The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mrclose on April 24, 2014, 10:53:52 pm
-
Watch Bundy explain how we need to keep things from going backwards for blacks, and how the Federal government has created a neo-slave class via entitlement dependency that is so bad it is arguably worse than plantation slavery was.
It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse. (If you are person of low intelligence, the fact that that is his point might be too hard for you to understand.)
And he’s not blaming blacks for the issues of abortions, and crime and broken families, he’s blaming the Feds.
http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-hoax-exposed-full-clip-of-cliven-bundys-non-racist-pro-black-anti-government-remarks-vs-media-matters-deceptively-edited-hoax-version-see-that-cliven-bundy-is-actually-an-advocat/
-
It's a stupid comparison. Blacks are not worse off today than they were as slaves. Sheesh. Most black people live middle class lives. They have families and jobs, and they are productive citizens. Yes, a higher proportion of African-Americans get public assistance than do Anglos, but it is not a majority by any means.
Bundy's statement is just bizarre. I think he's just an old relic who still believes the "Gone With the Wind" and "Birth of a Nation" myth. Whether he's just a pathetic dinosaur or not, he needs to be thrown under the bus in no uncertain terms.
-
Whether he's just a pathetic dinosaur or not, he needs to be thrown under the bus in no uncertain terms.
Regardless of whether he's just a pathetic dinosaur or not, "throwing him under the bus" hands Harry Reid the victory. I made a Todd Akin comparison in another thread. This is the same strategy Reid used to hold onto the Senate and keep his buddy Obama in the Presidency two years ago. The difference is, this isn't an election.
-
He is a grump old rancher who probably has many prejudices of his generation HOWEVER, it seems Media Matters did chop up his video to completely turn on its head what he said- he was accusing the Dems of taking them back to that era, not that they were 'better off' as though they should go to it.
-
It's a stupid comparison. Blacks are not worse off today than they were as slaves. Sheesh. Most black people live middle class lives. They have families and jobs, and they are productive citizens. Yes, a higher proportion of African-Americans get public assistance than do Anglos, but it is not a majority by any means.
Bundy's statement is just bizarre. I think he's just an old relic who still believes the "Gone With the Wind" and "Birth of a Nation" myth. Whether he's just a pathetic dinosaur or not, he needs to be thrown under the bus in no uncertain terms.
Bizarre is the right word for what he said.
-
Even so Mr. Bundy's statement is grotesquely false. The conditions many Blacks live in, sometimes deplorable conditions, that have been facilitated by the federal government, are incomparably better than the conditions in which almost all slaves lived in. Or have I missed the memo saying that it's now legal for the federal government to whip Blacks who live on welfare to within an inch of their lives?
As a student (yes, college) of Black History and Slavery (word derived from Slavic), I'd say that you have a very limited knowledge of the true history.
The first, forgotten and never freed slaves were the White Irish.
The Black slave was owned mostly by the Mulatto Blacks and upon his release (the slave) was given land, cattle and other reparations that were not afforded the White Irish .. or their children!
Also, one of the very first .. and The first to own black slaves in Virginia was a black man himself, Anthony Johnson.
Johnson was also responsible for the court case in which Slavery was deemed Legal in this country!
(He fought and won the right to legalized slavery)
How's that for a short history on slavery? :beer:
-
As a student (yes, college) of Black History and Slavery (word derived from Slavic), I'd say that you have a very limited knowledge of the true history.
The first, forgotten and never freed slaves were the White Irish.
The Black slave was owned mostly by the Mulatto Blacks and upon his release (the slave) was given land, cattle and other reparations that were not afforded the White Irish .. or their children!
Also, one of the very first .. and The first to own black slaves in Virginia was a black man himself, Anthony Johnson.
Johnson was also responsible for the court case in which Slavery was deemed Legal in this country!
(He fought and won the right to legalized slavery)
How's that for a short history on slavery? :beer:
Good history lesson.
Two questions............ how many of those Irish slaves' families were still enslaved 100 years later? And how many black slave owners were there at the time of the Civil War?
-
We need a forum topic titled The Fundamentals of Reading and Comprehension!
Get off of the White Guilt wagon and put on some Big Boy pants.
Some whites will forever be losers in the 'Gotcha Game'!
Nothing Bundy said was offensive or untrue .. none!
