U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery

KeithAFC · 10-07-2011 11:09PM

The religious aspect in American politics is interesting. I thought the constitution wasn't really about that?

amacachi · 10-07-2011 11:10PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Putting aside the obvious idiocy of the statement... have things actually gotten worse for Black families under Obama - say compared to the previous 8 years of republican rule under Bush?

Seems a bit like sideshow bob's election campaign "the current mayor released dangerous criminal sideshow bob - how can you trust him? vote sideshow bob instead"

Things have gotten worse. Whether they would've gotten less worse under the Republicans is another thing.

Bodhisopha · 10-07-2011 11:10PM

I'd like to see Mandingo and Lex Steele DP that crazy ass bitch.

southsiderosie · 10-07-2011 11:14PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Putting aside the obvious idiocy of the statement... have things actually gotten worse for Black families under Obama - say compared to the previous 8 years of republican rule under Bush?

Seems a bit like sideshow bob's election campaign "the current mayor released dangerous criminal sideshow bob - how can you trust him? vote sideshow bob instead"

Blacks have been hit disproportionately hard by the recession, which straddles the Bush and Obama administrations.

ascanbe · 10-07-2011 11:26PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Yeah, and if someone were to say that Joseph Frtizl's daughter and her children were safer when they were locked in his basement than they are now that they're exposed to the myriad threats that lurk in the outside world someone could, if they wished, make an arugment that this person has something of a point.
Making that argument would be fairly idiotic, though.

amacachi · 10-07-2011 11:29PM

ascanbe wrote: »

Yeah, and if someone were to say that Joseph Frtizl's daughter and her children were safer when they were locked in his basement than they are now that they're exposed to the myriad threats that lurk in the outside world someone could, if they wished, make an arugment that this person has something of a point.
Making that argument would be fairly idiotic, though.

Except that given the high mortality rate of that basement no-one could make that (facetious) argument.

TaytoCrisps · 10-07-2011 11:35PM

The fact the people like this even get associated with being a presidental canidate sends a shiver down my spine.

ascanbe · 10-07-2011 11:41PM

amacachi wrote: »

Except that given the high mortality rate of that basement no-one could make that (facetious) argument.

As far as i'm aware, one kid died of respitatory problems shortly after birth.
Anyway, that's irrelevant to the point i made.

pragmatic1 · 10-07-2011 11:59PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Slavery is what destroyed the black family in the US. Parents were seperated from their kids. Women were raped and forced to concieve children. People were grouped together and forced to procreate. I dont think anything now can even compare to that kind of horror.

amacachi · 11-07-2011 12:03AM

ascanbe wrote: »

As far as i'm aware, one kid died of respitatory problems shortly after birth.
Anyway, that's irrelevant to the point i made.

Higher mortality rate compared to a typical family in the area I'm sure.

Overheal · 11-07-2011 12:04AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because the statement is so mind-numbingly stupid, that it doesn't even warrant engagement.

Regardless of the abysmal state of the black family today in the US, black children cannot be taken away and sold like cattle, black women aren't being raped and impregnated by their owners, and blacks can be legally married if they should choose to. The opposite was true under slavery.

It is a sign of how insane and out of touch the far right is with both American history and the sensitivities of the black community that such a statement could not only be released, but signed by two presidential hopefuls. God help us all.

I have to agree with Rosie on this. They picked the statement not because theres a grain of truth in it, but because it makes headlines, and they love to be able to say that Blacks were better under Slavery than they are under Obama. It's a really low blow. And again, just makes the race about - race. And you watch the Right cry bloody murder the first time the left or the media makes any sort of remark about gender in this campaign.

Overheal · 11-07-2011 12:10AM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The religious aspect in American politics is interesting. I thought the constitution wasn't really about that?

It's not. But nothing prevents an elected official from holding religious beliefs. In fact many voters seem to find it desirable; the traditional concept of course being that religious people have a higher moral integrity than people that are not that religious, or not at all. Then there's that whole philosophy about American Exceptionalism that will make your head explode.

Killer Wench · 11-07-2011 12:13AM

Jaylen Bald Juggler wrote: »

She is probably correct.

This is utterly wrong, if you are saying she is correct.

sock puppet · 11-07-2011 12:14AM

amacachi wrote: »

Seriously? Really? Factually the family unit was more likely to stay intact back then. That's generally seen as a good thing.

