Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
GOP Keeps Pushing Meme That Black Families Were Better off Under Slavery
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Star Parker
America is more than familiar by now with the infamous “Marriage Vow” – “The Marriage Vow – “A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family,” sponsored by the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative organization. We’re all aware of the reference to slavery in that pledge that both Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman signed:
“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, according to the document”
The slavery preamble has been removed but it remains a fact that both Bachmann and Santorum signed it while the preamble was in the pledge. Even Family Leader seems to have recognized they overstepped. But not every one agrees.
Conservative activist Star Parker went there on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Tom Wildmon of the American Family Association (Wildmon, you might remember is famous for – in George Carlin’s words – not being good with knobs):
“Well Reverend,” Carlin began, “didn’t anyone ever tell you there are two KNOBS on the radio? Imagine that, KNOBS on the radio!
“Course, I’m sure the Reverend isn’t too comfortable with anything that’s got two KNOBS on it.
“But there are two knobs on the radio, Reverend! One of ‘em turns the radio off and the other one *click* CHANGES THE STATION! That’s right, Reverend, you can actually change the station. It’s called freedom of choice, and it’s one of the principles on which this country was founded, look it up in the library Reverend – if you have any of them left, after you’ve finished BURNING ALL THE BOOKS.”
Yes, she went there. Parker, who said recently that “too many Blacks do not want to be free” (what, they yearn for slavery?) endorses the claim that black families, while not being allowed to have families because they weren’t allowed to marry, were somehow better off under slavery.
Speaking of the infamous pledge and its sinister preamble, she had this to say:
Parker: Now we don’t have clear data getting to your question about what black family life looked like during slavery as what the attacks are now even against people like Michele Bachmann who signed on to a document that said the black family was more intact than it is today. But we do know the reason we don’t have clear data of course is because only some data made it through the civil war.
Wildmon: What about prior to civil rights?
Parker: Well I’m going back to this point in history that they went back to, which was slavery, during slavery. Because black family life, in the vulnerable state that it was, some could say was more healthy than it is today.
We don’t have data on what a black family looked like during slavery? Really? Here’s the answer for you Star: We don’t have data because slaves were not allowed to have families. Is that good enough for you? How can something that can’t exist be more intact than something that can?
The simple fact is that today, free of slavery, blacks are free to marry and have families. The simple fact is that during the slave era, this was not true. It’s really very simple.
It’s amazing logic: we’re being told by conservatives that liberalism has enslaved blacks, that Democrats are racists. But if blacks were better off under slavery, wouldn’t this logic lead to the obvious conclusion that Democrats have actually helped blacks by re-enslaving them?
It’s remarkable that someone could push this narrative and not fear being accused of catastrophic levels of ignorance; more remarkable still is thinking you are going to garner black votes for your causes. It’s not going to matter that the speaker herself is black. It’s rather like a Jew arguing that Jews were better off under Hitler or a Native American arguing that Native Americans were better off on the reservations than living free on the prairies and in the forests, or that like a Heathen saying “Boy, we’re sure glad the Christians took away our religion and our culture from us!”
Not a convincing campaign slogan, nossir.
But I suppose this is the same sort of logic that can argue that pluralism derives from non-pluralism and that only a Christian country is truly tolerant and therefore truly pluralistic, or that you can advocate outlawing blasphemy but claim you’re not imposing your values. Yes, and black is white and up is down. The United States – and by virtue of us being the only remaining super power – the world, are in serious trouble if this sort of political theology reaches the White House and control of the Senate and the House.
Related Posts :
Stephen Colbert took on Michele Bachmann on Comedy Central yesterday for her signing of the FAMILY LEADER ...
Yesterday I promised myself that I would not, under any circumstances, touch the "African Americans were ...
Would anyone have noticed The Marriage Vow if it didn't express a desire to ban pornography? In an in ...
It use to be kind of fun covering Michele Bachmann when she was just a lowly Congresswoman with a ...
Republican State Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro, Arkansas has some instructive things to say about black ...
