It’s the implication that people are better off as slaves that makes this disgusting. There is no need to add this. Why not go after LBJ’s socialist policies towards poverty?
The truth, as outlined in the pledge, is that they were more likely to be in a two parent family during slavery than today.
You obviously want to read more into it than is there.
Your freedom to do so, but it's simply a reflection on your need to be offended.
I don’t see that implication at all. I think its a straight forward factual comparison of the black “family” , its erosion, culminating in the Obama era failures.
Its not about success or getting ahead, its describing a tragic failure in the family.
People whose first reaction is how politically incorrect a statement is disgust me. Slavery was disastrous and a monstrous evil, but a black family suffering under its yoke was less likely to be broken up than in the environment created by their own leaders.
It is an accurate observation, and you people who are allowing the hyperventilating leftists any credibility on this are as much part of the problem as they are. The implication is your own. If there is any racism it is hanging around your own neck.
The most dangerous place in America is in the womb, and if the womb happens to be black your chance of survival is low, your chance of survival and being raised by your mother and father is a long-shot. One was better off in the womb of a slave than in the womb of a black woman in this socialist run country with a planned parenthood down the block. You may loath slavery, and you should, but you should despise the socialist genocidal plantation even more.
I interpreted the message to be “It was so terrible under slavery and families were split up by force. Even so, a black boy born under black slavery was more likely to have a father than a black boy born under a black President today. WTH happened?”