Funny. I haven't come across any studies comparing the family lives of married and divorced black slaves. Could you link me to the ones you're thinking of?

efb · 11-07-2011 12:16AM

sure wasnt life better when wimminz were in the kitchen, gays in the closet, children kept their mouths shut and everyone lived in fear of the church...

ascanbe · 11-07-2011 12:16AM

amacachi wrote: »

Higher mortality rate compared to a typical family in the area I'm sure.

Perhaps, but again has no relevance to the point i was making which isn't about the specifics of the Fritzl case
I was merely using Fritzl as well known example to illustrate my point; perhaps i could have used a better one.
If you wish, imagine a generic case similar to the Fritzl case where nobody dies and substitute it.

cesc77 · 11-07-2011 12:20AM

dlofnep wrote: »

It's crazy to see American being evolved in some aspects, and then you see this. Cringe-worthy.

:pac:

pragmatic1 · 11-07-2011 12:22AM

ascanbe wrote: »

Perhaps, but again has no relevance to the point i was making which isn't about the specifics of the Fritzl case
I was merely using Fritzl as well known example to illustrate my point; perhaps i could have used a better one.
If you wish, imagine a generic case similar to the Fritzl case where nobody dies and substitute it.

That was a pretty good example.

amacachi · 11-07-2011 12:25AM

sock puppet wrote: »

Funny. I haven't come across any studies comparing the family lives of married and divorced black slaves. Could you link me to the ones you're thinking of?

What was the divorce rate like?

Killer Wench · 11-07-2011 12:30AM

Only yesterday, I wrote on another thread about one of my great-great-grandmothers who was born a slave. She was born on a Monday and sold on a Tuesday. She never knew her mother and she certainly didn't know her father, let alone what ethnicity he was. Per the census of 1870, she was listed as Mulatto which may mean that she was part White or she just had a light complexion.

I don't know how anyone could seriously argue that Black families were more stable and intact during slavery than they are today.

Mothers were purposefully torn from their children. Babies were not permitted to nurse at the breasts of their mothers so as not to create a maternal bond between the two. Strong Black women were purposefully bred with strong Black men to improve the stock; that's right. Slaves were bred just like cattle because they were perceived to be nothing other than cattle.

Now, some slave masters were compassionate towards their slaves; they allowed their slaves to earn money on the side and some allowed for them to "jump the broom" and seal a relationship with another slave. But, reading, writing, and religious study were forbidden by law. I've read biographies of craftsmen who made shoes on the side so that they could slowly purchase their freedom, and the freedom of their family. Maybe, one could say that there was a strong urge to keep families together, but that was because they were purposefully and inhumanely torn apart.

http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/family/black.cfm

"The concept of stability for slave families was temporary, at best. The legal and religious institutions that supported stability for white families were indifferent or even hostile to stability for slave families. Slave marriages were not recognized by law or the official church, so if some difficulty or desire among whites made it necessary to sell or rent slaves, there was nothing to prevent the break-up of a slave family."

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/projects/gsonnen/page2.html

"Familial slave relations were inevitably influenced by the constant selling and transporting of their kin . Jacobs paid particular attention to the passion she felt for her children. During the seven years she spent in hiding at her grandmother’s house, she would watch them playing in the yard from a small hole in the wall of her tiny compartment. I have selected several passages from her narrative that reflect her will to have her children freed. She risked death for this cause, even abandoning her boy (Benny) and girl (Ellen) in the hopes that they would be sold to a more kindly master than Dr. Flint. The intense love between mother and children was a consistent theme throughout the entire narrative.

"I had a woman’s pride, and a mother’s love for my children; and I resolved that out of the darkness of this hour a brighter dawn should rise for them. My master had power and law on his side; I had a determined will. There is might in each" (p.85).

