What is a "Rich Slave"?

Some days I just have to shake my head and laugh to keep from crying...

Yahoo Finance is reporting some guy who goes by the name "Charlemagne tha God" (real name is reported as Lenard McKelvey) made a few statements that indicate he obviously doesn't even know what a slave is, despite being pretty worked up over being a black man and supposedly having slave ancestry.

Here's a couple of quotes:

"I don’t think that we have gotten to the point in our society where we can take those chances on a president who may be putting money in our pockets but rolling back all of our other civil rights, and rolling back all of our other civil liberties. That don’t add up to me.

“I don’t care how rich you are. If you don’t have civil rights, what’s the point? Who wants to be a rich slave?"

The very definition of a "slave" is a human being who is the property of another human being. There can, by definition, not be a rich slave because a slave owns nothing, not even their own bodies. That's what makes slavery so terrible. A slave does what they are told, when they are told, how they are told, without reward or personal benefit, because refusal to do so can and often will result in a beating, starvation, selling off to another owner, or in severe cases, death.

The phrase is a total oxymoron.

In essence a slave was human cattle... who has ever heard of a rich cow? A rich pig? A rich horse? Their owners may be wealthy, but the cattle owned by the owners are not; they own nothing. So it is with a slave. Just like a responsible livestock owner will take basic care of his animals' needs, so a responsible slave owner would take care of his slaves' basic needs. Those needs did not equal human rights, however, as children could be bought and sold from their mothers' arms, and food, while typically provided, was not exactly the same kind of food fed to non-slaves. It was usually tasteless, cheap gruel. That's what I mean by "basic needs."

The term slave has worked its way into our modern language... a harsh, demanding boss is said to be a "slave-driver," for example. A worker may describe himself as a "slave to the company." Neither euphemism is accurate, however; employees always have the right to quit their job, while a slave cannot simply decide he doesn't work for his owner, any more than a cow can decide it doesn't want to be owned. The consequences for quitting may be harsh (inability to find another job, indigence, loss of property, etc.), but the right exists for a worker whereas it didn't exist for slaves.

So Mr. McKelvey has just used a public venue to inform his listeners that slavery is not actual slavery. Instead, according to his words, slavery is apparently just everything not going one's way. OK, his right to say that and make himself look like a babbling fool, but then this little statement caught my ear and is really the reason I had to write this thread:

"Financial freedom is definitely our only hope. But we also have to remember that we’re black at the end of the day."

What? Is his agenda for some legal protection to change his skin color? Of course he's black "at the end of the day." "At the end of the day," I'm a white redneck. That's not gonna change for either of us, no matter who is in what position or says when where.

That bothers me greatly, because it indicates to me that he somehow sees himself as inferior. No one should ever see themselves in that light, especially not someone who has placed themselves as a celebrity figure. We are all unique and important human beings, despite our skin color, our gender, our sexual proclivities, or anything else we choose to use to separate ourselves. Everyone has a history that is both good and bad, and that means every culture has something that those descended from it can look on as a source of pride in themselves.

This is the true source of racism: a belief that certain people are inferior, and by extension that other people are superior. That is not the case. I may be superior to someone mathematically, but I promise you I am inferior to them in other ways. Anyone remember when Baz tortured his audience on the radio by making me sing? I think I'm safe saying I am inferior to pretty much everyone else on the planet when it comes to that talent. My point is that everyone has talents and abilities... some of us use them, some ignore them, and that is the basic reason for both social and income inequality... not skin color.

It is as possible to see oneself as inferior as it is to see others as inferior... and both are wrong. Both are the heart of true racism.

Now, I will give credit where credit is due. Mr. McKelvey does go on to say that financial prowess is a good thing and to point out, correctly IMO, that a lot of the problem many blacks have achieving income equality is that they don't know how to manage money. I agree with him on that, and I wish he would put more emphasis on educating his audience in that area. He could do so much good for his culture that way. But, doing so without bringing up the ridiculous mis-characterization of slavery would not achieve his major point: he thinks Trump is a bad President and black people shouldn't vote for him.

