Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Michele Bachmann: Something Something Fucking Crazy Previous entry: U2 entertains, annoys the dweebs

Glenn Beck’s idol and guru Skousen on ‘greasiest Negro slaves’ and slave owners as victims

“White schoolchildren would ‘envy the freedom’ of ‘colored playmates.’ Slave food, even if monotonous, was plentiful. Corn bread and bacon were the mainstays, with plenty of fruit and vegetables in season. In hog-killing time, countenances were unusually greasy.”
Glenn Beck‘s idol, far-right activist W. Cleon Skousen in “The Making of America”. Beck has made some of this man’s writings the centerpiece of his of 9-12 Project.

I don’t even know where to begin with the above statement.

We all know that Faux News hack Glenn Beck cannot bring himself to describe “white culture” when directly asked to explain what he meant by the term when he referred to the President as having “a deep-seated hatred for white people, or white culture.”

I imagine it will be even more challenging for the bluster-filled bigoted Beck to explain what he terms the “divinely inspired” work of W. Cleon Skousen, who has published some of the most incredible racist revisionist history about slavery that I’ve ever seen. There’s no other term for this garbage than a flaming pile of cowsh*t. (Media Matters):

Newly sold slaves “usually a cheerful lot.” “The tendency was to sell families as units, if for no other reason [than] to keep the slaves contented. The gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains. At the other extreme, when the Central of Georgia railroad company in 1858 equipped a Negro sleeping car to assist in the slave trade it set a standard not always maintained in a later generation. When on the block, the slave was as likely to hinder as to help in his sale. Some, out of a vain conceit in bringing a high price, would boast of their physical prowess, in which case an unwary purchaser would likely be cheated. Others would malinger, because of a grudge against owners or traders or in order to bring a low price and be put at less tiring labor. Dealers, also, adopted the tricks of horse traders to make their merchants more attractive—the greasiest Negro was generally considered the healthiest.” [The Making of America, pages 731-732]

Slaves hampered efficiency of white labor. “In the management of slave labor the gang system predominated. The great majority of owners, having at the most only one or two families of Negroes, had to work alongside their slaves and set the pace for them. Slavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely inefficient. The slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken. If the owner got ahead of the gang they all would shirk behind his back.” [The Making of America, page 732]

Cruelty rare, slave owners “the worst victims.” “Excessive toil occurred only where the masters or overseers were feeble witted as well as brutal. A persistent rumor among abolitionists was that sugar planters followed a policy of working slaves to death in seven years as a matter of economy. The persons spreading such reports were as ignorant of Negro nature as they were of conditions in the sugar mills. Furthermore, they overrated the ability of the masters to know how to kill a slave in the given time instead of leaving him a broken-down burden to the plantation. When they set out to prove the accusation they returned with no evidence, but convinced that the practice existed in some obscure region which they had not succeeded in ferreting out. Harriet Martineau, after watching slaves go through the motions of work without tiring themselves, considered the planters as models of patience and observed that new slave owners from Europe or the North were prone to be the most severe. Numerous observers, of various shades of opinion on slavery, agreed that brutality was no more common in the black belt than among free labor elsewhere, and that the slave owners were the worst victims of the system.” [The Making of America, pages 733-734]

Southern life a “nightmare” of fear—for white people. “The constant fear of slave rebellion made life in the South a nightmare, especially in regions where conspiracies were of frequent occurrence. The extermination of white civilization in Santo Domingo was followed in the nineteenth century by several other bloody outbursts in the West Indies, which never failed to cause ominous forebodings in America. [...]

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 01:47 PM • (76) Comments

Gagola. I’d send this stuff to my Beck-worshiping aunt, but I’m a little afraid of what kind of response I might get back.  :(

Comment #1: Scott  on  10/01  at  01:58 PM

Since prison food tends to be bland but plentiful, I suggest we Beck and Skousen there, simply because it would be a dream come true for them, right?

Comment #2: bananacat  on  10/01  at  02:00 PM

Hey!  Not satisfied with slavery, good ole Skousen is writing a compelling brief for genocide.  If these terrible, horrible, no good, very bad colored people aren’t good enough for manual labor in the fields, we’re really only left with a single, final solution to the problem that is people who don’t look like we do.

Comment #3: Zifnab  on  10/01  at  02:13 PM

As a historian, I can assure you that this is actually on the cutting edge of recent scholarship on slavery—circa 1890.

Comment #4: Goat  on  10/01  at  02:14 PM

Wait, so if the slaves were so happy, why were their owners in constant fear of a slave rebellion?

Comment #5: Maureen  on  10/01  at  02:20 PM

I wonder if Skousen thinks that white people would make better slaves than black people?  Is he suggesting that white people should be slaves to other white people?  That’s actually a pretty good description of what he wants, poor people slaves to rich people, and women slaves to their husbands or fathers.

Comment #6: bananacat  on  10/01  at  02:23 PM

Even if slaves were kept in masions of solid gold, they were fucking slaves.  Trying to spin slavery in any way is at the same level of morality as denying the Holocaust.

Comment #7: BadKitty  on  10/01  at  02:27 PM

Maureen FTW.

Comment #8: nolo  on  10/01  at  02:30 PM

“Wait, so if the slaves were so happy, why were their owners in constant fear of a slave rebellion?”

