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

(The American Spectator)   Conservatives are upset that 12 Years a Slave didn't represent a 'kind master or a contented slave'... because you know... most slaves were happy   (spectator.org ) divider line 180
    More: Asinine, Years a Slave, stop and frisk, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Steve McQueen, New York Police Department  
•       •       •

10665 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:22 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-03-10 03:55:24 PM  
18 votes:
If ever in slavery's the Holocaust's 250-year 5 year history in North America Germany there were a kind master Camp Commandant or a contented slave Jew , as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen Spielberg does not want us to hear about it.

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

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

Apparently one of the ways of justifying having racist slave owners in your family tree is by saying all the slaves loved their masters and were treated so nice.
2014-03-10 06:41:24 PM  
8 votes:
Remember that time when a slave owner sent a letter to his former slave, asking him to come back to the South with his family and work for him again? The letter that was sent back in reply was Epic beyond comprehension.

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865

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

Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson
2014-03-10 04:09:47 PM  
8 votes:
hint: if you're defending slavery, you're a farking racist.
2014-03-10 04:05:16 PM  
7 votes:

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


Wait... this was written by a freedom-loving conservative?  How can someone that eats and breathes freedom 24/7 ever desire to hear a good thing about placing humans in bondage?  Why do they feel the need to defend every f*cking reprehensible character simply because they weren't agitating for change in society?
2014-03-10 04:05:06 PM  
7 votes:
So, I'm guessing if Bowman and crew could find one kind slavemaster or one contented slave in the history of American slavery, that would make the diseased and rotten edifice of slavery okay?  What would these revisionists have McQueen do, stray away from Northrup's narrative to create the anti-version of slavery -- a plantation where the slaves were treated with dignity and never mistreated and never having offspring sold off to other slaveowners and where all the slaves went to bed peacefully each night, well fed and rested for another voluntary day of paying for their keep?

Who besides kooks like Hanitty would even believe such an alternate universe existed?
2014-03-10 04:06:22 PM  
6 votes:
See, there are some pretty obvious differences between slavery as practiced in the U.S. a century and a half ago and today's "prison population"

Sure there are differences. Just like there were differences between slavery and the child labor sweatshops running in New England at the time, but they were both abhorrent and not something we should celebrate.
2014-03-10 04:57:20 PM  
5 votes:
Hi! Mind if I kidnap your daughter and keep her against her will for the rest of her life? I promise that I'll be really nice to her!
2014-03-10 04:22:24 PM  
5 votes:
Will Solomon's own words condemn me for sharing them?

img.fark.net
2014-03-10 04:07:10 PM  
5 votes:
and kids used to love working in coal mines,
wives used to love being owned by their husbands,
dont get me started with how much whores love working in brothels and being concubines
2014-03-11 10:04:07 AM  
4 votes:

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.
2014-03-10 07:34:20 PM  
4 votes:

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


You know that image is a photoshop, right?

Byrd publicly disavowed White Nationalism over 30 years ago, and his voting record supported that. You're going to have to find a better "but-but-but" when Conservatives still have publications like American Spectator running around.
2014-03-10 06:47:05 PM  
4 votes:

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


Grandpa bobo, tell us one more time about the fairy tale where the Southern Strategy never occured, and the Dixiecrats never joined and took over the republican party!
2014-03-10 06:06:17 PM  
4 votes:
MrSteve007:
Yep - that's exactly what I said . . . if you chose to ignore what was written.

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

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

if i kidnap your 2 year old daughter and keep her in isolation for 25 years, does the fact that she wants to stay with me because i'm the only person she knows make it any better?
2014-03-10 05:32:51 PM  
4 votes:

