The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
56 Years a Slave

Obituary from the Seattle Times in 2011:

‘Lola’ Pulido lived life of devotion to family

Originally published November 19, 2011 at 9:49 pm Updated May 17, 2017 at 10:43 am

Eudocia Tomas Pulido promised to take care of a 12-year-old girl, and ended up taking care of three generations of her family. (Alan Berner)

By Susan Kelleher

Seattle Times staff reporter

Editor’s note (May 17, 2017): This obituary, published in 2011, was written at the suggestion of and after an extensive interview with Alex Tizon, a former Seattle Times reporter. This week, a story in the June 2017 issue of The Atlantic written by Tizon, who died earlier this year, describes Eudocia Tomas Pulido as a slave and details her relationship with his family spanning decades. The Seattle Times is shocked at the newly revealed disparity in Tizon’s accounts of her life and will have more to say about the issue.

Eudocia Tomas Pulido loved a good wedding, the more royal the better.

But she never married. Never even dated.

Miss Pulido would live a different kind of love story, one marked by a devotion so rare that even those closest to her still struggle to comprehend it.

As a teenager in the Philippines, Miss Pulido was asked to care for a young girl whose mother had died. When a relative asked Miss Pulido to always look after the girl, she gave her word.

Miss Pulido not only raised that girl, but the girl’s children and their children — cooking, cleaning and caring for three generations that came to know her as “Lola,” grandmother in her native Tagalog tongue. She asked for nothing in return, said her grandson [sic], Alex Tizon, a former Seattle Times reporter, with whom she lived in Edmonds for nearly 12 years.

That’s one way of putting it.

Susan Kelleher, the obituary reporter who wrote up the interview with Tizon in 2011, has some things to say today in the Seattle Times:

Why the obituary for Eudocia Tomas Pulido didn’t tell the story of her life in slavery
Updated May 17, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Six years ago, I was assigned to write an obituary about a local woman who seemed to have lived an extraordinary life of devotion to family.

Eudocia Tomas Pulido’s life was, indeed, extraordinary, but not in the way it was presented in the pages of The Seattle Times.

Tuesday night, I read with horror and growing anger Alex Tizon’s account in The Atlantic magazine of Ms. Pulido’s life with three generations of his family, and his journey to come to terms with it.

Many of the details were familiar, as Tizon had shared them with me during a long interview following the death of a woman he knew as “Lola,” an honorific title in her native Tagalog that Tizon took to mean “grandmother.”

In retrospect, the obituary reads as a whitewash for a fundamental truth known only to Tizon and his family: Ms. Pulido was a slave.

Even typing those words makes me sick, as does knowing, as I do now, that I wrote about slavery as a love story.

By the way, what % of slaveowners in modern America are immigrants?

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
196 Comments to "56 Years a Slave"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. So slavery is cool now too? Nice, because after that last post about this I was wondering about what it would take for us to import a slave class to help with everything; it’s not like anything bad happened the last time we tried that, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/56-years-a-slave/#comment-1875329
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. This is how the 19th spoke about slaves. The beauty of the faithful servant. The work itself was compensation enough.

    With a lot of old texts you can do a search/replace and re-use them in the Current Year without further modification. That’s because the emotions that you great-grandfather had for his own people and alien people have traded places perfectly.

    Read More
  3. According to the linked article she was drawing social security .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    She did not get regular social security since she never paid payroll taxes, but SSI.

    Here is a 1995 NYT expose about how up to half of some elderly immigrant groups get on SSI, which is now about $8,000 a year for life for people who never paid a penny in taxes. Since she lived to 86 if I remember right, sounds like her cash payments adjusting for inflation were about $160,000, plus of course Medicare and Medicaid for two decades.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/16/nyregion/for-elderly-immigrants-a-retirement-plan-in-us.html
  4. What an instructive lesson. Behold, when SJWs get hold of a narrative look how far from the truth they take it in order to make themselves look good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "What an instructive lesson. Behold, when SJWs get hold of a narrative look how far from the truth they take it in order to make themselves look good."

    They're masters at turning anything into the narrative they want it to be.
  5. This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/

    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    Fascinating. And it makes perfect sense.
    , @Mikey Darmody

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”
     
    I imagine the majority didn't show much mobility of any kind.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Hmmm, can we explain that other customary mal-treatment of girls usually enforced by mothers in a similar way?

    You know, the one they don't want to talk about but for which some people were recently arrested.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Are you telling us that those Chinese males who worked hard to provide for their families were also preventing their daughters from being abused?
    , @Alden
    Thanks so much for all the research you do. This explanation for foot binding is very interesting and makes a lot of sense.
    , @Anon
    Bound feet had erotic connotations so potent you did not discuss them in detail in mixed company, as a western missionary found when the college-age men in the audience she was lecturing to, started snickering and acting uncomfortable. This was during the 1920s when the government was trying to stamp it out. Foot binding may not often have moved women up the market, but it was considered necessary by most to be in the marriage market at all. According to many narratives collected during the government movement against footbinding, many little girls were told sternly, "you will not be able to get married if you don't bind."
    Chinese footbinding: the history of a curious erotic custom, by Howard Seymour Levy, W. Rawls, 1966.
    , @Opinionator
    Consider the possibility that bound feet functioned as an obstacle to infidelity. A kind of chastity belt.
  6. I love when this happens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X


    I love when this happens.
     
    Ain't diversity grand?

    Slavery, the caste system, clit-cutting, burkas, voodoo, poaching endangered species... the behaviors of Third World browns and blacks, not cisgendered heteronormative white patriarchial males. And yet, the Left wants to let them all in.

    I say, let's do it! Let 'em in -- so long as we domicile them in the Upper East Side, Marin County, the Castro District, Beverly Hills, and on Martha's Vineyard. You'd see every exclusive country club in the nation turned into a Klavern overnight.
  7. Miss Pulido would live a different kind of love story, one marked by a devotion so rare that even those closest to her still struggle to comprehend it.

    As a teenager in the Philippines, Miss Pulido was asked to care for a young girl whose mother had died. When a relative asked Miss Pulido to always look after the girl, she gave her word.

    Miss Pulido not only raised that girl, but the girl’s children and their children — cooking, cleaning and caring for three generations that came to know her as “Lola,” grandmother in her native Tagalog tongue. She asked for nothing in return, said her grandson [sic], Alex Tizon, a former Seattle Times reporter, with whom she lived in Edmonds for nearly 12 years.

    Reads like a eulogy written by a Southern slave-owner after the death of his mammy……

    Say, since the Monument to Southern Slave Mammies never got built*, maybe we should erect one to all the POC slaves serving POC masters…..

    *

    The Mammy Washington Almost Had
    In 1923, the U.S. Senate approved a new monument in D.C. “in memory of the faithful slave mammies of the South.”

    Yet in 1923, the U.S. Senate authorized such a statue, “in memory of the faithful slave mammies of the South.”

    As a Southern Congressman stated in support of the monument: “The traveler, as he passes by, will recall that epoch of southern civilization” when “fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. “No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-mammy-washington-almost-had/276431/

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That famous lawn jockey statue was derived from one commissioned by Washington to memorialize a slave who died keeping horses warm at Valley Forge.
    , @27 year old
    >that epoch of southern civilization” when “fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. “No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress.

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world
  8. 56 Years a Slave

    I see what you did there Steve, but who should be outraged over her being a slave for seven times as long as that other celebrated case?

    Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?

    That feeling is reserved for White people, don’t you know?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?"

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

  9. Tizon’s mother was a doctor with five children. Turns out you really can have it all, provided you have a poorer, browner woman providing heroic amounts of free labor for you!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    Strange that so many women have children that they don't want to raise. I agree with Dr. Laura. Just get a dog instead.

    I worked with a woman who had two children that she barely saw: she worked 10 hour days as a manager, never mind after work obligations, and went home exhausted. A nanny took care of all their needs, including driving them around after school for sports and arts/music. Then she would tell me what a great mother she was. I guess she gave them hard-work genes, but not much in the way of care-taking genes.
    , @22pp22
    The wife of the PM of NZ is a doctor with five kids. I don't believe she owns a slave.
  10. @Marina
    Tizon's mother was a doctor with five children. Turns out you really can have it all, provided you have a poorer, browner woman providing heroic amounts of free labor for you!

    Strange that so many women have children that they don’t want to raise. I agree with Dr. Laura. Just get a dog instead.

    I worked with a woman who had two children that she barely saw: she worked 10 hour days as a manager, never mind after work obligations, and went home exhausted. A nanny took care of all their needs, including driving them around after school for sports and arts/music. Then she would tell me what a great mother she was. I guess she gave them hard-work genes, but not much in the way of care-taking genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Selvar
    "Just get a dog instead."

    A frankly terrible mindset to encourage. Women who are not perfect mothers should still reproduce to sustain the birthrate above replacement. Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it's their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.

    , @Hodag
    A chum while growing up had a local TV personality for a mom (she got replaced by Oprah). She was never home. The three boys were raised by a sainted Polish nanny who they abused terribly. The only time I would see the mom was Saturday mornings when she worked her way through a bottle of Absolut. Dad was never home either.

    They did not turn out so good.
    , @Anonymous
    Dogs require a fair amount of time and effort too.

    Perhaps they should limit themselves to cats. Or goldfish.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    I know rich, non-working mothers who do not raise their own children. This is common where I live.

