Leftover Discussion Thread: AL Special Election

[Sanguine]

I must note that those days preceded LBJ's "Great Society".
Consider:
First off, not all black (slave) families were torn apart in the days of slavery. (Not the Free blacks at all.) Often the families remained intact or the children as they grew with the children of the owners went with those children of the owners or stayed with the farm.
The families were tied together more than history will ever write, especially the revisionist stuff of today which is sixth generation abolitionist agitprop perpetrated to justify waging total warfare on the South, looting, burning farms and crops that were not 'conscripted', and hanging any male who had stayed behind to work the farm as a spy. That's how Custer made his name in the Carolinas.

But imagine full employment, housing, food, clothing, medical care, all taken care of (and they even ate organic food--no GMO!).

Oh sh*t! Wait! That isn't welfare, it's slavery! They worked!
They weren't cruising the 'hood and dealing/taking drugs, hooking, and getting their asses dead by 30 from a drive by shooting or in a robbery or a gang fight. There were no crack whores, no crack babies, nobody's kid waking up dead in the morning with a spike in their arm because the dealer burned them. Instead, their children went on to do things like found Tuskegee Institute and other universities. They didn't have the social services coming in and taking the kids and sending them off to some foster care.

Open your mind just that much to see the difference and maybe someone had a point. They just weren't free, but then neither are many of the welfare blacks today--they just don't recognize their chains.

There may have been cases where there was abuse, after the 3% of those captured and sold to slave traders in Africa came to America, where those families captured intact were sold in different directions. There may have been cases where the level of abuse found in abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe's NOVEL actually happened.

But the degradation of the Black family in times of supposed freedom at the hands of the Liberals in this country in the last 50 years eclipses that in scope and intensity, despite the illusion of freedom the welfare and social services and the housing people give.

As for the rest of us, this didn't exist, either. It is the other set of chains, imposed on us by those who are 'free', or at least living that way.

Seriously?  Let's say for the hell of it, my ancestors came over as Irish slaves (and, there were a lot of them who actually did.)  Let's say, for the hell of it, someone walks up to me and says something along the lines of "well, at least some of them got to form families in slavery, and some of those families got to stay together", and they got to have " full employment, housing, food, clothing, medical care, all taken care of (and they even ate organic food--no GMO!)", I would want to deck you.  I probably wouldn't because I'm a peaceful person, and I should be past all of that history by now, but I would want to.   

Maybe their descendents don't always make the best decisions nowadays, and definitely the federal government has enslaved many of them, but it's a choice now - you can stay on the plantation or you can leave.

[DiogenesLamp]

If true it was done without my knowledge...why lock a thread if it is boring, it dies off on it's own.

That was exactly my thinking at the time.   Of course,  I may have been keeping it limping along or something.   :) 

[DiogenesLamp]

First off, not all black (slave) families were torn apart in the days of slavery. (Not the Free blacks at all.) Often the families remained intact or the children as they grew with the children of the owners went with those children of the owners or stayed with the farm.
The families were tied together more than history will ever write, especially the revisionist stuff of today which is sixth generation abolitionist agitprop perpetrated to justify waging total warfare on the South, looting, burning farms and crops that were not 'conscripted', and hanging any male who had stayed behind to work the farm as a spy. That's how Custer made his name in the Carolinas.

But imagine full employment, housing, food, clothing, medical care, all taken care of (and they even ate organic food--no GMO!).

I can interpret what you are trying to say in the best possible light,   but your argument is very "tone-deaf"  from the perspective of the modern zeitgeist.   


There is really no way to make your point to a modern audience in such a way that it won't be condemned.   It argues against some things that people were brought up to believe are bedrock principles,   so whether in fact your point is actually rational becomes irrelevant.   


You won't be able to get anyone to even entertain the notion. 


I will note that quite a lot of the descendants of slaves do tend to end up in controlled environments where they are not free.   The only difference between that and slavery is that they are there to be punished,  and they aren't required to do any work. 