Outside agitators

Comment #9: jefft452  on  10/01  at  02:33 PM

Holy crap, this book was published in the 1980’s!! 

Apparently he’s quoting someone else in these passages, but it is still a reprehensible sentiment and totally disgusting that this book was approved as a history textbook by the state of California.

Comment #10: Blitzgal  on  10/01  at  02:34 PM

This superior white man is too stupid to know the difference between Saint Domingue (Haiti) and Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic).  Only one of those colonies had a successful slave uprising, asshole.

Comment #11: keshmeshi  on  10/01  at  02:36 PM

...this book was approved as a history textbook by the state of California.

Say WHAT!?!?!

Comment #12: Bitter Scribe  on  10/01  at  02:41 PM

Here’s what Stephen Foster (the associate of William Lloyd Garrison) said about slavery and churches that supported it in an 1843 speech “A Brotherhood of Thieves”—
“the American church and clergy, as a body, were thieves, adulterers, manstealers, pirates and murderers…”

Foster noted that the institution of slavery was built on these foundations—
—Theft—the taking of that which belongs to another without consent…
—Adultery—the annihilation of the insitutions of family by turning adult slaves into breeders and their children into stock… chang(ing) (a) woman’s condition from a free moral agent to a chattel… mak(ing) her a mere instrument for the gratification of another’s desires…
—Manstealing (Kidnapping)—to claim another as your property…
—Piracy—(The federal government had already declared through legislation that enslaving human beings off the coast of Africa was an act of piracy). Foster woondered ““Does crime change its character by changing longitude?”
—Murder—“(The slaverholder) maintains his ascendancy over his victims, extorting their unrequited labor and sundering the dearest ties of kindred, only by threat of extermination.”

By Foster’s assessment we would be fair to judge Skousen and Beck as thieves, adulterers, kidnappers, pirates and murderers.

Sounds right to me.

Comment #13: revrick  on  10/01  at  02:44 PM

Yeah, back in the 80’s.  I followed the link from the Media Matters article:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/16/us/bicentennial-panel-in-california-assailed-over-racist-textbook.html

Comment #14: Blitzgal  on  10/01  at  02:44 PM

Also, the historian he is quoting in this book was a Pulitzer Prize winning professor at Kansas State, Cornell, and Ohio State (I’m assuming this is the same guy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Albert_Shannon

Maybe the REST of his historical writings were really, really good?  [snerk]

Comment #15: Blitzgal  on  10/01  at  02:46 PM

There’s no other term for this garbage than a flaming pile of cowsh*t.

Not to put too fine a point on it…

There’s really no better way to put it.  And this is the ideological guru of one of our most well-known public figures.

What made Glenn Beck become Glenn Beck?  How does a Glenn Beck happen?

Comment #16: liberalrob  on  10/01  at  02:51 PM

Correction: It’s a flaming pile of evil racist cowsh*t.

Comment #17: Orange  on  10/01  at  02:54 PM

“How does a Glenn Beck happen”?

Mix one part sociopath to 3 parts steaming pile of insecurity.  Stir in 1 pound of raving paranoia, 1 pound of racism and 5 lbs of white male privilege.  Allow to marinate in alcohol for at least a decade, then add a Bible and mix well.  Serve with a side of crazy.

Comment #18: BadKitty  on  10/01  at  03:04 PM

Well, shit, if it was so hard and so inefficient to have slaves, why didn’t the shitfucking slave owners let them go!!!!

Comment #19: syfr  on  10/01  at  03:08 PM

Blitzgal: Not to nitpick, but the NYT article you linked to says the book was approved by some careless doofuses to be sold to raise money for California’s observance of the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. There’s no indication that it was approved as a textbook to be used in schools.

That anyone approved it in any context, for anything, is plenty disturbing. But I was relieved to learn that California’s educators hadn’t taken complete leave of their senses.

Comment #20: Bitter Scribe  on  10/01  at  03:10 PM

Well then ... the only answer to this is to enslave white people so as to elevate their status.

Comment #21: Ms Kate  on  10/01  at  03:12 PM

“How does a Glenn Beck happen”?

He started out as one of those professionally obnoxious Morning Zoo DJs. Good training, and it just confirms my belief that 99% of all DJs would be more useful as fertilizer.

Comment #22: Bitter Scribe  on  10/01  at  03:12 PM

It just blows me away that anyone still believes crap like that.  Un-fucking-believable.

Comment #23: GeekGirlsRule  on  10/01  at  03:16 PM

Wait, so if the slaves were so happy, why were their owners in constant fear of a slave rebellion?

Comment #5: Maureen on 10/01 at 01:20 PM

Shhhh. Stop using Earth Logic!

Comment #24: pitbullgirl65  on  10/01  at  03:24 PM

Goat, 1890 is too late.  John Stuart Mill slammed Thomas Carlyle for similar defenses of British slavery, in 1850.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasional_Discourse_on_the_Negro_Question

Comment #25: realityfighter  on  10/01  at  03:33 PM

“How does a Glenn Beck happen?”

Glenn Beck is a natural byproduct of the digestive process. 

