Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bundy's statement, the full one, didn't come off as particularly racist to me. Antiquated & misguided, but I certainly didn't hear any malice towards other races in his words. In fact, I heard a weird, sort of misguided benevolence in his voice. He's no hero & he needs to pay his taxes, but I really believe most people don't even understand what racism is or what a racist is. They heard "Negro" and their minds were made up.
Bundy's statement, the full one, didn't come off as particularly racist to me. Antiquated & misguided, but I certainly didn't hear any malice towards other races in his words. In fact, I heard a weird, sort of misguided benevolence in his voice. He's no hero & he needs to pay his taxes, but I really believe most people don't even understand what racism is or what a racist is. They heard "Negro" and their minds were made up.
Nobody "wonders if" whites on public assistance would be better off as slaves.
Does he sound like he hates black people or does it sound like he's lamenting the state of poor black family's today?
Again, I'm not saying Bundy's a hero, not saying he shouldn't pay his taxes. I'm just pointing out that I don't hear any hatred or animosity towards blacks. To me it sounds like the misguided benevolent ramblings of an old farmer.
Does he sound like he hates black people or does it sound like he's lamenting the state of poor black family's today?
Again, I'm not saying Bundy's a hero, not saying he shouldn't pay his taxes. I'm just pointing out that I don't hear any hatred or animosity towards blacks. To me it sounds like the misguided benevolent ramblings of an old farmer.
I agree.....like I posted before.....he is just an old guy.
Although I believe I understand what he was trying to say, he comes off very ignorant with his statement. It was poorly worded and he deserves the backlash he is getting from this.
You live in Nj?
Let me guess,must be south Jersey!
Phylis Wheatley was 5 yrs old when she became a slave.
She was a baby. She should have been with her mother.
Would you mind if you had a daughter sold into slavery at 5?
I don't live in NJ, but thanks for trying.
And yes, I would mind if I had a daughter who was sold into slavery at age 5. But notice what you just said - SOLD into slavery. This means that the authorities / tribal elders / whomever was in charge, in Africa, were SELLING these people into slavery. The white Americans didn't go down there with guns and knives and kidnap them violently... the black Africans who became slaves were essentially betrayed by their own. I would fight to the death, if need be, to prevent my 5-year-old daughter from being kidnapped or forced into slavery... but evidently such was not the case with Phyllis Wheatley's parents in Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Must be something in the water down there....................after all, we should all be so happy to be "work humans."
We're all "work humans" to some extent. When 94% of Americans wish they had a different job, that means we're being used as "work humans". If you work in a situation wherein you are required to obey commands from some boss or authority lest you lose your job (and your ability to pay for your basic necessities of life), you are essentially no different from the slaves of old. You may not be beaten for poor performance nor shot at if you try to leave, but I would be willing to bet that certain people in modern-day "jobs" would sooner take a whipping from their boss for poor performance if the alternative is being told "you're fired". I'm sure most Americans would sooner be fired, but I'd bet that you could find some people who are so desperate for money or so desperate to stay in their employment situations that they would take a few lashes for a significant screw-up rather than lose their jobs. If that ain't being a "work human", I don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
Nobody "wonders if" whites on public assistance would be better off as slaves.
Oh, I never said anything about race. People of all races are enslaved, these days. I think that many whites on public assistance would be better off in the old-time conditions of slavery. I should know. I was landlord to a bunch of them for about two years. They were some of the laziest, least-educated leeches I've ever seen. If they were slaves, they might just get some education so that they'd come out sounding like Jourdon Anderson, they would not have been allowed to destroy their bodies by using drugs, and they would work for what they have rather than leeching off of the productivity of other people.
The reason why black people were slaves was twofold. First of all, African authorities were plenty happy to sell their people into slavery (the same could not be said for American authorities, authorities in European countries, et al.). Secondly, the differential between the races was very obvious. It's not as easy to tell the difference between a German and an American (or, in those days, a person of British descent) as it is to tell the difference between an African and an American. So if they enslaved Germans, how would anyone really know the difference?
You know something else? Consider this. Africa as a continent has been in a perpetual state of famine and drought. Most of it is desert and we're forever hearing about how there's hunger down there. In the days of slavery, I imagine this was still a problem because if it wasn't, African authorities would not have resorted to selling their own people into slavery for money.... they would have, instead, focused on using the resources they had to build up a country and a civilization. So I'm assuming that there was poverty in Africa in the days of slavery. If it was comparable to the poverty in Africa these days, where people might get only one tiny meal every day and you're extremely fortunate to live beyond age 5, then the people who were brought to America as slaves were actually given a BETTER life than what they would have had in Africa. Sure, they had to work... and it was hard manual labor... but they were fed, clothed, cared for, given a place to live, etc. Everybody always looks at the downside of slavery. It's inescapably true that there was an atrocious downside in many cases... but you have to look at all sides of every story in order to understand it well enough to comment about it.