How many times does a black man (me for instance) have to come to the aid of someone ALL of you should be defending?
The man is clearly from another era and is not running for anything and is clearly not up on the rules of Political Correctness!
Please, give it a break.
You keep the Al Sharptons of the world in business longer than most of us 'colored' folks want them to be! :chairbang:
-
Disagreeing with Mr. Bundy does not equal any form of "white guilt" nor immaturity.
We have different opinions here, Mr. Close, and that's supposed to be alright.
-
Good history lesson.
Two questions............ how many of those Irish slaves' families were still enslaved 100 years later? And how many black slave owners were there at the time of the Civil War?
I didn't mean for this to turn into a Slave History class but you can ..
Start Here: http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
Or maybe start here: http://www.saveyourheritage.com/white_slavery.htm
-
Disagreeing with Mr. Bundy does not equal any form of "white guilt" nor immaturity.
We have different opinions here, Mr. Close, and that's supposed to be alright.
But all the disagreements tend to center around Non Politically Correct words .. which Political Correctness was invented by White folks!?
-
But all the disagreements tend to center around Non Politically Correct words .. which Political Correctness was invented by White folks!?
Yes. By liberal white racists.
Of which there are none on this board.
Just conservatives with different opinions. Right??
My opinion is that we shouldn't agree with words that are ignorant and thoughtless (Bundy's), and defend those who say them (Bundy), just because we know that the left will abuse and misconstrue our words and thoughts.
-
We need a forum topic titled The Fundamentals of Reading and Comprehension!
Get off of the White Guilt wagon and put on some Big Boy pants.
Some whites will forever be losers in the 'Gotcha Game'!
Nothing Bundy said was offensive or untrue .. none!
How many times does a black man (me for instance) have to come to the aid of someone ALL of you should be defending?
The man is clearly from another era and is not running for anything and is clearly not up on the rules of Political Correctness!
Please, give it a break.
You keep the Al Sharptons of the world in business longer than most of us 'colored' folks want them to be! :chairbang:
I'm with you! There are many ways to say the same thing, and as many ways to interpret what someone says. Some people are more fluent than others, but that doesn't mean they don't have the same things or feelings on the inside. The better writers have the ability to put our thoughts into their pens. Thomas Sowell comes to mind.
Too many are holding Mr. Bundy to higher standards that he isn't. By that, I mean he's not a Harvard or Yale scholar, but a simple man tending to his ranch, though he is not a simpleton. I doubt he has a racist bone in his body, though many are getting off reading their own confirmation bias into his statements. This is, to me, a form of discrimination against a man who isn't prolific with his words, and college educated people are raking him over the coals for his simplicity.
The story is about the federal government and its control over land, the states, and the individual. The distraction is distasteful because of the perverse delight in ripping a man apart for what he never meant in the first place.
-
We need a forum topic titled The Fundamentals of Reading and Comprehension!
Get off of the White Guilt wagon and put on some Big Boy pants.
Some whites will forever be losers in the 'Gotcha Game'!
Nothing Bundy said was offensive or untrue .. none!
How many times does a black man (me for instance) have to come to the aid of someone ALL of you should be defending?
The man is clearly from another era and is not running for anything and is clearly not up on the rules of Political Correctness!
Please, give it a break.
You keep the Al Sharptons of the world in business longer than most of us 'colored' folks want them to be! :chairbang:
I could not agree with you more, mrclose. :beer:
-
I'm with you! There are many ways to say the same thing, and as many ways to interpret what someone says. Some people are more fluent than others, but that doesn't mean they don't have the same things or feelings on the inside. The better writers have the ability to put our thoughts into their pens. Thomas Sowell comes to mind.
Too many are holding Mr. Bundy to higher standards that he isn't. By that, I mean he's not a Harvard or Yale scholar, but a simple man tending to his ranch, though he is not a simpleton. I doubt he has a racist bone in his body, though many are getting off reading their own confirmation bias into his statements. This is, to me, a form of discrimination against a man who isn't prolific with his words, and college educated people are raking him over the coals for his simplicity.
The story is about the federal government and its control over land, the states, and the individual. The distraction is distasteful because of the perverse delight in ripping a man apart for what he never meant in the first place.
Thank you happy, you have stated it very articulately! :beer:
-
So, Pat Dollard says Bundy's words were edited, and then tries to defend the meaning of the words that were supposedly edited.