If you’re really unlucky, some punkass will play a trick on you.  They put a paper sack full of Glenn Beck on your porch, set it on fire, and then ring the doorbell.  You stomp the bag to put out the fire and then you get Glenn Beck all over your foot…

Comment #26: MikeEss  on  10/01  at  03:35 PM

Wait, so if the slaves were so happy, why were their owners in constant fear of a slave rebellion?

Uppity negroes are never happy with everything we white men give them, obv.

(HEAVY snark…)

Comment #27: BlackBloc  on  10/01  at  03:39 PM

You stomp the bag to put out the fire and then you get Glenn Beck all over your foot…

I think having a bit of Glenn Beck on me foot is a small price to me for me to have stamped him out with my steel toed combat boots…

Comment #28: BlackBloc  on  10/01  at  03:40 PM

#19

In many parts of Latin America that’s exactly what happened. The economy changed and as keeping slaves became too expensive, they were let go. In some parts the slaves just up and left while the plantation owners looked the other way.

The contradictions are bizarre: massa thinks his slaves are happy but fears their rebellion; massa wants to keep slaves but white laborers are more efficient.

Does anybody else see that the sole reason then to keep slaves is to have mastery over another human being? Is there another twisted reason to perpetuate an inefficient system whose members you fear?

Comment #29: LCforevah  on  10/01  at  03:55 PM

Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Skousen was born and raised Mormon, and Glenn Beck is a convert.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as you will recall, was the church that wouldn’t ordain blacks until 1978...

Not 1778 (No Mormon church.  Joseph Smith’s First Vision, which lead to the LDS church, occurred about 1820…)

Not 1878, which might, maybe be understandable, perhaps, but not really…

It was Nineteen Seventy Eight before blacks were considered human enough to be allowed to become priests.  That’s how much they care about people who aren’t white, and that’s what Beck and his philosophical muse are/were connected to…

Comment #30: MikeEss  on  10/01  at  03:55 PM

Slave food, even if monotonous, was plentiful. Corn bread and bacon were the mainstays, with plenty of fruit and vegetables in season.

Ancient Egyptian Glenn Beck: see those Hebrews long for the fleshpots of Egypt.  That means that Moses was wrong to lead them to freedom.

Of course Glenn Beck doesn’t even understand “slave food” anyway.  Enslaved African-Americans were doing hard, back-breaking work which required a lot of calories, which were obtained in the cheapest manner possible to the slave-owners: gravy, gravy and more gravy may be yummy, but essentially feeding someone on a mixture of flour, fat and water just isn’t healthy.  And as to those vegetables?  A mess of greens is, well, whatever weeds can be picked (picking anything else and taking it as food would get you beaten quickly—has Beck never pondered the implications of the song, well on a somewhat different but related subject, “Jimmy Cracked Corn”?) that happen to be (at least marginally) edible ... including some weeds that, if picked too old or not quite cooked right, would be poisonous.

While “making do with what you have” can produce admittedly yummy results (I happen to rather like the food of the African diaspora), it is still “making do with not that much” and not a sign in any way that “slaves were well cared for”.  And even if they were, that very sentence illustrates the forced dependence of one human on another than is immoral.  Of course, Beck would read that last sentence and blame the slaves for their dependence on slave-owners ... because he’s just such a purposefully ignorant asshole.

Comment #31: DAS  on  10/01  at  03:56 PM

What made Glenn Beck become Glenn Beck?  How does a Glenn Beck happen?

It starts with his mommy spoiling him until he develops a strong sense of entitlement, and then someone challenges that entitlement and he gets angry.  That’s really all there is to it.

Comment #32: bananacat  on  10/01  at  03:59 PM

No, catgirl, I strongly disagree. Beck doesn’t come from a privileged or entitled background—he was probably physically and emotionally abused—hence the drug problem and the complete lack of a moral compass. I don’t believe for one second that Beck believes anything he says—it’s about the money and the illusion (not so illusory) of influence. He strikes me as grasping and scrambling—these are not indicators of a man who thinks he’s entitled.

Comment #33: LCforevah  on  10/01  at  04:07 PM

I wonder how Skousen would have reacted to reports of rumors about suspicions that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990…

Comment #34: MikeEss  on  10/01  at  04:08 PM

“It starts with his mommy spoiling him until he develops a strong sense of entitlement, “

Nope. The decision to be an asshole rests on his shoulders, no Freudian mommy-blaming please!

Comment #35: emjaybee  on  10/01  at  04:08 PM

Yeah, his mom died in a boating accident when he was 14 or so, anyway. To me, he seems like someone with a “borderline” personality, ie in fancy Lacanian terms, someone unable to prove to himself that his reflection is not himself. There’s no center there, just a desperate need for attention. But of course it’s unprofessional to diagnose someone I haven’t analyzed personally.

Comment #36: felagund  on  10/01  at  04:11 PM

not quite true:

“As a historian, I can assure you that this is actually on the cutting edge of recent scholarship on slavery—circa 1890.”

this sort of revisionist history was/is quite common in the south, in school textbooks. i know this because, as a student in the south of the 60’s and 70’s, i actually had history textbooks that gave a close approximation of this description of slavery. these same textbooks gave the cause of the civil war (the war of northern aggression) as “state’s rights”. of course, they never actually said specifically what “state’s right” was being infringed on.

i note also the large number of “teabaggers” who sport “rebel flag” paraphenalia; the “lost cause” hasn’t died out.

