Rand Paul under fire from black leaders for slavery remarks

[outspoken]

The majority of blacks today in positions of leadership are a disgrace to truly conscious leaders such as MLK. At some point, they will no longer be able to ride off the coat tails of their predecesors who truly took on blatant oppression of the day. Any system which makes another man entitled to the labor production of another without their consent is a form of slavery plain and simple. That is an uncomfortable truth to those who believe in progressivism however moderate. While I believe it is our duty as fellow human beings to help one another of our own free will, I believe it is immoral to do it through the authoritarian fist of government. If that makes a person a racist then this world is in deeper shit than I previous thought.

 

[JohnEngland]

The so-called "Black Caucus" is racist and segregationist. Imagine if there was a so-called "White Caucus".

 

[anaconda]

This is ridiculous. When one uses the word "slave" it does not, by definition, refer to an African person conscripted to North America in the 1700-1800's. Rand specifically did not refer to this group of people in any way. I hope Rand, rather than apologizing, takes this opportunity to kick some ass about the use of the English language and push back against political correctness creep. I hope he refers to his first speech on the Senate floor about Henry Clay.

 

[AuH20]

The majority of blacks today in positions of leadership are a disgrace to truly conscious leaders such as MLK. At some point, they will no longer be able to ride off the coat tails of their predecesors who truly took on blatant oppression of the day. Any system which makes another man entitled to the labor production of another without their consent is a form of slavery plain and simple. That is an uncomfortable truth to those who believe in progressivism however moderate. While I believe it is our duty as fellow human beings to help one another of our own free will, I believe it is immoral to do it through the authoritarian fist of government. If that makes a person a racist then this world is in deeper shit than I previous thought.

Actually, MLK was an strong proponent of the welfare state. He'd fit right in there today.

 

[anaconda]

Honestly it was a stupid comment by Rand. This is not slavery. Being a slave sucks much much more than what Rand described.

It is like when Adrian Peterson compared the NFL and their multi-million dollar salaries to slavery or when a guy I knew in college was robbed and said that "I was raped". It just makes you look bad.

I agree he was inviting blow back. However: The use of the word "slave," by definition, does not uniquely refer to the condition of Africans conscripted against their will to work for free under threat of death in North America. While these individuals' experience certainly satisfy the definition of slavery, the inverse does not logically follow. It's like saying using the word "illness" refers only to spinal meningitis. It's like if Rand had the flu and said "I have an illness" and was criticized for using the word "illness" because he didn't specifically have spinal meningitis. I think Rand has a great opportunity to end up looking like the complete and utter victim here and his critics look like petty bullies that suppress freedom of speech for private gain, and who decide it's up to them to disallow alternate meanings of words per Webster's. I think Rand can score points against out of control "political correctness" here.

 

[anaconda]

Here's what Rand should do:

He should come out and say, OK (Jessie Jackson or whomever), "If you are prepared to tell me that I AM NO LONGER ALLOWED to use the word "slave" unless I am specifically referring to the tragic involuntary servitude of Africans in North America, then I will apologize to you. Is this what you expect from me? Is this specifically how you wish to control my speech? Just let me know.."

 

[low preference guy]

Here's what Rand should do:

He should come out and say, OK (Jessie Jackson or whomever), "If you are prepared to tell me that I AM NO LONGER ALLOWED to use the word "slave" unless I am specifically referring to the tragic involuntary servitude of Africans in North America, then I will apologize to you. Is this what you expect from me? Is this specifically how you wish to control my speech? Just let me know.."

Anaconda, you always have answers about what people should say in controversial situations. Maybe it would be good if you ran for office and had a chance to try some of those answers yourself?

(i'm being serious)

 

[anaconda]

Anaconda, you always have answers about what people should say in controversial situations. Maybe it would be good if you ran for office and had a chance to try some of those answers yourself?