It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse. (If you are person of low intelligence, the fact that that is his point might be too hard for you to understand.)
So, "blacks" have it worse now than when they were bought and sold as animals?
:chairbang:
-
It's a stupid comparison. Blacks are not worse off today than they were as slaves. Sheesh. Most black people live middle class lives. They have families and jobs, and they are productive citizens. Yes, a higher proportion of African-Americans get public assistance than do Anglos, but it is not a majority by any means.
Says who? Show me the Carfax!
They take up 80% of the prison cells, commit more than 10X more murders than whites and virtually their entire base are dependent on the government. The black 2 parent family is virtually non-existent.
Bundy's statement is just bizarre. I think he's just an old relic who still believes the "Gone With the Wind" and "Birth of a Nation" myth. Whether he's just a pathetic dinosaur or not, he needs to be thrown under the bus in no uncertain terms.
Perhaps....but I refuse to abandon context in passing judgment.
-
As a student (yes, college) of Black History and Slavery (word derived from Slavic), I'd say that you have a very limited knowledge of the true history.
The first, forgotten and never freed slaves were the White Irish.
The Black slave was owned mostly by the Mulatto Blacks and upon his release (the slave) was given land, cattle and other reparations that were not afforded the White Irish .. or their children!
Also, one of the very first .. and The first to own black slaves in Virginia was a black man himself, Anthony Johnson.
Johnson was also responsible for the court case in which Slavery was deemed Legal in this country!
(He fought and won the right to legalized slavery)
How's that for a short history on slavery? :beer:
unbe-freakin'-leevable :shrug:
-
Says who? Show me the Carfax!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html)
Median household income for African-Americans was $32.2K in 2011.
-
http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-hoax-exposed-full-clip-of-cliven-bundys-non-racist-pro-black-anti-government-remarks-vs-media-matters-deceptively-edited-hoax-version-see-that-cliven-bundy-is-actually-an-advocat/
After reading yet another explanation of what I heard Mr. Bundy clearly say, the idea that "the Negro" would be better off as a slave than in their current conditions remains ( at best) an absurd, ignorant and insensitive statement, and ( at worst) offensively racist.
-
Whether he's just a pathetic dinosaur or not, he needs to be thrown under the bus in no uncertain terms.
Really? I thought that was a democrat tactic. No longer of any use, toss them aside as if rubbish. Didn't realize it had come into prominent use among conservatives as well.
The illusions the left has created for slavery is absurd. Common sense should blow apart some of this BS but it seems that's is short supply when it comes to this topic also. You would not run your workers into the ground and beat them to an inch of their lives. Just what purpose would that serve? You don't run your tractor out of oil do you?
Not saying that abuse did not happen, not by a long shot, but one family story tells of Mother's Grandmother standing on the porch with a double barrell shotgun and backing the clan off.
-
Really? I thought that was a democrat tactic. No longer of any use, toss them aside as if rubbish. Didn't realize it had come into prominent use among conservatives as well.
The illusions the left has created for slavery is absurd. Common sense should blow apart some of this BS but it seems that's is short supply when it comes to this topic also. You would not run your workers into the ground and beat them to an inch of their lives. Just what purpose would that serve? You don't run your tractor out of oil do you?
Not saying that abuse did not happen, not by a long shot, but one family story tells of Mother's Grandmother standing on the porch with a double barrell shotgun and backing the clan off.
I'll see your anecdotal and raise you one Zong massacre.
The Zong was a Liverpool-based slave ship who, as a result of navigational mistakes by the crew, was in danger of running out of drinking water before it reached its destination. In order for that not to happen, and for the 17-man crew not to suffer dehydration, 142 slaves, men, women and children were thrown overboard somewhere between Tobago and Jamaica.
The owners of the Zong had insured their "cargo", but that insurance would not pay for losses due to "natural causes" (such as starvation, or disease, or dying as a result of a beating), but if some of the "cargo" had to be jettisoned, then the claim would fall under the "general average" principle, which had all interested parties sharing in losses "from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or cargo to save the whole in an emergency."
The British courts found that (in some cases) the deliberate killing of slaves was legal, and that the insurers were to pay the claims for the lost "cargo".
In the aftermath of a retrial that saw the earlier findings upheld, the deliberate killings found to be legal, and the insurance claims viable, the Earl of Mansfield remarked that the jury "had no doubt (though it shocks one very much) that the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown over board."
