Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[j brown's body]

"A Louisiana state rep said earlier this week that schools shouldn’t teach “divisive concepts” but rather give students “the good, the bad, and the ugly” on various topics such as… slavery. Unfortunately, that was the example that immediately sprang to his mind in a recent hearing, and he quickly had to confirm it had no “good” parts.

Rep. Ray Garofolo, the chair of the Louisiana House Education Committee, made the comments during a committee hearing on his own bill that would ban any K-12 school or college that receives public funding from teaching “divisive concepts” such as the United States or Louisiana being “fundamentally, institutionally, or systemically racist or sexist.”

...During the same hearing, Rep. Gary Carter Jr., a Democrat, asked Garofolo point-blank if Louisiana “ever was” systematically racist or sexist. “From my perspective, I’m not a history teacher, so you can’t ask me a history question that I may not have that fact to,” Garofolo said."

Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

Rep. Ray Garofolo was trying to explain his education bill, which is part of a larger trend against “critical race theory.”

www.vice.com

the interesting thing about this is that a state legislator does not know if Louisiana was ever systematically racist. And that he doesn't know, he says, because he isn't a history teacher. Yet, he would pass a bill prohibiting teachers from teaching such a thing.

 

[Antiwar]

There was nothing good about slavery?

 

[Moot]

It's not exactly news that Republicans don't want to face the reality of racism in this country. They've been trying to white wash it for over a 150 years.

 

[AmNat]

"A Louisiana state rep said earlier this week that schools shouldn’t teach “divisive concepts” but rather give students “the good, the bad, and the ugly” on various topics such as… slavery. Unfortunately, that was the example that immediately sprang to his mind in a recent hearing, and he quickly had to confirm it had no “good” parts.

Rep. Ray Garofolo, the chair of the Louisiana House Education Committee, made the comments during a committee hearing on his own bill that would ban any K-12 school or college that receives public funding from teaching “divisive concepts” such as the United States or Louisiana being “fundamentally, institutionally, or systemically racist or sexist.”

...During the same hearing, Rep. Gary Carter Jr., a Democrat, asked Garofolo point-blank if Louisiana “ever was” systematically racist or sexist. “From my perspective, I’m not a history teacher, so you can’t ask me a history question that I may not have that fact to,” Garofolo said."

Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

Rep. Ray Garofolo was trying to explain his education bill, which is part of a larger trend against “critical race theory.”

www.vice.com

the interesting thing about this is that a state legislator does not know if Louisiana was ever systematically racist. And that he doesn't know, he says, because he isn't a history teacher. Yet, he would pass a bill prohibiting teachers from teaching such a thing.

I guess not starving to death (and ~30% of the slaves did after being freed) wasn't a good thing?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I guess not starving to death (and ~30% of the slaves did after being freed) wasn't a good thing?

Over a third of the Confederacy's population was enslaved. Slaves in the Confederacy lived only half as long as antebellum whites, were considered completely disposable so long as their economic fruits of their forced labor exceeded their cost, had no rights to marriage, and no rights to parents, and routinely saw their children sold to never see them again...

The Confederacy was one of the most evil regimes in all of human history, ranking right up with the Khmer Rouge and Nazi Germany in terms of crimes against humanity. What kind of a despicable human being defends such a system and such a regime?

BTW, the former slaves that starved to death, starved because of the extreme racism of the society they had to try to live in.

 

[Grand Mal]

I guess not starving to death (and ~30% of the slaves did after being freed) wasn't a good thing?

Well isn't that an odd concept.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

A Louisiana state rep said earlier this week that schools shouldn’t teach “divisive concepts” but rather give students “the good, the bad, and the ugly” on various topics such as… slavery.

Unfortunately, that was the example that immediately sprang to his mind in a recent hearing, and he quickly had to confirm it had no “good” parts.

This is a good example of how 'coercive social processes' work. Obviously, no politician or person of any standing, and really no person of any standing, can see
slavery or any related topic in any but certain, prescribed ways. No politician or perhaps academic could ever discuss the entire topic of slavery (bringing slaves to the New World) in any except certain very negative ways. If you or anyone else would talk about these things you must perceive, conceive, and state only that slavery was *thus-and-such* with no deviation from the standard, accepted line which all know.

This is because it has been established that *coerced intellectual processes* are necessary today. What stands behind the coercion? The force of violence. What I mean is if you say the wrong thing, that is if you think the wrong thing, and you state it, a whole array of *punishments* are then brought out against you. These are more often than not based in shame and blame -- to communicate to you how bad, how evil you are -- but it extends today to other forms of retributive violence: loss of your job and livelihood, loss of social standing.

