Slavery and The Family Stone: Why Conservatives STILL Don’t Get It

Reason Why Republicans Just Don’t Get It #423

Republican presidential frontrunner Michelle Bachmann and fellow lagging candidate Rick Santorum both recently signed a highly controversial document in support of family values. The document – “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family” from Family Leader, a conservative group in Iowa, contained some pretty hot button topics; urging the candidates to reject same-sex marriage, pornography, and Sharia law. But the item generating the most controversy was a claim attempting to somehow link slavery to modern day family values. To wit, the document claimed that “…a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

After public outcry, vow has been revised omitting the line. But not before the intrepid host of this blog got my hands on the original version.

In their attempt the whitewash the damage already done, a spokesman from the group issued the following statement:

After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man. We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.

Source

Sure.

First, the comparisons between slavery and today are simply ludicrous with no real account of history. While it’s true that over the past few decades – especially since the Civil Rights movements – there has been a noted disintegration of the black family and abortion wasn’t exactly popularized during slavery, these people from Family Leader are clearly absent of one of the true atrocities of slavery. How many families were broken up as slaves were sold off like cattle? How much mating was forced on blacks to produce more able-bodied slaves? How many family lineages were destroyed after slave owners raped and impregnated enslaved women? If conservatives nt to focus on the voluntary disintegration of the family (if there ever was such a thing), using slavery for political points is preposterous.

It’s silliness like this that will all, but assure that Blacks as a whole will never support the Republican agenda. Even as black people generally hold many of the same morally (if not socially) conservative views as Republicans, they also recognize the consistent practice of conservatives to casually and insensitively make observations that completely ignore history. Even now when conservatives offer scathing analyses of black pathologies in the modern day, they fail to do so with proper social context. In short, they love to point out the problem areas, but never take into account the social factors in play that precipitate certain behaviors. Look no further than the recent trends of ahistoricism we’ve seen from neocons and Tea Party activists who have made deities of the Founding Fathers, while conveniently ignoring the legacy of slavery by which many of them benefitted.

Secondly, I can’t say enough about how annoying it is to watch conservatives sing the same off-key song about the sanctity of marriage and family; resting their case by rallying against wedlock and single parenthood found in the so-called “black community.” They love to spout off damning statistics which vilify blacks who have children born out of wedlock but will sit quiet when whites do the same thing. Uh, anybody ever watch MTV’s hit reality show Teen Mom? Lest my point be completely lost, can we not forget about one, Bristol Palin, who stands proof-positive that being a pregnant, unwed white girl is formula for success? Between her book, a TV show, and serious cash for being a “motivational speaker”, we have some evidence (albeit, outlying evidence) that single motherhood is not viewed in the same light for everyone. *As a side note: it’s odd to me that conservatives will decry having babies out of wedlock while ALSO trying to dictate reproduction rights.*

Third, what’s the deal with this vow nonsense anyway? Republicans (and yes, Democrats too) have a history of breaking promises, especially as it relates to marriage. So exactly what kind of legitimacy should we expect out of this? Candor dictating, I’m sick to death of hearing white conservatives acting as if they are somehow the exemplars of morality when – in reality – they are the complete antithesis. We have seen countless examples (and this is just in recent years) of “family values” conservatives involved in all sorts of kinky stuff. So it stands to reason that signing cheesy pledges will not stop anyone, including people vying for the White House, from engaging in the very same practices they claim to abhor.

Finally, backtracking on a statement doesn’t remove the sentiment behind it…at least, as the case may be, in politics. Most of us can make a claim or comment that is factually incorrect or unknowingly insensitive. And when brought to our attention, we simply say “I’m sorry. I was wrong. Please accept my apology.” But in this instance, one has to wonder if Family Leader and conservatives of that ilk truly sincerely remorseful or if they believe what they are saying and are just offering a damage-control apology. I don’t know much about Family Leader, I’ll be the first to admit. But following the history of conservative politics, I’d bet they have little for which they are truly apologetic. I’m pretty confident statements like this and sentiments like theirs will continually find there way into headlines…immediately following some tepid apology. Let’s face it: that’s just how they roll.

Like anything, though, I suppose there is a silver lining here. At least in the preamble, they pointed out how “disastrous” slavery was. Baby steps, right?

- ACL

Permanent Records

When we discuss the damaging permanency of the errors and mistakes online, its usually within the context of young people and their lack of discretion on social networking sites. But – in recent events – its pretty clear this lesson could and probably should also apply to adults as well, especially with high-profiled political figures.

For the sake of argument, consider the following examples of what not to do in the age of 24/7 information. Of course, these scenarios are strictly hypothetical:

Scenario 1: Imagine you decided to tour the country as a publicity stunt an opportunity to explore the nation’s rich historical sites. A reporter comes up to you and asks something like…oh, I don’t know…”What have you learned from your trip?”. In your response, you provide a mangled and improperly framed reference to an important story from American history (For fun, let’s say Paul Revere’s famous ride).  It’s probably not the best idea to go on national TV shortly afterwards refusing to see the error of your ways. Even if some historians think you may have serendipitously stumbled on to something, you should probably stop pretending that you possess some highly sophisticated and more deeply learned account of history that most Americans – with the exception, perhaps, of scholars - don’t have. Instead, it would probably be cleaner if you simply declare “I made a mistake. I was caught off guard, did a little flubbing and might’ve been off on a couple of key points. Oh, and I certainly don’t endorse my supporters trying to edit a Wikipedia entry as an effort to validate my incorrect view of things.”

Problem solved.

While it’s true some people would still attack you for nobly admitting your mistake, wouldn’t you feel a little better by telling the truth?

Scenario 2: You find yourself on Twitter flirting with young people connecting with your constituents. Though married and apparently expecting a child, pictures of your private parts are sent to one of your followers. Once the story breaks, you immediately go into damage control, launching a furious campaign to prove your innocence. You claim your account is hacked. You hire a lawyer to investigate said hacking. You make an appearance on national TV. But after all sorts of evidence surfaces proving the contrary, you change your story. You admit the genitalia in the photos does, in fact, belong to you.

The story was embarassing enough. But couldn’t additional embarassment from being caught in a bold face lie have been avoided in the first place? Wouldn’t it have been a little more admirable to admit: “Yes, I flirted online and things got a little out of control. Though I’m not the first person to ever commit and offense of this nature, I recognize the wrongness of it all. I apologize to my wife and to my constituents.”?

Again, problem solved.

Of course there are plenty more examples I could use. I mean, focusing on the gaffes/lies from people like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden – for instance – would give me enough to write a book. So this post isn’t solely about Palin and Weiner.

That notwithstanding, need I remind you, people: we are dealing with a new day in age here. We find ourselves in a time where our words and actions are not so easily deleted once released to the world. Any attempts we make to sanitize the truth will usually get defeated by the truth itself. That’s why I think it’s important – and indeed, healthy – to simply own up to you mistakes. Doing so will initially sting of embarassment, but it will eventually nullify the ability of others to publicly shame you; especially if you acknowledge your wrongness in a spirit of humility. But defending a lie until the very end can (and usually does) carry with it long-term disadvantages.

At the very least, avoid posting pictures of your penis on the Internet and don’t ramble on cluelessly about American history. From there, it should be smooth sailing.

- ACL

Inside the Sistine Chapel

Nothing too socially or politically charged at the moment. I just wanted to share this cool site with you. It’s a 360 degree panoramic view of the Sistine Chapel. Check it out and be amazed.

H/T to my big sister Kim for the link.

- ACL