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


Conservative pundit, so, I'm betting against girls.
2014-03-10 04:07:06 PM  
4 votes:
Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged
2014-03-10 03:51:10 PM  
4 votes:
Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?
2014-03-10 09:21:27 PM  
3 votes:

bobothemagnificent: We believe that race is a non-issue


Ignoring the institutional racism ingrained in our socioeconomic and political systems is itself racist. "I don't see race" doesn't help to fix this racism, it's just a feel-good phrase for those who are not on the receiving end of it.
2014-03-10 07:45:58 PM  
3 votes:
Slavery sucks, and was/is a terrible dehumanizing thing. So is working at just about any modern low skill hourly job. You may not get whipped by your master at the fast food restaurant, but then again, your master won't fire you and cause you to miss your rent payment and get evicted because your kids get sick. Basically if you are at the bottom of the social pecking order in any society, prepared to be treated like crap, because humans are exceptional at treating those lesser than them like garbage. It is probably the greatest strength (and horror) of the human race is the ability to dehumanize and use other humans as expendable resources.
2014-03-10 07:34:32 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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



Apparently the 60's never happened in your head.  You're arguing against a party based on what it did 40+ years ago, we're arguing against what a party is doing RIGHT NOW.  See the difference?  No?  That's okay.  I don't really think you could even if you scrunched up your face and thought about it really hard.
2014-03-10 07:28:24 PM  
3 votes:
bobothemagnificent:

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

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

however, AFTER the passage of the civil rights acts, most southern democrats became republicans. jesse helms was a democrat at one time. strom thurmond too. so your digging up a dead democratic senator who apologized up and down for his unfortunate involvement in the KKK 60 years ago, doesn't really bolster your case any, d'you see?
2014-03-10 07:23:41 PM  
3 votes:

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


THEN WHY ARE THEY THE ONES DEFENDING IT TODAY?
2014-03-10 07:15:23 PM  
3 votes:
To all you farkwits saying "Oh but there were some *nice* slave owners who treated their slaves well!"

If they treated their slaves well,

THEY WOULDN'T farkING OWN SLAVES BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE FREED THEM.
2014-03-10 06:18:46 PM  
3 votes:

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

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



from your own link:

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

a lot of white folks in africa back in those days were there?
2014-03-10 05:59:45 PM  
3 votes:
African Americans should just get over the issues of slavery and racism because that happened long ago and we are past that now.

However never forget the War of Northern Aggression because that is a matter of honor.
2014-03-10 05:58:20 PM  
3 votes:
i60.tinypic.com

farm4.staticflickr.com
2014-03-10 05:40:27 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

Just because they couldn't handle life outside of the plantation does not make life inside the plantation enjoyable. It's just familiar. Better the devil you know...
2014-03-10 05:34:38 PM  
3 votes:
There is no suck thing as a kind master or a contented slave.

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


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

Of course the author would find this agreeable, why woudn't he? Think I'll go round up some friends and get him.
2014-03-10 04:43:49 PM  
3 votes:
I...uh...what?  But it was his own farking memoir of the experience.  Should he have written in a dance number with singing animals just to make people feel better about his life?
2014-03-10 04:39:27 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

S

lave owners lived in constant fear of slave revolts.

Anyone wanna guess why the US still dislikes Haiti? You know, the one nation that proclaimed freedom via a slave revolt?
2014-03-10 04:35:09 PM  
3 votes:
i think the GOP should finance a conservative film about slavery called "Lawdy, Massuh Sho Bin Good t'Us."
2014-03-10 04:31:59 PM  
3 votes:
The practice of slavery was, at its nature, dehumanizing and cruel. kindness would be the exception, not the rule.
2014-03-10 04:01:52 PM  
3 votes:

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


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

And let's be honest - compassionate slave owners and content slaves certainly qualify as a minority.
2014-03-10 03:51:50 PM  
3 votes:
I admire this author's testicular fortitude to stand up for slave-owners everywhere.  Now where's the c*nt-punt girl when you need her?
2014-03-10 03:48:29 PM  
3 votes:
FTA: If ever in slavery's 250-year history in North America there were a kind master or a contented slave, as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen does not want us to hear about it.

Wow. And of course there is a Hannity pop-up telling us to pay for and support this garbage.
2014-03-11 09:25:25 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:49:56 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:38:47 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-03-10 10:16:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:14:11 PM  
2 votes:

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


So, it's more akin to a sort of keyboard diarrhea where you can't stop typing once you get started then? Noted. Still neither impressive nor convincing. What I take away from all your efforts is a lot of flop sweat.
2014-03-10 08:37:47 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

why not both?

