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

[SamH]

It was still, IMO, pretty stupid to pick the slavery era for an example of black children being “better off.” I know what point they were trying to make, but they shot themselves in the foot.

Doesn’t that show how BAD the current situation is?

They could have said anything and it would have been heckled. Look at what happened to Bill Cosby when he spoke out on the matter.

 

[agnes_therese]

Doesn’t that show how BAD the current situation is?

They could have said anything and it would have been heckled. Look at what happened to Bill Cosby when he spoke out on the matter.

Well, in this case – and again, IMO – no, I don’t think it does. I don’t see how it could be suggested that black children were in any way better off in 1860. You might have had 2 parents, but you could be sold away from them at any moment. One parent and not being sold like a piece of furniture would be better, I really do think.

BTW, I do see your point, I’m just saying that in THIS instance, I don’t think it applies.

 

[RACJ]

As a Republican, I find this pledge offensive and very un-Republican.

I will not vote for any candidate that signs that pledge, primary or general.

The statement about the horrible dissolution of the majority of black families (and a staggeringly high percentage of all families) is TRUE. So you, as a Republican, will vote for the ruinous BHO over a candidate who has signed this pledge? Now, I'd never sign a pledge written by someone else myself, were I a candidate. But why you are offended that someone has signed a simple statement of fact is beyond me. I'm tired of pandering and walking around on eggshells. :onpatrol: Rob

 

[Darryl1958]

The unborn are looked at by the left as something not human, which is why they defend the policy of abortion on demand. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist and sought to eradicate black people from America, true story. The disaster that is the American family today has its roots in 1 organization, Planned Parenthood with its policy of abortion and sex education for children. With its affiliation with NOW and NARAL, its amazing that there are any traditional core families left.

The eugenics movement have always looked at blacks and the poor as problems that need to be fixed. Abortion and other limits on population are the solutions that the left are expecially adept at putting into practice.
Leftist polcies have been overall disastrous for blacks especially. They have made so many blacks and the poor in general into dependants of the state, which is the exact opposite of liberty.

 

[RACJ]

I doubt that very much. This controversy will blow over long before the voting in the primaries and caucuses start. Moreover, the people who turn out for primaries tend to be the base of the party. This issue might have had impact, at least in some states, if Bachmann were running as a Democrat. However, I don’t think many core Republicans will consider this to be a serious issue.

  I don't believe that Michele will ultimately be a strong candidate for POTUS, but I can't imagine that signing a statement acknowledging truth will hurt her in the least. :rolleyes: Rob

PALIN/RUBIO '12!!

 

[Ahimsa]

Leftist polcies have been overall disastrous for blacks especially.

I agree. That leftist MLK was a disaster!

 

[RACJ]

The eugenics movement have always looked at blacks and the poor as problems that need to be fixed. Abortion and other limits on population are the solutions that the left are expecially adept at putting into practice.
Leftist polcies have been overall disastrous for blacks especially. They have made so many blacks and the poor in general into dependants of the state, which is the exact opposite of liberty.

Amen, Darryl! More sad truth... Well stated. :( Rob

 

[RACJ]

Well, in this case – and again, IMO – no, I don’t think it does. I don’t see how it could be suggested that black children were in any way better off in 1860. You might have had 2 parents, but you could be sold away from them at any moment. One parent and not being sold like a piece of furniture would be better, I really do think.

BTW, I do see your point, I’m just saying that in THIS instance, I don’t think it applies.

Agnes Therese, while splitting families did occur, do you think that most plantation owners would eviscerate the morale of the black folks by doing this? BTW, the coal barons of the last century were every bit as cruel as slave owners. Coal miners were no better off than slaves, and many of their families were separated by death, thanks to abominable conditions. That included my dad's family. Miners were much easier to replace than plantation slaves, and they were viewed as sub-human through the prism of social Darwinism. :mad: Rob

 

[SamH]

Well, in this case – and again, IMO – no, I don’t think it does. I don’t see how it could be suggested that black children were in any way better off in 1860. .

Where did they state that black children were better off?

Even with the possibility of being bought and sold like furniture the black family unit was more likely to be “whole” in the time of slavery than today. Quite trying to add something that isn’t there.

 

[Zhenia]

One thing I have noticed from statistics is that blacks are a mere 13% of the US population. One might wonder why so much attention and focus is placed on them considering that.

Malcolm X (black nationalist leader) recognized the situation for what it is: whites (on both sides, liberal and conservative) use blacks as pawns in their political struggles against each other. It has always been this way, even dating back to the time of the War Between the States.

 

[estesbob]

I know…in fact, the slave trade in Africa was largely run by North African Arab Muslims. Black, subSaharan African tribes would war with each other, and the winning tribe got to pick the “best” of the losers for their own personal slaves, and they sold the rest into slavery to the North Africans. They in turn sold them to Europeans, who in turn sold them to North Americans.

The North (you know, the ones who went to war with the South, supposedly to free slaves?) had a very lucrative business going with slavery. They convinced Southern plantation owners that African slaves would be better than the white indentured servants they had been using, because the indentured servants would be free after a set period, but slaves would never be.

The South was on the receiving end of the slavery issue; many, many others made a very big profit on slavery, everyone from the winning black African tribes to the North African slave traders to the Europeans to the Northerners in America.

And that is pertinent to a discussion on the treatment of African Americans in this country becuause? Hopefully you are not suggesting that the United States invovlvement in slavery is somehow mitigated by the fact Africans facilitated it?

 

[Dale_M]

One thing I have noticed from statistics is that blacks are a mere 13% of the US population. One might wonder why so much attention and focus is placed on them considering that…

13% isn’t exactly a small number. It is equal to one out of every eight. Since the US population is 312 million, more than 40 million are blacks. Again, not a small number.

 

[Ahimsa]

‘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.

I read the document that this quote supposedly referenced. I may be missing something, but I didn’t find the slavery claim in that document.

 

[Ahimsa]

Even with the possibility of being bought and sold like furniture the black family unit was more likely to be “whole” in the time of slavery than today.

If by “whole” you include the right of the white slave master to sexually exploit the married female slave, then, yeah, slave families were “whole”.

 

[Dale_M]

I read the document that this quote supposedly referenced. I may be missing something, but I didn’t find the slavery claim in that document.

Its the first bullet point in this version of the pledge, which is apparently the one signed by Bachmann and Santorum.
politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html

 

[SamH]

If by “whole” you include the right of the white slave master to sexually exploit the married female slave, then, yeah, slave families were “whole”.

Again, where does the article make that claim?

Build that strawman.

 

[Ahimsa]

Its the first bullet point in this version of the pledge, which is apparently the one signed by Bachmann and Santorum.
politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html

Right, and the footnote (footnote 3) is to this document. And I didn’t see anything in the “Consequences” article comparing marriage rates in 1860 and in 2000s.

 

[Ahimsa]

Again, where does the article make that claim?

I was responding to your statement:

“Even with the possibility of being bought and sold like furniture the black family unit was more likely to be “whole” in the time of slavery than today.”

 

[SamH]

I was responding to your statement:

“Even with the possibility of being bought and sold like furniture the black family unit was more likely to be “whole” in the time of slavery than today.”

Ok.

You couldn’t argue with that point so you faked one?

 

[Zhenia]

And that is pertinent to a discussion on the treatment of African Americans in this country becuause? Hopefully you are not suggesting that the United States invovlvement in slavery is somehow mitigated by the fact Africans facilitated it?

What I am pointing out is that we need to face the fact that many different groups share the blame for slavery, not only white Southerners, political correctness notwithstanding.