Republican State Lawmaker: ‘Owning Slaves Doesn’t Make You Racist’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Republican State Lawmaker: ‘Owning Slaves Doesn’t Make You Racist’
Jamie Ross
If you were writing a list of things that are and are not racist, slavery should probably be pretty close to the top of the “are” section. But not for a Republican state lawmaker from New Hampshire, who claimed in a Facebook post that owning slaves was based on economics, not racism. State Rep. Werner Horn has deleted a Facebook post on the matter, but has repeated his opinion in multiple interviews since. Horn was responding to a post from state House member who asked: “If Trump is the most racist president in American history, what does that say about all of the other presidents who owned slaves?” Horn replied: “Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist... owning slaves wasn’t a decision predicated on race but on economics. It’s a business decision.” He later told HuffPost: “[Slave owners] weren’t enslaving black people because they were black. They were bringing in these folks because they were available.”
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
Too apropos these daze
Has the New Hampshire lawmaker who says slavery wasnt based on race ever read a book?
I was reading in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. If a white man owns a white slave I would not consider that to be racist.
That's nice.
Slavery is a topic that is highly susceptible to anachronisms. Slavery in America was not Black African at its inception, and non-Black slavery probably only disappeared after 1800.
As the Triangular Trade rose, white slavery disappeared.
Great Britain stopped the slave trade in the first half of the 19th century, but by then, slavery was firmly race-based and race-justified.
I don't believe it's appropriate to condemn someone in the past based on today's standards. At their time, owning a slave was legal and not considered racist. If they were to own a black person as a slave today then they would definitely fit the bill as racist (along with several other choice terms). But I think we need to stop denouncing anybody from the past who isn't perfect by today's standards. We have learned about racism and a lot of people have moved on from it and yes, a lot of people still wallow in it. Hold the racist of today to those standards, but don't use today's standards to condemn those from the past.
Over time slaveholders came to realize and understand it was a moral wrong , in other words racism. They didnt call it racism because that is a concept that developed over time, and was in fact part of the rationale slaveowners came to use. "Negroes are inferior" or "God wanted them to be slaves" were excuses that slaveowners used to defend slavery. They didnt want to give up slavery because they were making money using slaves. So they created excuses and that is pretty much how racism evolved in America.
A Republican from New Hampshire is pro-slavery? That seems to be an expectation that we suspend our disbelief. Especially when New Hampshire boasts so much diversity that the population is only 94 pct white. There must be a lot of political competition for the 'brown' people living in New Hampshire.
If a person is provided food, clothing, shelter, and medical care in exchange for subservience and obedience, isn't that person a slave? Isn't that the devil's bargain of slavery? It doesn't really matter if someone chooses to make that devil's bargain or if it forced upon them, that person is still a slave.
Forcing a person into abject dependence is really just another form of slavery that can be hidden by the political correctness of charity. Look how benevolent and charitable we are. We provide everything, now vote for us or lose our benevolence. How do so many of the sublimely benevolent enrich themselves through their charity?
It seems the slavery of benevolence is quite profitable, indeed. How many poor Democrats of any racial descent are serving in Congress?
Nerm, your comment is disgusting.
So, you think slavery by another name is acceptable?
The Democratic Party was established to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. Tell us what has changed? How is today's Democratic benevolent patronage different than Democrat John C. Calhoun's claims that slavery is a positive good?
You are falling down a hole you will never get out of.
Democrats dug the hole 200 years ago and, apparently, Democrats have not climbed out of that hole since then.