Did every single slave owner do that?


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

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

It's the conditions that make the crime, not some horseshiat 2 year period the brainwashing is working fine.
2014-03-10 08:15:34 PM  
2 votes:

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

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

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

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


Never underestimate the willful ignorance of a Teabagger.
Ral
2014-03-10 06:59:49 PM  
2 votes:
I'm sure that there indeed were contented slaves and benevolent masters.  That does not, however, mitigate the evil of slavery.  If anything, that makes it all the more horrifying.
2014-03-10 06:51:49 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Not to mention that morons who try to argue that seem to forget the fact that it was conservative Democrats who wanted slavery. Conservative Republicans were on the fence about it, they certainly didn't hate it, and they decried Lincoln for taking "extreme" measures like making slavery illegal in the Union states and allowing his military to free slaves of any plantations they came across. Lincoln was somewhat moderate, very liberal. But don't let any pesky historic facts get in the way of modern-day GOP trying to prove that there's not racism in their midst.
2014-03-10 06:36:31 PM  
2 votes:
A few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.  This is the problem of trying to portray a morality that is 250 years old in this country and longer in other countries.  In many areas of the country, including the North, mind you, people would have paid little to no attention to a single slave and slave owner.  It was common back then.  Not so much as in the North, but there were slaves and slave owners in the North.  Also, people from the South traveled with their slaves to the North all the time prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.  It's very difficult for us to even consider something as morally repugnant as slavery as being commonplace and accepted in society.  The truth is it was at one time.

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

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

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

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

As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another "bash conservatives" thread.  Well liberals, I'll leave you with this image.  Reflect upon it.
img.fark.net
2014-03-10 06:30:31 PM  
2 votes:

AdamK: remember when conservatives were all about compassionate conservatism?


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

And the Digby URL?  http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/post-modern-slavery-by-digby-t o day-amy.html
2014-03-10 06:29:00 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One other thing... under WHAT conditions can keeping another person as a slave be considered "pleasant" for the enslaved?
2014-03-10 06:01:20 PM  
2 votes:

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


You'd be amazed how many people think being annoyed at someone for having a shiatty life is a valid point of view.
2014-03-10 05:59:07 PM  
2 votes:

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


Yeah, like how the Democrats packed the SCOUTUS with a bunch of biased hacks and shot holes in key pieces of the Voting Rights Act so that the South could go back to disenfranchising their black communities.
2014-03-10 05:57:05 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


wait... so you're saying that owning of human beings as property isn't all that bad?
2014-03-10 05:49:13 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

/Sadly, that is NOT hyperbole, I've heard such attitudes articulated more than once.
2014-03-10 05:46:03 PM  
2 votes:
timujin:

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

static01.mediaite.com

"You think it is immoral for the Government to reach into your pocket and rip it from its warm home and claim it for its own property. Money that used to enjoy unfettered freedom is now conscripted to do whatever its new owner tells it to.
Now, I know this is going to be a leap, but you know that sadness and rage you feel about your money?  Well, that's the way some of us feel about people."
2014-03-10 05:37:55 PM  
2 votes:
Just watched this last night for the first time. His first owner didn't seem like a total shiat heel, some of his help were farking horrible but the actual owner could have sucked a whole lot more as evidenced by Michael Fassbenders character. Not sure why you would ever need to white knight slave owners though. Oh wait yes I do know why you would need to, having your own prejudices confronted usually leads to negative emotions and possible questioning of ones beliefs and we can't have that now can we?
2014-03-10 05:37:11 PM  
2 votes:
There's something to be said for the idea that not every moment of every enslaved African-American's life was utter misery and degradation. This doesn't detract from the horror of slavery, it reflects the fact that people are good at finding meaning and happiness in objectively horrible situations. It shows the strength and resourcefulness of slaves that they were able to have any happy times at all. Or to take a totally different example, Anne Frank's story is such a gut-punch because her life ended even as she was making a semblance of a normal adolescent life for herself in that attic.

