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.
Majority Whip the highest position of power the “diversity democrats” will give a black man.... Posts that start out with bald faced, deliberate outrageous lies, such as this one, are meant for whom? Surely not the informed, educated and diverse Democratic Party voters?
really. These are all Chairmen of Standing Committees
Bobby Scott - Education & Labor
Benny Thompson - Homeland Security
Then you've got females:
Maxine Waters - Financial Services
Eddie Bernice Johnson - Science, Space and Technology
I was just reciting some facts - that the ratio of black unemployment to white is unchanged. I am not advocating a particular policy. But here we have Republicans telling blacks "look at all we've done for you", when really they didn't do anything specifically FOR blacks.
As I mentioned, it's the phenomenon of the rising tide lifting all boats, which has been used in the past to justify big tax breaks for the wealthy, on the theory that when the wealthy get richer they will spend more and create more jobs. Which may be true but, like the reduction in black unemployment, it amounts to "be happy with the crumbs that fall off my (rich white man's) table".
No matter if unemployment was at 100% you would still be whining and complaining and nothing would ever be good enough.
All government can do is try to create the conditions which promote jobs, it's up to you a nd the guy next door to you and the guy across the street from you to go out and get a job. So don't act as if Trump has to hold black people by the hand and do something for them. do it for yourself no one's gonna hold your hand in this world and as soon as you realize that you'll actually be able to get ahead in life and quit whining complaining and bitching
I hope you see the above quote for what it is, just more tripe spouted by slaveholders to try to justify their keeping people in human bondage. Did they provide their slaves with "protection, and comfortable subsistence"? If they did at all, it was only in the sense that a farmer provides his livestock with protection and subsistence. If a slave was not property, but only his labor was, then he should not have been forced to live on a particular plantation, nor forceably separated from his wife and children, as often happened. If the slave / slaveholder relationship was really just some kind of a contract, then under what law could a slaveholder whip an insolent slave viciously with no sort of due process? No, white Southerners saw blacks as sub-human and slaves as property, regardless of how they may have tried to plead the contrary.
I do see it for what it is.
I also agree with much of what you said.
FWIW the mindsets of southerners and northerns in the 19th century about slavery and about the inferiority of black people in particular is one of the reasons why I know for a fact that racism is a psychological disorder. People convinced themselves of delusional things.
However, I actually do feel that enslavers saw their chattel as inferior beings. They saw them more as perpetual children IMO and so felt they owned them and had a responsibility to them in a way. However, the slave was under their "employ" and worked for their subsistence. They did see it as labor in exchange for provisions/care.
These are very old debates that people don't hold anymore and I only brought it up because the previous poster I was communicating with about this subject seemed to indicate, as do you in a way, that southerners did not consider their slaves to be their laborers - that they saw them as "property" only like a house or something. They did see enslaved persons as laborers and servants. Their work was what was valuable. If they could not work, they were not valuable and they could not get a price in the market. Slavery as an institution is not well taught to our populace today and most people have a northern abolitionist's view of it because the south lost the Civil War so their perspectives about the institution are not readily known outside of folks like myself who study this stuff sometimes way too much.
While interesting literature, I don't think that it underscores or prove your original point that slaves and employees were one in the same. Simply highlighting abolutionists quotations and mix matching terminology, regions and general concepts of what it means to be paid restitution for one's labor versus involuntary servitude and tossing in random ideas of "North vs South" doesn't change the general idea that slaves were considered, for tax purposes as commodities--similar to chicken, a horse or a pig. Because they could do what other employed (free) humans could do, doesn't change that. It doesn't manufacture a competitive market place in the same fashion that we think of them today.
Yes, some were "paid" and kept restitution for their labor; sometimes they were hired out to others, and sometimes they were able to keep a portion of the wages for their labor and other times they were not. I would argue that if you do not have the full freedoms and advantages of being compensated for your labor--then you are not an "employee." I've never seen, or read of anything of a slave and an "employee" being used interchangeably ever. If you're arguing differently, then I guess in your world, "slavery" has never existed, since every slave was an "employee" to some extent.
According to your argument, as well as Clyburns, blacks had a lower homeless rate today than they had in the 19th century, because slaves technically had lodging in exchange for their labor costs as "employees."
Simply put, a slave was a slave, and employee was an employee--it's really not as complex are you are trying to make this out to be.
Municipalities counted them separately; they were taxed differently, Slave owners counted them separately, and they had separate "rights" from one another.
Clyburn is a fool and he is simply wrong. You, trying to intellectually change the argument as if there were some credit to what is saying by tossing in random literature of what an abolutionist thought--doesn't change that.
Do you consider a slave to be a laborer? Do you consider a laborer to be an employee?
Only thing I was explaining to you with my post is the fact that southerners considered themselves to "own" the labor of the enslaved person. They viewed their slaves as servants and laborers whose wages were their subsistence and protection by the enslaver.
They are the ones who skewed the view of the enslaved as laborers/employees and they did this MULTIPLE times. As I noted in the quote I put, they felt that northerners/abolitionists had a different view of slavery than they did. As I noted in my previous post - we all have a northern/abolitionist view of the institution of slavery today and that is because we have a very simplistic view of the institution itself.
