Really, things have gotten so ridiculous that it’s a little hard to keep blogging. After the eternity that has been Obama’s first term, continually explaining why 2 + 2 = 4 becomes a tiresome chore indeed, especially when one suspects that she is only preaching to the choir and making little headway otherwise. I know, I know, speaking out is still important . . . but the little things get me down.
Like when I ran into a friend from three duty stations ago, and the upcoming presidential election came up. I was treated to a casual remark that, while the current President’s record is unsatisfactory, she was afraid that an elected Romney wouldn’t let people have the freedom to marry who they want, and also he would require all women to wear skirts. (!?!eleventy!?!)
National security is more important than homosexual “rights,” I said, bringing up the hot mic incident, during which Obama demonstrated that he is willing to say one thing to the electorate, but another thing entirely to Russian leadership. She had never heard about it.
Sigh. Since I ran into this person at the commissary, at least I was able to soothe my nerves by buying some extra nonperishables.
Now, don’t you worry or nothin. I haven’t given up hope. I’m just running low on steam. There’s not much for me to add to the conversation right now . . . at least, not anything that you and I haven’t said a hundred times apiece.
Only thing new to me is a little tidbit from Older Son’s curriculum. I’ll share it, and see if it’s new to you as well. You see, I’ve heard comparisons aplenty of the Democrat hold on black voters to the slavery of old. C.L. Bryant made a whole movie on this very idea. Click here to see if Runaway Slave is playing at a theater near you.
What I’ve never heard before is a positive comparison of slavery with the protective nanny-state progressives are always striving to achieve. Apparently, though, pre-civil war Southerners made this very argument. All defensive about their “peculiar institution,” many Southern apologists sought to explain why slavery was not a necessary evil, but actually for the best. One of those apologists was George Fitzhugh.
Fitzhugh asserted in Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters that Southern slaves were luckier than free Northern workers. The Landmark History of the American People by Daniel Boorstin explains Fitzhugh’s argument:
“They were slaves with masters. They had the best kind of social security. Whatever happened, it was not their worry. They did not have to pay any bills. They had no problem of unemployment. Slavery, as Fitzhugh described it, was a kind of socialism, where all property was put in the hands of the people (the white people) best qualified to use it, for the benefit of everybody, whites and Negroes. Three cheers for slavery!”
Hmm. Property put in the hands best qualified to use it for the benefit of everybody? For the benefit of all? Oh, yeah, I get it. #ForAll.
Cross posted at NoOneOfAnyImport.
Disrupt the Narrative 