(i'm being serious)

I'm not trying to be objectionable. When I say "here's what Rand should do" I mean it in the context of offering an idea rather than spewing some self righteous ultimatum. I am just pulling for Rand here and throwing in my 2 cents (OK maybe 3 cents) on what other issues or perspectives may be relevant here. It is a thread for discussion, after all. I am actually fairly poor at thinking on my feet. An apology, may in fact, be an OK solution for Rand, because it is already clear that he made no reference WHATSOEVER to the specific African in North America meaning of the word. Consequently, he is likely to be vindicated thoroughly and it might make the persons who criticized him look like bullies.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Any apology from Rand on this matter would be interpreted by his enemies in only one way: "blood in the water."

 

[anaconda]

OK How bout this:

"The fact of slavery in the Americas is obviously a tragedy of unimaginable suffering. My greatest hero was the abolitionist Cassius Clay. I am saddened or sorrowful that my choice to use the word "slavery" recently caused painful associations to the African experience in the Americas. If you replay the video of my remarks you will see for yourself that there was no such reference to this obvious tragedy, nor was any remotely intended. I assumed implicitly this would be obvious. To the extent it was not, I certainly wish to apologize to anyone who might have been offended or assumed that my remarks somehow meant something different."

The problem with this is that the media headlines will all say "Rand Paul apologizes for racist comments." And then the unfair label becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. So, perhaps he should simply say "I made no such reference to the tragedy of slavery in the Americas. Not even remotely. These comments are simply dishonest. My hero is the abolitionist Cassius Clay. I am a libertarian. Fighting for fairness and freedom is my passion and my life."

 

[Cowlesy]

Any apology from Rand on this matter would be interpreted by his enemies in only one way: "blood in the water."

I only 'sort-of' know Rand and his team, but I am pretty confident there won't be any apologizing going on. Nothing to apologize for in my opinion. Offending the sensibilities of some hucksters? Biggggg dealll.

 

[anaconda]

The "states rights can never be human rights" argument is null and void due to a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting slavery.

 

[I Don't Vote]

LBJ quoted after the passage of the CRA -

“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...r-fire-from-black-leaders-for-slavery-remarks

He's 25% correct. Let's wait another 150 years. I bet he's still correct.

 

[BlackTerrel]

So, what, white people can't use the world slavery? Is that what I'm gathering from this attack?

Nope.

Adrian Peterson (black guy) was also criticized for comparing the NFL to slavery.

It's an insensitive remark regardless of rape. What if Rand got his iPod stolen and said "I feel like I was raped".

 

[schiffheadbaby]

Nope.

Adrian Peterson (black guy) was also criticized for comparing the NFL to slavery.

It's an insensitive remark regardless of rape. What if Rand got his iPod stolen and said "I feel like I was raped".

AP isn't forced to play for any fans, big distinction.

 

[MelissaWV]

Nope.

Adrian Peterson (black guy) was also criticized for comparing the NFL to slavery.

It's an insensitive remark regardless of rape. What if Rand got his iPod stolen and said "I feel like I was raped".

Regardless of rape, BT? How insensitive of you.

btw, that wouldn't follow. The comparison between working for someone who has the right to cause you bodily harm or even deprive you of your rights, life, and liberty in general, if you do not tithe them the fruits of your labor... and being owned by someone who has the right to cause you bodily harm or kill you or sell you, and treat you like utter shit, at least bears some passing semblence of logic.

The comparison between having your property taken from you, and being invaded sexually and forcibly by someone... has no logic to it at all.

Hyperbole is lost on those who want to be offended, just salivating for a chance.

 

[ronpaulitician]

An (honest) reply that seemed to convince a poster on Huffington Post.

Q:

The Jon Birch Society sponsored that joke Fox GOP debate. They love Ron Paul. So do white power groups, as evidenced by the constant support on stormfront. Ron Paul puts his ads up on World Net Daily. His appeal to racists is something I'd like his supporters to explain. One caveat: Please do not regurgitate his statements about racism, just explain why you (not him) believe he is so appealing to these groups.