24 Responses to GOP Keeps Pushing Meme That Black Families Were Better off Under Slavery
Anne
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
During slavery, families even with 2 parents present always operated under the threat of being separated at the whims of slaveowners, and there were no laws to protect them. There was never any guarantee that parents and children would remain together, and slave marriages were simply not recognized by law. The idea that people who were not allowed any formal education (risking persecution if they tried to obtain it) or had any say over who fathered their children were better off than blacks of today is mind-boggling in its stupidity and ignorance. And during slavery, even free blacks could be tricked or coerced into slavery by unscrupulous slave traders. Whatever problems black families face today, no one can argue that our enslaved ancestors were better off without sounding profoundly foolish. And the fact that someone black is spouting this nonsense does nothing at all to validate it.
Edward
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
You are exactly right. I have read that when the 13th and 14th Amendments passed, the freed blacks made a bee line to the altar to be married because they knew they were then free to marry and secure that their marriages and families would be respected (on paper at least).
Lucian
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I think they are blowing this a little out of proportion…
First, if we look at the national averages of black divorce rates vs. white divorce rates, they are only separated by 2% with whites @ about 34% and blacks around 36%.
This is not a huge stretch. There are also multiple factors that play into these figures. Environmental and financial factors play a huge roll into these divorce rates. If one looks at the statistics, it shows a greater number of divorces take place in depressed areas of the nation. Another huge factor is the feminist movement and independence of women.
Since the late 60′s and early 70′s women have made huge strides in independence and the ability to have a good career with comparable pay (this still needs work, but it’s getting better). Women no longer feel they HAVE to stay in an unsatisfactory relationship and have the power to take control.
As usual, people are playing the race card to meet their benefit and twisting the rules for political and financial gain. There is no need to blame the president for this problem, he’s not a marriage counselor!
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
And it’s striking that evangelicals have a very high divorce rate. They don’t generally mention that.
Sarah Jones
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Here’s a thought for the GOP. Maybe black people would like to be free to mess up their marriages just like white people do every day.
It is NONE of their business what people do in their personal lives. And even if it were, what exactly are they offering to solve this alleged problem? That people should vote for them because they will solve their martial problems? I don’t see Republicans having a great track record in the marriage department, and in fact, there happens to be a famous black man in the office of the Presidency right now who has a solid marriage and two well adjusted children, which is more than can be said for the Republicans who ran against him in 2008.
I call bullcrap on this insulting, degrading hypocrisy. FREEDOM means you get to choose things, you are free to make mistakes. We all make them. Is there a white Republican who has not made mistakes in their marriage? Please. I need a vomit bucket. They argue against freedom because black people can’t “handle” it – that’s what they’re saying. If anyone can’t handle the freedom they’ve been given, it’s the white Republicans with too much power and money who trade up wives and discard children with reckless abandonment and assurances that God forgives them — a claim I highly doubt, by the way.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I have to think that the black people were not brought over here as husband and wife and children. And given that as far as I’m aware they lived in communal housing so to speak, while there may have been fraternization going on there were no families to speak of
But that’s my impression and it’s certainly not given out of knowledge on the subject. Given the situation they lived in it is certainly hard to tell if when I man and woman had a baby that the man was always there to take care or to help take care of the baby.
Anne
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Everything was done to dehumanize slaves, including the interference with the normal, healthy relationships we take for granted today. As far as enslaved men taking care of their offspring is concerned, their circumstances were always at the whim of slavemasters. There were some who kept families together but there were others who couldn’t have cared less. In fact, many slaveholders even sold off children they had fathered themselves. The fates of slaves were always contingent upon the circumstances of the slaveowners. I agree with Sarah that what folks do is their own personal business, and I find it ironic that a party which claims to be about family values is bent on doing everything in its power to enact legislation that works against the stability of families. There is no way that referring back to the conditions of slavery contributes to a positive discussion of how to address today’s family problems.
DannyEastVillage
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
What is Star Parker? Has she been to school? Was she in the same degree program Sarah Palin was in?
Anne
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
You know something? You just might have a point, because the nonsense she spouted on this subject is on a par with the nonsense Palin spouts on anything and everything.
