So, off topic here, but somebody help me out, because I am, really, so hopelessly out of touch with things of this sort...Originally Posted by angelatc
Is it "Cain" or "Kahn-yay"?
Who cares?
Meh, I was just curious.
ETA - Comes now a rep comment:
The latter. Two syllables. More like, 'Can ye?' though
I don't have the foggiest idea, I've only seen the name in print.
I say it Cain in my head when I read it though...
Like Qui Chang Caine
The latter.
You're adorable.
If they were treated so badly, then why did most slaves elect to stick around the plantation after slavery was abolished?
- neg rep coming
Last edited by DFF; 07-05-2015 at 03:52 PM.
Because they were "institutionalized", the same way that long time convicts in prison are.
If that was the only world you ever knew, most people would not be willing to leave it behind, even if it was under slave conditions.
ETA - $#@! me, now that I think about it, that's almost all of us, myself included, in or out of prison.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 07-05-2015 at 10:30 PM.
Seriously dude, I can't believe you said that.
"The Patriarch"
I'm not suggesting that being a slave was a wonderful existence (although it was better than the alternative of not having a job and starving to death).
Just pointing out that owners didn't typically beat them, for the same reason farmers don't typically beat their horses.
This would be bad for business.
But if you watch 12 years a Slave or Roots, you would get the false impression that slave owners beat the crap out of them 24/7.
When this just wasn't the case.
Last edited by DFF; 07-05-2015 at 09:18 PM.
Did you watch "12 Years a Slave"? He had more than one master who treated him reasonably okay. He was bounced around/hired out / sold a lot though, and some of the overseers and one master were indeed cruel.
Because:
1) As AF said, they were institutionalized.
2) They had no means to move to a new place. Where would they have gone, and how would they have gathered up the money to afford to go there? Within the US, only the South had the need for such a huge number of unskilled workers, which is why slavery was profitable there in the first place.
3) They were intentionally uneducated, and had no marketable skills aside from those they'd been trained in.
4) Although they were technically free, they would remain under an extremely oppressive set of laws for another 100 years.
I wonder how much dignity there is in getting homosexually groped after passing out?“He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry,” Takei told KSAZ-TV, visibly flustered as he railed against the African American justice. ”For him to say slaves had dignity … I mean, doesn’t he know slaves were chained? That they were whipped on the back?”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Model-in-1981
I don't know if it is true or not but it is good to see Takei getting some of his own medicine. He has always been quick to condemn others that are not of his political perversion with little or no evidence.
Exactamundo.
I remember this now. Nobody actually read the argument Thomas made. If they had, they would have understood his thesis condemned slavery of any kind to it's core: that negroes were inherently disadvantaged by nature, and the white man's burden was to lift his lesser brother-man up from their savage ways.The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”
You still see relics of The White Man's Burden in progressivism, chiefly because the black population were their first social experiment. The plantation vote is so secure, progs have moved onto identity politics instead, and pay the blacks no particular attention except to wield them in elections like virtue shields: impervious to criticism because racism.
So, homosexuality trumps racism?
Reminds me of a time at a place I worked. One of the workers had done something negligible by law. I had to write it up and turn it over to state but the reply from one of their associates was "but he's gay". To which I replied. What does that have to do with them breaking the law? As though somehow the action was excusable due to a person being gay.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
There seems to be this weird, new stupid going around that gays can't molest or be molested. I ask these naive tools: how do you think so many young homosexuals are discovering their sexuality? Many "discover" themselves at an age sex is technically statutory.
Last edited by Raginfridus; 11-12-2017 at 03:17 PM.
Not just a "racist," according to Mr. Sulu. But a "racist bigot!"
I think your on to something here. This Inane Noeveau is a social symptom of just how entrenched and ingrained political correctness is and has taken us down that dark road of double standard morality.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
I don't think I can stand too many more new flavors of stupid.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us