Yes, I am indeed making Cliven Bundy sound like an intellectually developed, well-educated human being. You have to have brains if you're going to be a farmer. Heaven knows, this guy has managed to fight the federal government, and win at least a few battles even if the outcome of the war is as yet undetermined. You can't do that if you don't have brains. If y'all can decouple your thought processes from "slavery is terrible no matter which way you look at it" and examine all sides of the story, you will find that many people, of whatever race, live in conditions today which, ceteris paribus, are less positive than average conditions of what we called "slavery" in the early 1800's. That being the case, it's a logical conclusion that those people would have been better off as slaves.
Do you honestly think that a modern-day welfare family where the parents are on drugs, the home is a squalid mess, the kids run around in dirty clothing unsupervised and unbathed, and nobody works for anything they get even though they are physically capable of doing so, is better off in that modern situation than the same family would have been in the 1800's as slaves? If yes, why/how?
Now here's a different way of putting it. These welfare families can only be welfare families if you and I, the productive people in society, pay for their benefits. Let's say that we could set up a system whereby people who could not afford their basic necessities on their own would have to be indentured into slavery, at least for as long as it took to pay off their debts or amass enough money to pay for their basic necessities. (One additional necessary condition for this system is a dramatic strengthening of penalties for crimes such as theft. If, in the words of Aladdin, some people feel they "gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat", I think that another Arabian-style tactic would do wonders... that being the immediate removal of the hands of anyone who is caught stealing. An additional proviso I must state is that people who are physically incapable of working would be exempted from enslavement for inability to provide for themselves. However, such people would not be given welfare anyway - if they had nobody to provide for them, they would have to live on human charity... which isn't really so bad, as history provides many examples of how human charity in America has exceeded government charity when given its chance.)
Let's also say that the other choice would be to keep our system as it is - welfare for these "capable" people, for which they do not have to work. Would you prefer to have YOUR money legally robbed from you (through taxation, of course) to provide such welfare benefits for these families so that they can have a home even though they don't work, buy and use drugs / cigarettes / alcohol all the time, have all kinds of children who run amok, etc., so that this family doesn't have to be enslaved... or would you support enslavement for such people so that they would be forced, in one way or another, to work for whatever they get?
I would support the slavery system. I guarantee you that if the gravy train were put out to pasture and left to rot, and capable people were told that they had to pay for everything they need or else be forced into slavery to pay for it, you would find many more people getting off their lazy butts and doing everything they could to get jobs as free people. Furthermore, since people's taxes would drop dramatically due to not having to pay for benefits for do-nothings, people would have more money to spend which would result in more available jobs... such that capable people would be able to find work if they wanted it. Ultimately I believe that if we had such a slavery system, few people would be enslaved. But you never know... some might enjoy it. People never cease to astound me. All I care about is keeping the money I earn through my labor, and not having it robbed from me to pay benefits for capable do-nothings. I'd prefer slavery for those people so that THEY would "pay off" what they need, rather than ME. Am I in the minority here? What do y'all say?
Bundy's statement, the full one, didn't come off as particularly racist to me. Antiquated & misguided, but I certainly didn't hear any malice towards other races in his words. In fact, I heard a weird, sort of misguided benevolence in his voice. He's no hero & he needs to pay his taxes, but I really believe most people don't even understand what racism is or what a racist is. They heard "Negro" and their minds were made up.
After reviewing the full video, I have to agree with you.
I was guilty of falling for that particular media's attempt at clouding the situation.
And yes, I would mind if I had a daughter who was sold into slavery at age 5.
But notice what you just said - SOLD into slavery. This means that the
authorities / tribal elders / whomever was in charge, in Africa, were SELLING
these people into slavery. The white Americans didn't go down there with guns
and knives and kidnap them violently... the black Africans who became slaves
were essentially betrayed by their own. I would fight to the death, if need be,
to prevent my 5-year-old daughter from being kidnapped or forced into slavery...
but evidently such was not the case with Phyllis Wheatley's parents in
Africa.
People didn't sell their "people" to slavers, not "their own," and certainly not their families. They sold their enemies or their captives.
