Rep. Bachmann is talking again. This further makes me feel like Chris Wallace was too nice to her. She is an idiot. Period.

 

 

If she gets the nominee or elected to anything else I will have completely lost faith in the voting public.

 

 

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201107080011

No one will ever mistake me as a Bachmann fan. However, there are some things that I feel should be mentioned.

 

First, these are not words that Bachmann said. They are part of a fidelity pledge that she took. She says that she didn't even know about that portion of the pledge, though I don't think that excuses her for what it contains.

 

Secondly, I think that the author of the article (and other authors, news heads) reach when they say that the pledge says that "black children where better off as slaves." I think that the pledge simply brings to light a bit of irony, that even though such big advancements have been made in our society, somehow problems still exist in black family units. Now, I assume that the statistics support what the pledge says, even though we can hardly compare a family that existed during slavery with one now. But, I guess that is what makes it all the more ironic.

 

With all of that being said, I have faith in my Republican friends that they will NOT make Bachmann their nominee and that I won't have to worry about her winning the office.

Secondly, I think that the author of the article (and other authors, news heads) reach when they say that the pledge says that "black children where better off as slaves." I think that the pledge simply brings to light a bit of irony, that even though such big advancements have been made in our society, somehow problems still exist in black family units. Now, I assume that the statistics support what the pledge says, even though we can hardly compare a family that existed during slavery with one now. But, I guess that is what makes it all the more ironic.

 

I think you're being very kind to the pledge authors. The pledge cited work by Dr. Lorraine Blackman, who responded to their construing of her work by saying "That's just wrong. It is a serious error." Not to mention that there is little data on slave marriages as records were poorly kept at the time and slave marriages had no legal standing. This is probably the reason the study cited by the pledge didn't even begin compiling data on years before 1880. And this is in addition to a time when families were routinely split apart through auction, death, for prostitution, or any other whim of the master. Indeed,

 

"Most important of all, slavery vitiated family life... Since many slaveowners neither fostered Christian marriage among their slave couples nor hesitated to separate them on the auction block, the slave household often developed a fatherless matrifocal (mother-centered) pattern."

 

Further, "the prevalence of single mothers and orphaned children on plantations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially, necessitated communal parenting, focused on maternal figures. On smaller farms and plantations, a mother might bring her children with her out into the fields when she worked. On larger plantations, however, children were left behind, often cared for by "aunts" or "grannies," older women no longer useful as field hands."

 

I don't see any evidence that exists that would support the assertion in the pledge that a black child would be more likely to be raised by their mother and father in a two-parent household during slavery. I think the author of this pledge is at best willfully ignorant, though I personally think their intentions were more nefarious. To paraphrase someone else "Diversity means having someone in the room who can explain why flattering comparisons to slavery isn't a good look. Ever."

I think Palin and Bachmann would be a great GOP ticket. Man would the Saturday night Live ratings go off the charts!

There are some very very serious problems mentioned in the pledge. It's a shame that those are being ignored in all the rucus about it because it steered off course so far. Does anyone know if the statistics cited are legit? I know the numbers are big, I just don't know if they're as large as those given.

I guess if the Democrat party can be forgiven than perhaps Bachmann can be as well. No?

I guess if the Democrat party can be forgiven than perhaps Bachmann can be as well. No?

No .

No .

Didn't think so. :lol:

I think you're being very kind to the pledge authors. The pledge cited work by Dr. Lorraine Blackman, who responded to their construing of her work by saying "That's just wrong. It is a serious error." Not to mention that there is little data on slave marriages as records were poorly kept at the time and slave marriages had no legal standing. This is probably the reason the study cited by the pledge didn't even begin compiling data on years before 1880. And this is in addition to a time when families were routinely split apart through auction, death, for prostitution, or any other whim of the master. Indeed,

 

"Most important of all, slavery vitiated family life... Since many slaveowners neither fostered Christian marriage among their slave couples nor hesitated to separate them on the auction block, the slave household often developed a fatherless matrifocal (mother-centered) pattern."

 

Further, "the prevalence of single mothers and orphaned children on plantations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially, necessitated communal parenting, focused on maternal figures. On smaller farms and plantations, a mother might bring her children with her out into the fields when she worked. On larger plantations, however, children were left behind, often cared for by "aunts" or "grannies," older women no longer useful as field hands."

 

I don't see any evidence that exists that would support the assertion in the pledge that a black child would be more likely to be raised by their mother and father in a two-parent household during slavery. I think the author of this pledge is at best willfully ignorant, though I personally think their intentions were more nefarious. To paraphrase someone else "Diversity means having someone in the room who can explain why flattering comparisons to slavery isn't a good look. Ever."

 

I certainly could be "kind" to what the pledge authors meant. I'd be very interested in hearing of their intent. However, IMO it is a huge leap to say that Bachmann feels that "black children were better off in the days of slavery" than today, just by signing this pledge. I don't know if the vague statistics are true about the nuclear family during slavery (again, regardless, it certainly doesn't mean that blacks of any age were better off during that time...it would be absurd to think so), but as pointed out in one of the linked articles from your post, here is what I believe is the point that the pledge makes:

 

According to the study Blackman co-wrote, by 1880, 56.3 percent of Black households were what we now call “nuclear families.” (For Whites, that figure was 66.9 percent.) By 1950, nearly 80 percent of Black families were headed by married couples. By 1996, that figure had dropped to just 34 percent.

 

As relates to another recent Bachmann thread here in P/R, I am curious as to why very few articles or news bites on this subject have mentioned that Rick Santorum also signed the same pledge.

I guess if the Democrat party can be forgiven than perhaps Bachmann can be as well. No?

 

 

Forgiven for what?

There are some very very serious problems mentioned in the pledge. It's a shame that those are being ignored in all the rucus about it because it steered off course so far. Does anyone know if the statistics cited are legit? I know the numbers are big, I just don't know if they're as large as those given.

 

That's a whole other thread. Kids born into slavery are not better off than kids born today as this pledge asserts. Regardless of the stats.

I certainly could be "kind" to what the pledge authors meant. I'd be very interested in hearing of their intent. However, IMO it is a huge leap to say that Bachmann feels that "black children were better off in the days of slavery" than today, just by signing this pledge. I don't know if the vague statistics are true about the nuclear family during slavery (again, regardless, it certainly doesn't mean that blacks of any age were better off during that time...it would be absurd to think so), but as pointed out in one of the linked articles from your post, here is what I believe is the point that the pledge makes:

 

 

 

As relates to another recent Bachmann thread here in P/R, I am curious as to why very few articles or news bites on this subject have mentioned that Rick Santorum also signed the same pledge.

 

I agree about your criticism of the characterization of it. But, 1880 is more than a decade after the Civil War and emancipation. To impute those numbers to the period of slavery is deeply, deeply bizarre and cynical.

As relates to another recent Bachmann thread here in P/R, I am curious as to why very few articles or news bites on this subject have mentioned that Rick Santorum also signed the same pledge.

 

 

Wasn't aware of that. A buddy of mine posted the article about Bachmannn on Facebook yesterday. Good to know. Santorum is now a flake and an idiot in my eyes as well.

1880 is more than a decade after the Civil War and emancipation. To impute those numbers to the period of slavery is deeply, deeply bizarre and cynical.

 

That's very true. Maybe some real statistics will come out now.

 

It's also unfortunate that the presentation of this whole issue is going to overshadow the important point that it presents about today's statistics.

Forgiven for what?

It was the Democrats that supported slavery. The Republicans were against it.