To be a slave today would, for all of us, be a rather large bummer. But slavery in history (Greece, Rome, China, Africa, etc.) was actually a long-standing social institution. True, slavery in the South was of a different quality, but it was never 'wholly negative', nor was it an 'absolute hell'. In the same way that the slavery and indentured servitude of some poor Europeans was not an absolute negative nor absolutely intolerable.

In actual fact on may plantations the life of a slave was tolerable. In actual fact may slaves (where interviews were done with former slaves for example) even had strong feelings of respect for their masters (as they were then called).

There are in fact dozens and hundreds of *benefits* that could be recited when referring to American slavery when compared, let's say, to slavery in Cuba or Brazil that was, indeed, terribly brutal. Slavery in the South, among many who were owners of slaves, was carried out in comparatively ethical ways if for example Cuba or Brazil are compared. Slaves had certain rights as well; limited but existent. There is a whole body of Southern writing on the topic of slavery (those who were in pro of it, those who defended it) where all of this is discussed in detail. Those sources still exist, of course, and they can be referred to.

Slavery was absolutely intolerable for example to a man like Abraham Lincoln. He said "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." The notion of one man owning another man was an intolerable idea. And yet he did not ever condone Blacks and Whites living together or sharing civic life or institutions (and he worked for many years behind the scenes in a failed attempt to relocate the former slaves to African or to various other places).

The fact of the matter is that the institution of American slavery gave Africans in America and their descendants the very life and existence that they now have. Say what you want about the *means* but the actual fact remains: those of African descent owe their existence to what was given to them through their process of bondage.

Strange though how it is that saying something direct and truthful is perceived as 'unutterable evil'.

I suggest that it be deeply considered how it is, and why it is, that there are entire categories of thought in which 'coerced thought' and certainly 'politically-correct thought' is insisted on. Unfortunately, if one does this in even ONE area, one sacrifices critical thought and renders oneself unfree (intellectually).

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The Confederacy was one of the most evil regimes in all of human history, ranking right up with the Khmer Rouge and Nazi Germany in terms of crimes against humanity. What kind of a despicable human being defends such a system and such a regime?

Here you have a *chemically pure* example of precisely what I wrote about above!

It is neary entirely false what has been declared by Southern Democrat, but because it is politically correct to say it, and because coerced thought is the order of the day, it must be said even though it is not true.

When I say it isn't true I do not mean to say, and never would say, that slavery did not involve many intolerable conditions -- it certainly did -- but it cannot be absolutized into the Absolute Evil (absolute 'ontological malevolence' as I have used this term in other places) that becomes an Emblem or a sort of intellectual Monument that cannot be seen in any other way.

Again, this sort of thinking must be seen for what it is. It is very bad thinking and as such it has ramifications.

 

[TheParser]

Slavery was terrible because the slaves had no rights and could be brutalized at any second.

But slaves were given housing, food, clothes, rudimentary health care, and some masters may have allowed rudimentary education.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Here you have a *chemically pure* example of precisely what I wrote about above!

It is neary entirely false what has been declared by Southern Democrat, but because it is politically correct to say it, and because coerced thought is the order of the day, it must be said even though it is not true.

When I say it isn't true I do not mean to say, and never would say, that slavery did not involve many intolerable conditions -- it certainly did -- but it cannot be absolutized into the Absolute Evil (absolute 'ontological malevolence' as I have used this term in other places) that becomes an Emblem or a sort of intellectual Monument that cannot be seen in any other way.

Again, this sort of thinking must be seen for what it is. It is very bad thinking and as such it has ramifications.

Can someone diagram out this nonsense?

 

[Phys251]

Slavery was terrible because the slaves had no rights and could be brutalized at any second.

But slaves were given housing, food, clothes, rudimentary health care, and some masters may have allowed rudimentary education.

There was nothing good about slavery. Stop whitewashing it.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Can someone diagram out this nonsense?

Certainly! How can I help you?

The purpose of this sort of statement is to try to rally *the group* to a joint-effort to apply the blame & shame I referred to earlier. But no rebuttal as to what, exactly, was 'nonsense'.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

There was nothing good about slavery. Stop whitewashing it.

Another chemically-pure example of the blame & shame that is brought out if any contradictory idea is even thought, much more if it is expressed.

What is the function of this sort of thinking? When it is discovered many things become clearer.

 

[pamak]

Can someone diagram out this nonsense?

Sure


Here is the version of Civics 101 that is described in the stupid response of the poster

Chapter 1

The good parts of getting killed

a. Why death is good for you when your life is already miserable​

b. How reduction of human population makes our planet greener​

Chapter 2

The good parts of being raped

​

a. The joy of motherhood...​

​

 

[Phys251]

Another chemically-pure example of the blame & shame

Not reading another word of your slavery apologism crap.