But yeah, as a rule, fark anyone who talks about slavery being a happy thing in general. Fark them indecorously in their ear.
2014-03-10 05:36:05 PM  
2 votes:
Some slave owners were downright playful with the property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_LaLaurie
2014-03-10 05:34:55 PM  
2 votes:
Just remember kiddies, this isn't what conservatives have been driven to just now; this is what has been at their core all along. This is what they're fighting to protect and even to bring back. This is what they're willing to sacrifice the good of the nation for.

Remember.
2014-03-10 05:33:39 PM  
2 votes:
It's not kind to enslave a person. A kind slave owner wouldn't own slaves for long.
2014-03-10 05:33:03 PM  
2 votes:
If you find yourself thinking

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

you need to take a step back and literally fark your own face.
2014-03-10 05:32:03 PM  
2 votes:

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


I'll give you 3/5 of a point...
2014-03-10 05:09:25 PM  
2 votes:

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

What a cock.


They have the same attitude towards climate change, economics, sicence, etc.  Why are you expecting they would treat history differently than other topics?
2014-03-10 04:52:06 PM  
2 votes:

WI241TH: This guy got a writing gig?


My favorite sentence from that article:

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

Bag of Fail.
2014-03-10 04:47:12 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

Slave owners lived in constant fear of slave revolts.

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


Real Americans traditionally dislike when chattel refuses to remain chattel.
2014-03-10 04:44:53 PM  
2 votes:

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


Didn't Hollywood already do that back in the 1930s?  Gone With The Wind was as much a mythical remembrance of the gentility and kindness of Southerners as it was a grand, sweeping romance (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little).  After all, Scarlet, her dad, Ashley and the rest of the plantation owners were a bunch of refined gentlemen and women and the only awful and evil white Southerner was the overseer everyone seemed to frown on.  It wasn't the stupidity of the plantation set that brought the South to ruin -- it was that demon Sherman and his uncouth and loutish soldiers.  And didn't all the slaves stick around to help Scarlet resurrect Tara?  Oh right, except for the field slaves (not even shown in the movie).  They became pawns in the hands of the likes of the overseer everyone disapproved of who became a carpet bagger.
2014-03-10 04:39:44 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


that reminds me of one of my favorite Onion op-ed pieces, "Child Abuse: How Much is Too Much?"
2014-03-10 04:31:43 PM  
2 votes:
250 years? Aren't we at least 150 short? You think Christopher Columbus was using Spanish labor to find his gold? And if we include sharecropping, we can add another 100 years to that.

I understand why societies in the past used slavery- cheap labor to produce what couldn't be done other wise. Here in North America it was turned into a racial thing. Why THIS part of the argument has to be defended is beyond me.
2014-03-10 04:23:17 PM  
2 votes:
I just want to cockpunch the author for the phrase "We, forsooth!"

What a pretentious ass.
2014-03-10 04:15:24 PM  
2 votes:
Huh. Where are all of our Fark Independents™? One of their fellow conservatives is being called a racist, and surely they cannot stand for that.
2014-03-10 04:13:27 PM  
2 votes:

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


exactly. just as you can explain the holocaust, but you can't defend it.
2014-03-10 04:10:31 PM  
2 votes:
oh, yeah, how's that outreach coming, republicans?
2014-03-10 03:57:17 PM  
2 votes:

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


I could swear certain circles have bemoaned the lack of kind masters and contented slaves ever since American slavery was written about.
2014-03-10 03:56:15 PM  
2 votes:
"And in 'Roots' why didn't they ever show Toby thanking the benevolent men for taking away that mouthful of a moniker and giving him a name so easily found on gift-shop keychains and novelty license plates?"
2014-03-11 11:08:34 PM  
1 vote:
To sum this up and have the last word:

The GOTP is really saying "Slavery might have been really horrible, but that's because you ran away from us. If you knew the truth, you might even like it". Then they bust out Green Eggs and Ham, to illustrate why you should just stay in the box.

/they dont make a lick of sense, but that's the whole point. it's  easy to listen to.
2014-03-11 07:54:32 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Ta-Nashi Coats covered this awhile back. Yes, there were freed blacks who owned slaves. The  reasonthat they owned slaves is important, however. The major reason was simply that this was often the only way to give any kind of emancipation to existing slaves.