    Such women have nothing to do but go to yoga classes and complain about how hard it is being mothers. Their preferred nannys come from Europe: typically nice, pretty girls who come to America for awhile and take the nanny job for the visa and a place to stay. When I was a bachelor, I dated one of those girls.

    There are rotten people everywhere who will use other people to avoid labor of any kind, even when that labor is just taking care of the offspring they supposedly love.

  11. “Slave” is joining “rape” as a word that has no specific meaning other than “something is going on here that I don’t like”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height and pick up all litter left upon it by others. Compensation: Zero.

    Something is going on here that I don't like.
  12. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Progs used to love to spout off about Equality.

    But because the socio-economic reality dominated by globo-progs is so unequal, the preferred terminology is ‘inclusion’ than ‘equality’.

    It’s like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they’ve been ‘included’ to serve as nannies and helots.

    And at least give that Filo family the decency of ‘including’ a slave into their family.

    That is real tolerance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "It’s like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they’ve been ‘included’ to serve as nannies and helots."

    According to the pro-open borders New York Times, Mexicans are a White ethnic group so how are they not equal in wealth and income with Jews and WASPs?
    , @Olorin
    IOW, the slave is the litmus for how they really feel about HBD.

    I like it!
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    The slave holding Filipinos in question are most likely ethnic Chinese and not the Malay (for the lack of a better word) of the Philippines, who have come to control, nay, have a stranglehold on the economies of Southeast Asia from Burma (Myanmar) to Indochina, so in that sense they are the elites you're describing.
  13. @tsotha
    "Slave" is joining "rape" as a word that has no specific meaning other than "something is going on here that I don't like".

    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height and pick up all litter left upon it by others. Compensation: Zero.

    Something is going on here that I don’t like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tsotha
    Clearly you are a slave. You should start putting your memoir together.
    , @Anonymous
    The city I'm in charges me a city tax, to cover presumably all the shiftless bums I see slumming around on my way to my 60hr wk job. I'm none too fond of it, either.

    Just part of modern American life under liberal occupation. Let those who work hard pay for those who won't, blame the productive for the faults of the incompetent, and indoctrinate the kids of those who behave to hate them and by extension themselves unless they chip in to keep the liberal train recklessly zooming along towards the cliff...
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height...
     
    Tell them you're "restoring the prairie".

    ...and pick up all litter left upon it by others.
     
    Tell them you're composting. Leave copies of Mother Earth News near the front entrance for cover.
    , @SFG
    I hear you, but the usual reason for this is to keep the place looking nice and keep property values up. It's actually quite defensible on conservative grounds, if not libertarian ones.
  14. @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    Fascinating. And it makes perfect sense.

    Read More
  15. @Formerly CARealist
    Strange that so many women have children that they don't want to raise. I agree with Dr. Laura. Just get a dog instead.

    I worked with a woman who had two children that she barely saw: she worked 10 hour days as a manager, never mind after work obligations, and went home exhausted. A nanny took care of all their needs, including driving them around after school for sports and arts/music. Then she would tell me what a great mother she was. I guess she gave them hard-work genes, but not much in the way of care-taking genes.

    “Just get a dog instead.”

    A frankly terrible mindset to encourage. Women who are not perfect mothers should still reproduce to sustain the birthrate above replacement. Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it’s their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    I hear you.

    what just bugs me is that women are growing up being taught that staying home to care for your kids is demeaning. You only have status and worth if you go out for a career, the more demanding the better. Then any kids that may result are handed off to the nannies and daycares. These women never learn what it means to make a home and the men they partner with never get the love and respect they need. It's just a lose-lose-lose situation and I see it everywhere. Fortunately lots of women do learn a better way through practical living. Life is really conservative when you get right down to it!
    , @slumber_j

    Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it’s their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.
     
    Well, both my parents went to boarding school in the 1940s, and my wife and her father and his ancestors for a long way back all went to boarding school too. I don't think it was a question of anyone's not wanting or being able to raise children. It was what was considered normal among the people in question.
    , @SFG
    As you say, the upper crust used to outsource childrearing all the time. I think when it hit the upper middle class, which doesn't have the resources to hire lots of servants, they just cut out childbearing and that's the dysgenic trend we're seeing.
  16. @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    I imagine the majority didn’t show much mobility of any kind.

    Read More
  17. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height and pick up all litter left upon it by others. Compensation: Zero.

    Something is going on here that I don't like.

    Clearly you are a slave. You should start putting your memoir together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Thanks for the advice.

    Here is a new word for you: Corvee.

    Read all about it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvee
  18. @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    Hmmm, can we explain that other customary mal-treatment of girls usually enforced by mothers in a similar way?

    You know, the one they don’t want to talk about but for which some people were recently arrested.

    Read More
  19. “Seattle Times reporter quietly kept female POC as slave until his death.”

    Read More
  20. @J1234
    I love when this happens.

    I love when this happens.

    Ain’t diversity grand?

    Slavery, the caste system, clit-cutting, burkas, voodoo, poaching endangered species… the behaviors of Third World browns and blacks, not cisgendered heteronormative white patriarchial males. And yet, the Left wants to let them all in.

    I say, let’s do it! Let ‘em in — so long as we domicile them in the Upper East Side, Marin County, the Castro District, Beverly Hills, and on Martha’s Vineyard. You’d see every exclusive country club in the nation turned into a Klavern overnight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Ain’t diversity grand?

    Slavery, the caste system, clit-cutting, burkas, voodoo, poaching endangered species… the behaviors of Third World browns and blacks,"

    You forgot to add gang rapes, race riots, polar bear hunting knockout games, sharia law, and Islamic jihad terrorism to the list of wondeful things vibrant diversity has brought to the West.

    , @Lurker
    No, no, no! Those are all 'isolated incidents'. Muslims who commit terrorist acts are not real Muslims. The caste system is dying out . . . honest (and it was started by the British anyway) etc etc. None of those activities are in any way indicative of those groups as a whole while we all know that any time whitey does something bad then we all bear collective responsibility.
  21. “Having a slave gave me grave doubts about what kind of people we were, what kind of place we came from. Whether we deserved to be accepted.”

    Not me. You’re the tops!

    Read More
  22. @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    Are you telling us that those Chinese males who worked hard to provide for their families were also preventing their daughters from being abused?

    Read More
  23. @Peripatetic commenter

    56 Years a Slave
     
    I see what you did there Steve, but who should be outraged over her being a slave for seven times as long as that other celebrated case?

    Isn't it multiple forms of "cultural aggression" to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?

    That feeling is reserved for White people, don't you know?

    “Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?”

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    Filipinos have that other lead singer of Journey and..... Well, I can't think of anyone else.
    , @Johann Ricke

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.
     
    We did treat Cassius Clay like a God. The reason Tyson never got the same treatment is because he's a violent felon who went to prison. But he's not exactly a pariah - companies have paid him to endorse their product. He does the talk show rounds and appears in movies.

    Heck, for a while, after the Godfather series, mafia dons were treated like good guys within the Italian American community. It wasn't until Goodfellas that a real down-and-dirty treatment of these scumbags was attempted. Before that, you had a guy like Mario Cuomo say that there is no Mafia. Even the benevolent watered-down depiction of the Mafia as represented by Don Corleone was too much for Cuomo.

    Basically, the process of picking folk heroes isn't fully rational. After 8 years of Obama, the guy has an approval rating over 50%. What does that say about the American electorate?
    , @donut
    "Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world." That is BS . I've got no use for furriners but the Filipinos are all right by me . OT

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afam2nIae4o
    , @RW
    Filipinos are a carefree people with a great sense of humour. Not all peoples have that.
    , @jim jones
    I know a Filipino family and the husband worships Duterte, I have endless fun trolling the guy about his support for a genocidal Nazi.
  24. Notice the exquisite white guilt displayed here: “And I now have an opportunity to examine my own lack of knowledge that allowed historical questions about slavery in the Philippines to go unasked.”Catch that? The nice white lady journalist feels personally responsible for not knowing enough about Philipinos to doubt the story she was told about Lola.

    On the other hand, if she had known enough about Philipinos to sniff out a hint of slavery . . . Can you imagine her interrogating Alex Tizon about the possibility that Lola was a slave? “Now, Mr. Tizon, this sounds a lot like that Philipino slave-keeping I’ve been reading about on Mr. Sailer’s blog. Any chance she was a slave?”

    So, if she doesn’t intuit (without any real evidence!) that the loving nanny is actually enslaved, she is a bad white woman for her cultural insensitivity. If she does intuit (without any real evidence!) that the nanny is actually enslaved, she is even worse.

    And so we all get to watch the surreal performance of a white person apologizing for her failure to racially profile a Philipino family as slave-drivers on the basis of their national origin. It’s like Poe’s law, but for SJWs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Arclight
    This is like how SJWs dance around FGM - it's barbaric and against our own moral code, but because the perpetrators are POC, we really can't criticize them.
  25. This is the future. Our incoming middle and upper class has no concept of freedom of speech, no version of constructive criticism, and honestly thinks that censorship works and is moral.
    The entirety of the Asian intellectual promise can be threatened with the question, what would Europeans have innovated if they had the Asian understanding of information? Herodotus contrasted the Greeks, who thought of reality and information about it as outside us, and concluded that no one has perfect authority over information, with the Persians, who looked at information like the modern Chinese government: even math bows to ostensible authority. The formulation was that the Persians were comfortable dismissing anything they could not believe, and naturally, anything that contradicts one’s elders or power structures is hard to believe. The Greeks on the other hand, presupposing that they did not have all the answers and had to go find them when confronted with things that did not already make sense, became what we think of as “The Greeks.” The illustration he gives is a child who killed his parents, set free by a Persian court because nobody could accept that the child might have done it.
    Think of that Japanese officer in “The World At War” smiling and praising Korean comfort women (“No one else could have done that job”). That and Tizon praising his slave’s strong back and lack of complaining is the closest anyone in power will come to admitting to wrongdoing unless whites can hold on to civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    cf. also the entry for "Common sense" in Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary
    , @Anonymous
    Personally I find fortune cookies a marker of an inferior civilization
    , @Anonymous
    cf. also the entry for "Common sense" in Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary
  26. @Formerly CARealist
    Strange that so many women have children that they don't want to raise. I agree with Dr. Laura. Just get a dog instead.

