Ben Carson and "immigrants"

[exnihilo]

But the idea that they had a dream of prosperity and happiness in this land was ludicrous. Why would anyone dream of happiness in a land of torture and slavery in a strange land when they were from a land familiar and free?

The man should study his history a little more if he is going to comment on it. Slavery and immigration have precious little in common outside of a human who was born in one country and now is in another.

You are painting with too broad a brush. A very successful businessman in South Carolina was a former slave who himself owned many slaves. Torture wasn’t in any way the norm. To be sure some slaves were severely beaten. Whippings were a standard punishment back then. The US Army continued to whip soldiers long after slavery ended. I am not saying a typical slave could have much for aspirations, but there is no need exaggerate the circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

You are painting with too broad a brush.

What I am doing is using a modern understanding of the word, to be sure. I get that. I guess I would rather use the modern understanding of human dignity to show the contrast of the rather bizarre comparison of chattel slavery to the immigration of today.

In no case would I ever downplay the horrific sin of chattel slavery in the United States, as did Carson, and as does his defenders of that remark.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are painting with too broad a brush. A very successful businessman in South Carolina was a former slave who himself owned many slaves. Torture wasn’t in any way the norm. To be sure some slaves were severely beaten. Whippings were a standard punishment back then. The US Army continued to whip soldiers long after slavery ended. I am not saying a typical slave could have much for aspirations, but there is no need exaggerate the circumstances.

I certainly do not condone slavery, even the comparatively benign version prevalent in southern Louisiana prior to it being admitted as a state, and even afterward to some degree.

But a fit, young, male slave was very expensive; about comparable to a new 100 hp tractor today. It would have been madness for an owner to mistreat a slave too badly. Probably some did, particularly in the “agribusiness” plantations of the Deep South, to which rebellious slaves were sold. But even then, it did not make economic good sense to severely beat, maim or starve a slave. Many plantations had local doctors “on call” to treat slaves who fell ill. It wasn’t a matter of kindness, but of business.

Labor conditions weren’t very good during that era on the low end, slave or free. An Irishman working in a factory of the time faced open flywheels, toxic substances, zero safety measures, and worked for a starvation wage. If he got sick or injured, he was just fired to deal with his situation as best he could, because the factory owner could always find another Irishman willing to work for a pittance.

My own great-grandfather worked in the deep mines in eastern Kansas. It was so hot in there that the men did their work naked. The mine faces were typically less than a man’s height, so a man had to walk, perhaps miles, bent over, to get to the mine face. The mines were full of mice and rats, so the workers had to fight them off to eat their lunches. The carts were hauled by ponies because horses were too big for the shafts. Now and then a pony would go insane and kill miners. If a miner got hurt, he was fired, and that was all there was to it.

Slavery had been abolished, but local blacks would not work in those mines, they were so terrible. The workers were immigrants, most of whom, like my great-grandfather, could not speak English. Undoubtedly slavery was worse than that in some places, but there would not have been much to recommend either one.

 

[sunnygirl807]

It was the norm to “break a buck”, physically and mentally. It was the norm to rape, beat, sell off family members, including children of slaves. That alone qualifies as torture, in my opinion.

 

[exnihilo]

It was the norm to “break a buck”, physically and mentally. It was the norm to rape, beat, sell off family members, including children of slaves. That alone qualifies as torture, in my opinion.

What evidence do you have of these claims? I’m not even sure it was the norm to sell off family members. It definitely happened but I don’t know that was the norm.

 

[sunnygirl807]

What evidence do you have of these claims? I’m not even sure it was the norm to sell off family members. It definitely happened but I don’t know that was the norm.

pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/gender/history.html

Families were indeed separated.

If you have time, read some of the multiple slave narratives. They are first hand accounts from the slaves POW. loc.gov/collections/slave-narratives-from-the-federal-writers-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/

For time’s sake, read through Wikipedia’s en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States. Pay particular interest to the punishment sections.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Many, many Americans are descended from people who came here as indentured servants or people dumped from debtors’ prisons in Europe. Yet, those descendants would still consider themselves the descendants of “immigrants”.

Indentured servitude is not the same thing as chattel slavery. Indentured servants usually came to have that position because they either 1) committed a crime, or 2) were indebted to their “master” and working to pay it off. Once they worked off their debt, they’d be free. African slaves were torn away from their homes against their will, and they/their descendants were made to serve until they died. The two are nowhere near the same.

 

[sunnygirl807]

Indentured servitude is not the same thing as chattel slavery. Indentured servants usually came to have that position because they either 1) committed a crime, or 2) were indebted to their “master” and working to pay it off. Once they worked off their debt, they’d be free. African slaves were torn away from their homes against their will, and they/their descendants were made to serve until they died. The two are nowhere near the same.

Thank you.

 

[exnihilo]

pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/gender/history.html

Families were indeed separated.

If you have time, read some of the multiple slave narratives. They are first hand accounts from the slaves POW. loc.gov/collections/slave-narratives-from-the-federal-writers-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/

For time’s sake, read through Wikipedia’s en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States. Pay particular interest to the punishment sections.

I didn’t dispute families were separated. I’ve read the slave narratives. The funny thing about them is just as some slaves talk about how bad they had it some talk about how good they had it. Again I didn’t dispute that some slaves were cruelly beaten. I asked what evidence you had that this was the norm? I think it is important to have an accurate understanding of our history.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Indentured servitude is not the same thing as chattel slavery. Indentured servants usually came to have that position because they either 1) committed a crime, or 2) were indebted to their “master” and working to pay it off. Once they worked off their debt, they’d be free. African slaves were torn away from their homes against their will, and they/their descendants were made to serve until they died. The two are nowhere near the same.

