|Binro the Heretic |
This is the thing that pisses me off most about racists, misogynists and other hatemongers. They carefully craft insulting and provocative statements then, when they're inevitably called out on them, claim they're the victims of social justice warriors.
It's spineless and slimy. It's wanting to eat your cake and have it. "Hey, I said this awful thing, but using loopholes and creative interpretation of words, I make it look like I'm the victim."
O'Reilly went out of his way to present his remarks as a refutation of First Lady Michelle Obama's statement about the White House being built by slaves. He knows he was trying to diminish what she said and tried to downplay the suffering of the slaves, but here he is acting like he was just presenting more historical "facts." Now he wants to pretend he's the victim.
My grandparents' generation consisted of outright racists and they were indeed awful, but at least they had the guts to take criticism for being racist. Modern hatemongers are so fucking spineless. "I want to say shitty things but I don't want to be attacked for it, WAAAAAH!"
Fuck you, Bill. Fuck you.
Man, this is some tortured logic. Defending the DEGREE of an instance of slavery is not a defense of slavery itself, but accusing someone of defending slavery when really all they were doing is defending the severity of an instance of slavery is "beneath contempt," which is presumably worse than the concept of slavery itself. Did I get that right?
Homer, defending a horrible institution by talking about varying degrees is standing up for that institution. As a conservative he doesn't like looking at any negative parts of our history, so he wants to make slavery sound as fluffy as possible.
Cena, that's not quite right, though I agree with your conclusion.
Let us say that person A makes a claim X, and X is slightly overstated. Let us also say that there is a counter claim to X, call this counter claim Y. Well, person B, with the purpose of clarifying the discourse, can critique X for being overstated, without subscribing to or advocating for Y.
The point is one *could* critique Obama's claims on degree without necessarily supporting or advocating for the institution of slavery. Merely critiquing X isn't an endorsement of Y.
With that said, I think O'Reilly *is* supporting the institution of slavery insofar as he is, either maliciously or ignorantly, trying to make it appear less horrendous than it was and he is trying to do that as a way of disempowering our First Lady's position as a black woman in power.
Binro the Heretic
Michelle Obama: "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves, and I watch my daughters, two beautiful & intelligent Black young women, play with their dog on the White House lawn.”
Bill O'Reilly: "Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well."
He is both trying to minimize the suffering of the slaves and diminish their role in the building of the White House. It is a snotty, wormy and spineless thing to say. He said it to insult Black people everywhere and to delight hateful White people.
And now he wants to play martyr because people called him out for being shitty.
And fuck anyone who wants to defend him. By defending him, you're saying it's okay for him to be shitty.
Rodents of Unusual Size
I have never heard the story of how O'Reilly beat up his wife before. Holy shit.
Also, out of all the things to respond to, Michelle Obama's speech? It was literally the least provocative of anything that came out of the DNC.
It's funny how right wingers incessantly complain about "political correctness gone awry" and that some people just take offense a everything, yet by far and away the most thin-skinned baby-people on the face of the earth are the right wingers themselves who basically constantly complain about things not being represented as *they* want to see them or on their terms.
For example, people who think the Redskins should change their team name out of respect for Native Americans get called over-sensitive and such, but, for example, after any of the recent mass shootings, we all had to listen to litanies upon litanies about how you can't call an AR15 an "assault rifle" but *must* use the proper term for it.
It's not "slavery", it's "helperism." It's not "racism", it's "post-racial honesty."
Saying that an orange is an apple, and saying that oranges should not be called 'oranges', out of respect for other objects that are orange-colored, are two different kinds of statement entirely. The first is a falsifiable statement about the objective properties of an object; the second is a statement about emotional or social sensitivity.
What are you even getting at Burns?
It's weird that you use that example. Like EH poorly tried to explain, one of those things is a subjective political stance dealing with people's feelings... the other is carefully constructed propaganda terminology designed to make fearful dipshits lose their fucking minds and does not represent objective fact.
It's important to realise that the vast, vast majority of slaves were black. Like, nearly all of them. This is a fact.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious |
Dear old white angry people, please die already.
It's not as if the up and coming generations are any less hate-filled trash though.
From the Washington Post op-ed section in response to this clip from O'Reilly:
As the Erik Wemple Blog pointed out this morning, Jesse J. Holland, who wrote the book on slaves and the White House, noted that the slaves were housed in a barn and were provided with food. Yet there’s a gap between that historical fact and what O’Reilly alleged, which, again, is that they were “well fed” and resided in “decent lodgings.” Those aren’t really facts; they’re judgments. Though Holland researched this matter extensively, he found limitations. “Writing about slavery is difficult because there is so little that we know for a fact because so little was written about their lives during their lives.” If it weren’t for the records of payments to slave owners, says Holland, historians might still be arguing about whether slaves actually worked on the White House. The author emails the Erik Wemple Blog these thoughts:
"There is no doubt that slaves were provided food and shelter while they were working to build the White House. That is a fact. However, we don’t know the quality of either because there are no historical records that support that judgment. What is undeniable is that slaves were not given a choice on what they ate or where they lived. They were at the mercy of their masters, and dependent on the whims of people who considered them property, not human beings. But I am glad there is an ongoing dialogue about this issue, because it’s helping to bring attention to a long ignored portion of America’s past that proves all of our citizens have a historical stake in our government and our nation’s capital."
