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 Root)   GOP Congressional candidate: " Basically slave owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock and this kept business rolling along." How's that minority outreach going?   (theroot.com) divider line 362
    More: Dumbass, So Bad, GOP, Jim Harbaugh, Years a Slave, basically, slaves, livestock  
•       •       •

3779 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2014 at 8:52 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-15 04:44:30 PM  
So Tom Lehrer was wrong?
 
2014-03-15 04:51:21 PM  
Oh, Arizona.
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-15 05:47:34 PM  
This flies in the face, of course, of all credible historical accounts, including the recent Academy Award-winning film 12 Years a Slave.

No.
The source material is a credible historical account. The movie is a movie.
 
2014-03-15 05:49:03 PM  
Still not sure how anyone takes today's Republican-Tea Party seriously?


/Reagan must be spinning in his grave
 
2014-03-15 05:50:59 PM  
This never gets old.  These guys are hilarious.
 
2014-03-15 06:06:33 PM  

oldernell: So Tom Lehrer was wrong?


Satirist is wrong, no.

Satirist is satirical, yes.

But you knew that.
 
2014-03-15 06:18:35 PM  
On my mother's side, her great-grandfather was a slave owner.  Records are spotty on how many, but the guy didn't own a palatial plantation, it was just a farm.  Family history/lore has been passed down saying that he was a good guy, and when emancipation happened, the slaves didn't leave, they happily stayed on as employees.

But I'm thinking, where would they have gone, what would they have done?  I'm betting that it happened a lot back then, and the "pay" was food and a place to live...just like they got when they were enslaved.
 
2014-03-15 06:29:12 PM  

Gleeman: Still not sure how anyone takes today's Republican-Tea Party seriously?


/Reagan must be spinning in his grave



Maybe, but I didn't take them seriously back then either.
 
2014-03-15 06:36:22 PM  
What's frightening is that there is nothing these assholes can say that is so stupid, so morally and ethically offensive, that they won't get elected
 
2014-03-15 06:38:00 PM  

Earguy: But I'm thinking, where would they have gone, what would they have done?


i.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-15 06:39:17 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: What's frightening is that there is nothing these assholes can say that is so stupid, so morally and ethically offensive, that they won't get elected


Incorrect.

I'm pretty sure if they started ranting about the White Devil they'd lose their electoral support.
 
2014-03-15 06:49:54 PM  

Earguy: On my mother's side, her great-grandfather was a slave owner.  Records are spotty on how many, but the guy didn't own a palatial plantation, it was just a farm.


If they had the money for slaves it seems extremely unlikely that it was "just a farm".
You wouldn't buy a chainsaw to trim a bonsai
 
2014-03-15 07:28:00 PM  
A slave in any era is an expensive investment.

You have to capture a group of other humans (almost always by force), subdue them in spirit without breaking their bodies, and then keep them in good physical and mental condition to keep working for you in a meaningful way. It's a lot of work and highly skilled people are required at every step to train one up from a prisoner. (Although it's not as hard as you'd think.)

So, a slave fetches a pretty penny and once you'd dropped a lot of gold on something, you try to keep it in good working order. This was true in Rome, true in the Viking times, and was true in America as well. You need your slaves to have enough food and water and some semblance of shelter or they break down and you're left with nothing buy unplanted fields and dead bodies.

Of course slave owners took decent care of them most of the time. That's not what's outrageous about slavery. It's the moral repugnance of the idea you can own another being as property that makes it awful.
 
2014-03-15 07:29:14 PM  
It's been well-documented that the GOP is in the middle of an aggressive rebranding campaign intended to woo African-American voters

It has?  News to me.
 
2014-03-15 07:30:36 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: This flies in the face, of course, of all credible historical accounts, including the recent Academy Award-winning film 12 Years a Slave.

No.
The source material is a credible historical account. The movie is a movie.


Furthermore, he's...kind of right. The vast majority of slave owners were a lot like the vast majority of dog owners: they treated them kindly, fed them according to their physical needs, and didn't work them so much that they wore out. 

He just completely missed that whole 'people aren't livestock, and seeing and treating them as such is one of the most brutal psychological tortures one person can ever inflict on another' thing, along with the whole 'some of them absolutely were crazy-ass bastards like Michael Fassbender's character in the movie, and their friends and neighbors knew it...and didn't do a damn thing to stop them' part.

In fact, his casual focus on the one but not the other actually recreates the passive indifference of the latter example. Irony?
 
2014-03-15 07:40:11 PM  
And I hear commandants at the concentrations camps maintained meaningful personal relationships with the Jews there.  A Nazi told me that, so it's got to be true.
 
2014-03-15 07:41:42 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's been well-documented that the GOP is in the middle of an aggressive rebranding campaign intended to woo African-American voters

It has?  News to me.


Well, a black guy said it:

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-03-15 07:47:14 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
"Now, come on, boys! Where's your spirit? I don't hear no singin'. When you was slaves, you sang like birds. Go on, how 'bout a good ol' ██████ work song?"
 