Children and families were often separated and shipped to very distant parts of the nation. The following passage describes one woman’s heartbreaking experience, where ALL of her children were taken from her at once:
"
Benny was just beginning to describe me when they were interrupted by an old slave woman, a near neighbor, named Aggie. This poor old creature had witnessed the sale of her children, and seen them carried off to parts unknown, without any hopes of ever hearing from them again. She saw that my grandmother had been weeping, and she said in a sympathizing tone, ‘What’s the matter, Aunt Marthy?’" "

One of the biggest legacies left from slavery was the rise of the Black matriarch; at the center of many Black families is an elder woman who serves to make sure that all members of the family know who they are, and they work to make sure everyone is taken care of. Because of slavery, the role of the father was minimized; if children were being torn from the arms of their mothers, what power and influence did the father have? This is something that seems to have been passed down throughout the generations.

My name is URL · 11-07-2011 12:33AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability

I can tell you what it's not.. Liberation by way of servitude and learned helplessness.

sock puppet · 11-07-2011 12:33AM

amacachi wrote: »

What was the divorce rate like?

No idea not that it matters. But you stated that it's seen as a good thing for the parents to remain married. Surely you must have some evidence that this was the case for black slaves in the 19th century.

Morlar · 11-07-2011 12:45AM

The US statistics are staggering. I don't agree this is caused by some kind of hangover from the days of slavery.

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

Children in single-parent families by race (Percent) – 2009

Scale: 10% - 76%

United States Scale
Non-Hispanic White 24%
Black or African American 67%
American Indian 53%
Asian and Pacific Islander 16%
Hispanic or Latino 40%
Total 34%

This is also an issue in the UK

Almost half the black children in Britain are being raised by single parents, new Government figures reveal.

A quarter of all youngsters live in one-parent families – treble the proportion in 1972, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The biggest percentage of lone-parent households is among black ethnic groups. Forty-eight per cent of black Caribbean families have one parent, as do 36 per cent of black African households.

Single-parent families are less common among Indians (ten per cent), Bangladeshis (12 per cent), Pakistanis (13 per cent), Chinese (15 per cent) and whites (22 per cent).

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44768-race-divide-on-single-parents#ixzz1RkV5tmdx

Killer Wench · 11-07-2011 12:51AM

sock puppet wrote: »

No idea not that it matters. But you stated that it's seen as a good thing for the parents to remain married. Surely you must have some evidence that this was the case for black slaves in the 19th century.

Just to address the idea of divorce amongst slaves. Marriage was illegal for slaves; it was not recognized by state or Church.

Secondly, I believe divorce wasn't acknowledged as a legal option until the 1700s by only one or a handful of states.

amacachi · 11-07-2011 12:57AM

sock puppet wrote: »

No idea not that it matters. But you stated that it's seen as a good thing for the parents to remain married. Surely you must have some evidence that this was the case for black slaves in the 19th century.

No I didn't, I said that generally a stable family unit is seen as a positive thing.

Unpossible · 11-07-2011 01:31AM

Morlar wrote: »

The US statistics are staggering. I don't agree this is caused by some kind of hangover from the days of slavery.

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

This is also an issue in the UK

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44768-race-divide-on-single-parents#ixzz1RkV5tmdx

What about the socio-economic situations of those mentioned in the statistics? I don't have the figures but I'm willing to bet that areas with high unemployment and poor literacy/low education will have higher rates of single mothers and that you will find more african americans (and not so many "non-hispanic whites") in such areas.

policarp · 11-07-2011 01:43AM

Were thet Mulato?

Off topic a bit.
The same as African children are better off because their parents who have HIV can't get contraception.

Needler · 11-07-2011 01:47AM

I suppose his granddad told him a tale about the good old days

And slavery still exists in the US except that the slaves think they're living the american dream

KeithM89_old · 11-07-2011 02:03AM

Needler wrote: »

I suppose his granddad told him a tale about the good old days

And slavery still exists in the US except that the slaves think they're living the american dream

Waiiiit a sec, damn you that was a parody thread wasnt it? Ugh, Merge fail.:o
I need more sleep...

mikemac · 11-07-2011 02:26AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Strong Black women were purposefully bred with strong Black men to improve the stock; that's right. Slaves were bred just like cattle because they were perceived to be nothing other than cattle.

Bit offtopic but a sports posts

Jimmy the Greek was a well known sports pundit for American football.
Made the similar comment you've made when talking about black athletes
And got sacked by CBS and hounded out of the media

From 8:45 here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y2QsRk-2sE

CBS were looking for an excuse to let him go but he was treated like scum. When many reckon he made a good point but nobody would back him up

U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery

Comments