What is a "Rich Slave"?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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.

Who owns you, then?

Oh, and if you are a slave, you have no children to be a slave to. They are not yours. They belong to your owner, to do with as he/she sees fit.

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.

Do you have your owner's permission to use that computer and be on the internet?

TheRedneck

What is a "Rich Slave"?

Anyone collecting welfare and food stamps.

Because your richer than a starving child in Africa.

Wealth like Time is relative to the observer.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hate to do this, Mr. Redneck, but I have a list of all the civil rights that Trump has taken away right here. . . . .

a reply to: swanne

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.

Well, you are obviously not a slave either. You have a house; slaves don't have houses.

What you are describing is a lack of entitlement. No one is forcing you to go to work except you. You spend those pieces of paper for things you want... food, electricity, the computer you are using... and those pieces of paper are yours to do with as you choose. A slave does not need money; a slave is fed what their owner chooses to feed them or they do not eat.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Obama made me a slave when he mandated that I had to buy health insurance.

I lost my right to self-determine.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

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.

A fictional character is a fictional character, i.e. not real. Was Mr. McKelsey talking about fictional characters? Was he talking to fictional characters?

The man you pictured chose of his own free will to act that part. He is not a slave.

A slave can receive benefits from their owner; I have never stated otherwise. A slave cannot get rich. Any money the slave makes, any possessions a slave accumulates, all belong ultimately to the slave owner. The slave can have permission to use them, but not own them.

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

No, an escaped slave is still a slave... escaped slaves were forced to spend their lives in hiding. If I live outside of society, I do not have to hide that fact. I cannot be captured by whoever happens to find me, to return me to my owner.

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.

Working is not slavery. That is what I am trying to get across. Working is simply survival in a world where personal needs and wants do not fall from the sky.

In a way, the argument you are trying to make is analogous to complaining that one should not be required to cook food before eating it. That is simply ridiculous. Food is cooked because our digestive systems are not capable of handling certain foods efficiently without cooking. It is not a conspiracy; it is reality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Hammaraxx

Slavery as it existed then and Biblically and in Roman times was a different thing than the version of the recent past.

Roman slavery often blurred into their patronage system, and you're right, a certain class of Roman slave could become very wealthy and rise quite high in society. Sometimes, well educated foreingers would intentionally sell themselves with an eye tiward eventually being manumitted and achieving the status of Roman citizenship for themselves and their family along with the patronage of the powerful Roman who freed them.

Then there were the Roman slaves who existed in a condition much more like the plantation slaves of today in a state every bit as brutal and hopeless. There were a very, very few plantation slaves who managed to rise out of their station but not enough for it to be a known feature like it was with the Romans.

Roman Slaves!

Many were white.

The Roman Empire lasted 1000 years.

So african Americans less than 250ish.

History is history.

The Present is now.

I say stop being slaves to the past.

No one will dispute slavery was bad.

a reply to: Gryphon66

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.

Yes, he is. I believe I pointed out in the OP that he had great ideas for helping his culture. I also pointed out that his political stance was in direct opposition to those ideas, and that he seems to lack respect for himself and his culture by his reference to not being able to be other than black.

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.”

And you seem to have either not read my OP completely, or you miss my intent completely.

If there never was this institution called "slavery" in the US, then there is absolutely no reason to have ever implemented any kind of civil rights laws. If there was this institution of slavery, which we as a nation killed each other over and enacted sweeping amendments and legislation over, then it is quite disingenuous to lower the institution to the level of simply not having everything one wishes fulfilled. You can see that attitude above in other posters; they have absolutely no concept of what slavery is, and consider slavery to be any condition in which they have to move in a direction they really would rather not to get what they want and need from others.

My point is that this man, who should be one of those most interested in memorializing the concept of slavery to ensure it never exists again, is instead trivializing the concept.

I think I stated clearly that I have no issue with discussing political policy; perhaps you missed that. I have issue with placing personality and fictional propaganda over real-life issues, which is what Mr. McKelsey has done and why this thread is not in the Political Mud Pit forum. Perhaps you missed that; it was only an entire section of the OP.

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.

Of course most Americans don't get it. Mr. McKelsey is making it into a joke on the radio.

I should point out that black folk were not the only slaves in America, and certainly not worldwide. Every race was enslaved at some point by others, many times by their own race. Slavery still exists today, as I alluded to, and yet here we are, trying to justify the minimization of the practice. That's why most Americans don't 'get it.' It is obvious that Mr. McKelsey himself doesn't 'get it,' or he would not have used such an oxymnoron.

As long as this minimization is defended, I refuse to accept that slavery is some deeply hurtful and personal legacy. You can't have it both ways.

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.

That's the point: a slave has no rights; black folk today have as many rights as anyone else.

I know what he was trying to portray: he wants black folk to vote for someone else whether or not that vote is in their best interests. I get that. However, his assertion that Trump is going to roll back civil rights is baseless and nothing but a scare tactic; no rights have been rolled back, and as I mentioned above no President has the ability to roll them back. Civil rights are codified into law and can only be changed by Congress. I find it ironic that on one hand he supports more effective financial strategies for black folk, but on the other hand urges these same black folk to vote against a vibrant economy that is giving them that same advantage. It's hard to be independent when the job doesn't pay enough for everyday expenses, and it's difficult to move upward in society when one has few options for jobs.

