Jim Quinn, obvious expert on slavery, said this today on the air:
You know, if you were a slave in the old South, what did you get as a slave? You got free room and board, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children because that was just, you know, tomorrow's slave. So, you got a free house, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children. Can I ask a question? How's that different from welfare? You get a free house, you get free food, and you get rewarded for having children. Oh, wait a minute, hold on a second. There is a difference: The slave had to work for it.Yea, wasn't slavery GREAT? All that free stuff!
I had a prof at Pitt who taught an American Economic History class (I took when I worked there). He quoted studies that said that Southern adult male slaves were actually fed better than Northern factory workers at roughly the same time. That was because the slave owner had an interest in making sure the adult slave farm workers were healthy (the northern factory owners probably figured factory workers were easily replaced). Apparently slaves could be made to work more productively than free farm workers, because slaves could be made to work repeatedly in ways that complemented the efforts of other slave workers. Free (wage) workers would refuse to do the same thing hour after hour, day after day.
ReplyDeleteThe same prof pointed out that some records indicated slave children were so malnourished they often had distended bellies. If they survived to adulthood, then they would get fed better. It is hard to imagine, being forced to watch your children starving, risking severe punishment if you snuck them food.
Sounds like Quinn should try some slavery.
No wonder there are no records of slaves trying to escape north! Lawdy, Massa so good to usn's!
ReplyDeleteOh, and of course, if you didn't work for your crude shack and the leavings from the harvest, you got your ass beat.
What's really sad, Quinn is repeating verbatium the arguments made by the southern slaveholders in defense of slavery.
David, once again, your post betrays your intelligence. What are you talking about?! Do you actually think that Quinn was defending slavery? Or somehow seeing it as a good thing?
ReplyDeleteThey say that liberals have the open minds. Well, some people's minds are so open that their brains are falling OUT.
Wipe up the gray matter and use some common sense, will you?
lkjrb16 -
ReplyDeleteYou can't possibly defending Quinn's assertion that welfare is equivalent to slavery. I know you couldn't possibly agree with that kind of comparison, or could you?
Because what Quinn is saying is actually quite a bit worse - he's saying that being a slave was more dignified than being on welfare because you had to work.
So I really hope you're not agreeing with Quinn that helping the poor and struggling is somehow less dignified than being a slave, because that would be pretty disgusting if you were.
And because he works for uber-con station 104.7, he'll never be fired.
ReplyDeleteI can only assume that part of what Quinn was saying (totally deniable, of course) is that African Americans were slaves, and who is it on welfare? Well, (the popular stereotype is) African Americans, of course. Blacks are used to getting free stuff from whites, free room and board, free money (exactly when were slave paid?), and then getting rewarded for having children. That last comment is especially devious because it is supposed to make us think of the EIC, child tax credit and WIC (Women, Infants and children), part of the current incarnation of food stamps. As I pointed out earlier, slave owners did not give slave children quite enough food to survive, so only strong (but ultimately malnourished) children would survive. That's because children really couldn't work, so feeding them was an extra strain on the plantation's resources. As far as I know adult slaves were in no way rewarded for having children.
ReplyDeleteSo as the first African American President is elected, Quinn wants to remind us that African Americans will not work naturally. They only work when they are someone else’s property (and can be whipped), otherwise they sit around all day and demand other people give them money. Now we have Barack Obama coming into office, and he is going take all of whitey’s money and give it to the brothers. Or so Quinn wants his audience to think.
Actually, Quinn's further point was that slavery was BETTER than welfare - because at least the slave WORKED for all that free stuff.
ReplyDeleteWith welfare, it's all just free stuff.
Not sure that's any better for Quinn.