    I worked with a woman who had two children that she barely saw: she worked 10 hour days as a manager, never mind after work obligations, and went home exhausted. A nanny took care of all their needs, including driving them around after school for sports and arts/music. Then she would tell me what a great mother she was. I guess she gave them hard-work genes, but not much in the way of care-taking genes.

    A chum while growing up had a local TV personality for a mom (she got replaced by Oprah). She was never home. The three boys were raised by a sainted Polish nanny who they abused terribly. The only time I would see the mom was Saturday mornings when she worked her way through a bottle of Absolut. Dad was never home either.

    They did not turn out so good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They did not turn out so good.

    Jayman in 3, 2, 1...
  27. @syonredux

    Miss Pulido would live a different kind of love story, one marked by a devotion so rare that even those closest to her still struggle to comprehend it.

    As a teenager in the Philippines, Miss Pulido was asked to care for a young girl whose mother had died. When a relative asked Miss Pulido to always look after the girl, she gave her word.

    Miss Pulido not only raised that girl, but the girl’s children and their children — cooking, cleaning and caring for three generations that came to know her as “Lola,” grandmother in her native Tagalog tongue. She asked for nothing in return, said her grandson [sic], Alex Tizon, a former Seattle Times reporter, with whom she lived in Edmonds for nearly 12 years.
     
    Reads like a eulogy written by a Southern slave-owner after the death of his mammy......

    Say, since the Monument to Southern Slave Mammies never got built*, maybe we should erect one to all the POC slaves serving POC masters.....


    *

    The Mammy Washington Almost Had
    In 1923, the U.S. Senate approved a new monument in D.C. "in memory of the faithful slave mammies of the South."
     

    Yet in 1923, the U.S. Senate authorized such a statue, "in memory of the faithful slave mammies of the South."

    As a Southern Congressman stated in support of the monument: "The traveler, as he passes by, will recall that epoch of southern civilization" when "fidelity and loyalty" prevailed. "No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress."

     

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-mammy-washington-almost-had/276431/

    That famous lawn jockey statue was derived from one commissioned by Washington to memorialize a slave who died keeping horses warm at Valley Forge.

    Read More
  28. …a story in…the Atlantic written by Tizon, who died earlier this year, describes Eudocia Tomas Pulido as a slave and details her relationship with his family spanning decades.

    Massa’s in de cold, cold ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    Jimmie crack corn, and I don't care!
    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ndy15r0iLs
  29. @Mitchell
    Notice the exquisite white guilt displayed here: "And I now have an opportunity to examine my own lack of knowledge that allowed historical questions about slavery in the Philippines to go unasked."Catch that? The nice white lady journalist feels personally responsible for not knowing enough about Philipinos to doubt the story she was told about Lola.

    On the other hand, if she had known enough about Philipinos to sniff out a hint of slavery . . . Can you imagine her interrogating Alex Tizon about the possibility that Lola was a slave? "Now, Mr. Tizon, this sounds a lot like that Philipino slave-keeping I've been reading about on Mr. Sailer's blog. Any chance she was a slave?"

    So, if she doesn't intuit (without any real evidence!) that the loving nanny is actually enslaved, she is a bad white woman for her cultural insensitivity. If she does intuit (without any real evidence!) that the nanny is actually enslaved, she is even worse.

    And so we all get to watch the surreal performance of a white person apologizing for her failure to racially profile a Philipino family as slave-drivers on the basis of their national origin. It's like Poe's law, but for SJWs.

    This is like how SJWs dance around FGM – it’s barbaric and against our own moral code, but because the perpetrators are POC, we really can’t criticize them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitchell
    Back when I went to college, the feminists I knew all hated FGM, but politics make strange bedfellows, and protecting Muslim feelings seems much more important now. If it weren't for the two-party system and its core vs. fringes dynamic, I would imagine that the pro-queer bloc and the pro-Muslim block would belong to two different parties. I and my friends, many of whom were fairly political, wouldn't have had the foggiest idea what POC was. Just before this graph started taking off: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=SJW,problematic.
  30. @Jefferson
    "Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?"

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

    Filipinos have that other lead singer of Journey and….. Well, I can’t think of anyone else.

    Read More
  31. @Jonathan Silber
    ...a story in...the Atlantic written by Tizon, who died earlier this year, describes Eudocia Tomas Pulido as a slave and details her relationship with his family spanning decades.

    Massa's in de cold, cold ground.

    Jimmie crack corn, and I don’t care!

    Read More
  32. @Anon
    Progs used to love to spout off about Equality.

    But because the socio-economic reality dominated by globo-progs is so unequal, the preferred terminology is 'inclusion' than 'equality'.

    It's like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they've been 'included' to serve as nannies and helots.

    And at least give that Filo family the decency of 'including' a slave into their family.

    That is real tolerance.

    “It’s like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they’ve been ‘included’ to serve as nannies and helots.”

    According to the pro-open borders New York Times, Mexicans are a White ethnic group so how are they not equal in wealth and income with Jews and WASPs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    According to the pro-open borders New York Times, Mexicans are a White ethnic group so how are they not equal in wealth and income with Jews and WASPs?
     
    WASP's are bigots against ethnics even if they are white, and Jews aren't white.

    there ya go, the world according to the the NYTimes
  33. @Dr. X


    I love when this happens.
     
    Ain't diversity grand?

    Slavery, the caste system, clit-cutting, burkas, voodoo, poaching endangered species... the behaviors of Third World browns and blacks, not cisgendered heteronormative white patriarchial males. And yet, the Left wants to let them all in.

    I say, let's do it! Let 'em in -- so long as we domicile them in the Upper East Side, Marin County, the Castro District, Beverly Hills, and on Martha's Vineyard. You'd see every exclusive country club in the nation turned into a Klavern overnight.

    “Ain’t diversity grand?

    Slavery, the caste system, clit-cutting, burkas, voodoo, poaching endangered species… the behaviors of Third World browns and blacks,”

    You forgot to add gang rapes, race riots, polar bear hunting knockout games, sharia law, and Islamic jihad terrorism to the list of wondeful things vibrant diversity has brought to the West.

    Read More
  34. One night I went home with a girl from Alabama who claimed that her family had a black “slave” in the 80s when she was a young girl. Though she seemed sincere, I didn’t pursue the story further because I assumed she couldn’t possibly have meant that this man was an actual slave, and changed the subject. But who knows?

    Read More
  35. @Arclight
    This is like how SJWs dance around FGM - it's barbaric and against our own moral code, but because the perpetrators are POC, we really can't criticize them.

    Back when I went to college, the feminists I knew all hated FGM, but politics make strange bedfellows, and protecting Muslim feelings seems much more important now. If it weren’t for the two-party system and its core vs. fringes dynamic, I would imagine that the pro-queer bloc and the pro-Muslim block would belong to two different parties. I and my friends, many of whom were fairly political, wouldn’t have had the foggiest idea what POC was. Just before this graph started taking off: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=SJW,problematic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Arclight
    Agree. I went to a private large city high school where students from all over the place were thrown together and the majority of the student body had at least partial financial aid to go there. Blacks, whites, Indians, etc. all got along as well as any group of high schoolers - in fact, when there was some tension over black/white issues (this is in the era when a lot of blacks wore Africa necklaces and spouted about Afro-centricity) the school gave everyone a chance to vent and after a lot of talking about their feelz, everyone moved on amicably. The school was probably about 65% white, 20% black, and the rest Asian or Latino.

    Today, I am sure the same school in response to any of this would subject the majority of the student body to a mau-mauing over white privilege, structural racism, and so on, and everyone would leave the experience angry and suspicious of their fellow students.

    Things have definitely gotten worse.
  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Hodag
    A chum while growing up had a local TV personality for a mom (she got replaced by Oprah). She was never home. The three boys were raised by a sainted Polish nanny who they abused terribly. The only time I would see the mom was Saturday mornings when she worked her way through a bottle of Absolut. Dad was never home either.

    They did not turn out so good.

    They did not turn out so good.

    Jayman in 3, 2, 1…

    Read More
  37. Forgive the off topic post:

    http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/yale-dean-loves-diversity-except-for-white-trash

    Asian professor leaves hate-filled yelp reviews ranting about white trash, is not asked to resign. An iSteveish gem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Quick one question quiz...

    Who is the Yale racist?

    A) http://ydn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Chu_reviews.pdf

    B) https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/09070305/Email_From_Erika.pdf
  38. @syonredux

    Miss Pulido would live a different kind of love story, one marked by a devotion so rare that even those closest to her still struggle to comprehend it.

    As a teenager in the Philippines, Miss Pulido was asked to care for a young girl whose mother had died. When a relative asked Miss Pulido to always look after the girl, she gave her word.