By buying up slaves and giving them a haven, you could grant them a modicum of freedom.

I can't find Coats' article (which is a pity), but The Straight Dope has covered it, too:  http://clatl.com/atlanta/benevolent-slavery/Content?oid=1276135

tl;dr: Although some free blacks did, in fact, "own" slaves, the primary purpose was to provide them with a semblance of freedom.

Naturally, this doesn't really line up with the implied narrative that blacks were just as awful as whites and that they systematically subjected their own people to the lash.
2014-03-11 07:27:47 PM  
1 vote:

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!


You mean as opposed to simply starving in the streets?

You're quite right. I wouldn't let that pathetic excuse for an argument get in the way of a good one.
2014-03-11 02:35:32 PM  
1 vote:

InterruptingQuirk: 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


i did RTFT, and i still don't get what you're saying. even if a hundred years from now, people look down upon present-day pet owners for keeping animals in bondage, you cannot compare that hypothetical situation to that of slavery. humans are simply not dogs or cats. and unless we look upon dogs and cats as true equals 100 years from now (in which case rick santorum may be right about marrying a dog), your comparison falls apart.
2014-03-11 02:07:29 PM  
1 vote:

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



Of course not.  All the beatings, dismemberment, rape, tearing families apart.  Those were all misunderstandings.  The goodly Southern Christians would never harm another person, sub-human though they may have been.

/You shouldn't feel guilty about your ancestors being slave owners.  It had nothing to do with you.
//You should be ashamed about being a raging racist POS.
2014-03-11 02:05:42 PM  
1 vote:

Latinwolf: sobriquet by any other name: "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.

That's the libertarian point of view on the matter, it wasn't so bad, it was just business as usual at the time.


Thanks, I really don't like the lolbertarian point of view. Maybe that's because i'm not a self-centered ayn rand fart huffing child, or maybe it's because i've got a heart. Their pick.
2014-03-11 12:18:07 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:23:27 AM  
1 vote:

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 02:43:35 AM  
1 vote:

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 02:30:00 AM  
1 vote:
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 01:29:35 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:30:29 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:24:34 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:23:32 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:19:49 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:05:03 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:00:54 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-03-10 11:50:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:49:45 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:44:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:40:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:38:16 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:33:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:33:07 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:24:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:20:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:11:26 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:10:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:06:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:48:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 09:53:47 PM  
1 vote:

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

Their income was taxed at 100%.


And look how hard they worked, too. When you tax the poor at a high rate, they'll be forced to work harder.
2014-03-10 09:35:29 PM  
1 vote:

Flab: grumpfuff: Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids

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

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


While I got a chuckle, no, that's not the route I was going for either.
2014-03-10 09:32:10 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

What was that you were saying about glass houses?

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

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


No one has made that claim.
2014-03-10 09:17:28 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Yes, douchebag.

No person should ever own another.  Is that all you want someone to say?
2014-03-10 09:17:11 PM  
1 vote:

Meesterjojo: my people built their pyramids


I'm sorry, but gtfo of here with that shiat. Slaves didn't build the pyramids.
2014-03-10 09:15:15 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

What was that you were saying about glass houses?
2014-03-10 09:12:46 PM  
1 vote:
bobothemagnificent:

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

Let them mourn.  They aren't lynching white people.
2014-03-10 09:05:41 PM  
1 vote:

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

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

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

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

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

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

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


Christ man.  What in the world gives you some kind of satisfaction in posting garbage like this?  Do you really think people buy this stuff?  Do you really think people in general are  thatdim?  What kind of sick person would post something like that for sport?
2014-03-10 08:55:48 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


Your response shows that you are indeed ignorant of the "Southern Strategy".
2014-03-10 08:54:14 PM  
1 vote:

bobothemagnificent: The modern day conservative movement is not racist.