Theoretically,  slavery is still legal.


But no one would dare. 

[Mod1]

Perhaps my memory is faulty,   but I recall that there was a thread in which I do not recall any large number of insults,  but which was closed,  and the reason cited was "boring."   

I think it was over a month ago,  perhaps even two months ago.   I'm trying to recall what the thread was about,  but i've slept since then.   

I almost messaged you about it at the time,   but then I thought better of it.   You had been so gracious in the past that I decided it wasn't fair to trouble you with it.   

I am the one who did it, and I remember full well why.  Please allow me to refresh your memory:  People were fighting endlessly, despite my multiple pleas to get back on topic.  I locked it for a couple of hours to let things cool down, or I was going to have to start writing T/O tickets to the instigators.  You were exercising good judgement in not complaining to @mystery-ak about it because you were one of the chief trouble makers.

I had my partner, Mod8 come in and unlock it a few hours later.

I said I was "bored" because I was being diplomatic.  It was better than "Diogenes, take a day or two off."  Wouldn't you agree?

[musiclady]

I can interpret what you are trying to say in the best possible light,   but your argument is very "tone-deaf"  from the perspective of the modern zeitgeist.   


There is really no way to make your point to a modern audience in such a way that it won't be condemned.   It argues against some things that people were brought up to believe are bedrock principles,   so whether in fact your point is actually rational becomes irrelevant.   


You won't be able to get anyone to even entertain the notion. 


I will note that quite a lot of the descendants of slaves do tend to end up in controlled environments where they are not free.   The only difference between that and slavery is that they are there to be punished,  and they aren't required to do any work. 


Theoretically,  slavery is still legal.


But no one would dare.

Modern zeitgeist??? 

That's what you call the concept that people should be free??  That's what you call NOT defending the purchase of human beings and their being treated as property??   That's what you call opposing the selling of wives and husbands, and children away from their families to other plantations, or excusing it because it didn't happen that often??  That's what you call being shocked that someone would say slavery was better because at least then blacks worked???

THAT is what you call "modern zeitgeist??"

What is going on on this forum??

Has loyalty to Roy Moore turned people inside out??  Defending trolling for children because there aren't enough older women who are "pure?"  Now saying slavery wasn't all that bad??

Or were some of you this way to begin with, and your love of Moore just tore away the façade??

If there are many of you who actually believe these things, then perhaps some of the rest of us need to find a more decent forum.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am the one who did it, and I remember full well why.  Please allow me to refresh your memory:  People were fighting endlessly, despite my multiple pleas to get back on topic.  I locked it for a couple of hours to let things cool down, or I was going to have to start writing T/O tickets to the instigators.  You were exercising good judgement in not complaining to @mystery-ak about it because you were one of the chief trouble makers.

I had my partner, Mod8 come in and unlock it a few hours later.

I said I was "bored" because I was being diplomatic.  It was better than "Diogenes, take a day or two off."  Wouldn't you agree?

You have the advantage over me on the context,  because I no longer recall what it was about other than it was about something I considered highly important;   Probably the broadcasting propaganda power of the trillion dollar media-weapon,   which I have always considered the prime threat to our lives.   


I don't recall myself doing any insulting beyond ordinary snark if even that,   but arguing forcefully and passionately is something I have always done,  and it is inherent in my nature.   


Yes,  I was the "Chief Troublemaker",   but that was because I kept talking about the issue,   I do not recall being a "troublemaker"  about gratuitous insults.    I actually don't mind getting into such spats,  but since I know it is frowned upon here,  I restrain myself.   


At least I think that I do.  :) 

[DiogenesLamp]

Modern zeitgeist??? 

That's what you call the concept that people should be free??  That's what you call NOT defending the purchase of human beings and their being treated as property??   That's what you call opposing the selling of wives and husbands, and children away from their families to other plantations, or excusing it because it didn't happen that often??  That's what you call being shocked that someone would say slavery was better because at least then blacks worked???