John K: When Obama tries to implement the fairness doctrine you folks need to stand up and fight with us. After all, you might miss one of your favorite radio shows. You know you listen. LOL LOL LMAO
ReplyDeleteJohn K: Quinn's point is that slavery is akin to welfare. And that keeping people on welfare is akin to slavery. Hence, if the Democrats had any compassion at all they would try to get these folks into the middle class instead of keeping them on welfare just for the votes. Now that Obama is elected, and he promised this, there should be no poverty within 60 days of him taking office. If there is, then what is the real cause left wing kooks. Could it be left wing kooks themselves. LOL
ReplyDeleteI understand that Quinn is intentionally provocative, but I took his point differently. If you interpret it in light of the context, his rhetoric on other subjects, anything that isn't a part of the "animating contest of freedom" is slavery. For your consideration I submit that Quinn is a proponent of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", which if memory serves me correctly argues that social programs enslave a nation. I've never read it, but it helps to understand where people are coming from.
ReplyDeletequinn is an ass, pure and simply an ass.
ReplyDeletethere is nothing DEEP about him.
he panders to the worst in people so he can make money.
don't try to look into some deep meanings behind his words. there are none. just money and the power it brings to have faithful followers.
his listeners are the same people that were red faced and three quarters drunk last night where i was, screaming about obama and those N! and how their money was going to be taken away with their GUNS!
i have a news flash, these people don't even make it money-wise into lower middle class.
no one's taking their money.
i was so po'd last night that i just sat ansd listened to make sure i was hearing these things right.
quinn and fox and limbaugh were all quoted.
Well, John K. parrots the point Quinn wants us to take away. Liberals are enslaving African Americans all over again by offering them welfare. Of course, I still think the other, only slightly subtle point Quinn is making is that blacks want things this way, they don't want to have to work.
ReplyDeleteAnd I assume John K. is parroting Quinn or Limbaugh in saying that Obama has to end poverty by April 20th, or admit liberals are the reason there is no poverty. Funny how in eight years George Bush didn't get around to ending poverty.
Feel free to insert comment about laziness.
Quinn is a very highly paid schmuck...and he says these things just to get a reaction. I don't mean to diminish his foolishness, but, right now he is probably worried about his job...as he, and the rest of the right wing chattering class have just seen how much of this nation rejects their "messaging."
ReplyDeleteJohn K: Yepper Ed Heath you old racist you. LBJ had a veto proof majority in 1965. Master of the Senate as I recall. War on Poverty. So why are blacks worse off now than before LBJ? Remember, MLK was a Republican till the Democrats saw blacks as a voting base. I own you ED. LOL LOL
ReplyDeletejohn k. that one i can't let you get away with. in 64 my parents, my grandparents my sister and i took a trip driving down to d.c. and beyond to really southern states.
ReplyDeletethe poverty i saw there was beyond anything i've seen since(thank god)
so, don't even go there with the crap that blacks were better off.
no, things didn't become magically perfect. there were flaws in the plan BUT you have no idea how we(our country) let some people live back then. and these people worked john. they all had terribly menial and hard jobs and they worked!
John K: Gee Sherry, you must think you were the only person to have ever done that. Not! Grow up. Remember LBJ got the civil rights act passed with Republican votes. KKK Byrd tried to filibuster it. MLK was a Republican.
ReplyDeleteNo one (except you) said anything about the 1964 Civil Rights act. But it is true that the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, and that many Republican Congress persons helped get the bill passed. Many (white) politicians from the South were Democrats precisely because they were segregationists, but when the leadership of the Democratic party signed onto the idea of civil rights legislation, they defected to the Republicans (whose leadership apparently decided to embrace opposition to any more civil rights legislation).
ReplyDeleteSo yes, in the history of the civil rights movement the Republicans played an important role, at first the most important. And I have heard the stories, not in great detail, about how during segregation African American businesses made a good living selling to other African Americans. So East Liberty and the Hill were thriving communities. If I had to guess what caused that wealth to evaporate, I would speculate that it was drugs and the accompanying crime. Some day when I have time and no other little projects I will look into it.