 

[watsup]

Slavery was terrible because the slaves had no rights and could be brutalized at any second.

But slaves were given housing, food, clothes, rudimentary health care, and some masters may have allowed rudimentary education.

Livestock was given housing, food, an rudimentary health care.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

"A Louisiana state rep said earlier this week that schools shouldn’t teach “divisive concepts” but rather give students “the good, the bad, and the ugly” on various topics such as… slavery. Unfortunately, that was the example that immediately sprang to his mind in a recent hearing, and he quickly had to confirm it had no “good” parts.

Rep. Ray Garofolo, the chair of the Louisiana House Education Committee, made the comments during a committee hearing on his own bill that would ban any K-12 school or college that receives public funding from teaching “divisive concepts” such as the United States or Louisiana being “fundamentally, institutionally, or systemically racist or sexist.”

...During the same hearing, Rep. Gary Carter Jr., a Democrat, asked Garofolo point-blank if Louisiana “ever was” systematically racist or sexist. “From my perspective, I’m not a history teacher, so you can’t ask me a history question that I may not have that fact to,” Garofolo said."

Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

Rep. Ray Garofolo was trying to explain his education bill, which is part of a larger trend against “critical race theory.”

www.vice.com

the interesting thing about this is that a state legislator does not know if Louisiana was ever systematically racist. And that he doesn't know, he says, because he isn't a history teacher. Yet, he would pass a bill prohibiting teachers from teaching such a thing.

If he was smart he would’ve gotten out of this by saying there was a good in slavery because that’s why we have black Americans in the first place and without it we’d be too white a country. If I had to BS my way out of that it’s what I would’ve said

 

[pamak]

Here you have a *chemically pure* example of precisely what I wrote about above!

It is neary entirely false what has been declared by Southern Democrat, but because it is politically correct to say it, and because coerced thought is the order of the day, it must be said even though it is not true.

When I say it isn't true I do not mean to say, and never would say, that slavery did not involve many intolerable conditions -- it certainly did -- but it cannot be absolutized into the Absolute Evil (absolute 'ontological malevolence' as I have used this term in other places) that becomes an Emblem or a sort of intellectual Monument that cannot be seen in any other way.

Again, this sort of thinking must be seen for what it is. It is very bad thinking and as such it has ramifications.

Since you are a female, I assume that if you are raped, (as many female women experienced) you cannot "absolutize" that evil...

See my civics 101 chapter about the joy of motherhood.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Over a third of the Confederacy's population was enslaved. Slaves in the Confederacy lived only half as long as antebellum whites, were considered completely disposable so long as their economic fruits of their forced labor exceeded their cost, had no rights to marriage, and no rights to parents, and routinely saw their children sold to never see them again...

The Confederacy was one of the most evil regimes in all of human history, ranking right up with the Khmer Rouge and Nazi Germany in terms of crimes against humanity. What kind of a despicable human being defends such a system and such a regime?

BTW, the former slaves that starved to death, starved because of the extreme racism of the society they had to try to live in.

No, the contention the confederacy was one of the worst regimes in history along side Hitler and pol pot is an absurd contention. And if you believed it you would have to argue that Brazil, Cuba, the British Empire, the United States itself (which allowed slavery after the dissolution of the confederacy) Russia, and even Haiti where the educated blacks kept their uneducated blacks in a state that was slavery in all but name, were on par with the Khmer Rouge.

 

[dockside]

Certainly! How can I help you?

The purpose of this sort of statement is to try to rally *the group* to a joint-effort to apply the blame & shame I referred to earlier. But no rebuttal as to what, exactly, was 'nonsense'.

How can one rebut nonsense except by calling it nonsense?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Certainly! How can I help you?

The purpose of this sort of statement is to try to rally *the group* to a joint-effort to apply the blame & shame I referred to earlier. But no rebuttal as to what, exactly, was 'nonsense'.

Because its nonsense. People that live in North Korean labor camps are given some rudimentary healthcare and since every single day is not an utter living hell, I guess by your definition its not so bad for them...

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Not reading another word of your slavery apologism crap.

And here you have "I am blocking my ears to anything you say!" This is what children on playgrounds do.

The way this plays out in Academia, for example, is in youths who absolutely refuse to allow people who have ideas contrary to those they believe, with zealous conviction bordering on religious sentiment, to be wrong, are blocked even from speaking. They cannot even be heard.

"No speech allowed to fascists!" and other such things are said. These are examples of 'coercive intellectual processes' and activism.