THAT is what you call "modern zeitgeist??"

What is going on on this forum??

Has loyalty to Roy Moore turned people inside out??  Defending trolling for children because there aren't enough older women who are "pure?"  Now saying slavery wasn't all that bad??

Or were some of you this way to begin with, and your love of Moore just tore away the façade??

If there are many of you who actually believe these things, then perhaps some of the rest of us need to find a more decent forum.

And this is why I normally just skip over messages you have written. 

[Smokin Joe]

I can't believe you just outlined the goodness of slavery and aren't ashamed of what you said. (Even though, you at least agreed with him with the cover of anonymity).

I guess I understand your support of Moore in spite of his boneheaded defense of the days of slavery.  You actually agree with him.

That's very disturbing.

VERY disturbing.

(btw, if Moore were a smart racist, he would have just mentioned the damage LBJ did and not made the idiotic public support he gave for the days of slavery.  I guess that just makes him a dumb racist).

What I find disturbing is that you cannot see that my comments were not racist, just a comparison.

They were not about Moore, but the socioeconomic situation both then and now. Your implication that he is a "dumb racist" is noted, but I think it is crap and just reads in what you may desperately want to find as another excuse to vilify the man.
That lack of comprehension is surprising to me considering your past posts, and indicates you may be emotionally entangled with the racism issue and Moore himself, and not in a constructive way.

I am not advocating slavery, either. Far from it--I find the institution abhorrent. As I said, I am just comparing.

If you see my comparison as a 'defense', then perhaps you should take another look without the emotional baggage and at least see what the man was saying.

If you find that I have painted a slightly better picture of healthy families inhabiting humble quarters in an agrarian setting compared to the dysfunctional dystopia of America's drug and crime ridden inner city slums, well, maybe that's because when you look at it that way, Moore had a point, and Moore having a point would be incompatible with your feelings about him.
Now, aside from the CPS coming in, those families aren't broken up and 'sold down the river', they are broken up at funerals, sent 'up the river' (to prison), or never even bothered to become a family except for the deposit of some bodily fluids. (Check out the babies born out of wedlock for the demographic). Is that so much better?

No employer, regardless of what they pay, will intentionally make employees unhappy. Happy employees mean higher productivity, better results, less broken equipment, better maintenance, even a feeling of pride in their work and where they do it. Breaking up families in that situation would be conterproductive.

You see racism and 'Moore support' into what I said because that is what you wanted to see so you could ignore what I said, dismissing it as 'one of those' supporting Moore or as racist, or both, because facts are just too inconvenient.

Keep in mind that Moore is no fan of most of the Amendments to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, and you find yourself back in the era before the war of Northern Aggression.

History isn't the smooth-complected made-up face you want to see, it's covered with scars and warts and moles and errant hairs, because such is human existence. If you think, really, honestly, think that overall things are better today (not counting technological gizmos and advances in medicine and the often unused freedom to leave a bad situation where such exist), feel free to state your case.

There were a host of social ills not present in that agrarian society which had not yet dismantled the Constitution to impose the Union with torch and shot, which was (despite slavery) still largely practicing, not just nominally Christian*, and which had not reduced the Federal Government to a National one, which, for good or ill, has produced the mess we have today.
(*Yes, if you look in your copy of The Holy Bible, you will find slavery in there, too.)
Those, for all their faults, were simpler times. We Americans freed the blacks and other slaves and by 100 years later had all become slaves. If you don't think so, try not filing your taxes, paying your property taxes, conforming with your HOA or just the zoning laws. You aren't any more free than your masters in DC and the Statehouse give you the illusion of being.

As Mr.T said when asked why he wore so many gold chains, "We are all slaves, I just come at a higher price."

I love my country, warts and all, and still think it the best on the planet, but it won't stay that way if people won't see its flaws as well as its good points. The festering rot in our social structure is going to destroy it along with the corruption in high places. But if we spend our time being distracted by awkward historical comparisons, we won't fix the problems we have, if we even acknowledge them.

