If you admit those "norms" were not so great, why are you trying so hard to return to them?
Conservatives Outraged!
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
If you admit those "norms" were not so great, why are you trying so hard to return to them?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
No coherent argument for what? The very act of owning another human being precludes benevolence.
However, I absolutely fully support you and other Republicans arguing that slave owners have been misunderstood and Hollywood has been involved in a nefarious plot to depict slaves as unhappy. Go for it. I encouraged your war on women too. Keep it coming fellas! Some of you may be (barely) literate, but none of you can read demographic truths. That's all good news as far as I am concerned.
Taft2016
Verified User
Hold on! Now we're getting somewhere...
Are you claiming the northern factory owners were morally superior to slave owners because they didn't own their help?
A funny thing happened with the end of slavery. The plantation owners actually found their land more profitable without slavery, and with sharecropping. This was because:
*They didn't have to feed the help
*They didn't have to clothe the help
*They didn't have to feed the help's children
*They didn't have have to provide any medical care for the whole family
*They were not responsible for the help's old, infirm, and unproductive family members
Up north, if a man lost his arm in a factory accident... his coworkers passed around a hat for a collection and that was basically the end of that. He couldn't work any longer, pay the rent, or buy food. He, his wife, and his little ones were then out on the street to survive.
Which is the whole point of the discussion. The realities and the moralities of those times, not these times.
I understand this is too much for you to absorb. But think about it. Don't just focus on the slavery, look at the bigger picture, and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that 3D dinosaur floating in the background.
Nah. Probably not.
maineman
Banned
it was a film based upon a non-fiction book. Was the film inaccurate in its depiction of slavery, yes or no?
and, if you think the film was inaccurate in its depiction of slavery, please state what part of the movie was inaccurate.
Taft2016
Verified User
Hold on! Now we're getting somewhere...
Are you claiming the northern factory owners were morally superior to slave owners because they didn't own their help?
A funny thing happened with the end of slavery. The plantation owners actually found their land more profitable without slavery, and with sharecropping. This was because:
*They didn't have to feed the help
*They didn't have to clothe the help
*They didn't have to feed the help's children
*They didn't have have to provide any medical care for the whole family
*They were not responsible for the help's old, infirm, and unproductive family members
Up north, if a man lost his arm in a factory accident... his coworkers passed around a hat for a collection and that was basically the end of that. He couldn't work any longer, pay the rent, or buy food. He, his wife, and his little ones were then out on the street to survive.
Which is the whole point of the discussion. The realities and the moralities of those times, not these times.
I understand this is too much for you to absorb. But think about it. Don't just focus on the slavery, look at the bigger picture, and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that 3D dinosaur floating in the background.
Nah. Probably not.
Neither were morally superior, neither had morals. There were people living at those times who were fully aware that the factory conditions and the owning of slaves were immoral and so to make the claim that it was the reality and morality of the times is incorrect.
It is why unions were formed and why the abolitionist movement came about.
Hold on! Now we're getting somewhere...
Are you claiming the northern factory owners were morally superior to slave owners because they didn't own their help?
A funny thing happened with the end of slavery. The plantation owners actually found their land more profitable without slavery, and with sharecropping. This was because:
*They didn't have to feed the help
*They didn't have to clothe the help
*They didn't have to feed the help's children
*They didn't have have to provide any medical care for the whole family
*They were not responsible for the help's old, infirm, and unproductive family members
Up north, if a man lost his arm in a factory accident... his coworkers passed around a hat for a collection and that was basically the end of that. He couldn't work any longer, pay the rent, or buy food. He, his wife, and his little ones were then out on the street to survive.
Which is the whole point of the discussion. The realities and the moralities of those times, not these times.
I understand this is too much for you to absorb. But think about it. Don't just focus on the slavery, look at the bigger picture, and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that 3D dinosaur floating in the background.
Nah. Probably not.
Yep the Robber barons sucked. Now tell me again why you want to return things to those levels? Oh yeah, so your taxes will be slightly lower. Suck it up big boy.
Last edited:
maineman
Banned
quit running away. Either the movie was accurate or not.
Taft2016
Verified User
But that's a cop-out answer. Especially when one makes the "ownership" of the help the deciding issue, as Darla did. There is clearly an implied moral superiority.
Those were the accepted social norms of the times. Think of abortion. It's an accepted social norm today, but someday it will be recognized for the evil that it is. Regardless of whether or not you believe that; would it fair, years down the road from now, to apply the same harsh language to young girls today who get abortions?
The fact that there are people today who recognize it as evil does not alter the fact that today it is an accepted social norm.
Now my question is, were some factory owners and slave owners more enlightened than others? The obvious answer is "yes."
And in all of this roundabout, my only point is that it is ignorant to blanketly condemn everyone. Yeah, the systems themselves were terribly flawed, but the people were not universally bad. And there's no really credible way to argue that, other than putting words into my mouth and mocking me for things that I never said.