2014-03-15 07:47:56 PM  
How did Arizona become the most racist state?  Even the south was for MLK day.
 
2014-03-15 07:55:48 PM  
Didn't the Duck Dynasty guy say basically the same thing?
 
2014-03-15 07:57:42 PM  
Actually, most slave owners had only a few and they usually treated them decently. Much like people today want their equipment working when they need it, they would have been foolish to severely mistreat a slave, especially to the point where one could not work. Like most things historical, slavery was not black and white but shades of grey; some were treated horribly, some were treated like family but most were treated somewhere inbetween. Otherwise there would have been more slave uprisings. Blacks were free in the North but hardly equal; most were housekeepers, servants and other menial laborers. Few obtained "equal" status with the white man.
 
2014-03-15 08:01:48 PM  

Lsherm: How did Arizona become the most racist state?  Even the south was for MLK day.


All the racists from the South went to Arizona.
 
2014-03-15 08:21:05 PM  
If I had a slave, I would treat her well. I would only beat her when she deserved it, just like any other girl. And I'm not racist either. I don't even want a black slave. I want one of those little yellow ones that can get things behind counters and from under tables. I do not understand why you won't allow me any slaves. I wish you would not oppress me.
 
2014-03-15 08:25:01 PM  
It's funny how many people don't grasp the full dynamics of slavery.  Of course there were crazy people doing wild crap to slaves, raping and mutilating and all that.  But think about it: If you relied on a bunch of people you owned to take care of your land and make you money, how utterly stupid would it be to treat them horribly?  I'm not saying they were right, or all saints or some such craziness, I'm just saying you'd have to take a very long hard look at what you were about to do to someone whom you had invested money in and wanted money back for.

And then there's the slave angle.  People point out how slaves ended up staying on after emancipation - well of course they did.  The money, house and food they needed wasn't just gonna pop up and magically appear for them.  I'm sure quite a few at least changed plantations, but getting off of one permanently couldn't have been easy, especially in that environment.  You had to make your way out of the region, in most cases, if you wanted to change completely, and that alone probably cost too much to do.

Of course all of this also needs to include the conversation about regional differences.  Virginia/eastern NC were very different places from the South Atlantic and Deep South, and the Appalachian sections of the South were different on top of that.  They all had different reactions to everything as well; while the Deep South saw it as a privilege to own slaves, the Tidewater region thought of them more as peasants than slaves, and later on the Appalachian areas just didn't like the idea that they were losing work because of the freed slaves, slaves that had never been in their areas before.  So you had all these different dynamics, dynamics that probably still exist in one way or another today.  You can't really make blanket statements about slavery because, plain and simple, it wasn't anywhere near universally looked at, thought of, or reacted to.
 
2014-03-15 08:29:52 PM  
As other posters have noted, this AZ idiot was right about much of what he said -- slaves were viewed as livestock and treated as such.  You don't beat your plowhorse for shiats and giggles.  The worst part of slavery wasn't the occasional beating -- that shiat still happens today in prisons, CIA, Guantanamo, gangs.  The worst part was subjugation of an entire race to livestock status, and to compare entitlements(which can make people dependent) to slavery is just wrong.

And the worst part is that he lacks the common sense to NOT FARKING SAY THAT, even if were to be true.
 
2014-03-15 08:37:03 PM  
Yes, slaves were maybe treated as well as their best livestock. That is probably technically true. But why even mention it or phrase it like that?
 
2014-03-15 08:38:50 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: This flies in the face, of course, of all credible historical accounts, including the recent Academy Award-winning film 12 Years a Slave.

No.
The source material is a credible historical account. The movie is a movie.


The movie is directly based on the main character's diary.  Both the book and/or the movie should be mandatory education curriculum for every kid.
 
2014-03-15 08:41:45 PM  

Mugato: Yes, slaves were maybe treated as well as their best livestock. That is probably technically true. But why even mention it or phrase it like that?


rape of course being much more likely and of course a person could experience humiliation and suffering on so many more levels than a mere beast.
 
2014-03-15 08:42:56 PM  
Well this guy goes to the top of my list for punch-able face.

www.theroot.com
 
2014-03-15 08:55:44 PM  

Gleeman: Still not sure how anyone takes today's Republican-Tea Party seriously?


/Reagan must be spinning in his grave


Reagan can get f*cked with a metal spiked dildo for all eternity.

His bullsh*t Chicago Economics policy is the only thing keeping the GOP from being considered a washed out dinosaur of a party. And it's a TERRIBLE economic policy, based more in fiction than fact.

Reagan was a good actor, and of course by any stretch of the imagination a RINO by todays standards. He was great in the camera, he knew how to connect with the public and make everyone feel good about the country. But his policies themselves were a nightmare.
 
2014-03-15 08:55:55 PM  
So his point was that entitlements are like slavery but slavery wasn't really that bad?
 
2014-03-15 08:56:42 PM  
Thank you, right wingers and teahadists, for handing the Democrats all of the vote except old, scared, white people. We will be truly grateful come super Tuesday, 2016,
 
2014-03-15 08:58:05 PM  
So which one of our amateur historians wants to volunteer for slavery?