    Miss Pulido not only raised that girl, but the girl’s children and their children — cooking, cleaning and caring for three generations that came to know her as “Lola,” grandmother in her native Tagalog tongue. She asked for nothing in return, said her grandson [sic], Alex Tizon, a former Seattle Times reporter, with whom she lived in Edmonds for nearly 12 years.
     
    Reads like a eulogy written by a Southern slave-owner after the death of his mammy......

    Say, since the Monument to Southern Slave Mammies never got built*, maybe we should erect one to all the POC slaves serving POC masters.....


    *

    The Mammy Washington Almost Had
    In 1923, the U.S. Senate approved a new monument in D.C. "in memory of the faithful slave mammies of the South."
     

    Yet in 1923, the U.S. Senate authorized such a statue, "in memory of the faithful slave mammies of the South."

    As a Southern Congressman stated in support of the monument: "The traveler, as he passes by, will recall that epoch of southern civilization" when "fidelity and loyalty" prevailed. "No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress."

     

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-mammy-washington-almost-had/276431/

    >that epoch of southern civilization” when “fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. “No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress.

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world
     
    There have been comparative studies with Brazil and the Caribbean (comparing death rates, etc), and they show that slaves in the Southern US were treated better.
    , @Lot
    Most slaves were worked on large cotton plantations and were treated horribly.

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.
  39. I love how the coming to terms with one’s fundamental assholehood is often described as a “journey.”

    Read More
  40. I don’t know. Is slave the right word? If she said she was going back to the Philippines, could they have stopped her? Could they have “sold” her to someone else against her will? Maybe she just worked for room and board since it was her best alternative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Are these questions you would ask if Tizon was Donald Trump?
  41. @Jonathan Silber
    ...a story in...the Atlantic written by Tizon, who died earlier this year, describes Eudocia Tomas Pulido as a slave and details her relationship with his family spanning decades.

    Massa's in de cold, cold ground.

    Read More
  42. Excuse me, but wherein lies the slavery? Agreeing to perform domestic chores in return for room and board does not amount to slavery, even absent a salary, wages, a per diem or an allowance. If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery. The fact that a dying race hustler, hoping to make one last journalistic splash, albeit posthumously, supposedly decided, years after her death, to call the woman’s choice “slavery” does not make it so, legally or factually.

    I had an old-maid aunt who was unable to function in the workplace due to her phobic nature. She kept house for my two other old-maid aunts, one of whom was a secretary and one of whom was a public-school teacher. She was not paid by them, but she was kept from homelessness and a premature death by their allowing her to live with them for virtually her entire adult life, until she died in her mid-80s, four years after one of her older sisters. My surviving aunt, now 90, was not a slavemaster for housing and feeding her baby sister for decades– which she did even though they did not get along and argued constantly!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How about actually reading the article? Your phobic aunt (who was presumably not deceived, regularly worked to exhaustion at the beck and call of a household of 7, fed scraps, or beaten) is not relevant here. This was an apparently healthy girl browbeaten into servitude from early youth, abused physically and mentally, and then only lured to the US under false pretenses.

    Once there, I'm sure she could've slipped away. However, we don't know what she might've been threatened with by the people who'd abused her her entire adult life. Or what she, as an illiterate Tagalog-speaking peasant, was told or allowed to know about the outside world and American laws and authorities. Alex Tizon could have told us, but his story was never really about the woman his family abused, only about what a stand-up guy and brave journalist he supposedly was.

    , @AnotherGuessModel
    This was a tough one, so it took a couple of days for resourceful apologists to find a way to spin this, with the obfuscation of "It's not the same as slavery by whites, it's like, really complicated" to tide them over until then. Turns out to be that old relativism card, "But but, cultural context!"
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    OK, so you want to be able to mistreat your relatives or, in this case, someone who wasn't even a relative, and do so for some 60 years all the while failing to offer them a living wage or even a minimum wage or any benefits.

    I see. I guess we can send the thought police around to your place then.
    , @Opinionator
    If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery.

    But if she in effect had no choice, that is, had no other practical option in her life that was reasonable, then what is the difference?

    , @jesse helms think-alike
    I was going to write something along these lines but you've read my mind and transcribed my thoughts.
    Tizon chose to use the inflammatory word "slave' to make his story sexy. And it worked. people worldwide are talking about it. maybe he was angling for a second Pulitzer

    If the same story was told without that one word. It would be an all too familiar tale of a life spent in domestic service, a life of endless work and drudgery. But not slavery in the sense that she could be bought or sold or subject to brutality or even murder with no consequence. As many other s have said this is an all too common arrangement in the third world. We wealthy westerners have forgotten that in much of the world guaranteed food and shelter in exchange for (unlimited) work is thought to be a fair deal
  43. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height and pick up all litter left upon it by others. Compensation: Zero.

    Something is going on here that I don't like.

    The city I’m in charges me a city tax, to cover presumably all the shiftless bums I see slumming around on my way to my 60hr wk job. I’m none too fond of it, either.

    Just part of modern American life under liberal occupation. Let those who work hard pay for those who won’t, blame the productive for the faults of the incompetent, and indoctrinate the kids of those who behave to hate them and by extension themselves unless they chip in to keep the liberal train recklessly zooming along towards the cliff…

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    ... while being told, "you didn't build that".
  44. @Flip
    I don't know. Is slave the right word? If she said she was going back to the Philippines, could they have stopped her? Could they have "sold" her to someone else against her will? Maybe she just worked for room and board since it was her best alternative.

    Are these questions you would ask if Tizon was Donald Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    I am sure I am more in favor of Trump than a lefty writer.
  45. Speaking for the ante bellum South I object to the term slave. Back then they would claim that Southern slaves were permitted normal family lives including marriage. They would use the term coolie for Asians like the one descibed in the article, they claimed were worked to death and not permitted to have famillies. Coolies were used as labor in the British colonies.

    And did her employer pay FICA tax and workers comp+unemployement? Where are the fight for $15/hr people?

    Read More
  46. @Selvar
    "Just get a dog instead."

    A frankly terrible mindset to encourage. Women who are not perfect mothers should still reproduce to sustain the birthrate above replacement. Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it's their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.

    I hear you.

    what just bugs me is that women are growing up being taught that staying home to care for your kids is demeaning. You only have status and worth if you go out for a career, the more demanding the better. Then any kids that may result are handed off to the nannies and daycares. These women never learn what it means to make a home and the men they partner with never get the love and respect they need. It’s just a lose-lose-lose situation and I see it everywhere. Fortunately lots of women do learn a better way through practical living. Life is really conservative when you get right down to it!

    Read More
  47. @Jefferson
    "Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?"

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    We did treat Cassius Clay like a God. The reason Tyson never got the same treatment is because he’s a violent felon who went to prison. But he’s not exactly a pariah – companies have paid him to endorse their product. He does the talk show rounds and appears in movies.

    Heck, for a while, after the Godfather series, mafia dons were treated like good guys within the Italian American community. It wasn’t until Goodfellas that a real down-and-dirty treatment of these scumbags was attempted. Before that, you had a guy like Mario Cuomo say that there is no Mafia. Even the benevolent watered-down depiction of the Mafia as represented by Don Corleone was too much for Cuomo.

    Basically, the process of picking folk heroes isn’t fully rational. After 8 years of Obama, the guy has an approval rating over 50%. What does that say about the American electorate?

    Read More
  48. @Mitchell
    Back when I went to college, the feminists I knew all hated FGM, but politics make strange bedfellows, and protecting Muslim feelings seems much more important now. If it weren't for the two-party system and its core vs. fringes dynamic, I would imagine that the pro-queer bloc and the pro-Muslim block would belong to two different parties. I and my friends, many of whom were fairly political, wouldn't have had the foggiest idea what POC was. Just before this graph started taking off: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=SJW,problematic.

    Agree. I went to a private large city high school where students from all over the place were thrown together and the majority of the student body had at least partial financial aid to go there. Blacks, whites, Indians, etc. all got along as well as any group of high schoolers – in fact, when there was some tension over black/white issues (this is in the era when a lot of blacks wore Africa necklaces and spouted about Afro-centricity) the school gave everyone a chance to vent and after a lot of talking about their feelz, everyone moved on amicably. The school was probably about 65% white, 20% black, and the rest Asian or Latino.

    Today, I am sure the same school in response to any of this would subject the majority of the student body to a mau-mauing over white privilege, structural racism, and so on, and everyone would leave the experience angry and suspicious of their fellow students.

    Things have definitely gotten worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    That 65% helps too. Increasingly no longer the case.
  49. @27 year old
    >that epoch of southern civilization” when “fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. “No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress.

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world

    There have been comparative studies with Brazil and the Caribbean (comparing death rates, etc), and they show that slaves in the Southern US were treated better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Obviously - look at the number of blacks in the U.S. today versus the number of blacks in the areas where Arab slave-traders worked. Castration helped, too. As bad as slavery was in the Americas, it was far worse in the East.
  50. “By the way, what % of slaveowners in modern America are immigrants?”

    Excluding sex creeps like Ariel Castro (‘Rican) and the Elizabeth Smart episode, 98%?

    Read More
  51. @J.Ross
    Are these questions you would ask if Tizon was Donald Trump?

    I am sure I am more in favor of Trump than a lefty writer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I might be wrong but my understanding of the basis of American slavery was that it grew gradually out of debt to be paid in labor like in feudalism, rather than springing forth fully formed like Tennessee Totes would babble about. In other words, at the very beginning, these debts were theoretically dischargeable, but piled up company store style.
  52. @Selvar
    "Just get a dog instead."