Comment #37: cpinva  on  10/01  at  04:23 PM

MikeEss: While I was born to Mormon parents only one year before the priesthood was given to the blacks, folks still would tell stories about how various folks threatened to leave the church when the blacks got the priesthood. I remember thinking that was insane, but I had no idea how far the racist roots of the Mormon church went. The guy who was the LDS prophet through most of my childhood and teen years was Ezra Taft Benson, known mostly to the outside world as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Sec of Agriculture.  (Incidentally, he argued against farm subsidies as promoting socialism while in that office. The man was inclined to see socialism/communism around every corner.)

Anyhoo, in my late teens I found out via the magic of the interwebs that Ezra T. had written the prologue to a little book called The Black Hammer. I felt pretty sick to my stomach. And later I found other problematic and racist statements, like calling MLK a liar.  Incidentally, I don’t think most Mormons below 45 or so have any clue about this crap. I’m not even sure my parents do. But they think God called Ezra T. to be a prophet and never once questioned it or looked into his history. He’s dead now—died in my mid-teens, I think, and there have been about three prophets since then. But it seems pretty horrible that such a guy can advance via the gerontocracy of the church—they go by seniority—and make it to the ultimate position. One of the reasons I left the church was their crappy civil rights record.

Anyway, these are the people and environment that fostered Cleon Skousen and lately Glenn Beck. More info and statement from other church leaders during the 20th century here:

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon409.htm
http://www.affirmation.org/learning/prelude.shtml

Comment #38: PixelFish  on  10/01  at  04:26 PM

Some of this stuff probably has an element of truth in it—for example, a successful slave owner would probably treat his slaves as well as similarly priced domestic animals. But of course, that’s the point—treating people as domestic animals is simply evil. 

As for slavery being worse for whites than blacks, there is of course a sense in which this is true, particuraly for a devout Christian—slaves got converted to Christianity, and got their souls saved, while slave owners went to hell due to their mistreatment of their fellow humans (and in particular, due to their sexual abuse of helpless captives).  This was not an uncommon view of slavery before the Civil War:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

Needless to say, this view is an example of how religion can drive people batshit insane.

Comment #39: rea  on  10/01  at  04:30 PM

PixelFish, I graduated from high school in 1978.  It’s all too recent for me…

Comment #40: MikeEss  on  10/01  at  04:40 PM

MikeEss, IIRC, the only reason the LDS decided to ordain black people was because they were threatened with losing their tax-exempt status.

Comment #41: Rebecca  on  10/01  at  04:49 PM

I’m hardly an expert on the issue, but some of those quotes sound perfectly reasonable to me.

I can easily imagine slaves setting the slowest and easiest pace that they can get away with. Hell, many cubicle farm people and assembly line people do it a lot today. But for slaves, when going faster pretty much accomplishes nothing but getting you tired faster - not like you’ll get to knock off early if you finish ahead of time - why work particularly hard? As for the white owner having to set the pace and actually supervise people who have no particular incentive to work really hard? Um…. duh?  But that’s not because slaves (or by extension, sheesh, all black people) are lazy, it’s because they’re friggin SLAVES.

Similarly, I really wouldn’t be surprised if there were slaves who posed, or boasted, or behaved pretty much any way that is in the range of human behavior. There are people who will make the best of any situation, no matter how awful. If there were slaves who rose above their situation with ambition, humor, compassion, or any other noble action, that is a reflection on them, not a reason to excuse the whole system.

And as for white fear being some sort of excuse for slavery, WTF? It’s actually a pretty sensible reaction to being part of a system that treats thinking human beings as property. Bizarre, how some of the very same people who hold up the slave system as great for the slaves are the biggest fans of the whole Red Dawn “if they ever take over my country, I’ll become a guerilla warrior and live in the wild and eat bugs rather than knuckle under, no matter what the conditions are, because I’m a real ‘Murrican” thing.

Comment #42: Lymis  on  10/01  at  05:22 PM

Of course Glenn Beck doesn’t even understand “slave food” anyway.

Some black comic (Chris Rock?) on his disdain for soul food: “That was just some nasty shit they fed to the slaves.”

Comment #43: Bitter Scribe  on  10/01  at  05:32 PM

the.. I.. just… can’t…

How can someone possibly read about HUMAN BEINGS as SLAVES and then write giant screeds about how “It all wasn’t THAT BAD”???? How is your fucking excuse any justification AT ALL about that fucking up time in history?
The lack of fucking empathy is enough that that person should be considered a sociopath.

Comment #44: Danica Lefse Queen  on  10/01  at  05:54 PM

(Incidentally, he argued against farm subsidies as promoting socialism while in that office. The man was inclined to see socialism/communism around every corner.)

At least farm subsidies are socialistic.

Comment #45: Ms Kate  on  10/01  at  06:07 PM

Rebecca,

Close. The mormon church only allowed black men to become lay clergy after the threat of a lawsuit. mormon-sponsored Boy Scout troops were required to be led by a “priesthood holder,” effectively prohibiting black Scouts from being patrol leaders. In 1974 the NAACP filed a lawsuit on behalf of Byron Marchant, an black mormon scoutmaster. The lawsuit was dropped in June 1978 after the “revelation” that black men could become lay clergy. The lawsuit was only part of Mr. Marchant’s activities against Salt Lake City’s racism; he also led marches, demonstrations, and caused the church a lot of grief. He was excommunicated, defamed, and there is evidence that both he and Douglas Wallace, another black mormon civil rights activist, were under police surveillance in the 70s.