A:

He appeals to racists for the same reason that he appeals to drug users:

He believes in liberty across the board. Not just the liberty to eat a cheeseburger, but also the liberty to consume heroin. Not just the liberty to say "welcome to all" but also the freedom to say "welcome to some". Yes, the extremes at the darker side of liberty are unwanted, but no laws will ever remove them from society. Racism and drug use will be around no matter how many laws we put into place.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'm starting to believe in the concept that all of these issues that appear extreme can be packaged into a singular message that may very well result in a "Eureka" moment with many voters. Heroin, Civil Rights Act, bin Laden. Three issues that we may worry about at the moment, but that, when properly formulated (and I don't mean "with spin" but "with complete openness without fear"), can lift Paul's candidacy so high that no amount of ignoring by the MSM and no amount of attempted smearing can bring him down.

Obama, it's on.

 

[Occam's Banana]

OK How bout this:

"The fact of slavery in the Americas is obviously a tragedy of unimaginable suffering. My greatest hero was the abolitionist Cassius Clay. I am saddened or sorrowful that my choice to use the word "slavery" recently caused painful associations to the African experience in the Americas. If you replay the video of my remarks you will see for yourself that there was no such reference to this obvious tragedy, nor was any remotely intended. I assumed implicitly this would be obvious. To the extent it was not, I certainly wish to apologize to anyone who might have been offended or assumed that my remarks somehow meant something different."

HORRIBLE! The only thing this would accomplish would be to make Rand look like a mealy-mouthed groveller. It would only reduce Rand to their level - the level of panderers & players of word games.

They know perfectly well what Rand meant & how he meant it. That is what they truly object to - not any of the particular words he used to say it. They do not feel the slightest bit of genuine pain or offence at his remarks (unless it is the sort of pain or offence one takes at one's own dishonesty being exposed). Their mock outrage is a subterfuge designed to draw attention away from the fact that they have no answer to what (they know) Rand actually meant.

So, perhaps he should simply say "I made no such reference to the tragedy of slavery in the Americas. Not even remotely. These comments are simply dishonest. My hero is the abolitionist Cassius Clay. I am a libertarian. Fighting for fairness and freedom is my passion and my life."

MUCH better!! Keep the first three sentences, drop the others (they're just attempts at justification, which aren't needed).

I only 'sort-of' know Rand and his team, but I am pretty confident there won't be any apologizing going on. Nothing to apologize for in my opinion. Offending the sensibilities of some hucksters? Biggggg dealll.

Exactly. I don't think he'll apologize, either. Nor should he.
If he does, I will lose all respect for him.

 

[anaconda]

They know perfectly well what Rand meant & how he meant it. That is what they truly object to - not any of the particular words he used to say it. They do not feel the slightest bit of genuine pain or offence at his remarks (unless it is the sort of pain or offence one takes at one's own dishonesty being exposed). Their mock outrage is a subterfuge designed to draw attention away from the fact that they have no answer to what (they know) Rand actually meant.

Agreed. Well written.

 

[MaxPower]

Honestly it was a stupid comment by Rand. This is not slavery. Being a slave sucks much much more than what Rand described.

It is like when Adrian Peterson compared the NFL and their multi-million dollar salaries to slavery or when a guy I knew in college was robbed and said that "I was raped". It just makes you look bad.

Push back how? Argue in fact that it is as bad as working for free, being whipped, and picking cotton 18 hours a day?

He made a bad analogy and he should admit it and move on.

Rand's point was perfectly valid, and it wasn't really even an "analogy" so much as a logical exposition. A legally-enforceable "right" to private individuals' services would imply as a logical conclusion the validity of compulsion, of forcing those individuals to serve you/whomever you want them to serve, which would, by definition, be slavery. He was clearly not saying what you've just attributed to him, or what the "Congressional Black Caucus" has behaved as though he was; moreover, I expect Jesse Jackson Jr. et al are fully aware that Rand Paul was not equating legal-positivist medical care with black chattel slavery, but are never amiss to seize an opportunity to go hysterical and pull an unwarranted race card.