[musiclady]

And this is why I normally just skip over messages you have written.

Why?  Because they are conservative, and they make sense? 

[Bigun]

Imagine how two constitutional protagonists like Moore and Cruz could tag team the whole GOPe.

Yeah!  I know!  And believe me THEY know as well!

[Bigun]

Some of us think that overt racism is actually a flaw.

Interesting to find out who doesn't mind that about him.........

You and I agree about many things but what constitutes "racism" clearly isn't one of them.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why?  Because they are conservative, and they make sense? 

I would go more along the lines of "histrionic,  "straw man-y", virtue signaling and accusatory. " 


It's like you are trying to be offended or something.    We can disagree without being disagreeable. 

[musiclady]

@Smokin Joe

No matter how you excuse it, the things you said are inexcusable.  As are the things Moore said.  (I have no need to "vilify him.  He takes care of that admirably himself).


Racism is not conservative, (nor is trolling for underage girls for that matter) and excusing any part of slavery abhorrent.


Sorry, but as a conservative, I can't stomach excuses for evil, no matter how much it made "socio-economic" sense to you.

And saying that the evil of slavery wasn't as bad as welfare because blacks were "working" is beneath you.

(And if it's not, then I completely misread who you were.  Right now, I'm afraid I did).

[musiclady]

I would go more along the lines of "histrionic,  "straw man-y", virtue signaling and accusatory. " 


It's like you are trying to be offended or something.    We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Oh, yeah............. I'm just "trying" to be offended because someone on a board I love talks about how slavery wasn't all that bad because not that many families had their kids sold away from them.

I mean, some of their owners even let them learn to read.  Never mind that owning another human being is despicable....

There's not even a touch of the histrionic in the accurate description of one of the greatest evils in American history.

And there's nothing even remotely conservative in excusing it or explaining it away.

I don't pay attention to "zeitgeist" for moral truth.  If you've read anything I've written, you know that.

[Smokin Joe]

Seriously?  Let's say for the hell of it, my ancestors came over as Irish slaves (and, there were a lot of them who actually did.)  Let's say, for the hell of it, someone walks up to me and says something along the lines of "well, at least some of them got to form families in slavery, and some of those families got to stay together", and they got to have " full employment, housing, food, clothing, medical care, all taken care of (and they even ate organic food--no GMO!)", I would want to deck you.  I probably wouldn't because I'm a peaceful person, and I should be past all of that history by now, but I would want to.   

Maybe their descendents don't always make the best decisions nowadays, and definitely the federal government has enslaved many of them, but it's a choice now - you can stay on the plantation or you can leave.

When the poster brought up the issue of "racism", I assumed they were referring to black slaves.
The Irish have been valuable members of American society, with the exception of the damned Kennedys and a few others. YMMV
I was not advocating slavery, merely comparing the two situations for the black slaves of the day and inner city blacks. Since I am part Irish, the thought of me being considered 'racist' toward the Irish never crossed my mind.

Advocate today as 'better'  for those inner city blacks if you want. At least they are free to have broken families, out of wedlock birth, drug abuse, alcoholism, and violent crime, and they don't even have to work for it. Now, tell me where that is wrong.
As for the Antebellum era,
In addition:
No income tax
No industrialized abortion.
No Obamacare
No welfare, except from local charity
No GMOs,
No "foreign entanglements"
Prior to 1860, our Armies were not scattered around the Globe, and our young men were not dying on other continents 'nation building'--we were busy building our own.
A person could go west, make their peace with the native people and find and exploit mineral wealth with a minimum of government interference.
Being armed was generally expected, especially in outlying areas, and hunting for food was normal.
There were far fewer regulations and encumbrances.