Racism in the mormon church is both a social product of its time (powerful white men founding the church beginning in the 1820s), encouraged by decades of isolation in the West, and perpetuated by official doctrine. mormons subscribe to both the “curse of cain” theory and they add an additional flourish by insisting that black people are punished with dark skin for their sin of disobeying God in the “pre-existence”. This belief was actually published in the official church publication “Mormon Doctrine,” written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, and published in the 1958 and 1966 editions. The “curse of Cain” tripe wasn’t removed until the 1979 edition.

There is a fantastic collection of official mormon quotes on the subject here.

And no, most mormon people under 45 know anything about this. This church has gone to great lengths to erase this from their history. My parents converted to mormonism in 1980; they never had any idea about any of this, and despite Byron Marchant and Douglas Wallace’s experiences being a matter of well-reported public record, they have accused me of making it all up.

Skousen’s disgusting writings are merely a reflection of what the mormon church taught him. And this attitude is still prevalent in the white mormon enclaves of Utah, Mesa, Arizona, and Idaho. My little sister, who is biracial, had the n-bomb dropped in her face daily while in school and church in suburban Utah as recently as three years ago.

Comment #46: Keori  on  10/01  at  06:13 PM

@ Cleon Skousen:

1) Citation seriously fucking needed for claims that slaves had it good.
2) Rebellion? Whatever for? They never needed to pay bills or worry their nappy l’il heads over running a household: they had it made. They simply worked at a reasonable pace for a few hours a day, then got their fill of corn bread, fried chicken, and watermelon while curled up with a good book at night.
3) People owned other people, and could buy or sell them or their children - and the determination of who should own and who should be owned was based on race. Both those things - slavery and racism - are wrong enough on their own. When taken together, they form a whirring, sucking pit of wrong from which even light cannot escape.

Comment #47: Nil  on  10/01  at  06:21 PM

I wonder if Skousen thinks that white people would make better slaves than black people?  Is he suggesting that white people should be slaves to other white people?  That’s actually a pretty good description of what he wants, poor people slaves to rich people, and women slaves to their husbands or fathers.

The problem with implementing corporate feudalism is that feudalism has a bad rep with the hoi polloi. 

In Europe and England, they remember feudalism directly, and also recall that the way to deal with this involves the occasional shortening of aristocrats by, oh, a head.  In the US, which didn’t have direct experience, it’s associated with plantation slavery.

Thus it is necessary to rehabilitate plantation slavery before getting people to go along with plans to explicitly divide the populace into the serfs and the aristocracy.

Comment #48: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/01  at  06:43 PM

he gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains.

The slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken. If the owner got ahead of the gang they all would shirk behind his back.

Ah, I see how that works. When black people act out violently in response to being sold as chattel, carried off in chains, and forced to work without pay, it’s because they’re vicious types.  When white people act out violently because the President proposes allowing people to buy health insurance from the government, it’s because they’re courageous patriots.  Also, when black people refuse to work because they aren’t being paid, they’re shirking.  When white people refuse to work because their top marginal tax rate has been slightly increased, it’s called Going Galt.

It all makes perfect sense now.

Comment #49: DaveL  on  10/01  at  06:43 PM

Mix one part sociopath to 3 parts steaming pile of insecurity.  Stir in 1 pound of raving paranoia, 1 pound of racism and 5 lbs of white male privilege.  Allow to marinate in alcohol for at least a decade, then add a Bible and mix well.  Serve with a side of crazy.

You forgot the penultimate step, which involves feeding the mess to a male bovine, collecting the digestive output, and putting it in a good suit with a spiffy haircut.

Comment #50: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/01  at  06:45 PM

At least farm subsidies are socialistic.

Nope. That’s merchantilism.

Comment #51: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/01  at  06:52 PM

Hell, even in societies where slaves could own property, serve as government officials, purchase their own freedom, and even own slaves of their own there were still bloody slave rebellions (see Republican and Imperial Rome and the history of the Spartican Rebellion.)  But, you know, far be it from me to bring up facts when talking to anyone from the Right Wing.

Comment #52: tannenburg  on  10/01  at  06:59 PM

Usually I’d try and make a snarky remark but this goes so far beyond that it’s untrue. Vile fucking racism that needs to be exposed as quickly and as widely as possible.

Comment #53: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  10/01  at  07:01 PM

I’ve also heard the defense that at least, if you were a slave, you couldn’t be fired.  A defense that’s false, because lots of slaves were freed when they weren’t able to work any more, eliminating the responsibility of the master to feed and clothe the slave.

It was Nineteen Seventy Eight before blacks were considered human enough to be allowed to become priests. That’s how much they care about people who aren’t white, and that’s what Beck and his philosophical muse are/were connected to…
Comment #30: MikeEss on 10/01 at 02:55 PM

Not an oppression olympics entry, here, but the priesthood still is only men and boys.  Fully rehabilitated the LDS ain’t, and this isn’t just recent history they could deny, it’s here and now.