-
All around the world, to greater and lesser extents, some people are subsidized by various government provided safety net programs. That is the individual, subsistence level of participation.
On the other end of the scale, many comfortable farmers and ranchers, do very nicely on subsidies. Paid to not grow, price supports, grazing on publicly owned lands, etc.
Grazing one's herd on land they do not own (and have never owned), is certainly a subsidy.
So if "benefitting" from government subsidies makes one a slave, inner city blacks and Bundy are both willing slaves.
Merely attaching to different teats, of Big Mama Government.
Bundy is therefore not an attractive spokesman against subsidies, or the lifestyle of subsidy dependent people.
Refusing to pay grazing fees, further erodes Bundy's standing to criticize other dependents.
"Conservatism" has failed to reach beyond the usual choir, in any preaching on this topic. Won't gain voters in my opinion.
-
"Conservatism" has failed to reach beyond the usual choir, in any preaching on this topic. Won't gain voters in my opinion.
To paraphrase probably the finest spinmeister since Machiavelli: It's all in the presentation.
Skip the race stuff. Go back to 200 plus heavily armed people on the land to enforce this. People in the cities - especially in the inner cities and the ghettos - have a distrust of cops. Use that aspect.
-
To paraphrase probably the finest spinmeister since Machiavelli: It's all in the presentation.
Skip the race stuff. Go back to 200 plus heavily armed people on the land to enforce this. People in the cities - especially in the inner cities and the ghettos - have a distrust of cops. Use that aspect.
Those inner city dependents will readily buy the explanation that the good government is watching out for them, by dealing with white racist ranchers out west, etc.
Thirsty Kool-Aid drinkers, IOW. The price they pay for their government dependency, is buying into the crap their leaders spew for their consumption. 90% =+ democrat voters, and holding.
-
Those inner city dependents will readily buy the explanation that the good government is watching out for them, by dealing with white racist ranchers out west, etc.
Thirsty Kool-Aid drinkers, IOW. The price they pay for their government dependency, is buying into the crap their leaders spew for their consumption. 90% =+ democrat voters, and holding.
However, it is very true that they also distrust/dislike the cops, the courts, and many of the agencies. Democrats/progs avoid being tarred and feathered with this by posing always as the "outsider" struggling mightily against the forces of racism and bureaucracy to fight for the people. Look at deblazio in NYC; he's a statist machine-man all the way, and corrupt to boot, but he's perfected the art of dissembling and making himself appear to be a "man of the people" struggling to right the wrongs done to the "little guy".
-
Correct.
You know how to split a big log? You use wedges.
Distrust of the cops and the massive over reaction of the BLM is a wedge. Hammer it home.
-
All around the world, to greater and lesser extents, some people are subsidized by various government provided safety net programs. That is the individual, subsistence level of participation.
On the other end of the scale, many comfortable farmers and ranchers, do very nicely on subsidies. Paid to not grow, price supports, grazing on publicly owned lands, etc.
Grazing one's herd on land they do not own (and have never owned), is certainly a subsidy.
So if "benefitting" from government subsidies makes one a slave, inner city blacks and Bundy are both willing slaves.
Merely attaching to different teats, of Big Mama Government.
Bundy is therefore not an attractive spokesman against subsidies, or the lifestyle of subsidy dependent people.
Refusing to pay grazing fees, further erodes Bundy's standing to criticize other dependents.
"Conservatism" has failed to reach beyond the usual choir, in any preaching on this topic. Won't gain voters in my opinion.
I am not worthy...
:da man:
-
I'll see your anecdotal and raise you one Zong massacre.
The Zong was a Liverpool-based slave ship who, as a result of navigational mistakes by the crew, was in danger of running out of drinking water before it reached its destination. In order for that not to happen, and for the 17-man crew not to suffer dehydration, 142 slaves, men, women and children were thrown overboard somewhere between Tobago and Jamaica.
The owners of the Zong had insured their "cargo", but that insurance would not pay for losses due to "natural causes" (such as starvation, or disease, or dying as a result of a beating), but if some of the "cargo" had to be jettisoned, then the claim would fall under the "general average" principle, which had all interested parties sharing in losses "from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or cargo to save the whole in an emergency."
