[Tail Gunner]

(12-22-2013 08:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Being a second-class citizen, and not having a choice doesn't equal happy. They weren't singing in the fields out of joy - it was their way of managing and getting through a grueling, unpleasant work. That doesn't equal happy either. Being white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way.

I guess you didn't read the original quotation. He hoed cotton and worked with black men in the fields, enduring the very same grueling, unpleasant work -- where he could witness them singing and witness their overall demeanor.

Quote:

Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy.

So, it wasn't being "white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way," it was his working in the fields side-by-side with black men that allowed his observations.

[J.J.]

(12-22-2013 08:26 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 08:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Being a second-class citizen, and not having a choice doesn't equal happy. They weren't singing in the fields out of joy - it was their way of managing and getting through a grueling, unpleasant work. That doesn't equal happy either. Being white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way.

I guess you didn't read the original quotation. He hoed cotton and worked with black men in the fields, enduring the very same grueling, unpleasant work -- where he could witness them singing and witness their overall demeanor.

Quote:

Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy.

So, it wasn't being "white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way," it was his working in the fields side-by-side with black men that allowed his observations.

So he sees a few blacks on a field with a smile and concludes that blacks were happier in the Jim Crow era? He probably has no idea why he shouldn't have made that conclusion based on his observations of a limited sample.

[Tail Gunner]

(12-22-2013 08:32 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 08:26 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 08:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Being a second-class citizen, and not having a choice doesn't equal happy. They weren't singing in the fields out of joy - it was their way of managing and getting through a grueling, unpleasant work. That doesn't equal happy either. Being white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way.

I guess you didn't read the original quotation. He hoed cotton and worked with black men in the fields, enduring the very same grueling, unpleasant work -- where he could witness them singing and witness their overall demeanor.

Quote:

Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy.

So, it wasn't being "white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way," it was his working in the fields side-by-side with black men that allowed his observations.

So he sees a few blacks on a field with a smile and concludes that blacks were happier in the Jim Crow era?

I guess I need to post it a second time.

Quote:

I guess you didn't read the original quotation. He hoed cotton and worked with black men in the fields, enduring the very same grueling, unpleasant work -- where he could witness them singing and witness their overall demeanor.

At least try to respond to my actual comment.

What do you do when you work with people? Talk to them. Eat lunch with them. Ask about their lives. Look at them. Observe their demeanor.

[Timoteo]

I didn't miss that part. Yeah...but blacks worked for farmers, he worked for himself. He went on to college, and even played college sports. He had the luxury of quitting to shoot ducks. You think those men he worked shoulder-to-shoulder with had that opportunity? And the stuff about asking them about their lives and having lunch with them was filled in by you. Whether he worked with them or not, they weren't equal. Blacks were kept in a certain place.

[Tail Gunner]

(12-22-2013 09:30 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I didn't miss that part. Yeah...but blacks worked for farmers, he worked for himself. He went on to college, and even played college sports. He had the luxury of quitting to shoot ducks. You think those men he worked shoulder-to-shoulder with had that opportunity? And the stuff about asking them about their lives and having lunch with them was filled in by you. Whether he worked with them or not, they weren't equal. Blacks were kept in a certain place.

Well . . . the part about him working for himself was filled in by you. He expressly stated that he "hoed cotton with them." He did not say anything about owning land, only about being "white trash" and working in the fields with African-Americans.

At least the part that I filled in stands to reason when you work with someone.

[Aliblahba]

   

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Related (and true):

[Dr. Howard]

(12-22-2013 09:30 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I didn't miss that part. Yeah...but blacks worked for farmers, he worked for himself. He went on to college, and even played college sports. He had the luxury of quitting to shoot ducks. You think those men he worked shoulder-to-shoulder with had that opportunity? And the stuff about asking them about their lives and having lunch with them was filled in by you. Whether he worked with them or not, they weren't equal. Blacks were kept in a certain place.

I think they did have the same opportunity. Robertson was born in 46, and the civil rights act was passed in 64. So, he would have been 18 when it passed...a great age to see the before and after effects of it rather than speculate on that era as I and others my age do.

I think his statements were wrong though in terms of cause and effect though, besides civil rights, there was something else going on at the same time that likely had a larger effect than the law. The 50's through the 60's came with the mechanization of the cotton industry which brought along great declines in employment in the south for black sharecroppers.

So, lets put a black person in time with Robertson when he was 18 working a field. Economically things were pretty good and the horizon shows that the way is being paved, legally, for a black person to move up economically, they can maybe get a farm and won't have to be segregated and can stare at a hot white girl while they eat a sandwich at the good deli. (I would be pretty happy). After the law is passed, the cotton economy also happens to take a dump, along with the rest of the south. Even manufacturing in the south went tits up before the midwest (70s). So, now they can legally go to the good deli and stare at white girls but no one can afford to. That would suck and many people had to look beyond the south for work.