Reynardine
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Kenneth Stampp, in “The Peculiar Institution”, described exactly what the state of the black slave “family” was. They were wholly owned chattels, like the livestock, and, like them, could be forced to breed with other partners or change mates entirely, could be sold away from each other, could be raped by their white owners or overseers, could be castrated, could have their children – even the predominantly white ones- sold away from them even at birth, though practically it didn’t happen until eleven or twelve, when they became useful, and dared not raise a hand if their owners chose to commit infanticide. Little quadroon and octoroon girls, especially if pretty, commanded a high price to wealthy men or high-end brothels, as there was a special thrill in having total power and zero responsibility towards women who looked white. Literacy was punishable by death. If this was better off, why is anyone objecting to the Taliban?… Miss Star(lett) better look at herself, because the next time she powders her face, she’ll use the same shade as the last time she powdered her face, and the next time she goes to the toilet, she’ll see the same thing as the last time she went to the toilet. If she thinks she’d have been better off with those traits in 1858 than now, please book her a soft room in a padded hotel.
Anne
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
In fact, Frederick Douglass made reference to the institution of slavery when he was objecting to the celebration of Independence Day by slaves. He referred to the institution as one of
“revolting barbarity” and accused those who participated in it as committing “crimes that would disgrace a nation of savages.” There is no better authority, because he was fathered by a slavemaster and his mother was not permitted to raise him. Reynardine, each and everything you cited is the gospel truth, and I can only wonder what Ms. Star was thinking when she parrotted the crap that she did. She needs to take a long look at herself, and take a good, hard, analytical look at why she needs to be an apologist for folks who couldn’t care less about her, except as a mouthpiece for some truly dangerous ignorance.
Reynardine
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
As I don’t own the book, I had to look it up, but in support of Dr. Stampp’s book, I refer the concerned to “In The Matter of Color”, by A. Leon Higginbotham. Judge Higginbotham’s book both supports and expands on Dr. Stampp’s. There have been other well-researched books on the subject, as well as contemporary accounts, which support the foregoing. For Miss Starlett to say that little is known is either completely specious or utterly dumb.
Enjay in E MT
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Star Parker hmmm, interesting woman.
A GOP conservative activist, formerly ‘enslaved in the liberal welfare dependency’ for several years before managing to ‘free’ herself from the trappings of a Government social safety nets. Now she is educated with a BS from Woodbury University, published author and founder/president of CURE (Center for Urban Renewal Education), a non-profit that promotes market based public policy. AKA fight poverty by helping others trapped in the welfare system to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and fight against any government assistance.
Her books speak for themselves:
Pimps Whores & Welfare Brats (From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger), Uncle Sam’s Plantation and White Ghetto
Dragonpuff
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I don’t want to hear crap from someone like Parker who admittedly used abortion as birth control, was a thief, prostitute and drug addict. Yet she blames this on the welfare state—not the fact she was just a weak assed human being. In other words—she did what she wanted to do, everyone else better kiss her ass and thumb your nose at the help she herself got to get out of her disgusting life. Instead of wanting to be a sympathetic mentor she wants to look down on everyone. Idiot.
Rick Shreiner
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
It would seem that the VERY FLAKY Star Parker has hit upon an easy source of income; being a non-white, fright-wing conservative must make her the darling of many groups that seek a representative for their hate, and legitimize it at the same time.
I’ll bet they pay her top dollar to do just that.
Reynardine
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 12:36 am
They paid Quisling and Seyss- Inquart good, too.
Pa
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 7:47 am
I don’t think it is fair to say THE Republican Party believes this, as though it is the whole party. I just can’t believe there are idiots who believe that Black Family unit was better under slavery. First off, female slaves had no choice if the master wanted to have her (Ask Thomas Jefferson’s slave), second a marriage between slaves didn’t have any legal backing. Third, the owner could separate the family at anytime, usually to fattening his wallet. THOSE are the UGLY FACTS.
Just as slavers had no problem breaking up homes and families to capture slaves and send them to the New World, slave owners had no problem with seeing slaves as less than human, breeding them, using them and reselling them in whatever package he or she wished.
Mikeyhatesit
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Isn’t slavery a States’ Rights issue? Won’t there be a conflict constitutionality when Big Gov wants to make federal laws repealing Abolition, if there are states who don’t want to enslave black people?
Why, it could start a war between the states! And it would be an act of Southern Aggression!
ronald logins
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Let me get this straight, a slave owner could beat you or even kill you if he pleased, he could sell you,your wife or your children, he could work you without pay seven days a week and could come along and rape your wife or children whenever the mood struck him, explain to me again how slavery is better for blacks.