Their responses to Nelson Mandela dying really showed that.
2014-03-10 08:52:50 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Ummm... they were, have you not read their reasons for secession?
2014-03-10 08:35:06 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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


You're way off the deep end, aren't you? You're trying desperately to get some foothold, it appears, with a great mess of tangential "but I know stuff!" that is considerably more tedious than it is relevant. It's nice and all that you dredge up these fun "facts", but a blurring gob of text like that doesn't win you any points. "Hey, I disagree with this fellow, but, my, he certainly knows his shiat!" -- Uh, no. Not going to happen. No-one is impressed.
2014-03-10 08:33:22 PM  
1 vote:
Ugh, so tired of this bullshiat.  I wish people would stop exaggerating about THE OTHER SIDE when it comes to politics.
2014-03-10 08:26:38 PM  
1 vote:

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


Nice strawman you got there.
2014-03-10 08:25:45 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


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

I am by no means advocating slavery, it sucked. I just think we need to move beyond the sins of our great-great-great-grandfathers and focus on our own sins.
2014-03-10 08:23:16 PM  
1 vote:

scottydoesntknow: Apparently


The slaves loved their master, just like 100% of the North Koreans love the porker in charge.
2014-03-10 08:21:48 PM  
1 vote:
"A wedding is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not argue and bicker over who killed who."

What good reason is there for trying to downplay the horrors of slavery? I used to get this stuff from my father (who was from Louisiana) when I was a kid. "Uncle Tom's Cabin was propaganda. People didn't beat their slaves, they were valuable property! But my father was extremely racist. He only had one black friend that I knew of, and "Roscoe's not like the others."
2014-03-10 08:17:03 PM  
1 vote:

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


Oh yes they would - but you'd get shot instead of "endin' up a rebel kneegro"
2014-03-10 08:10:52 PM  
1 vote:
bobothemagnificent: few points here.  1st, the article is trying to point out that not every single slave owner that ever lived was as how they are usually portrayed in Hollywood.  In reality, and history DOES back this up, there were many slave owners that were just the opposite of what you see in Hollywood.

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

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

why not both?
2014-03-10 07:44:35 PM  
1 vote:

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

THEN WHY ARE THEY THE ONES DEFENDING IT TODAY?


The former Confederacy was solidly Democratic until national Democratic leaders in the 1940s and 1960s embraced civil rights for blacks, which eroded support for Democratic presidents in the South and inspired Richard Nixon and later Republicans to consciously appeal to these lifelong Democratic voters to vote Republican for president, which they did. Southerners were slower to actually give up their Democratic identity and it wasn't until the 1990s that Southern congressional delegations and state offices were flipped Republican en masse.
2014-03-10 07:41:00 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

as for both parties, while i'm sure you're correct, i would wager that 98 percent of the country's racists self-identify as conservative republicans. so you're comparing a grain of sand to the sahara desert.
2014-03-10 07:40:05 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


That's nothing.  My step-father's family owns thousands of acres in southern Alabama, and a small black family lives on that land.  That black family is, as a matter of fact, the indentured descendants of the original slaves who worked on that land.  They get payed to help with the crops and are treated generously by the family, but as far as anyone in the family is concerned, the civil war never happened.
2014-03-10 07:38:40 PM  
1 vote:

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

2014-03-10 07:36:55 PM  
1 vote:
2014-03-10 07:36:12 PM  
1 vote:
2014-03-10 07:35:09 PM  
1 vote:

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

You know that image is a photoshop, right?

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


don't bother - the more i think about it, the more i realize that he's a troll. nobody can be that ignorant.
2014-03-10 07:34:40 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

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

stickerish.com

Yet in both regions, Democrats still voted FOR the CRA at a higher rate than Republicans.
Sorry, try again.
2014-03-10 07:24:58 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


You seem rather defensive about this.

Let me pose you a question. Which party would have more to lose by actively eschewing the racist elements in its voting base?
2014-03-10 07:16:34 PM  
1 vote:

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


It seems something like Stockholm Syndrome.
2014-03-10 07:14:43 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

But it those Democrats (who are the real racists anyway) that are the problem somehow, amiright?
2014-03-10 07:14:38 PM  
1 vote:

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

Their income was taxed at 100%.