Last edited:
Taft2016
Verified User
I'm not running away. You moved the goal posts.
I asked you if the film was a complete and accurate portrayal of all slave owners, including black slave owners. You didn't answer. I'm waiting.
Last edited:
this film is nothing more than sensitivity training for dumbasses. Now be a good little liberal and make a donation to the united negro college fund.
Is there a United White College Fund ?
Or a White History Month?
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
I think the problem I see with some conservatives taking issue with movies like 12 years as a slave is because they want to forget about slavery as being a part of American history. The loathe the term "white guilt" because as some would like to say "can't you just get over it? Although slavery doesn't currently exist in its past form we all as an American society, still have issues with racism, and acknowledging the historical sufferings of a people. I'm personally tired of people saying "get over it" as if I can simply delete the history of my ancestors and the historical accomplishments by those of "colored" pigmentation. I mean, do we tell others "get over the "Deceleration of Independence?" Or tell Native Americans to get over the fact that their ancestors lands were robbed? Or tell the Irish and the Chinese to get over the fact that they were used for the benefit of others?
As far as I'm concerned slavery was and always will be a part of the formation of the nation, and it was because of African slaves that America, at least economically and militarily, was successful. What I always tell some of my "white friends" whenever we get into these discussions is to never be guilty of what your ancestors did or what people of your ethnic group did because the sins of the forefathers are not passed down from generation to the next. But I think it's important to understand the sufferings of a people and to empathize the pain that such a group went through in a time where these people weren't even considered human. Personally, I'm critical of the term "white guilt" but I am fond of the term social consciousness and I believe that is what we need today as an American society.
As far as I'm concerned slavery was and always will be a part of the formation of the nation, and it was because of African slaves that America, at least economically and militarily, was successful. What I always tell some of my "white friends" whenever we get into these discussions is to never be guilty of what your ancestors did or what people of your ethnic group did because the sins of the forefathers are not passed down from generation to the next. But I think it's important to understand the sufferings of a people and to empathize the pain that such a group went through in a time where these people weren't even considered human. Personally, I'm critical of the term "white guilt" but I am fond of the term social consciousness and I believe that is what we need today as an American society.
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
@Nova you asked:
"Is there a United White College Fund?"
Really?
You asked that?
So not only do whites feel left out when they are criticized for using the word "nigga" but also they feel left out when they aren't represented more in society. What do I keep telling you guys whites not only being the most dominant in matters of population in the United States but historically worldwide are the most represented in contemporary history. So now despite all that you want MORE representation or how nice a similar colonialist mindset which is similar to the predecessors of this country.
"Is there a United White College Fund?"
Really?
You asked that?
So not only do whites feel left out when they are criticized for using the word "nigga" but also they feel left out when they aren't represented more in society. What do I keep telling you guys whites not only being the most dominant in matters of population in the United States but historically worldwide are the most represented in contemporary history. So now despite all that you want MORE representation or how nice a similar colonialist mindset which is similar to the predecessors of this country.
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
How does a white person living in economic poverty equate to being a slave? Impoverished whites could vote. Were free to read. Were free to use a "white only" bathroom stall. They were free to get a job without suffering from ethnic backlash. They were free to not be hung. They were free to not have crosses burned on their lawn. They were free to not be spit on. Have dogs on them. They were free to not be called nigger. They were free to not have been whipped, humiliated in front of their woman. So tell me in a coherent fashion how is an impoverished white person the same as a black person that is enslaved? If you asked me, being a poor white person was a better condition than being a slave. Because a poor white person means they have some kind of roof over their head and the ability to actually improve their condition as opposed to the slave. Also, you are fabricating the history of impoverished whites because impoverished whites were not treated as slaves unless you are talking about indentured servitude but even then indentured servants had some rights. So please kindly provide some historical information as to how poor whites were treated like black slaves, this should be interesting.
One thing about conservatives here which I've proven in the Off-Topic section, people like to make fabricated stories up just to sensationalize the situation.
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
Taft2016
Verified User
Well, that's all well and good. However, like much I've read in this thread.... it's responding to comments that were imagined, never made.
christiefan915
Catalyst
You gotta remember this is the state of Jan Brewer, Jeff Flake and Joe Arpaio, among other boneheads. I think their special form of idiocy comes from the drinking water.
Be that as it may, you have to admit no one really had it that good during the 18th century, or some call it, the 1800's. As the point made earlier shows, factory workers in the North had it really bad too. It was about the same. We all have it better now. We all had it bad then. But they had some good times then too. The factory workers had their paychecks and could buy beer, the slaves sometimes had dance parties. Whatever. It's not black or white.
I think things have gotten a lot better since Reagan. I know they have for me. Will Hollywood make that into a movie? I bet not. I won't hold my breath anyway.