    A frankly terrible mindset to encourage. Women who are not perfect mothers should still reproduce to sustain the birthrate above replacement. Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it's their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.

    Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it’s their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.

    Well, both my parents went to boarding school in the 1940s, and my wife and her father and his ancestors for a long way back all went to boarding school too. I don’t think it was a question of anyone’s not wanting or being able to raise children. It was what was considered normal among the people in question.

    Read More
  53. @Klee
    According to the linked article she was drawing social security .

    She did not get regular social security since she never paid payroll taxes, but SSI.

    Here is a 1995 NYT expose about how up to half of some elderly immigrant groups get on SSI, which is now about $8,000 a year for life for people who never paid a penny in taxes. Since she lived to 86 if I remember right, sounds like her cash payments adjusting for inflation were about $160,000, plus of course Medicare and Medicaid for two decades.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/16/nyregion/for-elderly-immigrants-a-retirement-plan-in-us.html

    Read More
  54. @Flip
    I am sure I am more in favor of Trump than a lefty writer.

    I might be wrong but my understanding of the basis of American slavery was that it grew gradually out of debt to be paid in labor like in feudalism, rather than springing forth fully formed like Tennessee Totes would babble about. In other words, at the very beginning, these debts were theoretically dischargeable, but piled up company store style.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    You are wrong, about both feudalism and American slavery. Though there were various kinds of bondage found in both systems, and some of them may resemble what you're talking about. (Lingering indentured servitude?)

    Multi-generational slavery isn't something you back into like that, generally.
    , @Marina
    My vague memory from school was that African slavery started with indenture terms to pay for passage, under similar terms as white indentured servants from the British Isles: 7 years, and about a 50-50 chance of living to the end of your indenture. But African indentures were always coercive and British ones sometimes were (indentured servitude to the New World or imprisonment, forcible impressment, etc.) and sometimes weren't. Actual enslavement followed as it became clear that Africans could survive tropical diseases that killed indentured Europeans and because it was much harder for them to run away and fade into the surrounding society due to a different skin color. That's also when the whole idea of generational enslavement happened: the children of white indentured servants were always born free. Does that match anybody else's recollections?
    , @anonymous coward
    Not true, the first American slaveowner was an immigrant from Africa. Slavery was, in fact, imported wholesale by the 'diverse' folk. (And black ones, no less!)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

    This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.
     
    , @iffen
    Your understanding is incorrect.
  55. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @D. K.
    Excuse me, but wherein lies the slavery? Agreeing to perform domestic chores in return for room and board does not amount to slavery, even absent a salary, wages, a per diem or an allowance. If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery. The fact that a dying race hustler, hoping to make one last journalistic splash, albeit posthumously, supposedly decided, years after her death, to call the woman's choice "slavery" does not make it so, legally or factually.

    I had an old-maid aunt who was unable to function in the workplace due to her phobic nature. She kept house for my two other old-maid aunts, one of whom was a secretary and one of whom was a public-school teacher. She was not paid by them, but she was kept from homelessness and a premature death by their allowing her to live with them for virtually her entire adult life, until she died in her mid-80s, four years after one of her older sisters. My surviving aunt, now 90, was not a slavemaster for housing and feeding her baby sister for decades-- which she did even though they did not get along and argued constantly!

    How about actually reading the article? Your phobic aunt (who was presumably not deceived, regularly worked to exhaustion at the beck and call of a household of 7, fed scraps, or beaten) is not relevant here. This was an apparently healthy girl browbeaten into servitude from early youth, abused physically and mentally, and then only lured to the US under false pretenses.

    Once there, I’m sure she could’ve slipped away. However, we don’t know what she might’ve been threatened with by the people who’d abused her her entire adult life. Or what she, as an illiterate Tagalog-speaking peasant, was told or allowed to know about the outside world and American laws and authorities. Alex Tizon could have told us, but his story was never really about the woman his family abused, only about what a stand-up guy and brave journalist he supposedly was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I was responding to this blog post-- not to a June 2017 article in "The Atlantic" to which this blog post did not see fit to include a link! If you have read that article, already, then what evidence does it contain in support of your characterization, aside from the dubious word of a deceased journalist, who gave a wholly divergent account in 2011, when he had procured a glowing obituary of the same woman from his former colleagues at "The Seattle Times"? Was he lying back then, or was he lying just recently? Are there other living, first-hand witnesses cited in the article as to any force or coercion being responsible for the woman's decades of service, or is the evidence merely his unsupported word, contrary to what he had previously claimed, in the wake of her death?
    , @D. K.
    Okay, I now have read a long article that I could have done just as well without reading. (I lived with several Filipinas, in Seattle, in my younger days, so I am quite familiar with their cultural proclivities.) As a former attorney, I fail to see a case of de facto slavery-- even before the father deserted the family, or the doctor-mother's death. The late author calls her a slave-- whether he actually called her that when he was a young man, as he claimed in this posthumously published article-- but his mother obviously was taken aback by the notion that the arrangement amounted to slavery. He provides no evidence that Lola ever attempted to leave, and was prohibited. He provides no evidence that she even desired to leave, other than to visit the Philippines-- which was a prohibitively expensive undertaking, back then, for a financially strapped family, as he paints his. She agreed to move with the family to America-- which is hardly standard operating procedure in a master-slave relationship. She was allowed to leave the house, apparently without supervision or accompaniment. Her working long hours and being chastised constantly by his parents do not equate to her being enslaved, as a matter of either criminal or civil law. Her having a lonely, loveless, heavily circumscribed life that none of us would desire, choose or accept does not make her a retroactive slave, just because the author supposedly chose to view her that way.

    Then again, I have watched "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" (1962) countless times, in the fifty-some years since it premiered on network television, when I was a boy, and it never once struck me that 'Pompey' (Woody Strode) was the slave (whether de jure, then, or de facto, years earlier) of 'Tom Doniphon' (John Wayne), as claimed by the late author of the new "Atlantic" article.
  56. “Even typing those words makes me sick, as does knowing, as I do now, that I wrote about slavery as a love story”

    Really, all this strikes me as faux outrage.

    She was someone working for room and board and who had ties to the family. This used to be very common in Latin America and I think it may still be common in the Philippines.

    She was not chained or forced to live with them. Would it be better if the got a sub-minimum wage salary and went every night after work to a slum? Maybe. Maybe not.

    Anyway, the only reason the Left pretends to hate slavery is because historical African slavery can still be used as a club against white people.

    They love their serfs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "This used to be common in Latin America and I think it may still be common in the Philippines"

    What does that have to do with Current Year mainstream America? You think part of Steve's point in posting these stories is to highlight how un-American imported Latin American/Filipino culture can be?

    Actually, I know it was, because it was in his headline.
  57. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “56 years a slave”

    Hey, now, who can blame these immigrants wanting to capitalize on the opportunities the West offers? With modern Western medicine and prosperity, an Asian can bring in an adult slave and keep the whip cracking for 56 years nowadays. With a return on their money like that, no wonder so many Asians are stacking up the wealth.

    Read More
  58. @27 year old
    >that epoch of southern civilization” when “fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. “No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more free from care or distress.

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world

    Most slaves were worked on large cotton plantations and were treated horribly.

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Agreed, but it is true the servants were treated [relatively speaking] much better, hence the term "house negro."
    , @27 year old
    >old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It's not their fault they didn't anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc... Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.
    , @guest
    "forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history"

    That's like blaming the Romanovs for the crimes of the Bolsheviks because Tsarist misrule made the October Coup possible. You know who's more to blame for Bolshevism? The Bolsheviks.

    In any case, who says the black population had (or have) to be here permanently? Why ignore the fact that the Southern elites weren't alone in importing Africans? Or that the South isn't to blame for the rest of the nation preventing them using the system they had developed for dealing with the Black Question (apartheid plus periodic terrorism)?
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    That's why I find it comical that so many posters here claim mass non-white immigration started due to the 1965 Act.

    The reality is that mass non-white immigration started way back in the colonial era, due to the slave trade. The model for slavery was first conceived around 1555.

    So rather than blaming the 1965 Immigration Act for mass non-white immigration, perhaps the posters here should start blaming the 1555 Act.
  59. @D. K.
    Excuse me, but wherein lies the slavery? Agreeing to perform domestic chores in return for room and board does not amount to slavery, even absent a salary, wages, a per diem or an allowance. If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery. The fact that a dying race hustler, hoping to make one last journalistic splash, albeit posthumously, supposedly decided, years after her death, to call the woman's choice "slavery" does not make it so, legally or factually.

    I had an old-maid aunt who was unable to function in the workplace due to her phobic nature. She kept house for my two other old-maid aunts, one of whom was a secretary and one of whom was a public-school teacher. She was not paid by them, but she was kept from homelessness and a premature death by their allowing her to live with them for virtually her entire adult life, until she died in her mid-80s, four years after one of her older sisters. My surviving aunt, now 90, was not a slavemaster for housing and feeding her baby sister for decades-- which she did even though they did not get along and argued constantly!