As much as I hate to admit it he has a very valid point, and never ever did he say he supported slavery. Although I suppose "decent" in this context is purely subjective.
Also he seems to be turning into Nancy Grace with a penis.
I mean, how stultifyingly stunningly fucking stupid are you? OF COURSE the farmer feeds his pack animals, and gives them basic care. If he didn't, he'd lose his investment in valuable property.
Does this somehow lessen anybody's revulsion at the concept of one human being owning another one? Apparently for you it does.
You disgust me.
Rodents of Unusual Size
Am I the only one who thinks Bill was picturing Michelle in the kitchen in slave days when he said that?
People who defend O'Reilly (or don't see anything wrong with what he said) are kind of astounding to me. Here's a summation:
Michelle: "Slaves built the White House."
O'Reilly: "The slaves were given food and shelter."
Whether or not what O'Reilly said is true or not is wildly besides the point. People don't just list off facts, and since they're facts, well, whatever! People have reasons for saying the things they do. They have points. So what was O'Reilly's point here, responding to the comment that slaves built the White House that those slaves were, in fact, fed and housed? It doesn't contradict or respond directly to anything Michelle Obama said. There are a huge number of facts about building the White House that we could name. Why didn't he mention the average age of the slaves, or how long each day the slaves worked, or what the temperature was during construction, or how they were punished, or if the slaves had families, just to name a few facts he didn't illuminate on? We're just listing random facts, after all.
Or we could show the most basic level of social understanding to realize that when O'Reilly brings up that they were "well fed" and given "decent lodgings," he's attempting to reframe the reality of slavery to make it seem like it wasn't that bad. I mean, it's basic that this is what he's up to. All this "I'm just talking facts" shit is the cover he knowingly engages in avoid being accountable for what he's doing and anyone that goes along with his particularly lame and transparent con is either despicable, a child, or truly incompetent.
|Maggot Brain |
What people don't know is that work was delayed several times on the White House dude to lemonade breaks and hug parties.
Dignity all around.
You can think of Bill O'Reilly whatever you like, and frame his words however you want, but I know a bit about Bill, and considering he's a huge American history nerd, I'm not surprised at all that he made comments correcting a historically inaccurate portrayal.
And, you can call him accuse him of whining all you like, but he has very valid points about the overreaction of people and media. Inciting a race war? Fuck off. That sort of disingenuous shit is not helping your cause.
It's unclear if you mean that Bill is correcting "historically inaccurate portrayal" by the First Lady or by news agencies reporting on his initial remarks. I take you to be saying the former and I take you to be wrong.
Here is the selection of the First Lady's speech that mentions slavery and the White House, and a little of the paragraph before for context:
--Begin Transcript Clip--
Leaders like Hillary Clinton, who has
the guts and the grace to keep coming back and putting
those cracks in that highest and hardest glass ceiling
until she finally breaks through, lifting all of us along
with her. (Applause.)
That is the story of this country, the story that has
brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations
of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of
servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on
striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so
that today, I wake up every morning in a house that was
built by slaves -- (applause) -- and I watch my daughters –
- two beautiful, intelligent, black young women –- playing
with their dogs on the White House lawn. (Applause.) And
because of Hillary Clinton, my daughters –- and all our
sons and daughters -– now take for granted that a woman can
be President of the United States. (Applause.)
In the speech, the First Lady is drawing a parallel between the Clinton's characters, which the First Lady takes to be determined, and the character of our country, which the First Lady characterizes as one that is determined to do right. The First Lady also is suggesting that Clinton's trajectory parallels her own and that such determination is what allows for success, i.e., African American's to now live in the White House, which was built with labor of enslaved African Americans.
Given this, I'm not sure how Bill or you can find some kind of historical inaccuracy in the First Lady's comments. Slave labor was used to build the White House. Of course slaves were fed and given a place to sleep; slaves in the South were also fed and given sleeping quarters. But they were still people forced to work. And furthermore, it was in the interest of the slave owners to feed the people they needed to do the work. (Humans can't work if they don't have food, FYI.)
I suggest you read Washington Post article I linked to above. Bill O'Reilly is not warranted to make the claims he has claims about the conditions slaves had when their forced labor was used to construct the White House. Without evidence that the enslaved African Americans were treated well during this project, it is unclear why one would presume an enslaved person would be offered better rather than worse treatment.
Yeah his history writing is so thorough and accurate that the National Park Service won't sell it in its bookstores for being TOO REAL AND RAW MAN
....no actually its because he gives no citations or sources and there are many factual inaccuracies
He's a historian the same way tabloid writers are journalists
Although I shouldn't be, I'm stunned that people are dumb enough to accept O'Reilly (or any ideologically rigid conservative) at their word anymore. On anything.
Seriously. "He wrote a book about history, so he must be a history buff." Really? Really??? He's an ignorant jackass. Hell, *I've* been able to spot errors when he talks about American history, and I'm just an average schlub.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|