And yet they still worked, proving Laffer wrong.


Well, it helped that there was no minimum wage to penalize the job creators.
2014-03-10 07:08:51 PM  
1 vote:

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


Oh look, it's someone who doesn't know anything about history.
In a nutshell: during that time the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats were conservative.
The parties didn't become even close to what they are now until well into the 1930s.
2014-03-10 07:06:00 PM  
1 vote:
"Contend slave"/"Kind master" seems like "the exception that proves the rule."
2014-03-10 07:05:42 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

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


Apparently you have no clue what the word "liberal" means. Otherwise it's a nice screed against imaginary foes though, you play the victimized conservative well.
2014-03-10 07:03:19 PM  
1 vote:

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


Nicely said.
2014-03-10 07:03:13 PM  
1 vote:

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

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865

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

Sir,

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Anderson
2014-03-10 07:02:57 PM  
1 vote:
Up for Inglorious Basterds II, where they go after the scum on American's own shore, and throw in a few scenes for all those racist agitprop mechanics -- something that might even elicit a little empathy as they watch their fellow "news reporters" turn into meat sauce.
2014-03-10 06:57:57 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


I don't want to alarm you, but that was 50 years ago. You may need to get out moar.
2014-03-10 06:54:16 PM  
1 vote:
There needs to be a bingo sheet of people getting defensive when there's a discussion about slavery in the United States

"Most slaves were happy"

"Africa started it"

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

"Civil War was over states rights"

"Whites were slaves In America, too"
2014-03-10 06:50:48 PM  
1 vote:
Hey I will keep you as a slave but because I won't beat or rape you its OK right?  Morons.
2014-03-10 06:36:48 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Apparently those historians do. Whatever that has to do with trying to whitewash American slavery is beyond me, though. I seriously doubt anyone on the internet would be so callous as to intentionally throw out a red herring to distract from the actual topic.
2014-03-10 06:28:41 PM  
1 vote:

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

[img.fark.net image 575x899]

Wow; not a single response.

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


Fine, I'll handle it.  Highlight the last line instead.  "If only everyone was as nice as this guy, this horrible and soul crushing institution would a institution that was less (but certainly still) horrible and soul crushing.
2014-03-10 06:27:02 PM  
1 vote:
Hmm, that headline sounds unbelievable. No, like I literally do not believe you.

i.imgur.com

Ah, yeah, not "conservatives" but "one dude on some blog somewhere".
2014-03-10 06:24:27 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


A more scholarly link, with footnotes, even:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_d id _they_exist.html
2014-03-10 06:21:27 PM  
1 vote:

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

Their income was taxed at 100%.


And yet they still worked, proving Laffer wrong.
2014-03-10 06:20:26 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Also correct, sadly.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2821/before-the-civil-war-w er e-some-slave-owners-black
2014-03-10 06:17:05 PM  
1 vote:
Even a kind master and content slave is a dehumanizing and clearly exploitive situation.  As much as some people seem to honestly believe it, there is no racial sub-species of humanity that are better off being controlled and appropriated. No amount of reversing the clock or societal/economic/technological gap will ever justify or excuse the level of exploitation.
2014-03-10 06:08:46 PM  
1 vote:

bughunter: Mr T is growing weary with this shiat.

[img.fark.net image 500x346]


Weary of. Irritated with.
2014-03-10 06:07:09 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

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

My mom had no qualms in calling him out as a racist douchebag and neither do I. The further away you get, the easier it should be to denounce their actions. Doesn't excuse people in their 20s-50s from defending it though.
2014-03-10 06:00:11 PM  
1 vote:
Am I the only one thinking of Granny Cuyler from "Squidbillies" in the episode where it's revealed that she was a slave? This article reminded me a HELL of a lot of that episode, lol.
2014-03-10 05:59:54 PM  
1 vote:

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


i was aware that tribes sold their enemies into slavery in west africa, which is of course abhorrent. but he was implying that american blacks owned slaves.
2014-03-10 05:57:02 PM  
1 vote:
Back in 2009, I got into an argument here on Fark with a Farkette named TheDumbBlonde, who defended the conditions of slavery, before finally admitting that she came from "a long line of slaveowners" in Virginia and Barbados.