    This was a tough one, so it took a couple of days for resourceful apologists to find a way to spin this, with the obfuscation of “It’s not the same as slavery by whites, it’s like, really complicated” to tide them over until then. Turns out to be that old relativism card, “But but, cultural context!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    The salient issue has nothing to do with cultural relativism. It has to do with whether the new story is essentially true or not. There is no de jure slavery in the United States. Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion-- not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!
  60. @D. K.
    Excuse me, but wherein lies the slavery? Agreeing to perform domestic chores in return for room and board does not amount to slavery, even absent a salary, wages, a per diem or an allowance. If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery. The fact that a dying race hustler, hoping to make one last journalistic splash, albeit posthumously, supposedly decided, years after her death, to call the woman's choice "slavery" does not make it so, legally or factually.

    I had an old-maid aunt who was unable to function in the workplace due to her phobic nature. She kept house for my two other old-maid aunts, one of whom was a secretary and one of whom was a public-school teacher. She was not paid by them, but she was kept from homelessness and a premature death by their allowing her to live with them for virtually her entire adult life, until she died in her mid-80s, four years after one of her older sisters. My surviving aunt, now 90, was not a slavemaster for housing and feeding her baby sister for decades-- which she did even though they did not get along and argued constantly!

    OK, so you want to be able to mistreat your relatives or, in this case, someone who wasn’t even a relative, and do so for some 60 years all the while failing to offer them a living wage or even a minimum wage or any benefits.

    I see. I guess we can send the thought police around to your place then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    How did my aunts mistreat their sister? By giving her a nice home and feeding her for decades, instead of letting her die homeless, back in the 1950s?
  61. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height and pick up all litter left upon it by others. Compensation: Zero.

    Something is going on here that I don't like.

    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height…

    Tell them you’re “restoring the prairie”.

    …and pick up all litter left upon it by others.

    Tell them you’re composting. Leave copies of Mother Earth News near the front entrance for cover.

    Read More
  62. What is that reporter’s beef? Filipino slavery IS a story of bravery and love.

    Read More
  63. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The City in which I am resident demands, under penalty of fine, that I mow my lawn to the demanded height and pick up all litter left upon it by others. Compensation: Zero.

    Something is going on here that I don't like.

    I hear you, but the usual reason for this is to keep the place looking nice and keep property values up. It’s actually quite defensible on conservative grounds, if not libertarian ones.

    Read More
  64. @Arclight
    Agree. I went to a private large city high school where students from all over the place were thrown together and the majority of the student body had at least partial financial aid to go there. Blacks, whites, Indians, etc. all got along as well as any group of high schoolers - in fact, when there was some tension over black/white issues (this is in the era when a lot of blacks wore Africa necklaces and spouted about Afro-centricity) the school gave everyone a chance to vent and after a lot of talking about their feelz, everyone moved on amicably. The school was probably about 65% white, 20% black, and the rest Asian or Latino.

    Today, I am sure the same school in response to any of this would subject the majority of the student body to a mau-mauing over white privilege, structural racism, and so on, and everyone would leave the experience angry and suspicious of their fellow students.

    Things have definitely gotten worse.

    That 65% helps too. Increasingly no longer the case.

    Read More
  65. “By the way, what % of slaveowners in modern America are immigrants?”

    To paraphrase T.S. Elliott, mankind cannot bear very much noticing.

    Read More
  66. @Selvar
    "Just get a dog instead."

    A frankly terrible mindset to encourage. Women who are not perfect mothers should still reproduce to sustain the birthrate above replacement. Using nannies is not something I would endorse, but it's their business and they have to live with the consequences. Hell, some people send their kids off to boarding school.

    As you say, the upper crust used to outsource childrearing all the time. I think when it hit the upper middle class, which doesn’t have the resources to hire lots of servants, they just cut out childbearing and that’s the dysgenic trend we’re seeing.

    Read More
  67. There is not much difference between this and paying the prevailing wage in cities like LA. Surviving on $12.00 an hour in a major city is almost certainly an inferior position to a live in slave. After taxes and navigating transport and lodging a lot of people are looking at a slave like existence. A badly treated slave.

    Noblesse oblige as a concept has almost entirely disappeared.

    Read More
    • Agree: 27 year old
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Slavery is a many-splendored thing. Read Robert Wilken on the treatment of manual workers in early Christianizing imperial Rome, they were "free men" all right. Or free to die quickly and be a cheap funeral, as Hank Scorpio might say
    , @Bill P

    There is not much difference between this and paying the prevailing wage in cities like LA. Surviving on $12.00 an hour in a major city is almost certainly an inferior position to a live in slave. After taxes and navigating transport and lodging a lot of people are looking at a slave like existence. A badly treated slave.
     
    No, that's not true. A slave is stuck. Most people making $12/hr can move up with a little patience.

    Being a slave is an abject existence without hope in this world.

    It's a peculiarly oriental tendency to enslave young women for the purpose of domestic work.

    The Chinese character for slave depicts a woman taken by a hand:

    奴隸

    I've heard alternate explanations of the radical, such as the character depicting a woman in manacles, but I rather think it's similar to how slave women are described in the Quran:

    "Those whom your right hands possess"
    , @Formerly CARealist
    People making $12/hour are not paying taxes, unless they're teens living with middle class parents. Even their SS and Medicare can be refunded under the EIC. If they have kids they'll pay a negative income tax: we pay them for working.

    Oh, and "prevailing wage" has a specific meaning that gets perverted into "outrageous costs for gov't structures."

    But I understand the point you're trying to make. Being a low-wage earner in an expensive city can be pretty tough.

  68. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Formerly CARealist
    Strange that so many women have children that they don't want to raise. I agree with Dr. Laura. Just get a dog instead.

    I worked with a woman who had two children that she barely saw: she worked 10 hour days as a manager, never mind after work obligations, and went home exhausted. A nanny took care of all their needs, including driving them around after school for sports and arts/music. Then she would tell me what a great mother she was. I guess she gave them hard-work genes, but not much in the way of care-taking genes.

    Dogs require a fair amount of time and effort too.

    Perhaps they should limit themselves to cats. Or goldfish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Cats and dogs able to be outside in a yard or on farms can entertain and exercise themselves with minimal interaction from their humans. Cats left alone in boring or confining circumstances suffer.

    We can agree that goldfish are okay with minimal attention under all circumstances (they don't even have brains capable of the desire and need for affection and stimulation present in mammals!).

  69. @Jefferson
    "Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?"

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

    “Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.” That is BS . I’ve got no use for furriners but the Filipinos are all right by me . OT

    Read More
  70. @Anonymous
    How about actually reading the article? Your phobic aunt (who was presumably not deceived, regularly worked to exhaustion at the beck and call of a household of 7, fed scraps, or beaten) is not relevant here. This was an apparently healthy girl browbeaten into servitude from early youth, abused physically and mentally, and then only lured to the US under false pretenses.

    Once there, I'm sure she could've slipped away. However, we don't know what she might've been threatened with by the people who'd abused her her entire adult life. Or what she, as an illiterate Tagalog-speaking peasant, was told or allowed to know about the outside world and American laws and authorities. Alex Tizon could have told us, but his story was never really about the woman his family abused, only about what a stand-up guy and brave journalist he supposedly was.

    I was responding to this blog post– not to a June 2017 article in “The Atlantic” to which this blog post did not see fit to include a link! If you have read that article, already, then what evidence does it contain in support of your characterization, aside from the dubious word of a deceased journalist, who gave a wholly divergent account in 2011, when he had procured a glowing obituary of the same woman from his former colleagues at “The Seattle Times”? Was he lying back then, or was he lying just recently? Are there other living, first-hand witnesses cited in the article as to any force or coercion being responsible for the woman’s decades of service, or is the evidence merely his unsupported word, contrary to what he had previously claimed, in the wake of her death?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You sound like the CATO Institute sponsored lawyer for this dead overclass AZN belle-lettrist of peonage. Put down the Ayn Rand potboiler for a second and show some respect for Who We Are As Americans, i.e. transcontinental slavewhuppers
  71. @Lot
    Most slaves were worked on large cotton plantations and were treated horribly.

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Agreed, but it is true the servants were treated [relatively speaking] much better, hence the term “house negro.”

    Read More
  72. @Peripatetic commenter
    OK, so you want to be able to mistreat your relatives or, in this case, someone who wasn't even a relative, and do so for some 60 years all the while failing to offer them a living wage or even a minimum wage or any benefits.

    I see. I guess we can send the thought police around to your place then.

    How did my aunts mistreat their sister? By giving her a nice home and feeding her for decades, instead of letting her die homeless, back in the 1950s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Contaminated NEET
    >die homeless, back in the 1950s

    How do you know she would have died homeless? Maybe the obligation to support herself would have been just what she needed to overcome her phobias. You're very persnickety about how we can't know which of the deathbead-confession virtue-signal version of the story or the loving-saintly-family-friend obituary is the truth, but you'll let a counterfactual reaching back 60 years into evidence. And for what? To justify and forgive the abuse of this poor woman because the perpetrators were the right race.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    As is now well known, written permission is required before entering into an exploitative relationship with anyone (including, but not limited to one-night stands.)

    Even then, written permission can be retroactively declared null and void and evil-white-people behavior.
  73. @J.Ross
    I might be wrong but my understanding of the basis of American slavery was that it grew gradually out of debt to be paid in labor like in feudalism, rather than springing forth fully formed like Tennessee Totes would babble about. In other words, at the very beginning, these debts were theoretically dischargeable, but piled up company store style.

    You are wrong, about both feudalism and American slavery. Though there were various kinds of bondage found in both systems, and some of them may resemble what you’re talking about. (Lingering indentured servitude?)

    Multi-generational slavery isn’t something you back into like that, generally.