That's fine; I support Trump, but I have no problem with people pointing out mistakes he has made, policies they disagree with, or even personal foibles they find irritating. Where I get concerned is that Mr. McKelvey, in his zeal to thwart what appears from polling data to be a shift of black voters away from the DNC and toward Trump, is passing up a chance to help his culture, his people, his listeners, and instead instruct them in dangerous rhetoric. Slavery is illegal and frowned upon because it was a horrible institution that dehumanized an entire race in the US, and it still exists in some third-world nations. Changing the definition to include simple hardship, something everyone has regardless of their skin color, will have the effect of lessening the horror and allowing those pockets of slavery to exist... worse, it could someday, at least generations from now hopefully, lead to the re-institution of slavery. Look at what the constant cries of "racist!" have accomplished... we see almost no outrage today at true racism, because it never makes the news any more. It is covered up by the constant cries of the label toward those with opposing political policies. Skinheads are not heard of, although they do still exist; we as a society are more concerned with calling a political opponent racist than pointing out the true racists in our midst.

So it will be with slavery if this new expanded definition takes hold.

(I remind everyone that this is NOT the Political Mud Pit. I consider this a vitally important issue that affects our society greatly, not a useless argument over personality. There are some good, juicy threads full of mud happening over there right now if that is your desire.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck



Peace

Sounds like this tool didn’t exercise his “right” to a proper education. He clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Great reply

I don't know how factual it is, but in the book "The Richest Man in Babylon" supposedly based on clay tablets that have been translated, slaves could become wealthy.

It's been years since I read it though I recall one story of a master allowing his slave to make extra bread which he would then sell at the market and share the profit with the master. He saved and eventually became rich. Something like that.

I think that Lenard was making the point that there is no better slave than one who thinks he is free. In that regard, we're all slaves. Rich or poor.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Is he a slave?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Has POTUS rolled back any civil liberties that you know of ?

a reply to: Hammaraxx

Even if the slave made money selling bread, he himself belonged to the slave-owner. That is the part that I have trouble with. A slave legally does not even own his own body! The slave owner can take that money any time he wants.

I think that Lenard was making the point that there is no better slave than one who thinks he is free. In that regard, we're all slaves. Rich or poor.

No, we're not all slaves... the only slaves in the US are those who have convinced themselves that they are somehow owned by others. Slavery has been illegal for 180 years or so now. There is no one alive today that even has met someone who used to be an actual slave.

You may be right about about the point McKelvey was trying to make, but the fact is that in making it the way he did, he also minimized the horrors of slavery. I don't consider that a good thing, nor a responsible thing. If we forget what slavery is, we open the door to slavery in the future. In many ways, we see that trend today: if one becomes dependent for their very lives upon a government that exercises full control over them, one can be considered almost a slave.

However, if one is independent, uses their God-given talents and abilities to make their way through life, they are truly free. A part of that for most people is the ability to find and hold a job to provide financial freedom... there are other ways to provide that freedom, but owning a business or investing for a living is beyond the means of most. McKelvey's message is that this ability to self-determine their lives is less important than a feeling about some imagined civil rights removal. There has been no revocation of civil rights legislation; it is a fantasy, a perception only, without regard for truth.

His message is that somehow this perceived freedom is more important than actual freedom. And his perception of freedom is skewed as well: color of skin has nothing to do with freedom.

TheRedneck

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Has POTUS rolled back any civil liberties that you know of ?

Nope. In actuality, only Congress can do that anyway. Congress makes laws; the Executive Branch enforces them.

The President has implemented prison reform and is presiding over a very vibrant economy that is raising the standard of living for most Americans, black, white, and everything in between. That has advanced freedom.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

One could argue that the criminal justice system may show favor to one race over another. That directly affects freedom.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: operation mindcrime

Is he a slave?

TheRedneck

Are you free?

You will work or you will starve, unless you belong to the owning class.