The British courts found that (in some cases) the deliberate killing of slaves was legal, and that the insurers were to pay the claims for the lost "cargo".
In the aftermath of a retrial that saw the earlier findings upheld, the deliberate killings found to be legal, and the insurance claims viable, the Earl of Mansfield remarked that the jury "had no doubt (though it shocks one very much) that the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown over board."
And that is my fault because? As I noted, if slaves were all worked to death, beaten to an inch of their life, and thrown off ships at sea, the slavery issue would have long gone extinct in this country. How long long should I pay for an issue I had nothing to do with? Sad thing is there are still those that make their living off of slavery even though it hasn't been around in years.
That said, there are all types of slavery still in existence in this country. The "old" version exists mainly overseas where nothing is ever said about it. Here we have all kinds of addictions that in essence are self imposed slavery. Granted some of the self imposed versions are used as excuses for bad behavior.
-
And that is my fault because? As I noted, if slaves were all worked to death, beaten to an inch of their life, and thrown off ships at sea, the slavery issue would have long gone extinct in this country. How long long should I pay for an issue I had nothing to do with? Sad thing is there are still those that make their living off of slavery even though it hasn't been around in years.
That said, there are all types of slavery still in existence in this country. The "old" version exists mainly overseas where nothing is ever said about it. Here we have all kinds of addictions that in essence are self imposed slavery. Granted some of the self imposed versions are used as excuses for bad behavior.
There is no such thing as self-imposed slavery. The very idea of it flies at the face of the definition of the word.
You gave an anecdotal evidence to show how slavery was somehow benign, and I responded with a bit of history to show that there was nothing benign about it, all anecdotal evidence aside.
-
There is no such thing as self-imposed slavery. The very idea of it flies at the face of the definition of the word.
You gave an anecdotal evidence to show how slavery was somehow benign, and I responded with a bit of history to show that there was nothing benign about it, all anecdotal evidence aside.
There has been, in the past. The villein system was essentially self imposed slavery. You traded your freedom for a plot of land and a place to live.
-
Correct.
You know how to split a big log? You use wedges.
Distrust of the cops and the massive over reaction of the BLM is a wedge. Hammer it home.
A lumberjack too?
-
Correct.
You know how to split a big log? You use wedges.
Distrust of the cops and the massive over reaction of the BLM is a wedge. Hammer it home.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Bundy is fighting his own "sovereign State of Nevada", he just doesn't seem to know it.
-
There is no such thing as self-imposed slavery. The very idea of it flies at the face of the definition of the word.
You gave an anecdotal evidence to show how slavery was somehow benign, and I responded with a bit of history to show that there was nothing benign about it, all anecdotal evidence aside.
Ah but there is Luis, to say it doesn't is complete ignorance or you are using way to fine of a line for your definition. If it's the later, all discussion on the subject can cease, it doesn't exist as it did in the South. Of course, the South is the ONLY place slavery has ever existed according to the race baiters.
I noted a simple fact and you respond with something that is akin to wholesale slaughter to "prove" how bad it is.
And what would you call this?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trapped-in-scorching-trailer-18-die-2648170.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trapped-in-scorching-trailer-18-die-2648170.php)
These people actually PAID to get in this truck.
-
A lumberjack too?
:tongue2:
Grew up with a very temperamental half ton wood stove that Mom cooked on. We'd sleep next to it (my baby sister under it) on really cold nights. Spent a lot of my youth splitting wood and setting it to dry.
-
There has been, in the past. The villein system was essentially self imposed slavery. You traded your freedom for a plot of land and a place to live.
Thee is no self-imposed slavery, so long as you have the free choice to not enter into slavery.
You may wish to elevate being the beneficiary of government subsidies to the level of slavery, but one can always chose to NOT be the recipient of subsidies. Slaves lack the ability to decide to not be slaves.
If they tried, they could be beaten, maimed, or even killed.
If you don't see that difference, then I can't make you see it.
-
Thee is no self-imposed slavery, so long as you have the free choice to not enter into slavery.
Seems to me that watching your family starve is a pretty powerful motivator that reduces your choice. And once you are in - well, getting out is pretty much impossible.
-
Ah but there is Luis, to say it doesn't is complete ignorance or you are using way to fine of a line for your definition. If it's the later, all discussion on the subject can cease, it doesn't exist as it did in the South. Of course, the South is the ONLY place slavery has ever existed according to the race baiters.