Frank DiSalle
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
” … a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household … ”
That statement is true. It is not a statement about living in slavery compared to being free, and it is not a statement about white versus black divorce.
It is a statement about the fact that the Government / Democrats / liberals are complicit in supporting single, unwed mothers, because they neither encourage fathers to support their children, nor do they encourage single unwed mothers to marry the father of their child or children.
Now you can all go back to hounding Sara Palin and Michelle Bachmann …
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
I guess what you are saying is that the Republicans have no influence in this country. And just because single and unwed mothers have children you seem to think that there’s something wrong with them. It’s up to the fathers, not the political party to support the wives and children. Or are you saying that you would rather see them dying in the streets? Or maybe throwing themselves on the charity of Republicans?
Let’s not forget that the Republicans are also just as complicit in supporting single unwed mothers. Or didn’t you think of that? you are hilarious
: also by the way, you’re trying to tell us that slaves were allowed to have families and that those families always stuck together thanks to the wonderfulness of those slaveowners. Could you possibly be any dumber?
Frank DiSalle
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Slaves weren’t allowed to have families? And you’re calling me dumb?
Don’t try to slip that “Do you want them all dead?” crap by me, Barney … Tell me how “I seem” to think there’s something wrong with them? Where did you get that from? My punctuation?
Do you want to know what’s “wrong with them”? The children of unwed mothers are more likely to not complete high school, so they are often underemployed and unemployed for longer periods of time than two parent homes.
They are more likely to commit crimes, and do time, than children of two parent families. Does that change because the liberals don’t want any “stigma” to attach to having illegitimate children? Nope. It does not. Is the Mom’s life more pleasant with a child to care for at a young age, just because she receives W I C, Food Stamps and AFDC? Nope. It is not.
If it is up to the fathers to support the children, and not political parties (where’s that liberal compassion now? ) then why are single moms told that if they marry, they lose EVERYTHING?
And if wonderfulness were a word, it wouldn’t explain why slaveowners tried to keep families together. It had to do with morale and productivity. Even a mustache twirling, whip cracking slave owner understood that if you broke up families and sold off family members, you ended up with sick, depressed slaves that hated you and didn’t want to work for you.
But you stick to the Neil Young interpretation of history, you dope !!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
You are hilarious. But we do thank those wonderful slave owners for making sure all families were kept together.
You forgot to mention that the vast amount of unwed mothers are not like you describe. And then you go on whining about where is that liberal compassion. Sorry, that doesnt cut it.
it is up to the fathers to take care the children that’s why we have laws to say if you don’t pay your child support you go to jail or you get some other kind of punishment. The fact of the matter is that the United States does take care of its more unfortunate people and that includes Republicans and Democrats..
So you forgot all about the slave auctions and all of that kind of stuff right. And you ended up was sick depressed slaves who hated you and didn’t want to work for you? You have any idea how absolutely stupid that sounds? Do the words ve have vays of making you vork come to mind
yes, I’m calling you dumb. You have absolutely no concept of history nor do you have any concept of humanity.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
The plantation owners in America had complete freedom to buy and sell slaves. State laws gave slave marriages no legal protection and in these transactions husbands could be separated from their wives and children from their mothers. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass claimed that in the part of Maryland where he was born: “to part children from their mothers at a very early age. Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off.”
Lewis Clarke, who was a slave in Madison County, Kentucky, claims that there were often economic reasons for breaking up families. “The death of a large owner is the occasion usually of many families being broken up. Bankruptcy is another cause of separation, and the hard-heartedness of a majority of slaveholders another and a more fruitful cause than either or all the rest. Generally there is but little more scruple about separating families than there is with a man who keeps sheep in selling off the lambs in the fall.”
Elizabeth Keckley recalls that “when I was about seven years old I witnessed, for the first time, the sale of a human being.” Keckley points out in Thirty Years a Slave (1868): “We were living at Prince Edward, in Virginia, and master had just purchased his hogs for the winter, for which he was unable to pay in full. To escape from his embarrassment it was necessary to sell one of the slaves. Little Joe, the son of the cook, was selected as the victim. His mother was ordered to dress him up in his Sunday clothes, and send him to the house. He came in with a bright face, was placed in the scales, and was sold, like the hogs, at so much per pound. His mother was kept in ignorance of the transaction, but her suspicions were aroused. When her son started for Petersburgh in the wagon, the truth began to dawn upon her mind, and she pleaded piteously that her boy should not be taken from her; but master quieted her by telling her that he was simply going to town with the wagon, and would be back in the morning.”