Today we know for certain that black people actually are people and most acknowledge that black people are not inferior to white people. We have a different perspective but does that negate entirely the perspective of the enslavers of the 19th century.
I am not proposing any particular view other than that statistics, by themselves, do not tell the whole picture. Clyburn was not either, most of you just have a very polarized political view of black Democrats, Democrats as a whole, and liberals and so are apt to not consider what someone is actually saying, instead deciding to go with a very simplistic negative interpretation of those words.
I mentioned earlier that there is a poster here who always brings up the fact that black people had lower UE rates in the 1920s. Do you - itshim - believe that due to those lower rates of unemployment in the 1920s that black people were "better off" in the 1920s than we are today. Keep in mind that over 80% of black people lived in poverty in the 1920s so their employment rates did not impact their economic or financial lives a great deal.
Many Americans today like to put statistics as a god in their perspectives, as if these numbers tell an accurate story about how people are doing. I have never agreed with this perspective, because I've actually studied a lot of history, economics, and statistics and I know that statistics tell what they want to tell and don't usually give an accurate picture of a society. IMO Clyburn was stating the same thing - that if you believe UE statistics indicate someone is "better off" then in your mind slaves or black people in the 1920s were "better off" since they were working everyday and were employed for the most part. That concept to Clyburn and myself is a ridiculous concept - to think that UE numbers indicate whether or not someone's life is "better" in some way or not.
I'll also note, as a black person, that it is nauseously condescending that conservatives imply that Trump "gave" or "does" anything for black people when he does not. Black people go out and get our own jobs. We didn't magically get bestowed jobs from Trump 3 years ago when he took office. And it is important IMO to know what kind of jobs people have - not just black people either. It is odd to me that so many of you focus on black people and our jobs when we have them and act like you/Trump/the benevolent white man is doing something for us but when UE statistics rise, you blame us and act like we don't want jobs and are lazy....so what is it - do black people get our own jobs or do white men like Trump have to give them to us? IMO many Americans still have the same view of black people today as those southerners did in the book of which I quoted. They feel that we won't work unless the white man does something for us. You all think Trump does something for us, and that is why we are working more instead of realizing that black people are not lazy and we always work. Sometimes it makes our lives better sometimes it doesn't.
I personally have a goal to not have to work cause I don't like working. I don't feel that a regular job makes my life "better." I think that I would have a "better" life without a job. However, I also have multiple streams of income. I own properties so get rent. I own stocks and mutual funds and get paid dividends (and FWIW I do credit Trump with not f-ing up the economy and I'm glad I gained over 30% last year with my mutual funds in particular). My goal is to live off my investment and not work. I hire companies to manage my properties. I don't want to work. I will be "better" off not working and pursuing things I like to do, which is primarily sticking my nose in old books learning about African American history and all of the players in that history over the past 400 years.
FWIW the mindsets of southerners and northerns in the 19th century about slavery and about the inferiority of black people in particular is one of the reasons why I know for a fact that racism is a psychological disorder. People convinced themselves of delusional things.
However, I actually do feel that enslavers saw their chattel as inferior beings. They saw them more as perpetual children IMO and so felt they owned them and had a responsibility to them in a way. However, the slave was under their "employ" and worked for their subsistence. They did see it as labor in exchange for provisions/care.
These are very old debates that people don't hold anymore and I only brought it up because the previous poster I was communicating with about this subject seemed to indicate, as do you in a way, that southerners did not consider their slaves to be their laborers - that they saw them as "property" only like a house or something. They did see enslaved persons as laborers and servants. Their work was what was valuable. If they could not work, they were not valuable and they could not get a price in the market. Slavery as an institution is not well taught to our populace today and most people have a northern abolitionist's view of it because the south lost the Civil War so their perspectives about the institution are not readily known outside of folks like myself who study this stuff sometimes way too much.
They did see them as property and they were legally property. A horse also was no good unless it performed functions for the owners. Doesn't make the horse an employee. The horse also received food and lodging in exchange for its labor. Still a horse. Still property.
Do you consider a slave to be a laborer? Do you consider a laborer to be an employee?
Only thing I was explaining to you with my post is the fact that southerners considered themselves to "own" the labor of the enslaved person. They viewed their slaves as servants and laborers whose wages were their subsistence and protection by the enslaver.
They are the ones who skewed the view of the enslaved as laborers/employees and they did this MULTIPLE times. As I noted in the quote I put, they felt that northerners/abolitionists had a different view of slavery than they did. As I noted in my previous post - we all have a northern/abolitionist view of the institution of slavery today and that is because we have a very simplistic view of the institution itself.
Today we know for certain that black people actually are people and most acknowledge that black people are not inferior to white people. We have a different perspective but does that negate entirely the perspective of the enslavers of the 19th century.
I am not proposing any particular view other than that statistics, by themselves, do not tell the whole picture. Clyburn was not either, most of you just have a very polarized political view of black Democrats, Democrats as a whole, and liberals and so are apt to not consider what someone is actually saying, instead deciding to go with a very simplistic negative interpretation of those words.