Piator, I wouldn’t describe Beck’s haircut as spiffy.  It may be hard to cut it to hide the point, though.

Comment #54: oldfeminist  on  10/01  at  07:06 PM

People who think that slavery was so great should try it for themselves.  They should look for someone willing to let them work long hours in the hot sun for no pay, rape them at will and sell them or their children when they got short of money.  The history of generational slavery in this country was ugly and hurtful to not only the slaves but their descendants as well. 

Conservatives, in general, have a great lack of empathy.  They are totally unable to imagine the suffering of other people.  That’s why they are able to cheer at pictures of war so easily.  It wouldn’t occur to them that the foreign dead of our wars are human beings too with actual feelings and families just like them.  Conservatives basically only want things for themselves. 

They’d be happy to have us enslaved now, in fact.  Listen to how they moan and carry on about minimum wage and fight against changes in the health care system.  God forbid all these people of color should have access to the same health care they get, there might not be enough to go around.  They feast on the finest food themselves and can’t understand why the rest of us aren’t satisfied to live on their crumbs.

Comment #55: G Porgey  on  10/01  at  07:36 PM

“I wonder if Skousen thinks that white people would make better slaves than black people?  Is he suggesting that white people should be slaves to other white people?”

As I’m beginning to understand from some recent reading, this is pretty much how slavery worked throughout most of history.  Your king army conquered another king and army, you got the other king’s subjects as slaves.  That’s how it worked in Rome; it seems that’s kind of what happened to the Jews in Egypt. Slaves also had some rights; probably not that much less than poor citizens - who didn’t have much when the king was considered the divinely chosen embodiment of law. And there was at least the possibility of the tables being turned via another war.

The tradition of beating up your neighboring village/tribe/kingdom existed in Africa as well, but the master and slave were still of the same race. Then some particularly rotten African king struck a deal with a particularly rotten European entrepreneur, and the idea of transporting people specifically to be slaves with no possibility of getting out was born.

In the early colonial period in what is now the Southern U.S., cheap labor came in the form of indentured servants - Europeans who came to the New World on someone else’s dime with an agreement to work for a pittance for a certain number of years.  Trouble was, those folks tended to save up and buy land after their indenture was over, becoming competitors to their former masters.  As the land wasn’t that great to begin with, this was not sustainable.  What was needed to ensure the currently existing plantations remain profitable while shutting out newcomers was a permanent underclass who had no rights and could be bought and sold at will.  And be easily identifiable as being of that class. 

So, the whole concept of slavery based on race, into which someone could be born but from which the person enslaved could never escape was not only an American innovation, but it was done specifically to protect profits and limit competition for a small set of business owners.  Think about that the next time some sick bastard tries to say it wasn’t so bad. Every aspect, every thing that made it possible was evil, rotten and inhuman.

Oh, and the folks who say that ‘in many cases’ the slaves were treated as if they were family?  That’s because ‘in many cases’ they WERE family because the slave women were routinely raped. And conveniently, if the family resemblance became embarrassing, the evidence could just be sold off.

Evil, rotten, sick and inhuman.

Comment #56: JadedOptimist  on  10/01  at  09:32 PM

<quote>or example, a successful slave owner would probably treat his slaves as well as similarly priced domestic animals. But of course, that’s the point—treating people as domestic animals is simply evil. </quote>

No, the real point is that treating people such that being treated as domestic animals is a step up is evil.  Which is our current system in some ways.

Comment #57: Punditus Maximus  on  10/01  at  09:43 PM

Ms. Kate: Yeah, sorry, should have been used a better example, but what I meant to say is that screaming about socialism (and it being the gate way drug to communism) is kind of a default setting in the politics of white guys from Utah/ Mormon politicos. So it’s not surprising that Beck is raising the Red Fear flag and waving it hard.

Comment #58: PixelFish  on  10/01  at  10:16 PM

Wow. I’m trying to imagine what kind of disconnection from reality it takes to quote that kind of stuff with a straight face. And it probably does take a member of an authoritarian cult to imagine that the only moral way to behave is to advance the interests of your master at your own expense, no matter how illegitimate that mastery…

Comment #59: paul  on  10/01  at  10:16 PM

In the early colonial period in what is now the Southern U.S., cheap labor came in the form of indentured servants - Europeans who came to the New World on someone else’s dime with an agreement to work for a pittance for a certain number of years.

A coworker of my husband was renovating a cottage on Cape Cod on the weekends, as his parents planned to retire there.  The dwelling was very ancient, and they found some even more ancient paperwork under the attic floorboards: indenture contracts!

These were quite fascinating to read, to say the least.  It was essentially contractural slavery, but time limited.  They didn’t have a lot of rights, and very little means of grievance and redress - but they couldn’t be so mistreated as to be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.

