talks about all the good things that the fascists did, amiright?
 
2014-03-11 01:50:53 PM

InterruptingQuirk: I suppose we could look at this from the point of view of PETA. They believe that people should not own slaves pets.


so... black people are like dogs and cats?

i'm not sure what your point is here.
 
2014-03-11 01:53:34 PM

FlashHarry: InterruptingQuirk: I suppose we could look at this from the point of view of PETA. They believe that people should not own slaves pets.

so... black people are like dogs and cats?

i'm not sure what your point is here.


RTFT
 
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