republicans tutored on how to talk to black people

BigNBushy said:

Congratulations on buying into the American lie; freedom is all you need. What good is liberty without the capability of striving for your dams? A slave essentially had just as much freedom as a free, poor, white person. A book published in the 1920's or 30's would be a good read for you. I can't give you the name, and I confess to not having read it myself. It was assigned reading in some class I took over the summer in college. The book consists of interviewed former slaves and their stories. I can speak to it's contents without having read it because there was daily discussion on the book for two weeks. They worked frantically at planting and harvest, as did the poor whites. After harvest they mostly had the year off. Poor whites had to hire themselves out, a slave owner could do the same with his slaves, and often did, but following the Mexican model, the poor whites worked harder for less money. Slave owners weren't too keen on risking their investments. Ever look into how expensive slaves were?

Sure, there were evils inherent in that peculiar institution, selling of family members, beatings for disobedience, ect... However, many of those in the book spoke of their treatment. Overwhelmingly they were treated well. Many would get medical attention if needed, something a poor white could not expect. Farmers keep up the practice of treating their farm implements well to this day, you won't hear too many stories of farmers neglecting their combines and tractors, the same held true then.

Racism was different then than it is now. Many, including Thomas Jefferson, were troubled by slavery. The problem was that much of their wealth was tied up in the slaves they held as property. Racism, expressed as hatred, was manifested primarily by the poor. If you were a miserable poor white share cropper, in society you were still better than a slave.

Sure, I am opposed to slavery on moral grounds. But I never enslaved anyone. The impact on me from slavey is that today the country I live in has been burdened with a permanent population of leaches.

Click to expand...

travisw said:

So now you are an expert on slavery because you took a class in summer school. You couldn't be bothered to actually read the book, but you seem to feel fairly confident discussing it after listening to other people, who probably didn't read the book either, talk about it for 2 weeks.

I can't wait to have what's left of my brain cells bludgeoned to death by more of your information fests in the future.

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

How can anyone seriously argue slaves had as much freedom as slave owners?

That is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

People who were shackled, whipped, beat and sold as property had as much freedom as those doing the whipping, shackling, beating and selling?

Are you COMPLETELY retarded?

Click to expand...

Canna Sylvan said:

I have Bignbushy on ignore because he's more annoying than you. But that's not what he said. He's arguing arguing something stupider, that poor people are worse off than slaves. Essentially a twist on wage "slaves." He explained it quite clearly. Which therefore makes you stupider than a retard. Congrats.

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

How can anyone seriously argue slaves had as much freedom as slave owners?

That is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

People who were shackled, whipped, beat and sold as property had as much freedom as those doing the whipping, shackling, beating and selling?

Are you COMPLETELY retarded? How is it possible for a slave, who is PROPERTY not a PERSON, to have as much freedom as the slave owner? Do you understand what slave and owner mean? Do you need to go back to grade 4 and get an ed-u-ma-cation?

slave
slāv/
noun[

• 1.
  a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
  

  synonyms:

  historicalserf, vassal, thrall; More

  
  
  mas·ter[SUP]1[/SUP]
  ˈmastər/
  noun
  • 
    a man who has people working for him, esp. servants or slaves.
    "he acceded to his master's wishes"
    

    synonyms:

    lord, overlord, lord and master, ruler, sovereign, monarch, liege (lord),suzerain More

  
  
  
  
  

How does one simply disregard the fact that slaves were forced into labour? (Often worked to death) Sometimes forced to reproduce, or had their children forcibly torn away from them? What about forced into sexual acts? What about having their wife torn away from them and sold to another slave owner just for the sake of it? How 'free' is that?

You might as well argue that a dog has as much freedom as its owner....


EDIT: LOL, poor slave owners; all their money is tied up in owning people and property.... Maybe, just maybe if they ran their farms like people elsewhere in the world (with paid labourers, or their own family) and weren't lazy, amoral, pieces of shit, all their money wouldn't have been tied up in their 'expensive' slaves.

Those poor slave owners... *sarcasm*

You know it's a choice to purchase slaves, right? They had the option of not investing their money in slaves. People all over the world have been farming without slaves for Millenia....

Man, people are so fucking retarded.

Click to expand...

Canna Sylvan said:

I have Bignbushy on ignore because he's more annoying than you. But that's not what he said. He's arguing something stupider, that poor people are worse off than slaves. Essentially a twist on wage "slaves." He explained it quite clearly. Which therefore makes you stupider than a retard. Congrats.

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

How can anyone seriously argue slaves had as much freedom as slave owners?

That is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

People who were shackled, whipped, beat and sold as property had as much freedom as those doing the whipping, shackling, beating and selling?

Are you COMPLETELY retarded? How is it possible for a slave, who is PROPERTY not a PERSON, to have as much freedom as the slave owner? Do you understand what slave and owner mean? Do you need to go back to grade 4 and get an education
[*]
a man who has people working for him, esp. servants or slaves.
"he acceded to his master's wishes"

How does one simply disregard the fact that slaves were forced into labour? (Often worked to death) Sometimes forced to reproduce, or had their children forcibly torn away from them? What about forced into sexual acts? What about having their wife torn away from them and sold to another slave owner just for the sake of it? How 'free' is that?