I noted a simple fact and you respond with something that is akin to wholesale slaughter to "prove" how bad it is.
And what would you call this?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trapped-in-scorching-trailer-18-die-2648170.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trapped-in-scorching-trailer-18-die-2648170.php)
These people actually PAID to get in this truck.
I call it exactly what it is.
Murder.
The people in that trailer made the conscious choice to enter that trailer. THAT is the difference. The people who own the trailer cannot file an insurance claim to cover their losses (if any). No Court will rule in their favor.
The people in the cargo hold of the Zong were put in there against their will. All semblance of humanity was taken from them; they were (in the eyes of the Court) insurable cargo.
Those who eventually reached their destination, continued to be less than a human being, where the survivors of that 18-wheeler incident were taken to hospitals.
The owners of the Zong were compensated for their losses. According to your article, whoever is responsible for the deaths in that trailer may face the death penalty.
If you can't see the difference, I won't be able to help you see it.
-
Seems to me that watching your family starve is a pretty powerful motivator that reduces your choice. And once you are in - well, getting out is pretty much impossible.
There are tens of thousands of Cubans strewn about the bottom of the Florida Straits that will testify that there is always a way to not chose slavery.
-
There are tens of thousands of Cubans strewn about the bottom of the Florida Straits that will testify that there is always a way to not chose slavery.
The operative word is bottom.
Give me liberty or give me death. Most people have an intense desire to keep breathing.
-
The operative word is bottom.
Give me liberty or give me death. Most people have an intense desire to keep breathing.
I'm not sure you understand what that quote means. :shrug:
-
I'm not sure you understand what that quote means. :shrug:
Exactly.
-
There are also a lot of African-American men to whom prison is just a change in the scenery. And white men. And "hispanic" men.
-
I'm not sure you understand what that quote means. :shrug:
I know exactly what it means. I also know people.
-
I know exactly what it means. I also know people.
Those fleeing Cuba choose either liberty or death.
-
Those fleeing Cuba choose either liberty or death.
I think the point made was that those escaping Cuba knew that their choice to TRY to make it to liberty was risky, and might cause their death - a risk they were willing to take. There are, at the same time - many, many people who prefer to keep breathing and are not willing to risk their lives in the pursuit of freedom. Those people - you could say, are living their lives under self-imposed slavery.
-
I think the point made was that those escaping Cuba knew that their choice to TRY to make it to liberty was risky, and might cause their death - a risk they were willing to take. There are, at the same time - many, many people who prefer to keep breathing and are not willing to risk their lives in the pursuit of freedom. Those people - you could say, are living their lives under self-imposed[/i] slavery.
No.
Slaves lack the ability to choose anything, other than death, over slavery.
-
Those people - you could say, are living their lives under self-imposed slavery.
That's still their choice, though. There is a big difference between having a choice, and not having a choice.
-
:tongue2:
Grew up with a very temperamental half ton wood stove that Mom cooked on. We'd sleep next to it (my baby sister under it) on really cold nights. Spent a lot of my youth splitting wood and setting it to dry.
We grew up with gas heat and only cut wood when we went hunting. Not that many trees in this part of the world, they had to figure out something else to burn a long time ago.
-
No.
Slaves lack the ability to choose anything, other than death, over slavery.
Luis, you seem obsessively pre-occupied with the strict interpretation of the word "slave". Apparently, no one's definition but yours is acceptable. Since you insist on being pedantic about it, I thought I would present a dictionary meaning of the word:
World English Dictionary
slave (sleɪv)
— n
1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
2. a person who is forced to work for another against his will
3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television
4. a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay
5. a. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)
b. ( as modifier ): slave cylinder
As you can see, the definition of "slave" is not as narrowly defined as you keep telling us it is. From the dictionary meaning, a person can be a "slave" to heroin - something in which he HAS A CHOICE. There are many forms of slavery - not all of them involve a person being shackled and unable to move. Even on the plantation - slaves made attempts to escape while they worked the fields - or in the dark of night - ALWAYS with the threat of beating or death if they were caught and returned. But many slaves still managed to escape - the city I live in has a house that was used for the "underground tunnel" that slaves escaped through to the north and to freedom.
