Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Jul '11 02:58
    Michelle Bachman signed a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama.

    Bachman has a history of melodrama when it comes to the slavery comparisons. But she's not alone. During one of the debates against Kerry, President Bush clumsily brought up the Dred Scott decision (which was a horrible decision, based on sound pre-13th and 14th Amendment law) to try to attack Roe v. Wade. It's a favorite theme of conservatives. "Welfare is the new plantation." Debt is slavery. Homosexuality is slavery.

    I think conservatives suffer a bit of angst given that it was their political predecessors who pushed slavery. They deny it of course, which is why they desperate try to cast the Civil War in terms of "state's rights" rather than slavery.

    But this history is amateurish. Slavers weren't allowed to marry. Couples were routinely separated. Slaves were bred like livestock, often employing "bucks" who would be leased to slaveowners where two slaves were essentially forced into sexual relations in order to breed. The children were often sold off. I'll give Bachman the benefit of the doubt that she's simply ignorant, and not cynical.

    So where are the Republican voices slamming her? Well, they can't. To come to the defense of African Americans and history against another Republican is to be "politically correct" - the code word which allows a conservative to make whatever racist comment he wants, and even feel heroic about it. It's a common refrain. When you hear the preface, "this might not sound politically correct, but...." you know you're in for a comment which 40 years ago would have drawn universal condemnation, even from Republicans.

    Bachman was on O'Reilly tonight. He didn't even bring it up. Go figure.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jul '11 03:01
    Good grief.
  3. 12 Jul '11 03:16
    Please please please win the Republican nomination.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 Jul '11 03:26 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Michelle Bachman signed a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama.

    Bachman has a history of melodrama when it comes to the slavery comparisons. But she's not alone. During one of the debates against Kerry, President Bush clumsily brought up the D
    Bachman was on O'Reilly tonight. He didn't even bring it up. Go figure.
    How is signing "a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama" the same thing as saying that "African Americans better off under slavery"?

    It seems the you took something really tenuous and then spent 3 paragraphs attacking an enormous strawman.
  5. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    12 Jul '11 03:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    How is signing "a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama" the same thing as saying that "African Americans better off under slavery"?
    Well join the dots counsel, family is everything, slavery gives a child the greatest chance at having two parents, therefore, .... quod erat demonstrandum!

    And when is any good argument anything other than a tenuous manipulation of the facts...MMM? [insert appropriate smilish emoticon]
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jul '11 03:32
    Originally posted by sh76
    How is signing "a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama" the same thing as saying that "African Americans better off under slavery"?

    It seems the you took something really tenuous and then spent 3 paragraphs attacking an enormous strawman.
    Weren't white children also more likely to be raised in a two-parent household during the era of slavery than now in 2011?

    What does Obama have to do with "black children" specifically?
  7. 12 Jul '11 03:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    How is signing "a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama" the same thing as saying that "African Americans better off under slavery"?

    It seems the you took something really tenuous and then spent 3 paragraphs attacking an enormous strawman.
    It's a disgusting thing to say regardless. Under slavery black families had zero control whether they stayed together or were torn apart, and often they were torn apart against their will.

    Whatever "point" she's trying to make she once again showed what an idiot she is.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jul '11 03:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    It seems the you took something really tenuous and then spent 3 paragraphs attacking an enormous strawman.
    What does slavery have to do with the sociology of families in 2011?

    Talking of strawmen, isn't raising the issue of "slavery" a far more contemptible and "enormous" strawman to be laying at Obama's feet?

    You are comfortable with Bachmann's strawman but uncomfortable with what you say is Kunsoo's strawman?
  9. 12 Jul '11 04:03
    Originally posted by sh76
    How is signing "a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama" the same thing as saying that "African Americans better off under slavery"?

    It seems the you took something really tenuous and then spent 3 paragraphs attacking an enormous strawman.
    Well, actually I devoted some time to debunking the statement a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama. Let's start with the fact that the statement is patently false.

    Then we can get to what her point is.
  10. Donation kirksey957
    Outkast
    12 Jul '11 04:07
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Michelle Bachman signed a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama.

    Bachman has a history of melodrama when it comes to the slavery comparisons. But she's not alone. During one of the debates against Kerry, President Bush clumsily brought up the D ...[text shortened]...
    Bachman was on O'Reilly tonight. He didn't even bring it up. Go figure.
    She has her own Jeremiah Wright in the closet that no one will talk about.
  11. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    12 Jul '11 05:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    Weren't white children also more likely to be raised in a two-parent household during the era of slavery than now in 2011?