I mentioned earlier that there is a poster here who always brings up the fact that black people had lower UE rates in the 1920s. Do you - itshim - believe that due to those lower rates of unemployment in the 1920s that black people were "better off" in the 1920s than we are today. Keep in mind that over 80% of black people lived in poverty in the 1920s so their employment rates did not impact their economic or financial lives a great deal.
Many Americans today like to put statistics as a god in their perspectives, as if these numbers tell an accurate story about how people are doing. I have never agreed with this perspective, because I've actually studied a lot of history, economics, and statistics and I know that statistics tell what they want to tell and don't usually give an accurate picture of a society. IMO Clyburn was stating the same thing - that if you believe UE statistics indicate someone is "better off" then in your mind slaves or black people in the 1920s were "better off" since they were working everyday and were employed for the most part. That concept to Clyburn and myself is a ridiculous concept - to think that UE numbers indicate whether or not someone's life is "better" in some way or not.
I'll also note, as a black person, that it is nauseously condescending that conservatives imply that Trump "gave" or "does" anything for black people when he does not. Black people go out and get our own jobs. We didn't magically get bestowed jobs from Trump 3 years ago when he took office. And it is important IMO to know what kind of jobs people have - not just black people either. It is odd to me that so many of you focus on black people and our jobs when we have them and act like you/Trump/the benevolent white man is doing something for us but when UE statistics rise, you blame us and act like we don't want jobs and are lazy....so what is it - do black people get our own jobs or do white men like Trump have to give them to us? IMO many Americans still have the same view of black people today as those southerners did in the book of which I quoted. They feel that we won't work unless the white man does something for us. You all think Trump does something for us, and that is why we are working more instead of realizing that black people are not lazy and we always work. Sometimes it makes our lives better sometimes it doesn't. I personally have a goal to not have to work cause I don't like working. I don't feel that a regular job makes my life "better." I think that I would have a "better" life without a job. However, I also have multiple streams of income. I own properties so get rent. I own stocks and mutual funds and get paid dividends (and FWIW I do credit Trump with not f-ing up the economy and I'm glad I gained over 30% last year with my mutual funds in particular). My goal is to live off my investment and not work. I hire companies to manage my properties. I don't want to work. I will be "better" off not working and pursuing things I like to do, which is primarily sticking my nose in old books learning about African American history and all of the players in that history over the past 400 years.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Most people need to work for income. For most people, no work = no way to have shelter and food, etc. and so forth. No one is talking about working in and of itself being awesome.
They did see them as property and they were legally property. A horse also was no good unless it performed functions for the owners. Doesn't make the horse an employee. The horse also received food and lodging in exchange for its labor. Still a horse. Still property.
Read the quote I posted. Southerners saw slaves as inferior persons. They were on a higher level than a horse. As noted, most of us have a northern perspective on slavery as an institution based upon the south losing the Civil War.
They did not keep statistics/quantitative data on their horses like they did their enslaved chattel in regards to their jobs and training, etc. Nor did they compare their animals to those in other regions in order to protect their ownership of their animals. Northerners and southerners knew that enslaved persons were person. Both saw people of African descent as inferior beings compared to whites. Southerners and northerners in the 18th century used this as an excuse to enslave them and deem themselves their slaves "protectors."
This stuff is very well known by the likes of people like Clyburn and others who have a deep knowledge of African American history. Clyburn has a degree in history. He knows about this stuff more than you all. Plus he went to an HBCU where they give a better education regarding slavery as an institution it seems than many of you have received. It covers both northern and southern perspectives on race and slavery and abolition.
Once a horse could no longer provide labor, it was shot and killed. Slaves when they were old were usually cared for by their masters if they had one who wasn't an a-hole. There was a difference. I know it is hard for you all to even consider and I'm not trying to force you to do so, because I honestly don't care if you do. But it reflects poorly on nearly everyone on this thread who is castigating Clyburn IMO because it shows that you have a very narrow view of African Americans and you still see us in a way that those enslavers saw us - as laborers whose condition should be skewed to push a political agenda.
Slaves were legally property. It doesn't matter how different people professed to 'view' it. They were property. The slave owners did not just own their labor, they owned the people.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Most people need to work for income. For most people, no work = no way to have shelter and food, etc. and so forth. No one is talking about working in and of itself being awesome.
People have repeatedly said that working makes you "better off" as did yourself.
Better off in what way?
As noted 1920 black people were not better off even though their UE rates were very low. Over 80% lived in abject poverty.
I'd take 1980s/1990s crack epidemic and low job rates over 1920 America as a black person.
You all see money as the end all/be all. Black people know that there are other things that occur to us outside of money/finances that regardless of your job or income level means you are not "better off" just cause you have a job.
Slaves were legally property. It doesn't matter how different people professed to 'view' it. They were property. The slave owners did not just own their labor, they owned the people.
They were owned because they provided labor....
If they did not provide labor/were laborers, what would have been the point?
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.