Quote:
We're all "work humans" to some extent. When 94% of Americans wish they had a
different job, that means we're being used as "work humans". If you work in a
situation wherein you are required to obey commands from some boss or authority
lest you lose your job (and your ability to pay for your basic necessities of
life), you are essentially no different from the slaves of old.
You keep sticking your foot in your mouth. If someone wants to leave a job, they can.
Quote:
You may not be beaten for poor performance nor shot at if you try to
leave, but I would be willing to bet that certain people in modern-day "jobs"
would sooner take a whipping from their boss for poor performance if the
alternative is being told "you're fired". I'm sure most Americans would sooner
be fired, but I'd bet that you could find some people who are so desperate for
money or so desperate to stay in their employment situations that they would
take a few lashes for a significant screw-up rather than lose their jobs. If
that ain't being a "work human", I don't know what is.
You show me someone who would accept being whipped for any reason, and I'll show you an idiot.
Quote:
The reason why black people were slaves was twofold. First of all, African
authorities were plenty happy to sell their people into slavery (the same could
not be said for American authorities, authorities in European countries, et
al.). Secondly, the differential between the races was very obvious. It's not as
easy to tell the difference between a German and an American (or, in those days,
a person of British descent) as it is to tell the difference between an African
and an American. So if they enslaved Germans, how would anyone really know the
difference?
Not a damn thing you wrote in this sentence has even the slightest connection to reality.
Quote:
Yes, I am indeed making Cliven Bundy sound like an intellectually developed,
well-educated human being. You have to have brains if you're going to be a
farmer. Heaven knows, this guy has managed to fight the federal government, and
win at least a few battles even if the outcome of the war is as yet
undetermined. You can't do that if you don't have brains. If y'all can decouple
your thought processes from "slavery is terrible no matter which way you look at
it" and examine all sides of the story, you will find that many people, of
whatever race, live in conditions today which, ceteris paribus, are less
positive than average conditions of what we called "slavery" in the early
1800's. That being the case, it's a logical conclusion that those people would
have been better off as slaves.
Do you honestly think that a modern-day welfare family where the parents are
on drugs, the home is a squalid mess, the kids run around in dirty clothing
unsupervised and unbathed, and nobody works for anything they get even though
they are physically capable of doing so, is better off in that modern situation
than the same family would have been in the 1800's as slaves? If yes,
why/how?
Now here's a different way of putting it. These welfare families can only be
welfare families if you and I, the productive people in society, pay for their
benefits. Let's say that we could set up a system whereby people who could not
afford their basic necessities on their own would have to be indentured into
slavery, at least for as long as it took to pay off their debts or amass enough
money to pay for their basic necessities. (One additional necessary condition
for this system is a dramatic strengthening of penalties for crimes such as
theft. If, in the words of Aladdin, some people feel they "gotta eat to live,
gotta steal to eat", I think that another Arabian-style tactic would do
wonders... that being the immediate removal of the hands of anyone who is caught
stealing. An additional proviso I must state is that people who are physically
incapable of working would be exempted from enslavement for inability to provide
for themselves. However, such people would not be given welfare anyway - if they
had nobody to provide for them, they would have to live on human charity...
which isn't really so bad, as history provides many examples of how human
charity in America has exceeded government charity when given its chance.)
Let's also say that the other choice would be to keep our system as it is -
welfare for these "capable" people, for which they do not have to work. Would
you prefer to have YOUR money legally robbed from you (through taxation, of
course) to provide such welfare benefits for these families so that they can
have a home even though they don't work, buy and use drugs / cigarettes /
alcohol all the time, have all kinds of children who run amok, etc., so that
this family doesn't have to be enslaved... or would you support enslavement for
such people so that they would be forced, in one way or another, to work for
whatever they get?
I would support the slavery system. I guarantee you that if the gravy train
were put out to pasture and left to rot, and capable people were told that they
had to pay for everything they need or else be forced into slavery to pay for
it, you would find many more people getting off their lazy butts and doing
everything they could to get jobs as free people. Furthermore, since people's
taxes would drop dramatically due to not having to pay for benefits for
do-nothings, people would have more money to spend which would result in more
available jobs... such that capable people would be able to find work if they
wanted it. Ultimately I believe that if we had such a slavery system, few people
would be enslaved. But you never know... some might enjoy it. People never cease
to astound me. All I care about is keeping the money I earn through my labor,
and not having it robbed from me to pay benefits for capable do-nothings. I'd
prefer slavery for those people so that THEY would "pay off" what they need,
rather than ME. Am I in the minority here? What do y'all say?
I say you go on and be a slave and let us all know how well that's going for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