The owner of Harriet Jacobs used the threat of selling her children as a means of controlling her behaviour. In her book, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Jacobs described how one mother, who had just witnessed seven of her children being sold at a slave-market: “She begged the trader to tell her where he intended to take them; this he refused to do. How could he, when he knew he would sell them, one by one, wherever he could command the highest price? I met that mother in the street, and her wild, haggard face lives to-day in my mind. She wrung her hands in anguish, and exclaimed, ‘Gone! All gone! Why don’t God kill me?’ I had no words wherewith to comfort her.”
Slave familes were sometimes taken to the slave-market to be sold off to different people. Mary Prince explained what happened to her when she was a child: “At length the vendue master, who was to offer us for sale like sheep or cattle, arrived, and asked my mother which was the eldest. She said nothing, but pointed to me. He took me by the hand, and led me out into the middle of the street, and, turning me slowly round, exposed me to the view of those who attended the vendue. I was soon surrounded by strange men, who examined and handled me in the same manner that a butcher would a calf or a lamb he was about to purchase, and who talked about my shape and size in like words – as if I could no more understand their meaning than the dumb beasts. I was then put up to sale. The bidding commenced at a few pounds, and gradually rose to fifty-seven, when I was knocked down to the highest bidder; and the people who stood by said that I had fetched a great sum for so young a slave. I then saw my sisters led forth, and sold to different owners: so that we had not the sad satisfaction of being partners in bondage. When the sale was over, my mother hugged and kissed us, and mourned over us, begging of us to keep up a good heart, and do our duty to our new masters. It was a sad parting; one went one way, one another, and our poor mammy went home with nothing.”
As a child, Henry Bibb saw his brothers and sisters sold to different slave owners. Bibb was hired out to various slave holders and had little contact with his mother. He later recalled: “A slave may be bought and sold in the market like an ox. He is liable to be sold off to a distant land from his family. He is bound in chains hand and foot; and his sufferings are aggravated a hundred fold, by the terrible thought, that he is not allowed to struggle against misfortune, corporal punishment, insults and outrages committed upon himself and family; and he is not allowed to help himself, to resist or escape the blow, which he sees impending over him. I was a slave, a prisoner for life; I could possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to my keeper. No one can imagine my feelings in my reflecting moments, but he who has himself been a slave.”
Moses Grandy was born a slave in Camden County. His wife was sold by his master while he was working in the fields. He rushed home to find that his master had placed her in a waggon: “He drew out a pistol, and said that if I went near the waggon on which she was, he would shoot me. I asked for leave to shake hands with her, which he refused, but said I might stand at a distance and talk with her. My heart was so full, that I could say very little. I asked leave to give her a dram: he told Mr. Burgess, the man who was with him, to get down and carry it to her. I gave her the little money I had in my pocket, and bid her farewell. I have never seen or heard of her from that day to this. I loved her as I loved my life.”
In 1848 Henry Box Brown, a slave in Richmond, discovered that his wife and three children were sold to a slave trader who sent them to North Carolina. Brown later recalled: “I had not been many hours at my work, when I was informed that my wife and children were taken from their home, sent to the auction mart and sold, and then lay in prison ready to start away the next day for North Carolina with the man who had purchased them. I cannot express, in language, what were my feelings on this occasion. I received a message, that if I wished to see my wife and children, and bid them the last farewell, I could do so, by taking my stand on the street where they were all to pass on their way for North Carolina. I quickly availed myself of this information, and placed myself by the side of a street, and soon had the melancholy satisfaction of witnessing the approach of a gang of slaves, amounting to three hundred and fifty in number, marching under the direction of a Methodist minister, by whom they were purchased, and amongst which slaves were my wife and children.”
A study of slave records by the Freedmen’s Bureau of 2,888 slave marriages in Mississippi (1,225), Tennessee (1,123) and Louisiana (540), revealled that over 32 per cent of marriages were dissolved by masters as a result of slaves being sold away from the family home.