You might as well argue that a dog has as much freedom as its owner....


EDIT: LOL, poor slave owners; all their money is tied up in owning people and property.... Maybe, just maybe if they ran their farms like people elsewhere in the world (with paid labourers, or their own family) and weren't lazy, amoral, pieces of shit, all their money wouldn't have been tied up in their 'expensive' slaves.

Those poor slave owners... *sarcasm*

You know it's a choice to purchase slaves, right? They had the option of not investing their money in slaves. People all over the world have been farming without slaves for Millenia....

Man, people are so fucking retarded.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

You should study our history a little. In 1808 congress outlawed the importation of slaves. This marked a massive shift in slavery. Prior to this slaves were fairly cheap. The treatment you described was common in the sugar plantations in brazil and the carribean, where slaves were still cheap.

In the US, they were treated very well, any argument to the contrary rests upon presenting isolated incidents as the norm. Beatings were uncommon for slaves that didn't attempt to escape or did something stupid and disrespected their owner. I'm not saying it makes it right. But for some reason people like to spin it as an arrangement where the slaves were lined up for their daily beating after being worked all day and raped by their master.

Many slave owners didnt buy slaves, they inherited them. If you inherited millions worth of property I doubt you'd be very keen on giving it away either.

And what does it matter if I read the book or not? The professor who directed the discussion read it, as did many of the other students who participated. Were not talking about a technical manual here, listening to a conversation about the book is enough to properly determine an opinion about it's contents with respect to their treatment. I'd be more worried about the 6 or 8 years since then and my memory.
I didn't read it simply because I resented being forced to take an 'African American Studies' class, but wound up finding that book of interest.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

If I ever did anything meeting with your approval then the above statement would hold more truth.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

wasn't there something recently about a slave owner who shit in his slaves mouth for punishment in the news?

Click to expand...

kpmarine said:

So chattel slavery in the 1800's US is not so bad because they only beat and raped some of them after it became too expensive to continue the practice? Never mind the fact your child could be sold off because your child was considered PROPERTY. I don't care how good you're treated, it's still negated by the fact that if you were a slave, then you were considered no more human than a carrot in the eyes of the law.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

So you you're saying a society that en masse abuses their slaves is no worse than one that by and large treats them well? I don't accept that. I'm not saying it was a great thing to do, I'm saying it could have been a lot worse.

Click to expand...

kpmarine said:

When people are property, it doesn't matter whether or not you beat them since it's all an atrocity. It matters not one bit that it could have been worse. That just removes attention from the fact that whether or not they did beat their slaves; they were generally forbidden from building families, practicing religion, not being property, and having basic human rights, among other things. You also ignore the fact that the only reason it wasn't worse was simply because it wasn't economically sustainable any more. Could it be worse? Sure, it could always be worse, but that in no way changes the fact that it was still terrible and shameful otherwise.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

Shameful. To whom? Those who did it are long dead. And anyone alive had nothing to do with it. Those affected by it are long dead, and no one alive today ever had to pick one handful of cotton against their will under a de jure slave system.

The shame you speak of is an emotion implanted by racialists into the psyche of modern white America.

Fuck that! I'm glad we had slaves, glad we kicked the Indians off the continent, and proud to be American. Don't really care too much for what the federal government has been up to the last half century. Don't like the trend of the pussyfication of today's American male, if we aren't careful all that we gained from enslaving the black man and eradicating the red mad will be lost, and that would be the real tragedy; that the suffering inflicted on those who got in out way, and those whose backs we needed to climb on will be for not.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

Shameful. To whom? Those who did it are long dead. And anyone alive had nothing to do with it. Those affected by it are long dead, and no one alive today ever had to pick one handful of cotton against their will under a de jure slave system.

The shame you speak of is an emotion implanted by racialists into the psyche of modern white America.

Fuck that! I'm glad we had slaves, glad we kicked the Indians off the continent, and proud to be American. Don't really care too much for what the federal government has been up to the last half century. Don't like the trend of the pussyfication of today's American male, if we aren't careful all that we gained from enslaving the black man and eradicating the red mad will be lost, and that would be the real tragedy; that the suffering inflicted on those who got in out way, and those whose backs we needed to climb on will be for not.

Click to expand...

see4 said:

So, getting back on topic. How do people feel that most republicants need to be tutored on how to talk with black people? For me, personally, it only confirms how I felt, that republicants in general are racists, some closet racists, some open racists.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

not every republican is a racist, but just about every racist is a republican (or right winger or tea bagger etc).

Click to expand...

Sand4x105 said:

My brother:
Al Sharpton Is a racist.... for sure...
"Rub this dog shit on you and we'll tell the man a white man disgraced you..."
ya, he's not a rascist or person of color, or liberal... no he must be a tea bagger....

Click to expand...