I think there are some that would agree with me - that this microscopic attention paid to what a slave can or cannot be - and that everyone that disagrees with you is just flat out wrong on the subject has gone on TOO LONG. Let's end it. OK? Step away from the keyboard - take a walk or something. Yes, I'll be the one to say it - if I had a choice to be a "real" slave in the sense of a black on the plantation - or a "virtual" slave trapped on welfare ............................ I would pick the virtual slave because I could free myself from that much, much easier. Being a virtual slave is NO comparison to the other kind - I don't think anyone has a disagreement on that.
11513
-
Luis, you seem obsessively pre-occupied with the strict interpretation of the word "slave". Apparently, no one's definition but yours is acceptable. Since you insist on being pedantic about it, I thought I would present a dictionary meaning of the word:
World English Dictionary
slave (sleɪv)
— n
1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
2. a person who is forced to work for another against his will
3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television
4. a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay
5. a. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)
b. ( as modifier ): slave cylinder
As you can see, the definition of "slave" is not as narrowly defined as you keep telling us it is. From the dictionary meaning, a person can be a "slave" to heroin - something in which he HAS A CHOICE. There are many forms of slavery - not all of them involve a person being shackled and unable to move. Even on the plantation - slaves made attempts to escape while they worked the fields - or in the dark of night - ALWAYS with the threat of beating or death if they were caught and returned. But many slaves still managed to escape - the city I live in has a house that was used for the "underground tunnel" that slaves escaped through to the north and to freedom.
I think there are some that would agree with me - that this microscopic attention paid to what a slave can or cannot be - and that everyone that disagrees with you is just flat out wrong on the subject has gone on TOO LONG. Let's end it. OK? Step away from the keyboard - take a walk or something. Yes, I'll be the one to say it - if I had a choice to be a "real" slave in the sense of a black on the plantation - or a "virtual" slave trapped on welfare ............................ I would pick the virtual slave because I could free myself from that much, much easier. Being a virtual slave is NO comparison to the other kind - I don't think anyone has a disagreement on that.
11513
Again, if you're arguing the semantics of slavery, you've already lost the argument. Bundy made it quite clear he was talking about the US, and its history of literally enslaving blacks. Anything else is a side issue, and if you can't even convince fellow conservatives, how do you think the average American would take trying to spin Bundy's words? He wasn't talking about Slavic indentured servants, he was talking about the current state of blacks in America, compared to the days of US slavery.
-
I call it exactly what it is.
Murder.
The people in that trailer made the conscious choice to enter that trailer. THAT is the difference. The people who own the trailer cannot file an insurance claim to cover their losses (if any). No Court will rule in their favor.
The people in the cargo hold of the Zong were put in there against their will. All semblance of humanity was taken from them; they were (in the eyes of the Court) insurable cargo.
Those who eventually reached their destination, continued to be less than a human being, where the survivors of that 18-wheeler incident were taken to hospitals.
The owners of the Zong were compensated for their losses. According to your article, whoever is responsible for the deaths in that trailer may face the death penalty.
If you can't see the difference, I won't be able to help you see it.
I do not disagree with your description to tag it as murder, but we were talking about self imposed slavery and that is exactly what that is. Some pay up front and some sell their soul and will pay for years. The coyotes are paid up front and they chose to drop the trailer, take the money and run. I don't know what else you would call that other than self imposed slavery.
Have to stop for a while, not feeling very good.
-
There is no such thing as self-imposed slavery. The very idea of it flies at the face of the definition of the word.
You gave an anecdotal evidence to show how slavery was somehow benign, and I responded with a bit of history to show that there was nothing benign about it, all anecdotal evidence aside.
It may have already been said, but the subject of Bundy's remarks were regarding the slavery in the United States of those captured, chained, shipped from Africa, sold in the US, and OWNED by their masters, with NO possibility of escaping.
This is LITERAL slavery, as being discussed.
There is, as has been said, no equivalency to the situation blacks are in now, no matter how desperate, because they DO have the opportunity to remove themselves from their situation, even though that may be difficult.
Therefore "self-imposed" slavery is not the same as, nor 'better than' LITERAL slavery.
Thanks to a conversation with Niger Innes, Bundy now understands that.
Hopefully his supporters here will eventually figure it out as well.
-
It may have already been said, but the subject of Bundy's remarks were regarding the slavery in the United States of those captured, chained, shipped from Africa, sold in the US, and OWNED by their masters, with NO possibility of escaping.