Meanwhile, John K, you said that if Obama does not end poverty in 60 days, then liberals will have to accept the fact that they are the problem. So, once again, how come Bush didn’t end poverty during his 8 years. Because he doesn’t care about black people?
i never mentioned legistation.
ReplyDeleteand lbj knew that he was giving the south away when he signed it.
it's in the many books about the time.
you changing the subject doesn't work anymore. didn't you get the memo from limbaugh?
just try to stick to the subject at hand. it may be hard for you to do, but try.
bush never attempted to end poverty, not for anyone john k.
he and cheney just enriched their class. they did it by fooling people like you john.
and yes, they ARE a class unto themselves and they do NOT want people like me or even YOU john to even dream about joining that elite group.
I'm amazed at you so-called "intellectuals" weighing in on this topic as if this hateful and vile rhetoric has ANY bearing on reality !!!
ReplyDeleteThe reality is while African-Americans may make up more of the 'poverty' level, it is actually White WOMEN who make up more of the welfare population.
And forgive my ignorance, but to my knowledge there aren't too many instances I know of where Whites were enslaved and made to assimilate to anything.
Beyond that, Black WOMEN are more likely than any other group of women to start their own business, Another overlooked factoid.
It's great to see true racist colors even for the cowards who choose to hide their identity as well as their face. At least Jim Quinn is man enough to stand up and take a hit or two,
- darnell greer
Personally, I don't care what "point" Quinn was trying to make. His "facts" are lies.
ReplyDelete"Free room and board?" As livestock get "free room and board," so did slaves in America.
"Free money?" In return for what? As livestock are not paid, slaves were not paid. If, at his whim, an owner allowed a slave to "earn" his freedom, would you consider that "free money?"
"Rewarded for having children?".....American slaves were property. Unlike, say, ancient Rome, slaves here had no legal standing (Just ask Dred Scott.) The children of slaves belonged to the owner. There was no "family" for slaves, as husband, wife, children, were subject to sale at the whim of the slaveholder.
Quinn's a pompous ass. And those who listen to him are, well, the sort of gullible souls who listen to talk radio.
At this point, the thing that's really striking me is how many of you all apparently listen to Quinn in the first place.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
By the way, jaywillie-
ReplyDeleteYou're correct that I do not agree with the comparison between welfare and slavery. As a political talk show host, is Quinn allowed no attempt at sarcastic hyperbole?
i listen and check into the opposing view because no one can form good opinions if they don't look at all sides of the issues.
ReplyDeletelistening doesn't mean agreeing.
"is Quinn allowed no attempt at sarcastic hyperbole?"
he can say whatever he chooses and if he is called on those things for being nothing more than crap, then he has to live with that as well as the knowlege that he is putting some sort of status to the bigoted and hateful beliefs that a lot of his listeners nurture.
and if some of his unbalanced listeners act out on those belifs then hw shares in that guilt for he knows exactly what he is doing.
(for money and ego)
too bad he confuses intolerence and stupidity with sarcasm.
So, should liberals even acknowledge someone like Quinn? Should we say something about racism if it shows up in front of us? John K is going to parrot Limbaugh at us nonsensically all day long. But then Darnell Greer is going to come here and call me a racist and a coward, and tell me I am hiding behind a pseudonym? Darnell is saying that when a talk radio host makes a racist comment to his listeners, it has no bearing on reality. But Western Pennsylvania is one of the few places where John McCain's political strategy actually worked. The counties surrounding Allegheny actually all voted McCain. So I think it is reasonable to make the argument that no one was happy being a slave (no one felt they were getting free anything except misery), no one is happy being on welfare, but that to help people get off welfare will take a comprehensive effort involving jobs and education simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteI don't actually listen to Quinn, I was only commenting on this comment. But when I have listened to even a couple of minutes of Quinn, or Limbaugh, or Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow, I just get disgusted. I think being partisan blinds you to what is there, so I at least do the easy things to avoid it.