Where have I tried to blame the victim? I'm just parrying CW's senseless and hostile attacks. S/he keeps insinuating that the author's facts are in error but I've cited multiple sources which indicate the same kind of thing. S/he keeps wanting to beat this dead horse.
When you started bringing up blacks owning slaves, and crap like that. That was an extremely small sample size, and has nothing to do with the rampant slavery and laws that allowed it. What does it have to do with anything? The stuff against what you posted was only brought up after you posted that crap blaming the victims.
Quote me. I want to see what you consider my blaming the victims... off to bed. Kids have guests over. Need to attend there. You have until morning!
I'm talking about the interview with the New York Times that I posted in this thread already in which Paula Deen talks about her family's slave ownership and calls slaves workers and family members. There's no twisting here other than in your well known debating tactics. On page 2 of this thread.
Why forget that you posted an article from a murderer popular with white supremacists from a publisher known for historical revisionism and have vehemently defended it without any ability whatsoever to provide the credentials of the author? One of the main citations in this article is a book by Larry Koger. What are his credentials because it appears that this is the only book the man has ever written. That is incredibly strange. One article from a man with no verifiable credentials sourced from a second author with no verifiable credentials that are cited heavily on white supremacist websites. If you can provide a link to census data I'd be glad to read it.
What the hell? We're talking what Paula Deen has actually said and you come in here talking about black slave masters and white guilt? You're way out of line, ridiculously so.
I brought up the slave issue because this was being cast as a black-white issue. Those stats simply pointed out that the vast majority of whites did not own slaves (and this issue was about a party planned with an Old South plantation theme) and, in fact, a higher percentage of blacks owned slaves-- sometimes for human purposes and sometimes not.
Are you denying that there were black slave-owners? Are you denying that it was a minority of whites who owned slaves? Those are well-established facts. How in the world do you construe that as "blaming the victim?"
I responded to a post that called her ~"an old white lady of slavery." I pointed out accurately that she herself never owned slaves. This is indisputably true. The I pointed out that slavery was a complex issue because, in fact, blacks owned other blacks as slaves-- sometimes with humane motivation and sometimes with economic motivation. The author of that line says ~"you know what I mean." No, I only know what you wrote. So I corrected the misrepresentation. One option is to read that and say "yeah that's true" and go on. The other option is to challenge and argue it as you and others have. The truth is indisputable; the facts (i.e. numbers) are going to be hard to prove because records are unavailable or in question.
I provided a link to AmericanCivilWar.com I believe. In that thread there was Grooms' article and there were other links as well when you went to the source. IIRC, it was one of the first links that came up when I searched "black-owned slaves." Don't act like I had to search hard and wide for this piece. I have casually not vehemently defended it. Just because a couple of people can't find the man's credential does not mean they don't exist. He may have credentials but then again he may need no more credentials than an accomplished amateur genealogist to dig out this information. [IMAGINE A PICTURE OF A DEAD HORSE HERE] No interest in doing this but help yourself.
It is. Why bring it up. Black slave owners were not the cause nor the main problem with slavery. I've said on these boards before that most white southerners didn't own slaves, but again that isn't the point. Whites were still responsible for slavery whether they owned slaves or not. They passed the laws allowing it to happen. They ran the slave trade (that's true even if there were a tiny few black slave owners). Whites fought to keep their states slave states. The only reason to bring up black slave owners and how few whites actually owned slaves in this thread is to throw guilt away from whites who set up, maintained, and fueled the slavery of blacks. What other point is there in bringing up those things in this particular case? Seriously, what is your point?
After all these years, what is the point of anyone thinking giddyup brings anything resembling logic to a "conversation." I am resisting the temptation to make analogies since I have no interest in offending giddyup, but seriously, this is not worth anyone's time. I can't recall what most people would consider a logical point from him. It's all red herrings, straw men and moving goalposts. Good luck!
I overturned a hyperbole stated about Paula Deen. Then I asserted a couple of facts about slave ownership. I NEVER blamed that institution on the victims of it. And you guys just keep arguing against the former and trying to hang the latter around my neck. NOTHING I said blames blacks for slavery. My point was a parenthetical one which should have been met with an assenting nod because both facts are basically true-- there is legitimate disagreement about numbers but that will never be resolved because historical numbers are not truly and completely available. There are records of blacks owning slaves for over 200 years.... since 1620 if I recall correctly.
You are correct, but it's almost as if giddy himself doesn't see that, and when it's so blatant I can't help but hold out that he might see it. Though your point of bringing up analogies does make me want to bring up some ones that have already been alluded to in this thread. Sorry to drag out the giddy argument, but I can't stop myself.
giddy, it's called blaming the victim. Whether something is a fact or not doesn't make it relevant to the case at hand even if it's true. If a rape victim was drunk and wearing a very low cut very high mini-skirt, it is blaming the victim to bring that up when asking if she was raped. It might be a TRUE FACT that she was dressed in a low cut, cleavage exposing dress hiked up so high that the bottom of her bum was almost visible. It might be a TRUE FACT that she was inebriated. But those facts don't excuse a rape. Those facts aren't relevant to the other true fact that someone raped her and forced sexual contact on her against her wishes. So when someone brings up truths about the victim being scantily dressed, and drunk, you don't just nod and move on. You point out that person is blaming the victim. Whether or not there were was a miniscule amount of the all of the slaves that were ever enslaved owned by blacks has no meaning here unless you are trying to hide the blame from those that started, maintained, fought for, fueled, allowed, and created the most cruel form of slavery in this history of this world. You should stop doing that.
Your analogy is lousy. You are trying to analogize one, isolated random behavior with an institution which persisted for well over 200 years and involved MILLIONS of individuals. It is just too riotous that you guys think I'm the one who is illogical. Cure your own myopia.
No, the point still remains that because something which isn't tangential to the cause of something bad but might happen to be true doesn't mean it should be brought up or has any relevance. The fact that you mention that it had involved millions of people and lasted over 200 years is all the more reason what you brought up is completely insignificant. Slavery did not exist in any way, shape, or form, because a few blacks owned slaves. If 150 blacks owned slaves out of the of the millions of Americans who owned them over the course of 200 years, then those blacks played no part in keeping that institution alive and going. It is pointless to bring up in this context at all. When Paula Dean was wanting to recreate a scene for the wedding where blacks would act like slaves she wasn't at all interested in recreating a culture where a tiny tiny percentage of slaves were owned by blacks. The only reason a person brings that up is in order to diffuse the guilt on the whites that were a part of slavery. So yes the analogy still stands and the fact that the institution lasted over 200 years and involved so many people only makes black slave owners even less significant.
This giddy dude (or wherever he got his info) is manipulating statistics. Sure, the black percentage of slave owning may have been higher (highly questionable), but it is important to keep in mind that blacks (1) composed a far smaller segment of the population, (2) were were much closer to the institution of slavery and living within that system, and (3) primarily owned slaves to subvert rather than for economic interests. Roughly half of all black slave owners only had one slave and only a handful had more than 3 or 4. It is pretty safe to assume, as most studies indicate, that nearly all of these cases were free blacks "owning" spouses, children, or other relatives/friends that would otherwise have been real slaves. In any event, this issue is completely irrelevant to Deen's lawsuit.