    Read More
  74. @Dumbo

    "Even typing those words makes me sick, as does knowing, as I do now, that I wrote about slavery as a love story"

     

    Really, all this strikes me as faux outrage.

    She was someone working for room and board and who had ties to the family. This used to be very common in Latin America and I think it may still be common in the Philippines.

    She was not chained or forced to live with them. Would it be better if the got a sub-minimum wage salary and went every night after work to a slum? Maybe. Maybe not.

    Anyway, the only reason the Left pretends to hate slavery is because historical African slavery can still be used as a club against white people.

    They love their serfs.

    “This used to be common in Latin America and I think it may still be common in the Philippines”

    What does that have to do with Current Year mainstream America? You think part of Steve’s point in posting these stories is to highlight how un-American imported Latin American/Filipino culture can be?

    Actually, I know it was, because it was in his headline.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dumbo
    What's new? Import the third world, get the third world.

    By the way, isn't it time to change this "third world" nomenclature? The "second world" doesn't even exist anymore.
  75. @Lot
    Most slaves were worked on large cotton plantations and were treated horribly.

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    >old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It’s not their fault they didn’t anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc… Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Lee manumitted his slaves and disapproved of slavery; Bezos hungrily demands de facto wage-slaves be imported and created at ever dizzying speeds.
    , @JohnnyWalker123

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It’s not their fault they didn’t anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations.
     
    None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.

    When slaves were brought over, the assumption was they'd forever be a cheap labor class.

    Eternal H-1bs.

    You're defending that?
    , @JohnnyWalker123

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It’s not their fault they didn’t anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc… Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.
     
    Here's something else you're wrong about.

    The slaves, in many instances, got protected status over whites.

    Slaves were taken care of in youth (free daycare), in sickness (free healthcare), and when too old to work (free nursing home care). However, white laborers enjoyed no such privilege. Sure, better off whites could've afforded those services or even used the help of relatives, but there were lots of subsistence white laborers back then. Subsistence laborers (both Northern and Southern) didn't have the privilege of daycare, healthcare, or nursing home care. They were too poor to afford it and their relatives were mostly busy in subsistence labor too, so there weren't many family members with free-time who could be of assistance.

    Southern planters&aristocrats frequently made the argument that their slaves were often better off than poor white laborers, both in the North and the South. It's not neccessarily because Southern elites were more humane to all workers. In the South, white laborers (often Irish) were often worked to death in extremely strenuous conditions. So not everyone benefited from paternalism.

    Another interesting fact is that in the slavery era South, whites were 4.4x more likely to be lynched than blacks.

    So you're wrong that old Southern elites didn't give protected status to blacks. In many ways, blacks were highly protected.

    Sure the standard of living for an average black slave was lower than that of an average White American citizen, but black slaves were better off than White American subsistence laborers (of which there were many). They also had a much better standard of living than Africans back home and were better off than even most European workers&peasants. House slaves in particular had a very high standard of living.

    Sure black slaves couldn't vote, but neither can illegals or H-1bs or any type of guestworker. From what I've seen, modern leaders don't neccessarily always care that much about foreigners voting. Also, back then, poor and uneducated whites often couldn't vote either.

    By the way, let's say you went to white elites of NYC and asked them if they were okay with an arrangement in which NAMs and working-class whites got disenfranchised. Under the arrangment, only college-educated whites would be able to vote in NYC. What would they think of this?

    You could make the argument that black slaves weren't free to leave their employer, but how much "freedom" did the average subsistence laborer have back then? Lots of white subsistence laborers were too poor to move and too uneducated to change their profession. Out of poverty and neccessity, they ended up getting trapped on the plantation of a local landowner and had no way of leaving. The situation for European serfs was no different either.

    So while enslavement was certainly not a pleasant arrangement, it was roughly comparable to the work arrangment of a large fraction of White-Americans and White-Europeans.

    Due to modern propaganda, people believe that slaves had it extremely bad and whites have always had it extremely good. The reality is that back then, almost everyone had it pretty bad. In many cases, whites had it worse than black slaves.

    Both you and modern-day liberals accept the idea that black slaves were treated badly. In your opinion, this bad treatment of blacks proves that White Southern elites were good leaders. In the opinion of liberals, this bad treatment of blacks proves that White Southern elites were barbaric monsters.

    In reality, the slaves weren't that badly treated at all (by the standard of the average White American/Euro of the time). So you (and the various white nationalists who like old Southern elites) are wrong. So are the liberals.

    White Southern elites were very much the Mark Zuckerbergs of the 1600s-1800s. They brought over foreigners, gave them (by the standards of the time) an okay standard of living, and often were paternalistic. They also were very Zuckberg-like in their poor public stewardship and leading their people to disaster.
  76. White women love to grovel and abase themselves to non-Whites. They never EVER do it for White men. When have you last seen a White woman, predictably Upper Class, grovel before some non-White person? Five seconds ago.

    When have you seen a White woman, especially an Upper Class White woman, grovel before a White male? Ever? I can’t think of even one incident, not one.

    The pill, condom, anonymous urban living, and rising female incomes plus mass media consumerism based on female consumption has made White men irrelevant to infuriating to most White women and particularly the Upper Class White women who drive our culture and always have. [I said drive culture, not wield political power, the two are distinct.]

    OF course White women love love love ugly and violent Third World dysfunction, as it hurts their real enemies: White men. And creates the Game of Thrones dystopia that they want to live in, at least for a while. [Most are too stupid to realize its not a vacation but permanent stay. But then, women are not very smart.]

    I’m still waiting to see an apology by female reporters for: the UVA Frat, Richard Jewell, the Hawaiian Shirt dude, etc.

    Read More
  77. @Anonymous
    Dogs require a fair amount of time and effort too.

    Perhaps they should limit themselves to cats. Or goldfish.

    Cats and dogs able to be outside in a yard or on farms can entertain and exercise themselves with minimal interaction from their humans. Cats left alone in boring or confining circumstances suffer.

    We can agree that goldfish are okay with minimal attention under all circumstances (they don’t even have brains capable of the desire and need for affection and stimulation present in mammals!).

    Read More
  78. @J.Ross
    I might be wrong but my understanding of the basis of American slavery was that it grew gradually out of debt to be paid in labor like in feudalism, rather than springing forth fully formed like Tennessee Totes would babble about. In other words, at the very beginning, these debts were theoretically dischargeable, but piled up company store style.

    My vague memory from school was that African slavery started with indenture terms to pay for passage, under similar terms as white indentured servants from the British Isles: 7 years, and about a 50-50 chance of living to the end of your indenture. But African indentures were always coercive and British ones sometimes were (indentured servitude to the New World or imprisonment, forcible impressment, etc.) and sometimes weren’t. Actual enslavement followed as it became clear that Africans could survive tropical diseases that killed indentured Europeans and because it was much harder for them to run away and fade into the surrounding society due to a different skin color. That’s also when the whole idea of generational enslavement happened: the children of white indentured servants were always born free. Does that match anybody else’s recollections?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    In that case, the offspring of African slaves wouldn't be slaves because their parents had racked up too big a bill to pay off. They'd be slaves because they're worth money to the masters, they couldn't run away, and no one was writing Uncle Tom's Cabins about their plight.
    , @Sammler
    No. Slavery is older than America, and older than indentured servitude. The Portuguese were trading slaves along the west coast of Africa before Columbus.
  79. @27 year old
    >old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It's not their fault they didn't anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc... Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.

    Lee manumitted his slaves and disapproved of slavery; Bezos hungrily demands de facto wage-slaves be imported and created at ever dizzying speeds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Therefore, antebellum southern elites are better than the Meritocratic Winners In The 21st Century Meritocracy (tm)
  80. @AnotherGuessModel
    This was a tough one, so it took a couple of days for resourceful apologists to find a way to spin this, with the obfuscation of "It's not the same as slavery by whites, it's like, really complicated" to tide them over until then. Turns out to be that old relativism card, "But but, cultural context!"

    The salient issue has nothing to do with cultural relativism. It has to do with whether the new story is essentially true or not. There is no de jure slavery in the United States. Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion– not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I don't much care whether she was actually a slave. She's just one person. The salient issue for me is what sort of culture is being imported, plus how uncomfortable can we make progs about it.
    , @Opinionator
    Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion– not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable.
  81. “In retrospect, the obituary reads as a whitewash”

    I think you mean yellow-wash.

    Read More
  82. @Lot
    Most slaves were worked on large cotton plantations and were treated horribly.

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    “forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history”

    That’s like blaming the Romanovs for the crimes of the Bolsheviks because Tsarist misrule made the October Coup possible. You know who’s more to blame for Bolshevism? The Bolsheviks.

    In any case, who says the black population had (or have) to be here permanently? Why ignore the fact that the Southern elites weren’t alone in importing Africans? Or that the South isn’t to blame for the rest of the nation preventing them using the system they had developed for dealing with the Black Question (apartheid plus periodic terrorism)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    There were a lot of slaves in colonial New York. Both in the city and in the surrounding farm areas.
    , @JohnnyWalker123

    In any case, who says the black population had (or have) to be here permanently?
     
    The slave owners. That's who. They fought to keep slaves here in the U.S. Lincoln wanted to colonize (deport) slaves from America.

    Or that the South isn’t to blame for the rest of the nation preventing them using the system they had developed for dealing with the Black Question (apartheid plus periodic terrorism)?