    What does Obama have to do with "black children" specifically?
    Obviously slavery was good for everybody!
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jul '11 05:56 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Well, actually I devoted some time to debunking the statement a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama. Let's start with the fact that the statement is patently false.

    Then we can get to what her point is.
    sh76 will not be defending Bachmann's "point", I don't think. If you persuade him that you didn't extrapolate too much from her words or deeds, then he will say so.

    The enslavement and transportation and exploitation of Africans by Africans and the British, and later by Americans, was undoubtedly a kind of holocaust all of its own. Forgive me for what some might mistakenly interpret as a Godwin moment, but sh76 would not stand idly by if a provocative anti-semitic politician clambered onto the national stage and said 'At least the Jews in the labour camps in the 1940s were not oppressing the Palestinians as they are today'. It would be grossly offensive - and roundly condemned, with sh76 vocal and adamant.

    Bachmann's ability to find some sort of 'virtue' in the institution of slavery is of course grossly offensive too, and I do not expect that sh76 endorses it in any way. I think it will be down to others to interpret her "point" with a view to conducting damage limitation and then defend those carefully spun interpretations of it.
  13. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    12 Jul '11 06:53
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Michelle Bachman signed a pledge which included a preamble that argues that a black child was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household under slavery than under Obama.
    A little context. Here's a link to Politico about this...

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58631.html
    A social conservative Iowa group has retracted language regarding slavery from the opening of a presidential candidates' pledge, amid a growing controversy over the document that Michele Bachmann had signed and Rick Santorum committed to.

    The original "marriage vow" from the Family Leader, unveiled last week, included a line at the opening of its preamble, which suggested that black children born into slavery were better off in terms of family life than African-American kids born today.

    "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," read the preamble.

    But this evening, amid growing questions aimed at Bachmann, Family Leader officials said they'd removed the slavery language from the preamble.

    “After careful deliberation and wise insight and input 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," the group's officials said in a statement. "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”

    Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann both committed to the pledge, and Bachmann was the first candidate to return the signed document, according to Family Leader officials.

    A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the "vow" portion.

    "She signed the 'candidate vow,' " campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, "In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible."

    It wasn't clear whether Bachmann had read the "slavery" language in the preamble, but Stewart later added Bachmann "stands behind the candidate vow - which makes absolutely no reference to slavery."

    It seems she either didn't read what she signed (stupid), or got burned by the group who had her sign something that didn't include the stupid preamble. Clumsy and stupid, but I think it's a stretch to say Bachmann is racist or somehow trying to find the "bright side" of slavery here.
  14. 12 Jul '11 07:04
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    A little context. Here's a link to Politico about this...

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58631.html
    [quote]A social conservative Iowa group has retracted language regarding slavery from the opening of a presidential candidates' pledge, amid a growing controversy over the document that Michele Bachmann had signed and Rick Santorum committed ...[text shortened]... racist or somehow trying to find the "bright side" of slavery here.
    No, I think it's just consistent with her willingness to misuse slavery for her rhetorical uses. I don't know how racist she is. But the sensitivity is lacking, and the misunderstanding of history and the impact of racism over the past several hundred years is profound. It's a form of denial, much like the Germans who are in denial about what their country and culture did to Jews. Good people, but with a serious character flaw that goes straight to someone's ability to lead.

    And if she didn't even bother to read the pledge she was signing, that's worst than stupid. It's extremely bad judgment.

    If this was the only instance of this kind of crap, it would be excusable. But it's not just Bachman, and the rush to apologize for and minimize rather than deal with the racial divide is a profound defect in American politics.

    The African American population is not necessarily liberal. In fact, the majority are culturally very conservative. Republicans could draw some of them away on cultural issues, but they are too busy smoothing over the fact of white privilege, and the desire for many whites to feel smugly superior without saying what they really think. It slips out in these moments, and gets buried as quickly as possible.
  15. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    12 Jul '11 07:22
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    No, I think it's just consistent with her willingness to misuse slavery for her rhetorical uses. I don't know how racist she is. But the sensitivity is lacking, and the misunderstanding of history and the impact of racism over the past several hundred years is profound. It's a form of denial, much like the Germans who are in denial about what their country ...[text shortened]... ey really think. It slips out in these moments, and gets buried as quickly as possible.
    She didn't write it, and is quickly distancing herself from it, so I don't think she had any intent to "use slavery" for any rhetorical purpose. Her quick statement that slavery was horrible etc shows sensitivity to the issue, not denial or a character flaw.

    The rest of your post is just a bunch of junk where you imply Republicans feel smugly superior to blacks, and that you know what they "really think". The smugly superior tone is all from you.