I know you have the freedom to find an other boss if you are unhappy with the one you work for but that's not the same a not working anymore.

Where a slave had the freedom to up and run, there are consequences for choosing not to work anymore.

Peace

a reply to: blueman12

One could argue that, yes. I have not seen any evidence of such, though.

I know there are some places where a black man is at a higher risk for incarceration than a white man simply due to the color of his skin, and that is racism. It is not, however, slavery. Even the incarcerated are not slaves, because they are not owned by another.

I hope that such places are decreasing in number. I do not know of any personally that still exist today; I have only heard rumors. Rumors are not proof.

The problem with showing that there is widespread racism in the penal system is that there can be no quotas. People are responsible for their actions, regardless of skin color. If there were a place which had an equal number of blacks and whites, and more whites committed crimes than blacks, the result of a fair penal system would be that more whites were incarcerated. Therefore, simply quoting statistics is not truly proof of racism.

TheRedneck

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Are you free?

Yes. Now can you answer my question? Is the man you pictured a slave? Is he owned by someone?

You will work or you will starve, unless you belong to the owning class.

You are not describing slavery. If I were to disappear into my mountain and live there, I would have to work or starve. I would have to gather food to eat. Yet, no one would own me.

What you are describing is entitlement, and that is not slavery. Slavery is ownership of one human by another. A boss does not own their employee; the employee is free to change employers or to even decide to try and live without benefit of a job. One may start a business from a hobby, go to school to gain new skills, or sit on the sidewalk and beg passer-bys for money. A slave cannot do any of those things without permission from their owner.

Now, I ask you again, is the man you pictured owned by anyone?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Fair enough, well I can tell you I'm a slave, I'm a slave to the system, I'm a slave to money, im also a slave to my children.

I'm not free to do what I want to do, I'm free to follow the rules or be killed or incarcerated and that's not freedom ,not even close to freedom.

I cannot consider myself "free". Each day I have to wake up. Get to work. Do stuff I don't want to do. In exchange of which they give me pieces of paper, which I am forced to spend so to eat and to continue living in my house. I am not free. I am a part of the system, the master is the system's government, and we are all the spokes that make the system keep on turning.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: operation mindcrime

Are you free?

Yes. Now can you answer my question? Is the man you pictured a slave? Is he owned by someone?

I'm sorry, he is a fictional character named Stephen from the movie Django unchained. Stephen was senior houseslave. As the senior house slave, he has the luxury of being the authority over the other slaves and that's why I used him as an example to contradict your claim of nor being able to receive rewards or benefits as a slave.

You will work or you will starve, unless you belong to the owning class.

You are not describing slavery. If I were to disappear into my mountain and live there, I would have to work or starve. I would have to gather food to eat. Yet, no one would own me.

Now you are placing yourself outside the system. Much like how a slave is only a slave if he doesn't escape.

What you are describing is entitlement, and that is not slavery. Slavery is ownership of one human by another. A boss does not own their employee; the employee is free to change employers or to even decide to try and live without benefit of a job. One may start a business from a hobby, go to school to gain new skills, or sit on the sidewalk and beg passer-bys for money. A slave cannot do any of those things without permission from their owner.

Now, I ask you again, is the man you pictured owned by anyone?

TheRedneck

Call it what you will but there is a very real owning class, and a working (slave) class, and by and large which class one is in is determined by which class they are born into.

Peace

The OPs source (although admittedly, the source was merely the point-of-departure for another session of “Why Doesn’t Everyone Love Trump LIke Me?”) is a radio host, entertainment personality, and “influencer” who made these comments on the sidelines at a technology conference focused on Black Americans improving their financial situations.

Afrotech 2019

And here’s Charlemagne The God’s clip promoting the conference:



As you can see, Charlemagne (McKelvey) is a very articulate guy who has some big ideas for his community and is doing something to implement those ideas, most of which regard increasing wealth and quality of life.