And then you close with the allegation that money isn't everything. Well, you're right; it's not. It's actually pretty far down on my list of important things in life. Honesty and integrity ranks much, much higher. There is little honesty, however, in urging one's culture to use financial resources wisely, and then to equate doing so with something as intensely hurtful as slavery.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Metruis

Most of us aren't slaves. What we are is peasants.

Thank you! Someone finally gets it!

That is my whole point. And even peasants cannot be 'rich peasants,' as being 'rich' is in opposition to the idea of being a peasant. We are peasants only by choice (or sometimes circumstances), and not slaves by any stretch of reality. There are those who would like us to remain peasants, however, and they use quite convincing methods of spreading propaganda to accomplish that.

While I don't think he actually realizes it, Mr. McKelsey is one arm of that propaganda.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: swanne
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.

There is a difference between freedom and liberty.

The freedom you are talking about is freedom from all responsibility, and it was an argument slave owners would make to defend the "peculiar institution". Their slaves were like children who could not care for themselves, but they had everything they needed provided to them and so were without want and care.

People who make the modern version of this simply replace the owner with the government completely forgetting that somewhere along the line, someone still must work to produce what you get.

Even if you were alone and bereft of all society tomorrow, you would have to work for your basic needs ... or die.

So in this sense, no matter your society or condition, you will never be "free" in the way you want to be.


liberty simply means how you choose to handle the ugly truth of personal responsibility as outlined is 100% left up to you, so you can "free" yourself and starve in a gutter if that's the route you choose.

a reply to: Edumakated

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.

As a fellow American, I salute you, sir! I consider that an intelligent statement of fact, one I hope can be overcome.

TheRedneck

If there never was this institution called "slavery" in the US, then there is absolutely no reason to have ever implemented any kind of civil rights laws.

Technically speaking.

89 years.

1776 when the us was founded until 1865 when the practice was outlawed.

There was no 'institution' before 1776.

And even then there was free states.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No, Obama did not make you a slave. What Obama did was make it harder for us to survive and thrive. In other words, he made it harder to not rise above being peasants.

I'll call you out for the same thing I have called others out for: do not minimize the horrors of slavery by watering down the term. Slavery should never again exist in a developed country... it should not exist anywhere for that matter, but we have already allowed that by our minimization thus far.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

Sometimes, well educated foreingers would intentionally sell themselves with an eye tiward eventually being manumitted and achieving the status of Roman citizenship for themselves and their family along with the patronage of the powerful Roman who freed them.

That practice is what eventually developed into the "indentured servant." The main difference was that, while it was common practice to free the slave after a period of time (determined by the owner), it was no guarantee. Indentured servitude came with a guarantee of freedom after a specified time, although there were some provisions that an indentured servant could have their indentureship extended under certain circumstances. A few cases existed in both Roman society and institutionalized indentured servants where they became slaves in a true sense... the contract never expired.

An even closer parallel to the Roman practice existed in America as well. An appreciable number of slaves were freed after working for a certain time, and once freed were close friends of the families that once owned them. More were freed upon the death of the owner, by previous declaration in a will.

The history books seem to have forgotten that...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

School level texts provide a general survey of topics to provide an overview. I am going to assume at the start the oversight was due to these instances not being the general, expected practice even though it did happen, much like it did happen that there were some very wealthy black slave owners, and slave owners who would hire poor white immigrants to do certain work deemed too dangerous to risk injury to valuable slaves.

Those are all details a broad glossing of the subject does not afford. Generally and definitely an evil practice, but also a complex one.

a reply to: neo96

Technically, slavery existed in America before 1776. It was not institutionalized by the US because there was no US, but it was institutionalized under the British Empire.

It was minor, though. Slaves were expensive and few of the colonists could afford them.

There were also no original free states. That began as the movement against slavery gained steam, culminating in the War of Northern Aggression. The concept of a free state was through state legislation and different states enacted such legislation at different times. It is interesting to note that such legislative pushes were quite divided among the population; slave owners typically defended slavery rights while the poorer people did not. The poor had no reason to defend slavery, since they had little to no hope of ever affording a slave.

In the South, very few owned slaves. Those who did typically owned a lot of slaves, the plantation owners. A few of the larger non-plantation farmers might have a few slaves, but the number paled in comparison to the plantation owners. Those plantation owners were also the political power in the Southern states, which is why the institution lasted longer. Going against the political powers that were, was a sure way to find oneself in a world of hurt. Physical retaliation was commonplace for anyone who "rocked the boat." Legal retaliation through corrupt channels was an almost certainty.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
A slave can receive benefits from their owner; I have never stated otherwise.

Well...you kind of did....in the OP

A slave does what they are told, when they are told, how they are told, without reward or personal benefit

Peace

a reply to: TheRedneck

It was not institutionalized by the US because there was no US, but it was institutionalized under the British Empire.

Yep.

Black Sails.

Flint and his lover ended up as either indentured Servants or slaves. I'm not sure which.

Because there were other reasons one ended up that way.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

You're picking nits there.

One is reward you choose for yourself while the other is simply bestowed upon you at someone else's discretion and indulgence. Sure you might want both and think them worthwhile, but they are completely different at the same time.

As a parent we dole out benefits and rewards in a controlled manner to our child. He recives freedom of choice within the parameters we allow. As he gets older, those parameters will broaden of course to reflect his growing capacity to make good decisions, and when he's an adult, he ought to be able to see how to set his own parameters to freely choose as he desires.

True slaves never leave those outside restrictions behind. They always only receive what the master deems it good to give them at his or her discretion and choosing and control. The slave never can exercise his or her own choice in any of this. They aren't rewards of the slave's choosing, ever.