This shows where the Progressive-Left idea-movement, after morphing into activist postmodernism and extreme 'identity politics', and after it has decamped from former Liberalism into territories of absolute intolerance, takes its followers.

Suddenly there are 6 zealots who have appeared in this thread, ready to do fierce battle! To the barricades!

 

[Tigerace117]

[

I suggest that it be deeply considered how it is, and why it is, that there are entire categories of thought in which 'coerced thought' and certainly 'politically-correct thought' is insisted on. Unfortunately, if one does this in even ONE area, one sacrifices critical thought and renders oneself unfree (intellectually).

It really does take a truly special level of ignorance to claim that there were “dozens or hundreds of benefits” to slavery.

The fact of the matter is that slavery was a immense evil, no matter how much you wail and squirm and desperately try to make excuses for it.

 

[upsideguy]

Slavery was terrible because the slaves had no rights and could be brutalized at any second.

But slaves were given housing, food, clothes, rudimentary health care, and some masters may have allowed rudimentary education.

.... as our people in prison.

No, the only "good" in slavery was to the slave owner who got very cheap labor, was allowed to prosper, as was some of the south. It's likely that when this legislator uttered this nonsense he was waxing poetic about the old south, which was built upon the exploitation of others for personal gain. While building wealth on the backs of others is a a very Republican thing, it is not something any decent human being would ever be proud of.

Sorry, but trying to argue the "good of slavery" reflects poorly on those that attempt to do so. After watching the people that support Trump, a very indecent human being, I wonder how many decent Republicans actually exist in this world. Are they on the endangered species list?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is a good example of how 'coercive social processes' work. Obviously, no politician or person of any standing, and really no person of any standing, can see
slavery or any related topic in any but certain, prescribed ways. No politician or perhaps academic could ever discuss the entire topic of slavery (bringing slaves to the New World) in any except certain very negative ways. If you or anyone else would talk about these things you must perceive, conceive, and state only that slavery was *thus-and-such* with no deviation from the standard, accepted line which all know.

This is because it has been established that *coerced intellectual processes* are necessary today. What stands behind the coercion? The force of violence. What I mean is if you say the wrong thing, that is if you think the wrong thing, and you state it, a whole array of *punishments* are then brought out against you. These are more often than not based in shame and blame -- to communicate to you how bad, how evil you are -- but it extends today to other forms of retributive violence: loss of your job and livelihood, loss of social standing.

To be a slave today would, for all of us, be a rather large bummer. But slavery in history (Greece, Rome, China, Africa, etc.) was actually a long-standing social institution. True, slavery in the South was of a different quality, but it was never 'wholly negative', nor was it an 'absolute hell'. In the same way that the slavery and indentured servitude of some poor Europeans was not an absolute negative nor absolutely intolerable.

In actual fact on may plantations the life of a slave was tolerable. In actual fact may slaves (where interviews were done with former slaves for example) even had strong feelings of respect for their masters (as they were then called).

There are in fact dozens and hundreds of *benefits* that could be recited when referring to American slavery when compared, let's say, to slavery in Cuba or Brazil that was, indeed, terribly brutal. Slavery in the South, among many who were owners of slaves, was carried out in comparatively ethical ways if for example Cuba or Brazil are compared. Slaves had certain rights as well; limited but existent. There is a whole body of Southern writing on the topic of slavery (those who were in pro of it, those who defended it) where all of this is discussed in detail. Those sources still exist, of course, and they can be referred to.

Slavery was absolutely intolerable for example to a man like Abraham Lincoln. He said "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." The notion of one man owning another man was an intolerable idea. And yet he did not ever condone Blacks and Whites living together or sharing civic life or institutions (and he worked for many years behind the scenes in a failed attempt to relocate the former slaves to African or to various other places).

The fact of the matter is that the institution of American slavery gave Africans in America and their descendants the very life and existence that they now have. Say what you want about the *means* but the actual fact remains: those of African descent owe their existence to what was given to them through their process of bondage.

Strange though how it is that saying something direct and truthful is perceived as 'unutterable evil'.

I suggest that it be deeply considered how it is, and why it is, that there are entire categories of thought in which 'coerced thought' and certainly 'politically-correct thought' is insisted on. Unfortunately, if one does this in even ONE area, one sacrifices critical thought and renders oneself unfree (intellectually).

To give a quick note, the interviews of former slaves about their masters were conducted at the beginning of the New Deal by the WPA and what you’re missing is that many of the same people were interviewed by both white and black interviewers, many of the former slaves who were interviewed by white reporters gave glowing reviews of the former masters but when interviewed by blacks gave much different accounts of the their lives talking about cruelty and family seperation and abuses etc