They'll treat you like high quality livestock. It'll be great.
 
2014-03-15 08:58:42 PM  
Original Facebook post:

www.theroot.com
 
2014-03-15 09:00:13 PM  
At least he admits that the GOP's ongoing war on education is an attempt to return us to slavery.
 
2014-03-15 09:00:23 PM  

Earguy: On my mother's side, her great-grandfather was a slave owner.  Records are spotty on how many, but the guy didn't own a palatial plantation, it was just a farm.  Family history/lore has been passed down saying that he was a good guy, and when emancipation happened, the slaves didn't leave, they happily stayed on as employees.

But I'm thinking, where would they have gone, what would they have done?  I'm betting that it happened a lot back then, and the "pay" was food and a place to live...just like they got when they were enslaved.


People who could only afford A slave generally treated them well because, well, they only could afford one. If that slave got hurt or died, you were SOL.
 
2014-03-15 09:00:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Original Facebook post:

[www.theroot.com image 670x797]


omfg
 
2014-03-15 09:01:01 PM  
It is likely because a lot of business owners think of their employees as the modern day equivalent of slaves.  Without the beatings and ownership etc...
 
2014-03-15 09:01:44 PM  
Slavery rationalizers on FARK? Goddammit.
 
2014-03-15 09:02:20 PM  
"owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock"

"owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock"

"owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock"
 
2014-03-15 09:03:12 PM  
Ordinarily the only time you hear these arguments are from the Debate Club side who drew the short straw on which side of the Slavery 'debate ' they had to argue for.
 
2014-03-15 09:03:34 PM  
I've read historical accounts (thank you JSTOR) of slaves being treated well and treated horribly. To me, common sense would say a slave owner would do well to treat his slaves decently because buying a slave was like buying a new car in today's dollars. But then I think of the uber rich land owners who could afford to death slaves to death. Still, I would think the average slave owner would want to protect his "investment" as much as possible. Maybe that's what I get for thinking.
 
2014-03-15 09:04:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Original Facebook post:

[www.theroot.com image 670x797]


You know you're on the right side of history when you're white knighting for slavery.
 
2014-03-15 09:05:44 PM  
So keeping another human in deplorable conditions against their will is fine so long as you don't beat them. Good to know
 
2014-03-15 09:06:51 PM  
How hard can this be to understand?

If you're a Republican candidate for office, do not use the following words, or any derivation thereof: rape, slavery, racial epithets, or 'scientifically speaking'.  In fact, you don't even have to internalize this restriction.  Just go to some local university, find someone from the liberal arts department, and hire her to stand behind you at any speaking engagement.  Arm her with a taser and just say that because of Obamacare you can't get treatment for your amazingly frequent bouts of epilepsy.

Sure, expounding upon such subjects may (all right, probably will) win you the primary election.  But there's not even a lot a solid-red districts the guy who says "slavery wasn't so bad" can win in a general.
 
2014-03-15 09:07:47 PM  
I hear the Japanese in the internment camps were allowed to play radios. So, it's all good. We cool?
 
2014-03-15 09:07:51 PM  

TerminalEchoes: But then I think of the uber rich land owners who could afford to death slaves to death.


Man, what a horrible way to go.
 
2014-03-15 09:10:26 PM  

Codenamechaz: So keeping another human in deplorable conditions against their will is fine so long as you don't beat them. Good to know


Hey you got food. What the hell else do you want? Self determination? Education? Legally recognized family and children? Legal rights? Property rights? Inheritance rights? Basic medical care? Not getting raped every time the massah got a little horny?

F*cking entitlement generation....
 
2014-03-15 09:12:03 PM  

doglover: A slave in any era is an expensive investment.

You have to capture a group of other humans (almost always by force), subdue them in spirit without breaking their bodies, and then keep them in good physical and mental condition to keep working for you in a meaningful way. It's a lot of work and highly skilled people are required at every step to train one up from a prisoner. (Although it's not as hard as you'd think.)

So, a slave fetches a pretty penny and once you'd dropped a lot of gold on something, you try to keep it in good working order. This was true in Rome, true in the Viking times, and was true in America as well. You need your slaves to have enough food and water and some semblance of shelter or they break down and you're left with nothing buy unplanted fields and dead bodies.

Of course slave owners took decent care of them most of the time. That's not what's outrageous about slavery. It's the moral repugnance of the idea you can own another being as property that makes it awful.


With race-based slavery the enslaved have a much much harder time escaping the cycle.  The old Roman model on the latifunda or in their mines was brutal like US plantation slavery, but highly trained household slaves had a legit chance at legal emancipation for themselves or for their children.  A field hand in Mississippi could definitely NOT look forward to buying his own freedom if the opportunity presented itself.  an Athenian tutor who'd sold himself as a slave to a rich Roman family definitely could, and sometimes with a large payday at the end.

An ugly institution all around, really.
 
2014-03-15 09:12:13 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 362 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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