Skip to comments.Ark. GOP Calls Candidates' Statements 'Offensive' (Called Slavery 'A Blessing in Disguise')
Posted on 10/08/2012 9:59:49 AM PDT by lbryce
click here to read article
If you don’t want to be a slave, neither does anyone else. There has never been a redeeming quality to being a slave. Israel being formed is not a positive thing that came out of the Holocaust and neither is blacks in America a positive thing about slavery.
Slavery is wrong....period.
1783? Where do you get that? And slavery is wrong. Get that through your skull.
I, myself, prefer freedom even if I have to live in holes in the ground and steal garbage from the alien elite who might be invited in by the Democrats to take over.
HOW STUPID CAN PEOPLE BE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING AP AND THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE SAYS?
You missed that one big time. Slavery in the United States of America has the same date as the start of the United States of America ~ which is actually 1776 or there abouts ~
Does anyone else remember this guy?: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/out-of-america-by-keith-b-richburg/
See my post #56. Is that who you were recalling?
That is very interesting — northern standard of income for free black labor lower than for southern slaves. I did not know that.
I agree with you on the idea of freedom. But it’s still amazing that so few ex-slaves were willing to move to Africa (Liberia). Remarkably, the ex-slaves did not want to leave the supposedly evil racist America.
Obviously our country was never that bad of a place all along.
Slavery has been an absolute curse on this country. No slavery means there would be no -American in African-American.
“and a Republican state House candidate who advocates deporting all Muslims”
I’m sending tha guy a donation.
And that is precisely the argument being made by some HERE who insist that having BHØ re-elected would be the best thing for 'conservatism' in particular and the nation in general;
Such is the hubris of their adolescent egos;
Such are their childish ideology tantrums that would put their 'purity' preening above the Republic's survival.
< spit >
The Australian women weren’t property that could be raped at will by their owners. Their children could not be taken away from them and sold like cattle. The men could not be castrated and mutilated by owners, or even killed at will the way people slaughter animals.
Just s few of the differences that you have overlooked.
More properly classified as sharecroppers because the massa’ doesn’t care if you starve as long as you pay your “fair share.”
Why is it when I hear ANY politician from Arkansas say anything, I grab my wallet and feel like I need a shower?
That includes the “Huckster.”
People who were captured in the course of slave raids were headed for one of three destinations - (1) North America, (2) South America or (3) Arabia. Given that the captives were going to be slaves one way or another, they were very fortunate to be slaves in the US, because death rates were reputedly in the 90% range for South American- and Arabian-bound slaves, because they were simply worked to death, so ample and easy to obtain was the supply.
There was slavery in the colonies for at least a hundred years’ prior. It doesn’t matter much to slaves who is in charge at the time.
Yes, I was thinking slavery in America which lasted way longer than a century. Technically he’s correct, but it probably didn’t matter to the slaves at the time.
I was about to post that same thing—for black Americans of today, the fact that their ancestors faced the horrors of slavery made them citizens of the greatest country in the world, instead of being citizens of some Third-World nation in West Africa. Doesn’t mean that what that GOP candidate said wasn’t inordinately stupid, though.
Ditto. Well spoken (written?).
Better than being dead. In ancient Greece and Roman times slaves were mostly treated well, room & board etc. Many got their freedom from greatfull owners.
In my case though, I would be the conqueror.
Perhaps tou should more history. It was that bad and worse. Here is an example.
“Convicts who attempted to escape were sent to tiny Norfolk Island, 600 miles east of Australia, where the conditions were even more inhumane. The only hope of escape from the horror of Norfolk Island was a “game” in which groups of three prisoners drew straws. The short straw was killed as painlessly as possible and a judge was then shipped in to put the other two on trial, one playing the role of killer, the other as witness.”
Of course slavery is wrong...but it happened and still happens. We can’t go back in time and change history. WE would not have or own slaves now because we all believe it is wrong, yet we give foreign aid to countries who DO own slaves which is ALSO wrong.
The machines set us free ~ all of us ~ and now they are taking all our jobs!
No. Would you?
No, it is you who have overlooked significant facts. First of all, you have not answered my statement that convicts/deportees were not chattel, could not be treated as property, i.e., raped, castrated, mutilated at will. Second, you did not answer the fact that the children of convicts/deportees were not property that could be sold, continuing for generations. Third, the deportation was a sort of “final solution” to get rid of the convicts, not a flourishing business, like slavery that was the foundation and cornerstone of an empire.
As to your statement about how harsh conditions were on that penal island, I will point out to you that you are overlooking the salient detail that the prisoners were criminals, being punished - however harshly or unjustly, whereas the Africans were foreigners who were innocent people , captured and enslaved for hundreds of years.
It sure wasn’t any kind of blessing for this country. Look what we have now — working taxpayers are the slaves, paying decade after decade of “repamarations” in the form of welfare, etc. And having what we work so hard to earn being taken away from us by force is hardly the only aspect of slavery that’s been “reversed”.
No mention is made either of the slaves' original captors, their fellow blacks from other tribes. They then sold their slaves to the Muslim Arab slave traders.
Can't have any blame cast on blacks or Muslims though, can we?
Okay, I'll bite.
What's your IQ?
The pain you feel today is the strength you'll have tomorrow.
For a politician to talk about slavery, a century and a half after the civil war, with anything remotely resembling a supportive attitude, is dumb beyond belief.
The comparison seems only superficially valid.
One day when the history of the black race on Earth is written, slavery in America will be cited as the greatest single positive contributor to whatever they became. It is their ticket into the modern world and along with it, the opportunity for acceptance and respect.
My IQ? High enough to know white IQs are significantly higher than those of blacks
——They (scholars Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein) also stated that the average IQ of African Americans is 85; Latinos 89; Whites 103; Asians 106
“Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” - Abraham Lincoln, March 1865
Doesn’t refute my point a bit. The truth is what it is. Slavery to America was a better option than certain death at the hands of those who captured you and no longer had a need to have you around. Slavery to America morphed into freedom. The rest will always be a product of these two events.
What would it take for you to willingly become a slave?
Is that right? Well, I want to see if yours is higher than mine.
My IQ is 127. Yours?
The pain you feel today is the strength you'll have tomorrow.
Slavery ended almost a century and a half ago.
Theoretically this may just be an academic question of whether blacks in America are better off today having been enslaved centuries ago. Politically, it's a third-rail issue -- touch it and you're dead.
Any white person in politics defending slavery today is making a major mistake for no good reason.
For conservatives who value individual freedom, arguing for the benefits of even benevolent slavery is foolish. As conservatives, we ought to know that the poorest and most wretched freeman is in a better condition than the most pampered house slave.
Freedom is worth fighting for.
Availability of options when one makes choices determine what these choices are. Like I indicated, there weren't any other options other than death for those whose were shipped to America. No one at the time could foresee that their descendents would be the lucky ones given the opportunities that exist today. This is not defending slavery. This is stating a fact. If you disagree with that fact, state your case. See if you can state it without the "slavery is rotten" argument because you and I both agree that it is.
Your IQ is 127? That’s probably about 40 points too high, based on the quality of your posts.
But it doesn’t matter how low your IQ is. My point was that liberals refuse to discuss white and black IQs. The liberals know it would weaken their case for affirmative action, their fond notion that every minority person is a potential genius struggling to breathe free in the white-run nation.
The good news about IQs is that raw intelligence is not as important as hard work, common sense and ambition. That’s what it takes to succeed in this world. Whites (slackers) can be just as lazy as anyone else.