Not surprisingly, Tom’s post about Michele Bachmann and “The Marriage Vow—A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family” generated some controversy. It’s an anti-a-lot-of-things pledge that Bachmann signed, but most strikingly, she mentions that an African-American child was more likely to live in a two-parent household during slavery than he is now, under an African-American president. There’s been a huge response on Facebook, Twitter, and in the comments section. The best comment came from Steve Locke:
You can see the point she is trying to make? What point is that? Bachman’s invocation of the “plantation fantasy” of happy slaves in familial relationships is obscene. She shows a willful ignorance of her own history.
There is no such thing as black history. There is history and then there is the myopia created by racism and white supremacy. Slavery is a gigantic part of the history of America. To deny it is to deny the history of the country. To lie and distort it is to use it for political gain and stoke the fears of blackness that have been a hallmark of the contemporary Republican party. This sort of speech should not be offensive to black people exclusively. It should be offensive to everyone in the country who understands the history of chattel slavery and industrial servitude. She is insulting everyone who fought and died to end slavery.
To me, Bachman is in the same realm as holocaust deniers. Like them, she is saying these things to appeal to the deep seated fears in this country. She is not making a point and calling it theatre is a cynical response to the power of political speech. There is no defending these kinds of statements.
Thanks to Steve and everyone else who commented and spread the word. Let’s keep the conversation going.
—Photo AP/Charlie Neibergall
About the Editors
“Implying” is nonsense. Either the fact is true or not and there may be enough history around to empirically investigate it.
How about Shelby Steele. Para: “White liberal guilt has done what slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation could not; destroy the black family”. Of course, Steele’s not running for any republican office, so you can ignore that.
Equally bullshit is the pretense that Bachmann wants to ignore the history of blacks in this country. It’s all history. All of us together.
You may want to look at Instapundit a couple of days ago. Kids are saying “That’s racist!” as a joke. That horse is dead. You can stand around beating it, but you aren’t going to convince many folks to put the mortgage on it.
This is lazy. Try something that might actually be relevant.
Richard, you call someone lazy and yet you quote the single laziest blogger that exists on the right? InstaPundit is not exactly a source of great journalistic wisdom.
Well said, Steve! I am always astonished at Bachmann’s comments, but this is extraordinary, even for her. I really want to comment on Richard Aubrey’s comment above, but I have absolutely no idea where to start.
I join in condemning the statement conflating slavery and Obama policy, but let’s be clear that we’re not discussing an actual Bachmann quotation here. Rather, she signed onto a “vow” that included the statement as part of its preamble. See it at http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf.
The line between direct quotation and something that one endorses with a signature is pretty thin here, Daniel. You said that you’re on the same page with condemning this inflammatory language, but don’t excuse her away by putting a layer of padding in between her and the words on the page. You endorse it – you endorse it. Spoken words don’t matter much at that point.
Morgan Freeman doesn’t believe in “black history either”, in a 60 minutes interview he said
“You’re going to relegate my history to a month? … I don’t want a black history month. Black history is American history.”
Rob. Not even half good. Instapundit is where I saw the article. Judging the merit of the article by the place where it is found is a sure and certain sign you can’t deal, and know you can’t deal with the argument. This is what is known as bus tid. Jon Stewart had a bit on some time back where a black guy was talking to him, pretended to take offense, ran a supposed race card through a fake credit card machine and discovered it had no more credit. It’s over. Get another schtick.
Used to be, you could get a lot of points by pretending to find racism where nobody else could see it. Not any more.
So. Bachmann is right, or wrong, about the relative proportions of two-parent families during slavery and now. If right, what does it mean? If wrong, is it such a horrid error as to be a deal breaker?
Cards on the table time. I spent two summers in Mississippi in the Sixties doing the civil rights thing whem most of the folks speaking stoutly of The Struggle [and, yes, they made it a proper noun] were pissing their pants at the thought of going south of Cincinnati. I do not brag about my courage since, for complicated reasons, I had little to lose if things had murphied. But my colleagues were brave.
Point is, I know, and have known, a good deal about slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, and racism. I know that there are any number of things which, although true, must not be said. Dig it. I know. Also don’t care. I also know that most of the folks who were not of age to participate in the civil rights activities, but talk loudly and proudly about their sensitivity to racism would need Depends if push came to shove.
So, instead of pretending to have an attack of the righteous vapors, how about figuring out if Bachmann is correct or not, and, if correct, if it means anything for today.
Richard,
If you can’t understand that Jon Stewart is a comedian satirizing the tense relationship we have with race then I really don’t know what to say. Also, the fact that you could do the “civil rights thing” and then stop when you were tired of it or weren’t appreciated enough for your amazing contributions is something a lot of people are still doing because our lives depend on it.
You make a lot of assumptions about people, their motives, and frankly, their lives. Your opinion and experience seems to make that all right. That isn’t the intelligent discussion that Tom is calling for here.
Why are the majority of female politicians insane?
AOC.
Hmm. S’pose to be some feminists around here.
Anyway, I figure that agreeing with AOC would be prima facie evidence for involuntary commitment.
Steve: Great summary.
I think her new name should be Mrs. Ahmedinejad, named after the most recent nut job who denied the holocaust.