Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gift_from_God

Guest
From the Daily Mail
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013089/Michele-Bachmann-signed-marriage-pact-suggesting-black-families-better-slavery.html#ixzz1RibeqrY9

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has caused outrage after signing a controversial marriage pact that suggests black families were better off in times of slavery.
Bachmann, along with fellow GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, signed two-page document, The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family, last week.
It condemns gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography but by far the most controversial paragraph was on slavery.

‘Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President,’ the document read.
Now Iowa-based conservative group, The Family Leader, has agreed to remove the passage amid growing pressure.
‘After careful deliberation and wise insight and (name removed by moderator)ut from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man,’ Bob Vander Plaats, head of The Family Leader, told Fox News.

‘We sincerely apologise for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow,’ added Vander Plaats.
The ‘candidate vow’ on the document - which Bachmann and Santorum signed - did not mention slavery and it is not clear whether either candidate realised the controversial passage was part of the document.
A spokesman for the Bachmann campaign, told Fox News Bachmann had had no second thoughts about signing the candidate vow portion, which doesn’t mention slavery.
‘She stands by the points that are outlined in the pledge,’ the spokesman said.
‘Particularly the ones for strong marriage. She’s been happily married for 32 years. That’s the focus of the pledge.’
Some are not so willing to overlook the potential oversight however.
‘Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive,’ Cheryl Contee wrote on her blog, Jack and Jill Politics.
'When will Republicans inquire with actual Black people whether or now we’re OK with invoking slavery to score cheap political points?
‘It’s hard to believe that Michele Bachmann would be foolish enough to sign this pledge,’ she added.
 
What a misleading title, in fact just reading the clip you copy and pasted proved how misleading it was.

Next.
 
I assume they meant that today a child conceived in an African-American family has a great chance of being aborted. Statistically speaking at least.

I think (again I think) that this has a lot to do with the subconscious racism in our society. Who makes up a large portion of poor inner-city population? African-Americans. What schools are underpaid and under-educated? Inner-city schools. Why do families turn to abortion? Lack of education and perceived future financial troubles.

It seems to me like society tucks much of it’s minorities in the inner-cities, doesn’t create fair opportunities for them to get out and forgets about them.
 
Actually, she signed a pledge pointing out the uncomfortable fact that Democrat policies have been more destructive to black families than slavery was. It doesn’t suggest that blacks are better off under slavery. It just refers to the supreme irony that the first black president supports the slaughter. 400,000 black children year.
 
No party has done more for blacks than the Republicans. That’s probably why Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. This article is just another liberal bunch of Republican-bashing nonsense leading up to an election year.
 
Krakatoa said:
No party has done more for blacks than the Republicans. That’s probably why Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
Click to expand...
No, MLK was Republican because southern Democrats were conservatives and defended the status quo. Southern Republicans were the opposition, and largely out of power. The southern white Republicans were not necessarily advocates of civil rights, but at least some were open to the idea. That wasn’t happening with white southern Democrats.

As for the pledge, it is good that The Family Leader has revised the wording. Perhaps this minor controversy points more to the lack of understanding of racial issues in the US, than with the fault of any particular candidate or organization.
 
Krakatoa said:
No party has done more for blacks than the Republicans. That’s probably why Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. This article is just another liberal bunch of Republican-bashing nonsense leading up to an election year.
Click to expand...
Look up the southern strategy
 
Cider said:
What a misleading title, in fact just reading the clip you copy and pasted proved how misleading it was.

Next.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? It’s not misleading at all. The pledge suggests that blacks in slavery were better off than they are today
 
Dale_M said:
As for the pledge, it is good that The Family Leader has revised the wording. Perhaps this minor controversy points more to the lack of understanding of racial issues in the US, than with the fault of any particular candidate or organization.
Click to expand...
What really irks me is why someone would even suggest that blacks families were better off during slavery, especially considering that the parents of slaves were often sold to other people
 
Gift_from_God said:
What really irks me is why someone would even suggest that blacks families were better off during slavery, especially considering that the parents of slaves were often sold to other people
Click to expand...
I suspect that message was unintended. But, yes, The Family Leader should have been aware. Lack of diversity in its membership, and leadership, may have played a role in their mistake.
 
Krakatoa said:
That’s probably why Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
Click to expand...
No matter how often you and/or black Republicans make that claim, it is still wrong. Let it go.

His father was a Republican until the GA Republican party ousted all black people.
Krakatoa said:
This article is just another liberal bunch of Republican-bashing nonsense leading up to an election year.
Click to expand...
Actually, the mention of black folks was probably put in the document to bash supporters of the president. It is right to call people on the documents they draft.
 
Dale_M said:
No, MLK was Republican because southern Democrats were conservatives and defended the status quo.
Click to expand...
MLK was not a Republican, no matter how often black Republicans make the claim. His father was a Republican until all blacks were ousted from the Republican party in GA.
 
I hope I don’t sound like an Uncle Tom bit I don’t think there is any racism in this. Black families where better off prior to the 1960s and the War on Poverty policies. Declaration doesn’t say slavery was a good thing, but that family structures were more stable. It would sound better if they just said what I said.
 
As the grandfather of of a 5yo GD, whose mom is unwed, all I can say is that the truth hurts, but truth is truth. I do not support Bachmann, I’m with Gov Palin all the way, but Michele didn’t sign anything to which a thinking human being would object. There is nothing glorious about a young child growing up without a dad. 😦 Rob
 
Krakatoa said:
No party has done more for blacks than the Republicans. That’s probably why Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. This article is just another liberal bunch of Republican-bashing nonsense leading up to an election year.
Click to expand...
The Republican and Democratic parties were totally different animals back then than they are now. Both had liberal and conservative wings, both had their geographic divisions.

Then came the Civil Rights movement and the Voting rights Act. All the segregationist fundamentalist Christians went stampeding into the GOP and things have never been the same since. In response, all the radical feminist, anti-war liberals wound up in the Democratic party without any conservatives left for balance.
Right after that came McGovern & Nixon w/his Southern strategy and everything has been going downhill since and we’re left with candidates having to run to their “base” rather than appeal to voters generally.
In the good old days primaries were “beauty contests” and candidates were chosen by professionals in the proverbial smoke-filled room.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Did you read the article? It’s not misleading at all. The pledge suggests that blacks in slavery were better off than they are today
Click to expand...
I read the sentence, and it absolutely does NOT say that slavery was BETTER than a culture of unwed motherhood. Both are horrendous, but in many cases, family life WAS better than it is today for black families. Just like it was a better CULTURE for children in the white families of indentured servant coal miners. My dad's was one, and his dad was killed at 29 with 3 young boys. Communities were close, your word was your bond, and virtually everyone was taught to have faith in and love God. :o Rob
 
Gift_from_God said:
Did you read the article? It’s not misleading at all. The pledge suggests that blacks in slavery were better off than they are today
Click to expand...
What is meant is that families were better off in that there were more two parent families, they are not saying slavery was good for Black people. They are not saying slavery was the reason as to why there were more two parent Black families, it just a point of history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top