Comment #60: Ms Kate  on  10/01  at  10:45 PM

From Wikipedia:

From 1951 to 1955, he taught at Brigham Young University. He served as Salt Lake City, Utah police chief for four years before being fired in 1960, by Mayor J. Bracken Lee.[2][3] Skousen was summarily dismissed shortly after Skousen raided an illegal poker club, where J. Bracken Lee was in attendance.[4][5] The conservative Lee characterized Skousen’s strict enforcement of anti-gambling laws as “like a Gestapo,”[6][7] and said that Skousen “ran the police department in exactly the same manner as the Communists in Russia operate their government.”[8] Lee told a friend that Skousen “is a master of half-truths. In at least three instances I have proven him to be a liar. He is a very dangerous man [and] one of the greatest spenders of public funds of anyone who ever served in any capacity in Salt Lake City government.”[9]

Comment #61: Ms Kate  on  10/01  at  10:49 PM

Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Skousen was born and raised Mormon, and Glenn Beck is a convert.

I can pretty much get along with any religious group, yes, even evangelical Protestants and wingnut Mel Gibson-esque Catholics. At least enough to hold a polite conversation, anyway. But Mormons have always creeped me the fuck out beyond belief. I can’t do that with them.

Comment #62: Ben D.  on  10/01  at  11:18 PM

Well, maybe Scientologists would creep me out just the same, too. But I never met a Scientologist so I can’t say.

Comment #63: Ben D.  on  10/01  at  11:19 PM

Well, shit, if it was so hard and so inefficient to have slaves, why didn’t the shitfucking slave owners let them go!!!!

Pure altruism. Everyone knows that they were incapable of fending for themselves. Why, look at them now, voting for the SociNaziSatan. So easily gulled out of their own best interests.

Ew. OK, now I have to like scrub my head out. Thinking like that is way too gross.

Comment #64: kristin  on  10/02  at  01:19 AM

I don’t think this statement is untrue, but it is designed to be misleading:

Southern life a “nightmare” of fear—for white people. “The constant fear of slave rebellion made life in the South a nightmare, especially in regions where conspiracies were of frequent occurrence. The extermination of white civilization in Santo Domingo was followed in the nineteenth century by several other bloody outbursts in the West Indies, which never failed to cause ominous forebodings in America.

Besides the aforementioned mix-up with Santo Domingo and Saint Dominguez, this statement rings true to an extent.

If you’re a plantation owner and you have 6 strong slaves for every non-slave on the plantation (or more), then you’re going to be constantly terrified of a slave revolt.  So, you treat the slaves worse, degrade them further, increasingly dehumanize them in order to keep them ground down and too tired to revolt. 

I’ve seen it described elsewhere as a prison mentality.  The white slave owners as the prison guards (they have the big weapons and the image of control, but are few in number) and the slaves are the prisoners (they are far greater in number and can easily shatter the control of the owners/guards if they riot/revolt).  The comparison I remember even went so far as to note that Plantations were very prison-like in design.  THe only thing that keeps the prisoners/slaves under control is fear.  Fear of violent response to a riot/revolt.  Guns being brought out by the slave owners, Prison riot teams coming out with shields and clubs in a riot situation.

In the end, the slave owner’s greed results in the slave owner becoming as much a prisoner to his slaves as his slaves are prisoner to him.  The only remaining difference is that the slave owner can choose to leave his prison, the slaves can’t. 

And that power dynamic is what Skousen tries to obfuscate and deny.  The white slave owners have the power to prevent a violent uprising:  release the slaves from bondage.

Comment #65: jerry_101  on  10/02  at  01:21 AM

Then some particularly rotten African king struck a deal with a particularly rotten European entrepreneur, and the idea of transporting people specifically to be slaves with no possibility of getting out was born.

I know you know, but obviously the European half of this transaction was rotten-er by a few orders of magnitude. African side of things: “hey, you want to give us stuff if we give you some of these people we grabbed? Awesome. This is pretty much how we roll around here and it works out okay” vs. European side of things: “hey, is it cool if we kidnap a few million people to drag halfway around the world in high-fatality conditions to then abuse to death over the course of several generations in order to replace the *other* bunch of native people that we already used up/wiped out through disease and violence?” Africans: “...wait, what?” Europeans: “uh, nothing. We’ll take good care of ‘em.”

At least, that’s sorta the gist of how I learned it.

Comment #66: Bagelsan  on  10/02  at  02:51 AM

That is to say, the impression I get is that “slave” meant something different to most Africans than what it meant to the Europeans. Selling people is *bad* clearly (like, *infinitely* bad?) but I don’t think the supply end of things had much of an idea about what exactly they were selling slaves into while the demand end knew *exactly* how horrifying and degrading and genocidal it was and did it anyways.

(Correct me if I’m wrong, of course—I’m a biologist, not a historian. :p)

Comment #67: Bagelsan  on  10/02  at  02:57 AM

That is to say, the impression I get is that “slave” meant something different to most Africans than what it meant to the Europeans.

IIRC, “slave” meant something quite different to Americans than it did to Europeans.  Europeans never quite got a race- and ancestry-based system of slavery set up, at least not to the elaborate extent that Americans did.  As the institution was threatened, it became tighter and tighter, so practices that had been common before (like letting slaves buy themselves out of slavery) were eliminated.  The United States set up a very “peculiar institution” indeed, because our definition of slavery was one that had never been used before.

Yay, American ingenuity! :p

Comment #68: Mnemosyne  on  10/02  at  03:40 AM

There were only two things in this post that did not make me want to run screaming to the eyewash station: bacon and cornbread.