Let me mention again that this was likely around 1960 not the 18th century 'underground railroad'. There were cultural barriers but George Washington wasn't walking around whipping black people in 'grueling conditions' and making sure they were 'kept in their place'. This was the tail end of the 'Great Migration' where black people who had the means, left of their own free will for the mid west for manufacturing jobs. South Carolina had something like a 15% population decline in a decade because black people said 'fuck this shit' and moved away. They probably just got on a bus and went...they didn't have to escape from their shackles and wade through a river to avoid roving gangs of klansmen on horseback.

I didn't read the article or quotes so I don't know if he said 'black people were happier without civil rights' or if he said 'black people, where I grew up, were happier before the civil rights act then after'. If he said something like the latter, its probably true in Louisiana and its probably true for whites and blacks that were low wage earners through that era. If you needed a job, you could find one and you could at least get by, after that, the local economy hit the shitter and if you were left in Louisiana with Phil Robertson you watched your friends and family move away to detroit, milwaukee or chicago as your finances failed, you were laid off from the cotton farm and couldn't find a new job. I would be less happy too black or white but probably more if I was black as I was promised some sort of new era via civil rights but saw it taken away by economic progress.

But of course, this is 2013 and facebook and twitter'ers would rather lynch (I chose that word deliberately) a rich old christian white guy, with firsthand experience of the south and civil rights era, for his observations about people with different colored skin instead of thinking critically about it.

PS. I looked up the 'quote' and its "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues" the guy attributes the happiness to going following god. He didn't say shit about laws..thats been everyone else.

[Beyond Borders]

(12-22-2013 08:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Being a second-class citizen, and not having a choice doesn't equal happy. They weren't singing in the fields out of joy - it was their way of managing and getting through a grueling, unpleasant work. That doesn't equal happy either. Being white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way. Maybe it was his way of assuaging guilt, or better accepting the way blacks were treated. Or maybe it was his way of completely dismissing or minimizing what he saw, because he saw blacks as being inferior. Regardless, it rings as incredibly ignorant, or arrogant, to assume Blacks were somehow happier in a society that treated them in that fashion. Him stating he wouldn't personally mistreat a Black person doesn't say all that much, in that it's still pretty easy for whites to avoid substantive contact with people of color if they wish, and easy to turn a blind eye to someone else's mistreatment of others. It doesn't mean they see Blacks or anyone else as their equals. Plenty of people today will say they personally wouldn't say or do something racist or worse to another, yet will come on the internet and give a thumbs-up to someone else that does.

It seems to me that if Blacks had been afforded the same access to education as whites, and the same employment (that didn't involve serving whites), they could have done better by their families. That would have made them happier.

(12-22-2013 08:32 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

So he sees a few blacks on a field with a smile and concludes that blacks were happier in the Jim Crow era? He probably has no idea why he shouldn't have made that conclusion based on his observations of a limited sample.

Guys my point was that we don't know he even said Blacks were happier in that time. The article gives zero context for his comments. I don't see how we can draw any conclusions about what he was saying based on what the way that they quoted him - unless you've seen a more comprehensive presentation of the interview than I have. I may have just missed it.

Anyhow, I don't want to get involved in a race discussion here and that's not my intention. And I'm certainly not getting on board with the assertion that blacks were better off in chains. Based on the way they're handling his comments about gays, though, I don't think it's a stretch to wonder if they're twisting his words to make it appear like he said something he did not.

[Dr. Howard]

(12-23-2013 05:59 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(12-22-2013 08:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Being a second-class citizen, and not having a choice doesn't equal happy. They weren't singing in the fields out of joy - it was their way of managing and getting through a grueling, unpleasant work. That doesn't equal happy either. Being white at that time afforded Mr. Robertson the luxury of observing things this way. Maybe it was his way of assuaging guilt, or better accepting the way blacks were treated. Or maybe it was his way of completely dismissing or minimizing what he saw, because he saw blacks as being inferior. Regardless, it rings as incredibly ignorant, or arrogant, to assume Blacks were somehow happier in a society that treated them in that fashion. Him stating he wouldn't personally mistreat a Black person doesn't say all that much, in that it's still pretty easy for whites to avoid substantive contact with people of color if they wish, and easy to turn a blind eye to someone else's mistreatment of others. It doesn't mean they see Blacks or anyone else as their equals. Plenty of people today will say they personally wouldn't say or do something racist or worse to another, yet will come on the internet and give a thumbs-up to someone else that does.

It seems to me that if Blacks had been afforded the same access to education as whites, and the same employment (that didn't involve serving whites), they could have done better by their families. That would have made them happier.