Indentured servitude was often a death sentence and there was a possibility the debt would never be deemed paid. That’s why so many of them ran away, usually to the frontier where they were unknown or their status ignored.

Not defending slavery, but one needs to realize it varied from time to time and from place to place. Initially in Louisiana, for example, slavery was governed by continental law, which had developed over a long time and was influenced by Catholicism. Slaves had to ultimately be freed, and many were. The continental laws regarding masters’ and slaves’ rights were many and complex.

In contrast, the English colonies had no established body of law relating to slaves because slavery was not a longstanding thing in England. So those living under English law (Britain and America) applied the laws governing personal property (chattels) to slaves. When Louisiana became a state, chattel slavery was imposed on it, but continental practices never fully ended there.

Today, of course, we know little about how slavery really was practiced in this country, and under what circumstances, other than what the propagandists of the time and later, tell us about it.

 

[pnewton]

Today, of course, we know little about how slavery really was practiced in this country, and under what circumstances, other than what the propagandists of the time and later, tell us about it.

I think we can all be confident they did not immigrate here to look for a better life for their children in the holds of slave ships, which is the point of this thread.

 

[exnihilo]

I think we can all be confident they did not immigrate here to look for a better life for their children in the holds of slave ships, which is the point of this thread.

I think there are two issues. They are whether the slaves were immigrants and whether they could have dreams and look forward to a better future.

I think they were immigrants even if unwilling. If you don’t hold to that then you have to be consistent and say prisoners sent to penal colonies, children of immigrants (even in our time such as the ‘Dreamers’), and men who were impressed weren’t immigrants.

As to the second issue I’m sure slaves had dreams just like anyone else. For many they may not have been fulfilled. But if someone was already enslaved in Africa they may have been happy to learn they were going to the New World. If they knew they were one of the few who got to go to the United States (really British North America) then they would have been especially happy. They were not going to Brazil where the majority went and faced hard work and a great chance of dying. So they absolutely could be looking forward to a better life then they expected.

But you are correct that they didn’t chose to immigrate here. No one disputes that.

 

[dmelosi]

What I am doing is using a modern understanding of the word, to be sure. I get that. I guess I would rather use the modern understanding of human dignity to show the contrast of the rather bizarre comparison of chattel slavery to the immigration of today.

In no case would I ever downplay the horrific sin of chattel slavery in the United States, as did Carson, and as does his defenders of that remark.

Why don’t you also condemn that Obama said a very similar thing? I believe everyone really knows that neither meant to downplay it, yet you condemn one and a similar one you excuse because it is your side. The extreme partisanship is very evident.

 

[Michael68]

Haven’t Democrats been telling us that non blacks have no right speaking to black issues? Yet here they are

 

[JanetF]

Why don’t you also condemn that Obama said a very similar thing? I believe everyone really knows that neither meant to downplay it, yet you condemn one and a similar one you excuse because it is your side. The extreme partisanship is very evident.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I just looked up the definition of the word “immigrant.” I see no restriction of the term solely to those who came to America of their own free will. It’s an unfortunate choice of words and Ben Carson is being vilified for it, by the left. The same left that would be giving him a pass, by the way, if he was one of theirs.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/98816752/&ved=0ahUKEwinuZGFl8PSAhUHymMKHQ5cCI4QiJQBCBowAA&usg=AFQjCNHSaNrRMxj7I8NNjonY7JShzSXr4w

I am of heavily mixed ethnic background but included in that is American Indian on both sides of the family even on American Indians are immigrants if you go back far enough. Slaves that were brought here from Africa were immigrants they were involuntary immigrants but they were immigrants.

 

[pnewton]

Why don’t you also condemn that Obama said a very similar thing? I believe everyone really knows that neither meant to downplay it, yet you condemn one and a similar one you excuse because it is your side. The extreme partisanship is very evident.

You are making far more assumptions than sense. I challenge you to quote where I excused something similar. If you cannot do so, then your post is meaningless, just empty words.

Categorizing people, making assumptions about them is a lazy shortcut to disregard what is said. It is also uncharitable, as in the case above, assumes a hypocrisy or partisanship based one something I never said or did about a man who is no longer president.

And no, I do not know if Mr. Carson meant to downplay slavery. I base what I read on the words and not any effort of fabricating a suitable back story.

 

[Michael68]

Its extremely dishonest of the media to give Obama a pass for saying the same thing!

 

[dmelosi]

You are making far more assumptions than sense. I challenge you to quote where I excused something similar. If you cannot do so, then your post is meaningless, just empty words.

Categorizing people, making assumptions about them is a lazy shortcut to disregards what is said. It is also uncharitable, as in the case above, assumes a hypocrisy or partisanship based one something I never said or did about a man who is no longer president.

I apologize if you are including Obama as one of his “defenders”. Everything is so partisan any more, that excluding one side who said pretty much the same thing in the same tone, does show partisanship. As I said before to contradict your statement, Carson did not make that statement to insinuate than slavery was anything less evil that it was, of which you accused Carson of in a very uncharitable way.

 

[dmelosi]

You are making far more assumptions than sense. I challenge you to quote where I excused something similar. If you cannot do so, then your post is meaningless, just empty words.

Categorizing people, making assumptions about them is a lazy shortcut to disregard what is said. It is also uncharitable, as in the case above, assumes a hypocrisy or partisanship based one something I never said or did about a man who is no longer president.

And no, I do not know if Mr. Carson meant to downplay slavery. I base what I read on the words and not any effort of fabricating a suitable back story.

Two posts in this thread were links to Obama saying a similar thing. I see no mention of that being wrong in your replies, only against the “right” saying it.