Santorum, Bachmann Sign Pledge Claiming Blacks Were Better Off as Slaves: Believe It?

This is not to say--nor did Bachmann mean to say--that blacks were better off under slavery /per se/. Rather: the pledge was saying that /even children born into slavery had a better upbringing, in one key respect, than free-born children/. And that is by no means limited to black children.

Few people realize that, once the planters regarded black servants as /property/, rather than as /seven-year indentured servants/, they started to treat them better than before. Indentured servants are temporary workhorses. Slaves are an investment. Take care of them; they'll work harder for you. That's how the masters thought. (Not all of them, sadly. Edward Brodas, a Maryland planter, started selling off his slaves. One of them, the future Harriet Tubman, provoked her buyer to bring her back to Edward Brodas for a refund!)

Harriet Tubman aside, most masters did not break up slave families. A master might even buy a slave from a neighboring plantation if he knew that one of his own slaves had fallen in love with that other slave. In short, they took seriously the /rest/ of that passage in Ephesians chapter 5: that any master must remember that he will have to answer to the Top Master of them all, Jesus Christ.

Now that pledge says nothing about consigning anyone back into slavery. It does say that our society should not have such fouled-up incentives that place free citizens at that kind of moral hazard. And again: it's not limited to blacks. Whites, and members of other races, make the same disastrous mistakes.

Because, as sad as it is to admit, when it comes to family values blacks were better off under slavery. That's the point isn't it? During slavery, black families pulled together for mutual survival and were kept on plantations where if they ran they would be brought back. After slavery, the black family self destructed more greatly than any other group and black men gained a well earned reputation for running off abandoning their families which many black men are still guilty of today. That's not racist... even most black civil rights groups have addressed this problem but anyone else doing it gets attacked as racists by the political left because to criticize black Americans for actual truths is wrong... the black crime rate, an example, is huge when compared to any other group but try to address it and you are a racist even though the vast majority of the victims of black crime are black themselves.

In fact, this seems to be an African tradition because one of the leading reasons AIDS is still spreading like crazy across Africa is that many black men culturally will have sex with multiple women before settling down with one woman or a harem having multiple wives.

That's not racist to point out and, in fact, one of the leading reasons it's only gotten worse after AIDS emerged is that the main groups fighting to help the African people in Africa are leftwing and their ideals of political correctness will not allow them to address the central fact that culturally, many African peoples are not monogamous.

In South Africa, it's almost a joke that rape has become almost the national pastime as rape happens there moreso than any other country in the world after the fall of Apartheid. In fact, South Africa is regarded as the crime capital in the world following the fall of Apartheid because the political left of the world made all these promises of helping South Africa after Apartheid and then walked away slapping one another on the backs breaking every promise they made when Apartheid was removed.

Quote
"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 pledge.


End Quote

Condemn it all you want, it is in fact truthful and factual... the fact YOU don't want to hear it doesn't make it any less true and the fact it is true is a scathing condemnation of black society that it seems the only time in US history where black families remained together and fought side by side for mutual survival was when they were enslaved and had no choice.

Is it wrong to use a truth about many black Americans to slam all black Americans... no it's not. In fact, every black American family should sign to join this group or create one of their own addressing the same issue because the break up of the black American family is the lead problem they face in the modern world as a strong family does well against adversity whereas most who stand apart or on their own drown in adversity and succumb to hopelessness.

While Bachmann and Santorum clearly were stupid for signing the document not understanding how their enemies would use it against them, the simple fact is there is truth to the documents statements.

Most Liberals support issues like gay marriage grudgingly because of "political correctness" as stating they support gay marriage to "shut them up" isn't exactly support for gays... it's support for the political correctness expected of them.

Comparing being gay to polygamy and adultery... they're obviously talking about marriage but the author of this topic didn't make that point evident. The reference is that polygamy and adultery are regarded as wrong even by most Liberals.

Banning pornography isn't exactly a rightwing issue only as many feminists and other leftwing groups also want it banned... while many rightwingers buy it so any effort to paint this as rightwing needs a re evaluation based on facts.

Rejecting sharia law? Unfortunately, as looney as this sounds, there are Muslims and leftwing supporters who have proposed making it legal in the US. The real question here is why are any leftwingers supporting making sharia law legal at all when it's completely anti Liberal and it's founded in religious faith which Liberals have fought against Christian influences on US law and in our schools for decades... absolutely insane and yet, it takes little effort on the internet to find there are indeed many Liberals who support this even if the majority do not. Thus, the rightwing agenda to stop this is unfortunately backed by facts because some on the left are so desperate to support Muslims as their latest cause celeb and victims group that they have thrown all common sense and intellect out the window.

But the document is clearly religious in nature and that's where Bachmann and Santorum screwed up as it gives the left something to use against them.

But will it hurt them?

No it won't. It won't hurt them because in the upcoming Republican Primary, Liberals are not going to determine who becomes the Republican candidate and religion is a key element of the political right.

So squawk all you like leftwingers... this isn't an issue which affects you and you will have no say in the outcome. All it can do is backfire and hurt you because as long as Obama keeps screwing up losing support, there's nothing you can do attacking Republicans that will help you or your candidates.

You need to focus on Obama and start criticizing him to pull him back to where you want him and stop falling for his lip service as he's telling you what you want to hear... then does the opposite.

In the end, this will help Bachmann and Santorum with millions of rightwing voters and leftwing attacks will only serve to get them free publicity for having done it and galvanize support behind these two no different than it benefited Glenn Beck and FOX News that you attacked them unfairly and without using your intellect.

The person who wrote this story used a very misleading header stating Bachmann and Santorum supported that blacks were better off under slavery... in fact, the document in question addresses an issue about slavery which even many Civil Rights groups have supported for over a century that black families held together under slavery but when given their freedom, the black family largely self destructed.