(12-22-2013 08:32 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

So he sees a few blacks on a field with a smile and concludes that blacks were happier in the Jim Crow era? He probably has no idea why he shouldn't have made that conclusion based on his observations of a limited sample.

Guys my point was that we don't know he even said Blacks were happier in that time. The article gives zero context for his comments. I don't see how we can draw any conclusions about what he was saying based on what the way that they quoted him - unless you've seen a more comprehensive presentation of the interview than I have. I may have just missed it.

Anyhow, I don't want to get involved in a race discussion here and that's not my intention. And I'm certainly not getting on board with the assertion that blacks were better off in chains. Based on the way they're handling his comments about gays, though, I don't think it's a stretch to wonder if they're twisting his words to make it appear like he said something he did not.

yep, I got all wrapped up in this also, then read the article and found that alot has been attributed to him that wasn't said at all, let alone with any context to what he was quoted on.

The author spent a day with him and produced an article of 3 slim pages with is now being taken verbatim and beyond....and the article was in GQ which isn't really a journalistic bastion of professionalism.

[AnonymousBosch]

Related to the 'Homosexual Tolerance' thing, I drew the short straw when my sister asked me to check to see if our flaming gay cousin was coming to Christmas Dinner. I think the guy is a toxic loser and have nothing to do with him for that reason, but my sister is sentimental.

I texted. "What are your plans for christmas? You're welcome here."

The response:

"Wow. I never feel alone I chose this lifestyle it didn't choose me am ferociously independent not interested in christmas not raised Christian my Christmas is Mardi Gras"

Gays are such happy people. Ho fucking ho.

[Christian McQueen]

"I never feel alone I chose this lifestyle it didn't choose me"

^I would text back:

"Interesting. So you're saying that you have chosen to be a homosexual and it's not how you were born?"

Brace for a shitstorm lmao.

[All or Nothing]

(12-23-2013 04:08 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Related to the 'Homosexual Tolerance' thing, I drew the short straw when my sister asked me to check to see if our flaming gay cousin was coming to Christmas Dinner. I think the guy is a toxic loser and have nothing to do with him for that reason, but my sister is sentimental.

I texted. "What are your plans for christmas? You're welcome here."

The response:

"Wow. I never feel alone I chose this lifestyle it didn't choose me am ferociously independent not interested in christmas not raised Christian my Christmas is Mardi Gras"

Gays are such happy people. Ho fucking ho.

This is where I think a lot of homosexuals are their own worst enemy. Yes, you have to deal with other people's bullshit hang ups about homosexuality, but at the same time if you act like a normal socially adjusted human being 99% of people do not give a fuck.

99% of the gay guys who I have seen spread homosexual acceptance propaganda are very odd fringe personalities. I find it ironic that a lot of homosexuals think everyone hates them because of their sexual orientation when in reality most people don't like them because they are weird and have a negative attitude.

On another note, I have always thought of these two guys whenever homosexuality is brought up. These two guys lived in my dorms freshman and sophomore year. They were a gay couple, but they never talked about it. They would never hold hands or kiss in public. Literally, they were two totally normal guys who hung out a lot and kept their sex lives completely behind closed doors. A lot of people liked them. No one bothered or gave them shit. Personally, it was through them that I realized that I was not homophobic, I just did not like feminine behavior or a perverse representation of male sexuality.

Honestly, if more homosexuals acted like these two guys, aka normal socially adjusted men, gay acceptance would be through the roof.

[GameTheory]

(12-18-2013 09:05 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Here comes Chick-Fil-A part two. The next exciting battle in the culture war. [...]

[numanist]

TV is complete dogshit, kick your cable-box to the curb. Trust me; you will infinitely better because of it. TV caters to the lowest common denominator of society: degenerates and rat-brained feminists. The programming on TV is the biggest fifth column today in America, without it, feminism, and just about all other social ills would be erased.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-23-2013 02:24 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

This is a very disingenuous message designed to appeal to the laziest form of thinking. Though Farrakhan certainly has not helped his image with his penchant for inflammatory language at times, he's certainly been respected as a national figure. Farrakhan is the man who organized the Million Man March in 1995. Despite the controversy that surrounds him, there was probably no other black leader in that time who had the clout or credibility to summon that many black men across America to the capital. This fact has been widely acknowledged by many prominent observers, including other notable black leaders. That's why prominent politicians like Obama and others have had to address reporters' questions about the guy. Farrakhan forced others to respect him or least acknowledge his presence. That fact is obviously a staggering difference between him and this nascent Robertson character. The only discernible thing they have in common is making controversial and inflammatory statements in interviews circulated by national publications.