This is LITERAL slavery, as being discussed.
There is, as has been said, no equivalency to the situation blacks are in now, no matter how desperate, because they DO have the opportunity to remove themselves from their situation, even though that may be difficult.
Therefore "self-imposed" slavery is not the same as, nor 'better than' LITERAL slavery.
Thanks to a conversation with Niger Innes, Bundy now understands that.
Hopefully his supporters here will eventually figure it out as well.
:amen:
-
It may have already been said, but the subject of Bundy's remarks were regarding the slavery in the United States of those captured, chained, shipped from Africa, sold in the US, and OWNED by their masters, with NO possibility of escaping.
This is LITERAL slavery, as being discussed.
There is, as has been said, no equivalency to the situation blacks are in now, no matter how desperate, because they DO have the opportunity to remove themselves from their situation, even though that may be difficult.
Therefore "self-imposed" slavery is not the same as, nor 'better than' LITERAL slavery.
Thanks to a conversation with Niger Innes, Bundy now understands that.
Hopefully his supporters here will eventually figure it out as well.
For the last time, what you call "his supporters" are only trying to say that we understand what he said was wrong, but that given his age and other things - we don't give him a pass on his musings - but we don't call him a villain either. We have compassion for what he was trying to convey and how he got himself caught up in this mess. The man is not evil, that's all. All of these pages of threads....... just because some of us refuse to call him evil...... just because some here have demanded it. Almost like demanding that his head be brought to you on a silver tray.
I'm not going to say another thing about it. :seeya:
-
For the last time, what you call "his supporters" are only trying to say that we understand what he said was wrong, but that given his age and other things - we don't give him a pass on his musings - but we don't call him a villain either. We have compassion for what he was trying to convey and how he got himself caught up in this mess. The man is not evil, that's all. All of these pages of threads....... just because some of us refuse to call him evil...... just because some here have demanded it. Almost like demanding that his head be brought to you on a silver tray.
I'm not going to say another thing about it. :seeya:
Quite like Trayvon Martin, whites are again forced to explain themselves. A position the Left enjoys putting them in. Always in the position of defending the "indefensible".
Racism is the briar patch or the tar baby. My ancestors 6 generations back owned no slaves. I owe no explanations.
-
Quite like Trayvon Martin, whites are again forced to explain themselves. A position the Left enjoys putting them in. Always in the position of defending the "indefensible".
Racism is the briar patch or the tar baby. My ancestors 6 generations back owned no slaves. I owe no explanations.
I don't have to defend myself. I didn't say it.
"Whites" don't have to defend themselves, he doesn't represent them.
Some people are defending him, and they will be painted with whatever brush he's painted with.
-
Quite like Trayvon Martin, whites are again forced to explain themselves. A position the Left enjoys putting them in. Always in the position of defending the "indefensible".
Racism is the briar patch or the tar baby. My ancestors 6 generations back owned no slaves. I owe no explanations.
Mine did! I never have and owe no explanations to anyone!
-
Mine did! I never have and owe no explanations to anyone!
Bigun and Luis the conversation was changed. Three Card Monte and leger de main, the hand is quicker than the eye and everybody is ready to string up the old white dinosaur.
You're both smart men, the world has moved millions of miles, yet here stand in the middle of the desert debating what will mean nothing in the course of time.
I'd rather talk fishin'.
-
For the last time, what you call "his supporters" are only trying to say that we understand what he said was wrong, but that given his age and other things - we don't give him a pass on his musings - but we don't call him a villain either. We have compassion for what he was trying to convey and how he got himself caught up in this mess. The man is not evil, that's all. All of these pages of threads....... just because some of us refuse to call him evil...... just because some here have demanded it. Almost like demanding that his head be brought to you on a silver tray.
I'm not going to say another thing about it. :seeya:
I'm going to assume that you're not intentionally misrepresenting what I said, but I am going to clarify for your sake, what you misunderstood.
I never said, nor implied that the man was a "villain" or that he was "evil." Only that what he said was racist and wrong.
Two VERY different things.
Now HE realizes it, thanks to the wise counsel of Niger Innes. (Who could do it better?)
HE has apparently understood how wrong he was.
And if you don't consider yourself a 'supporter,' then my words have nothing to do with you, and you should have let them go.