You can make the case either way as to which time was better, and for whom, and Again, I am not advocating slavery for anyone, I was just comparing the situation of black farm slaves with inner city blacks.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

No matter how you excuse it, the things you said are inexcusable.  As are the things Moore said.  (I have no need to "vilify him.  He takes care of that admirably himself).


Racism is not conservative, (nor is trolling for underage girls for that matter) and excusing any part of slavery abhorrent.


Sorry, but as a conservative, I can't stomach excuses for evil, no matter how much it made "socio-economic" sense to you.

And saying that the evil of slavery wasn't as bad as welfare because blacks were "working" is beneath you.

(And if it's not, then I completely misread who you were.  Right now, I'm afraid I did).

I guess this is inexcusable:

I am not advocating slavery, either. Far from it--I find the institution abhorrent.

You have not read, or simply not comprehended what I wrote. Have a nice day.

[Sanguine]

When the poster brought up the issue of "racism", I assumed they were referring to black slaves.
The Irish have been valuable members of American society, with the exception of the damned Kennedys and a few others. YMMV
I was not advocating slavery, merely comparing the two situations for the black slaves of the day and inner city blacks. Since I am part Irish, the thought of me being considered 'racist' toward the Irish never crossed my mind.

Advocate today as 'better'  for those inner city blacks if you want. At least they are free to have broken families, out of wedlock birth, drug abuse, alcoholism, and violent crime, and they don't even have to work for it. Now, tell me where that is wrong.
As for the Antebellum era,
In addition:
No income tax
No industrialized abortion.
No Obamacare
No welfare, except from local charity
No GMOs,
No "foreign entanglements"
Prior to 1860, our Armies were not scattered around the Globe, and our young men were not dying on other continents 'nation building'--we were busy building our own.
A person could go west, make their peace with the native people and find and exploit mineral wealth with a minimum of government interference.
Being armed was generally expected, especially in outlying areas, and hunting for food was normal.
There were far fewer regulations and encumbrances.

You can make the case either way as to which time was better, and for whom, and Again, I am not advocating slavery for anyone, I was just comparing the situation of black farm slaves with inner city blacks.

If it works for black people, it should work for anyone else.  That's how you determine a bias.  If it works regardless of the characteristic being tested, there's no bias.

However, I wasn't talking about racism, I was specifically talking about an attitude towards slavery that I find unsupportable. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, yeah............. I'm just "trying" to be offended because someone on a board I love talks about how slavery wasn't all that bad because not that many families had their kids sold away from them.

I didn't say any such thing,  but you are behaving as if I did. 

I don't pay attention to "zeitgeist" for moral truth.  If you've read anything I've written, you know that.

Many people do.   Have you noticed that "gays and transgenders"  are now considered moral and acceptable?    "Zeitgeist"  is a real "thing",  whether people like it or not. 


To judge the mores of an era,  you have to understand what they are,  and how and why they were different from the modern era. 

[Cyber Liberty]

You can make the case either way as to which time was better, and for whom, and Again, I am not advocating slavery for anyone, I was just comparing the situation of black farm slaves with inner city blacks.

Unfortunately, nuance goes out the window whenever one utters the word "slavery" in any but the darkest of tones.

Not saying there was anything good about it, I'm from the North (and Irish), and the war between the states was ancient history to us, but I'm just saying it's difficult to be nuanced about it.

And there are many details.  Thomas Sowell did an article a few years back where he wrote about slaves who were actually paid for their work, because they had skills.  You can't beat a man into doing a good job shoeing your horses, you need better incentives.  These slaves eventually saved enough money to be able to purchase their own freedom (it's not like they had anywhere to spend it).

Sure it was an ugly part of our history (even those of us from the North), but not everybody who talks about it without cringing is evil, either.

[musiclady]

I didn't say any such thing,  but you are behaving as if I did.

I am behaving??  Yes, Daddy.     

If you don't feel guilty about what I said to someone else, then don't react so emotionally to it.

Many people do.   Have you noticed that "gays and transgenders"  are now considered moral and acceptable?    "Zeitgeist"  is a real "thing",  whether people like it or not. 