[speakeasy]

(12-24-2013 10:17 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(12-23-2013 02:24 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

This is a very disingenuous message designed to appeal to the laziest type of thinking. Though Farrakhan certainly has not helped his image with his penchant for inflammatory language at times, he's certainly been respected as a national figure. Farrakhan is the man who organized the Million Man March in 1995. Despite the controversy that surrounds him, there was probably no other black leader in that time who had the clout or credibility to summon that many black men across America to the capital. This fact has been widely acknowledged by many prominent observers, including other notable black leaders. That's why prominent politicians like Obama and others have had to address reporters' questions about the guy. Farrakhan forced others to respect him or least acknowledge his presence. That fact is obviously a staggering difference between him and this nascent Robertson character. The only discernible thing they have in common is making controversial and inflammatory statements in interviews circulated by national publications.

Can someone show any quotes from Obama calling him Farrakhan a hero? I've never heard any such thing.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-24-2013 10:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(12-24-2013 10:17 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(12-23-2013 02:24 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

This is a very disingenuous message designed to appeal to the laziest type of thinking. Though Farrakhan certainly has not helped his image with his penchant for inflammatory language at times, he's certainly been respected as a national figure. Farrakhan is the man who organized the Million Man March in 1995. Despite the controversy that surrounds him, there was probably no other black leader in that time who had the clout or credibility to summon that many black men across America to the capital. This fact has been widely acknowledged by many prominent observers, including other notable black leaders. That's why prominent politicians like Obama and others have had to address reporters' questions about the guy. Farrakhan forced others to respect him or least acknowledge his presence. That fact is obviously a staggering difference between him and this nascent Robertson character. The only discernible thing they have in common is making controversial and inflammatory statements in interviews circulated by national publications.

Can someone show any quotes from Obama calling him Farrakhan a hero? I've never heard any such thing.

Me neither. In fact, I distinctly remember Obama distancing himself from Farrakhan in interviews during his first campaign for President. Farrakhan responded to that by saying something to the effect that a black presidential candidate will have to do that in order to have a remote chance of actually winning.

[Cattle Rustler]

Typical GOP cognitive dissonance:

Keep saying a lie until people think it's true.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Yeah, I was intrigued by the picture and tried to search for the quote either by Obama or by Farrakhan but couldn't find it anywhere.

That said, the left familiarity with extreme muslims other than this particular character is well known, especially in Europe.

[Tail Gunner]

(12-25-2013 04:31 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Typical GOP cognitive dissonance:

Keep saying a lie until people think it's true.

They learned it from the liberals. lol

PolitiFacts "Lie of the Year": "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...n-keep-it/

[Tail Gunner]

(12-25-2013 05:25 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Yeah, I was intrigued by the picture and tried to search for the quote either by Obama or by Farrakhan but couldn't find it anywhere.

That said, the left familiarity with extreme muslims other than this particular character is well known, especially in Europe.

Obama never called Farrakhan a hero. He would not be President if he did.

But there is an inherent hypocrisy in what Obama did say in regard to Farrakhan's support and how the media let him get away with it.

Quote:

The question stemmed from Obama’s initial answer when NBC’s Tim Russert asked, “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” Obama might have said, “No.” But instead, he seemed to go out of his way to denounce some of Farrakhan’s statements while not taking on Farrakhan himself (and even using Farrakhan’s preferred honorific in the process). “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”

More than a few observers were taken aback by Obama’s not-so-deft sidestep. What if, the blogger Andrew Sullivan asked, it had been a question to John McCain about David Duke? And what if McCain had answered, “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Dr. Duke’s racist comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in a white man who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Dr. Duke.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/2...byron-york


Farrakhan is a racist, a bigot, and a black separatist. To compare him in any way to Robertson is insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu7pGDXsKiI

[GameTheory]

(12-25-2013 04:31 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Typical GOP cognitive dissonance:

Keep saying a lie until people think it's true.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..."

[Tail Gunner]

(12-26-2013 04:06 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

(12-25-2013 04:31 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Typical GOP cognitive dissonance:

Keep saying a lie until people think it's true.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..."

Actually, Hitler never said that quote. It is a much shortened paraphrase from Mein Kampf. I posted the exact quote in another thread last week, when discussing Barrack Obama's BIG LIE: "If you like your health insurance, then you can keep it."

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-28593-...#pid608909


It is interesting how the socialists used that principle eighty years ago in Germany and still use it today -- just as they pushed gun control and other restrictions on liberty eighty years ago and still use it today. Liberals never seem to have any new ideas.

[GameTheory]

(12-26-2013 05:38 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

It is interesting how the socialists right-wing fascists used that principle eighty years ago in Germany and still use it today --[...] Liberals right-wing fascists never seem to have any new ideas.

fixed it for ya