Comment #69: bomberE  on  10/02  at  07:41 AM

But Mormons have always creeped me the fuck out beyond belief. I can’t do that with them.

Careful, BenD ... don’t generalize, please.

Public Health is unusually gender balanced, but attracts mostly Atheists, Unitarian Universalists, Jews, and Mormons.  If they can work with all the UUs, Jews, and Atheists toward common goals, they ain’t all bad.

Comment #70: Ms Kate  on  10/02  at  11:21 AM

Backing what Ms Kate says, for what it’s worth I’ve known and worked with a fair number of Mormons for many years.  I also have a lot of Mormon relatives (who I thankfully don’t have to see very often).

In general they are pretty nice (very white) people, as long as you stay away from discussing religion or their anti-gay bigotry…

Comment #71: MikeEss  on  10/02  at  11:49 AM

Yay, American ingenuity!

Not only is our military spending the biggest and our healthcare the crappiest, but we beat Europe on “most bizarre and f’ed up system of slavery” too? Hell yeah! USA USA!

Comment #72: Bagelsan  on  10/02  at  12:31 PM

Ms Kate, it is rumored here that to get a job with the county, it helps a lot to be a Mormon, FWIW. 

I can also tell you that when my wife took the test the second time for a job with the county, they told her she got the exact same score, which is about 6 sigma beyond believability, her having graduated college when she was 20 years old and being a bit smarter than the average Ilocano and all that.

She didn’t contest it, she now has a better job than the county position and she doesn’t have to deal with many “stupid white people” in said position.(I’m Texan-Sino-Caledonian myself, that’s why I’m exempted grin )

Just remember who amoungst your allies are there for their own planet and who aren’t.

Comment #73: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/02  at  12:46 PM

In many parts of Latin America that’s exactly what happened. The economy changed and as keeping slaves became too expensive, they were let go. In some parts the slaves just up and left while the plantation owners looked the other way.

The contradictions are bizarre: massa thinks his slaves are happy but fears their rebellion; massa wants to keep slaves but white laborers are more efficient.

Does anybody else see that the sole reason then to keep slaves is to have mastery over another human being? Is there another twisted reason to perpetuate an inefficient system whose members you fear?

That’s the thing: for certain situations, it wasn’t inefficient.  Slavery in the US was on a slow downward slope until the cotton gin.  The explosion in the cotton industry demanded a large labour force to plant and harvest the cotton fields, and is sucked up investment from almost everything else.  Cotton plantation workers didn’t require a significant amount of training, and plantations that grew their food in addition to cotton had a further advantage: they didn’t have to pay to feed their workers, since the slaves could feed themselves in addition to providing food for the owners and probably some surplus to sell for more cash for the slaveholder.

The most important thing, though, is that the amount of damage any single slave, or even a small group, could do to the plantation system was fairly minimal.  Compare that to having slaves in, say, a factory: one disgruntled person on an assembly line can do a huge amount of damage, either by sabotaging the product or the facility itself.  The Nazis found this out the hard way: weapons and munitions produced by slave labour was notoriously unreliable compared to that produced by paid workers.  In addition, growing food isn’t something that’s easy to tack on to a factory’s operations, unlike farming on a plantation, so the factory owner with slaves has to deal with increased costs to maintain his slave workforce than a plantation owner.

For the cotton plantations slavery was highly efficient and ridiculously profitable.  Now you run up against human psychology: a slave owner had to morally justify what they were doing because “It’s making me stinking rich” isn’t enough in an era where human rights are finally starting to make significant inroads.  Well, if they aren’t really human…

Most other places with slavery, such as Europe, didn’t entirely make that leap because historically the majority of the slaves (or serfs) looked like the masters, and quite often the society that produced the slaves was considered an equal (albeit a loser in a war) or had something admirable about it.  In the Americas, where there was an obvious difference in both appearance of the people and culture (the African one, of course, being considered “primitive”), it was easier to judge entire groups as inherently inferior.

Comment #74: KeithM  on  10/02  at  01:41 PM

Now where on Earth did my jaw go?

Comment #75: NancyP  on  10/02  at  02:15 PM

In many parts of Latin America that’s exactly what happened. The economy changed and as keeping slaves became too expensive, they were let go. In some parts the slaves just up and left while the plantation owners looked the other way.

A bit tangential and don’t know if you’re still reading, but every Latin American country abolished slavery as part of their independence movements. That means that by around 1830 or so, the only slave-holding countries in the Americas were the United States, parts of the Caribbean, including Cuba, and Brazil.

Cuba retained slavery until the 1890s as one of the last Spanish colonies, and there was a constant tension between the creole elite and Spain, in which agitation for independence from the island would be met with threats from Spain to free the slaves. Pre-Civil War, a lot of Cuban elites made noise about trying to get annexed into the United States to be free of Spain but still have their slaves.

Many Latin American economies had a very limited role for slavery because large native populations were kept in debt peonage, a condition that existed well into the 20th century. And obviously, this had its parallel in the share-cropping system in the United States, a system that former slave holders fought tooth and nail to create in the years after Emancipation to rope blacks back into bondage. It only

So, yeah. Having workers that you hardly have to pay at all actually contains a lot of efficiencies.

Comment #76: chingona  on  10/03  at  09:45 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.