OP seems to be unable to understand that intelligent, hard-working and successful people could possibly not support Donald Trump to the extent that we have a huge essay triggered by one word “slavery.”

Although there’s little reason to reason with zealotry, I believe I can satisfy the question in a few sentences: Charlemagne was being metaphorical by using the phrase “rich slave.” The issue of slavery is a personal matter and painful legacy for many Black Americans that many other Americans just don’t seem to get. To use the word slave was both a intentional and brilliant means of pointing out that having money, wealth and substance is not the most important measure of success, but the freedom to have equal standing in the world is.

No one is talking about literal slavery, which is the semantic hook that OP wants to focus on. A slave has no rights. Charlemagne and others see the actions, behaviors, comments and policies of Donald Trump and believe that is not what they want to support. It’s obvious that Trump believes that money and power are the only things of value, and he and his ilk simply cannot comprehend why Black Americans (and others) are not falling for that “hook” as Charlemagne calls it either.

I get it completely. Many of you will as well.

The OPs source (although admittedly, the source was merely the point-of-departure for another session of “Why Doesn’t Everyone Love Trump LIke Me?”) is a radio host, entertainment personality, and “influencer” who made these comments on the sidelines at a technology conference focused on Black Americans improving their financial situations.

Afrotech 2019

And here’s Charlemagne Tha God’s clip promoting the conference:



As you can see, Charlemagne (McKelvey) is a very articulate guy who has some big ideas for his community and is doing something to implement those ideas, most of which regard increasing wealth and quality of life.

OP seems to be unable to understand that intelligent, hard-working and successful people could possibly not support Donald Trump to the extent that we have a huge essay triggered by one word “slavery.”

Although there’s little reason to reason with zealotry, I believe I can satisfy the question in a few sentences: Charlemagne was being metaphorical by using the phrase “rich slave.” The issue of slavery is a personal matter and painful legacy for many Black Americans that many other Americans just don’t seem to get. To use the word slave was both a intentional and brilliant means of pointing out that having money, wealth and substance is not the most important measure of success, but the freedom to have equal standing in the world is.

No one is talking about literal slavery, which is the semantic hook that OP wants to focus on. A slave has no rights. Charlemagne and others see the actions, behaviors, comments and policies of Donald Trump and believe that is not what they want to support. It’s obvious that Trump believes that money and power are the only things of value, and he and his ilk simply cannot comprehend why Black Americans (and others) are not falling for that “hook” as Charlemagne calls it either.

I get it completely. Many of you will as well.

There is one form of "rich slavery" which often goes un-called out. It's unfair contracts for generally celebrity entertainers, such as K-Pop "Idols", who are forced to perform and practice for gruelling lengths of time, only getting a few hours of sleep and a tiny meal. After they're no longer cute enough, then they have to serve in the military for a year, mandatory in Korea, so they can't even immediately recover by using their wealth and fame.

Contracts take away creative freedom, trap creators in toxic workplace environments where they're made to produce on brand material, all the while we look and say, "wowza, they got everything made." It's gilded slavery. The contracts make it so there is no way out, so you can't take your work and walk away, you'll get sued, you'll get nothing in the end. Listen to music and you'll hear so many artists blatantly speaking about their feelings of being a slave, trapped, and voiceless.

Most of us aren't slaves. What we are is peasants. We are the working class individual and honestly, peasant-class life is pretty tolerable these days, we're not living in one room hovels with a barn, a cow, a pig, a chicken, and a goat as our primary assets. Our work is often purposeless "busywork" wasting the talents of creative individuals though, and could be improved for work/life balance. We are not yet all equals, but we're working on it, and it could be a lot worse.

As entertaining has Charlamagne is as a radio host, at the end of the day, he is just another woke celebrity carrying liberal water.

As a black guy, I get tired of the over the top accusations of "putting us back in chains", bringing back slavery, etc etc etc. The real problem in the black community is the victimization narrative that plagues so many people. Racism is hardly what it used to be and not holding anyone back.

99% of the black community's problems these days are solely cultural.