The denialism of Southerners about the horrors of slavery continues today.
2014-03-10 05:55:07 PM  
1 vote:

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


It was never really "outreach" as it was "striking distance".
2014-03-10 05:54:20 PM  
1 vote:

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


AND helping him save money on shoes.
2014-03-10 05:53:38 PM  
1 vote:

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


Oh, this rabbit hole goes far, far deeper, my friend.
2014-03-10 05:50:26 PM  
1 vote:

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


Just like to point out that that movie took place during reconstruction. Uncle Remus wasn't a slave.
2014-03-10 05:48:24 PM  
1 vote:

lockers: Is this what conservatives have been reduced to?


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

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

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

Well, zippety-farking-doo-dah.
2014-03-10 05:46:54 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


The sad thing is I wouldn't even be a little surprised if someone actually did this.
2014-03-10 05:45:33 PM  
1 vote:

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


and as it might be tough to find african-american actors to star in such a film, it might be necessary to have white actors made up to look like african slaves... "blackface," if you will.
2014-03-10 05:45:05 PM  
1 vote:

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


Wasn't that "Song of the South?"
2014-03-10 05:44:59 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Yes, let's talk about sharecropping, shall we?
2014-03-10 05:43:18 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


A musical, perhaps?
2014-03-10 05:38:31 PM  
1 vote:

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

What a cock.


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

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

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

/teach the 'happy slaves' controversy
2014-03-10 05:32:31 PM  
1 vote:
This asshat needs to spend a few decades toiling under the lash.

If he likes it, he can stay there.
2014-03-10 05:30:53 PM  
1 vote:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick

/these f*ckers have come completely unhinged


It's this kind of shiat that is making me narrow where I want to end up in journalism, exactly. Because, frankly, if I had to get assigned to cover some diarrhea-spewing Republican twit, I'd likely open any interviews by beating said twit with the largest blunt object available.
2014-03-10 05:26:36 PM  
1 vote:
misfit120.files.wordpress.com
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay.  My oh my, what a wonderful day!
2014-03-10 05:16:40 PM  
1 vote:
have any of the usual fark independents™ popped in to defend this piece of shiat yet? they seem strangely silent.
2014-03-10 04:57:33 PM  
1 vote:
I love the condescension this clown has for the history profession. "Oh, sure, this historian says it's representative of the period, and that professional academic who studies this stuff agrees, and all the rest of the profession accepted it as a reasonably representative depiction of slavery in the US south, but f*ck them. I'm some piece of sh*t racist movie critic and it's painfully obvious that I know better than those snooty ivory-tower elites who value facts and evidence over my inherent biases and prejudices."

What a cock.
2014-03-10 04:56:47 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


I wonder if this person has ever uttered those famous conservative words, "Taxation is slavery"?
2014-03-10 04:52:37 PM  
1 vote:
Lordy Lordy Massa! Das a fine article dat is!

*Throws up*
2014-03-10 04:50:29 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/12 /i s-sugar-production-modern-day-slavery.html
2014-03-10 04:46:52 PM  
1 vote:
this has to be satire or a hack by some liberal group. this cannot be real.
2014-03-10 04:39:38 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


All these Farklibs afraid of people asking questions...tragic.
2014-03-10 04:34:33 PM  
1 vote:

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


No, see, it's totally cool to have someone completely in your power as long as you're nice to them. It's not like anything can go wrong at all under such a system. Plus if you're mean to your slaves the other slave owners won't let you sip mint juleps on their porches, so the market corrects these things.
2014-03-10 04:26:52 PM  
1 vote:
Sorry guys, but no matter how hard you try, you're not going to white-wash slavery.
2014-03-10 04:22:43 PM  
1 vote:

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


Their owners probably had to.  Which means the slaves were really living under socialism.  Because that's how bad socialism is.  It's just like slavery.
2014-03-10 04:11:45 PM  
1 vote:

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


Why not?  I can understand explaining slavery but not defending slavery.
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report