To judge the mores of an era,  you have to understand what they are,  and how and why they were different from the modern era.

Do you have any clue as to where I stand on moral issues?  You don't need to preach to me about changing standards.  I'm on the frontlines of those arguments as a conservative.  Maybe if you didn't skip over my "histrionic" replies on threads about morality, you'd know that, and would have avoided your error.

Your implication in trying to excuse the post to which you were replying was that it is the same thing...... zeitgeist........ that judges slavery as abhorrent.   By using that term to describe the excuses being made for evil, you were minimizing its evil.

Thus, I reacted.

Not in any form of "histrionics," but as one who understands the difference between sexual mores and our disintegrating culture, and owning and abusing other human beings..... but saying it's good that at least they were "working."

[musiclady]

Unfortunately, nuance goes out the window whenever one utters the word "slavery" in any but the darkest of tones.

Not saying there was anything good about it, I'm from the North (and Irish), and the war between the states was ancient history to us, but I'm just saying it's difficult to be nuanced about it.

And there are many details.  Thomas Sowell did an article a few years back where he wrote about slaves who were actually paid for their work, because they had skills.  You can't beat a man into doing a good job shoeing your horses, you need better incentives.  These slaves eventually saved enough money to be able to purchase their own freedom (it's not like they had anywhere to spend it).

Sure it was an ugly part of our history (even those of us from the North), but not everybody who talks about it without cringing is evil, either.

Hundreds of years of owning and abusing other human beings is not diminished by the fact that a few of them got paid and weren't beaten.

I love Thomas Sowell, but if the essence of his article was that it wasn't all that bad, he's wrong.

Other than abortion, and possibly the mass slaughter of Indians, it is the darkest blot in our history.

And the fact that it never really got resolved after the War is a great cause in the social ills we still have today.

[Cyber Liberty]

Hundreds of years of owning and abusing other human beings is not diminished by the fact that a few of them got paid and weren't beaten.

I love Thomas Sowell, but if the essence of his article was that it wasn't all that bad, he's wrong.

Other than abortion, and possibly the mass slaughter of Indians, it is the darkest blot in our history.

And the fact that it never really got resolved after the War is a great cause in the social ills we still have today.

Not gonna disagree with you, that was not my point.

This was.

[corbe]

   Can I intervene here for a moment to point out that @Chosen Daughter and @musiclady are among the top 5 righteous women we have here in TBR, IMHO.
   In spite of continuing my immoral, sinful ways, their post I always read and find interesting and insightful. 
   Sure I may be using their reflectivity to lessen my guilt about staying away from organized religion as a whole but kudos Ladies.

 Now we continue with our regularly scheduled program.

[Smokin Joe]

If it works for black people, it should work for anyone else.  That's how you determine a bias.  If it works regardless of the characteristic being tested, there's no bias.

However, I wasn't talking about racism, I was specifically talking about an attitude towards slavery that I find unsupportable.

Re read my comments. Read where I said what I think of the institution. If you find my finding slavery abhorrent unsupportable that means you don't find slavery abhorrent.

I can't support that attitude, either.
I am not for anyone being held as a slave.
But dammit, if you can't see the chains on all of us, you are just happily trotting around inside the radius of your lead rope with the impression you can run off to the far hills. The question of when the social problems were greater is one which can be answered with simple facts, and there have been quite a few social problems since the "Great Society" which are funded by the rest of us, ultimately at gunpoint. How 'free' is that. (In 1850 there was no income tax.)

[skeeter]

   Can I intervene here for a moment to point out that @Chosen Daughter and @musiclady are among the top 5 righteous women we have here in TBR, IMHO.
   In spite of continuing my immoral, sinful ways, their post I always read and find interesting and insightful. 
   Sure I may be using their reflectivity to lessen my guilt about staying away from organized religion as a whole but kudos Ladies.

 Now we continue with our regularly scheduled program.

Dang!