     

    There was no apartheid. Blacks and whites lived and worked in the same areas. Segregation may have been an ideal, but the practical reality was that blacks and whites mixed constantly. Unlike South Africa, the U.S. never had black homelands.

    Are you saying the slavery was a successful model?
  83. @D. K.
    The salient issue has nothing to do with cultural relativism. It has to do with whether the new story is essentially true or not. There is no de jure slavery in the United States. Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion-- not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    I don’t much care whether she was actually a slave. She’s just one person. The salient issue for me is what sort of culture is being imported, plus how uncomfortable can we make progs about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I am against mass immigration on principle-- not just into the United States, but everywhere. I consider the 1965 Hart-Celler Act to have been the death warrant for the American nation. I have not opined on whether what happened to Lola was moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, understandable or unconscionable. I merely have stated my opinion, as a retired attorney, that I do not see her described circumstances-- even accepting those described circumstances at face value, for the sake of argument-- to amount to slavery, as a matter of American law, be it civil or criminal. If someone wants to argue that her circumstances were "akin to slavery," fine; that is not a legal description or prohibition.
  84. @Marina
    My vague memory from school was that African slavery started with indenture terms to pay for passage, under similar terms as white indentured servants from the British Isles: 7 years, and about a 50-50 chance of living to the end of your indenture. But African indentures were always coercive and British ones sometimes were (indentured servitude to the New World or imprisonment, forcible impressment, etc.) and sometimes weren't. Actual enslavement followed as it became clear that Africans could survive tropical diseases that killed indentured Europeans and because it was much harder for them to run away and fade into the surrounding society due to a different skin color. That's also when the whole idea of generational enslavement happened: the children of white indentured servants were always born free. Does that match anybody else's recollections?

    In that case, the offspring of African slaves wouldn’t be slaves because their parents had racked up too big a bill to pay off. They’d be slaves because they’re worth money to the masters, they couldn’t run away, and no one was writing Uncle Tom’s Cabins about their plight.

    Read More
  85. @syonredux

    I dunno, it seems like a pretty safe bet that tidewater Virginians and etc did in fact treat their slaves much better than other slaveowners in say the Arab world
     
    There have been comparative studies with Brazil and the Caribbean (comparing death rates, etc), and they show that slaves in the Southern US were treated better.

    Obviously – look at the number of blacks in the U.S. today versus the number of blacks in the areas where Arab slave-traders worked. Castration helped, too. As bad as slavery was in the Americas, it was far worse in the East.

    Read More
  86. I think I will go listen to some Samuel Barber and contemplate the slaves I have never owned:

    Read More
  87. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @J.Ross
    This is the future. Our incoming middle and upper class has no concept of freedom of speech, no version of constructive criticism, and honestly thinks that censorship works and is moral.
    The entirety of the Asian intellectual promise can be threatened with the question, what would Europeans have innovated if they had the Asian understanding of information? Herodotus contrasted the Greeks, who thought of reality and information about it as outside us, and concluded that no one has perfect authority over information, with the Persians, who looked at information like the modern Chinese government: even math bows to ostensible authority. The formulation was that the Persians were comfortable dismissing anything they could not believe, and naturally, anything that contradicts one's elders or power structures is hard to believe. The Greeks on the other hand, presupposing that they did not have all the answers and had to go find them when confronted with things that did not already make sense, became what we think of as "The Greeks." The illustration he gives is a child who killed his parents, set free by a Persian court because nobody could accept that the child might have done it.
    Think of that Japanese officer in "The World At War" smiling and praising Korean comfort women ("No one else could have done that job"). That and Tizon praising his slave's strong back and lack of complaining is the closest anyone in power will come to admitting to wrongdoing unless whites can hold on to civilization.

    cf. also the entry for “Common sense” in Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

    Read More
  88. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @J.Ross
    This is the future. Our incoming middle and upper class has no concept of freedom of speech, no version of constructive criticism, and honestly thinks that censorship works and is moral.
    The entirety of the Asian intellectual promise can be threatened with the question, what would Europeans have innovated if they had the Asian understanding of information? Herodotus contrasted the Greeks, who thought of reality and information about it as outside us, and concluded that no one has perfect authority over information, with the Persians, who looked at information like the modern Chinese government: even math bows to ostensible authority. The formulation was that the Persians were comfortable dismissing anything they could not believe, and naturally, anything that contradicts one's elders or power structures is hard to believe. The Greeks on the other hand, presupposing that they did not have all the answers and had to go find them when confronted with things that did not already make sense, became what we think of as "The Greeks." The illustration he gives is a child who killed his parents, set free by a Persian court because nobody could accept that the child might have done it.
    Think of that Japanese officer in "The World At War" smiling and praising Korean comfort women ("No one else could have done that job"). That and Tizon praising his slave's strong back and lack of complaining is the closest anyone in power will come to admitting to wrongdoing unless whites can hold on to civilization.

    Personally I find fortune cookies a marker of an inferior civilization

    Read More
  89. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @J.Ross
    This is the future. Our incoming middle and upper class has no concept of freedom of speech, no version of constructive criticism, and honestly thinks that censorship works and is moral.
    The entirety of the Asian intellectual promise can be threatened with the question, what would Europeans have innovated if they had the Asian understanding of information? Herodotus contrasted the Greeks, who thought of reality and information about it as outside us, and concluded that no one has perfect authority over information, with the Persians, who looked at information like the modern Chinese government: even math bows to ostensible authority. The formulation was that the Persians were comfortable dismissing anything they could not believe, and naturally, anything that contradicts one's elders or power structures is hard to believe. The Greeks on the other hand, presupposing that they did not have all the answers and had to go find them when confronted with things that did not already make sense, became what we think of as "The Greeks." The illustration he gives is a child who killed his parents, set free by a Persian court because nobody could accept that the child might have done it.
    Think of that Japanese officer in "The World At War" smiling and praising Korean comfort women ("No one else could have done that job"). That and Tizon praising his slave's strong back and lack of complaining is the closest anyone in power will come to admitting to wrongdoing unless whites can hold on to civilization.

    cf. also the entry for “Common sense” in Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

    Read More
  90. @Autochthon
    Lee manumitted his slaves and disapproved of slavery; Bezos hungrily demands de facto wage-slaves be imported and created at ever dizzying speeds.

    Therefore, antebellum southern elites are better than the Meritocratic Winners In The 21st Century Meritocracy ™

    Read More
  91. @Marina
    Tizon's mother was a doctor with five children. Turns out you really can have it all, provided you have a poorer, browner woman providing heroic amounts of free labor for you!

    The wife of the PM of NZ is a doctor with five kids. I don’t believe she owns a slave.

    Read More
  92. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    ‘Term’ means word or meaning, like in terminology.

    I’m thinking ‘term’ is linguistically related to ‘terminate’ and ‘terminal’.

    In a way, it makes sense.

    When you bestow a term or word-meaning on something, you are terminating its ‘freedom’ and ‘possibility’. Before something is named, it can be called anything. And its meaning isn’t yet fixed. It is ‘open’ as a phenomenon.

    For example, a certain fish is a strange wonderful complex creature. Before it is named, it is an open phenomenon. But once it is named say, ‘dogfish’, it is only that and nothing else. Also, because of ‘dog-’ in the name, people see the fish in terms of its similarity to dogs even though it has nothing to do with dogs. It may even lose value as food item since people will feel like they’re eating something doggish.

    In a way, progressivism has been rethinking the problem of terminology because certain objects and phenomena got ‘terminated’ or fixed with certain words that bestowed narrow meaning on them, sometimes with negative connotations. This can become ludicrous at times, but sometimes it is justified. It’s probably a good thing to get rid of terms like ‘garbage man’. It has a way of associating the worker who disposes garbage with the garbage itself, like Oscar the muppet. Sanitation worker is better.

    But, progressivism has come to abuse terminology to ‘terminate’ the complexity of meaning of many phenomena and realities. Race is a very complex phenomena with many nuances, subtleties, variables, and complications. Yet, the term ‘racism’ terminates the wide range of meaning and insists only on one: “Any theory of race is evil and sick and demented.”

    So, PC goes for terminationism when it comes to host of phenomena that actually deserve more attention, scrutiny, and consideration. Such abuse of terminology shuts down thought by insisting on only one meaning as pertaining to the phenomenon. It uses a loaded term to terminate free thinking about complex phenomena with no simple answer.

    What we need is a return to phenomenonism that thinks about something’s phenomenological complexity liberated from the PC term designed to terminate all thinking about it.

    Read More
  93. @Dr. X


    I love when this happens.
     
    Ain't diversity grand?

    Slavery, the caste system, clit-cutting, burkas, voodoo, poaching endangered species... the behaviors of Third World browns and blacks, not cisgendered heteronormative white patriarchial males. And yet, the Left wants to let them all in.

    I say, let's do it! Let 'em in -- so long as we domicile them in the Upper East Side, Marin County, the Castro District, Beverly Hills, and on Martha's Vineyard. You'd see every exclusive country club in the nation turned into a Klavern overnight.

    No, no, no! Those are all ‘isolated incidents’. Muslims who commit terrorist acts are not real Muslims. The caste system is dying out . . . honest (and it was started by the British anyway) etc etc. None of those activities are in any way indicative of those groups as a whole while we all know that any time whitey does something bad then we all bear collective responsibility.

    Read More
  94. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mike1
    There is not much difference between this and paying the prevailing wage in cities like LA. Surviving on $12.00 an hour in a major city is almost certainly an inferior position to a live in slave. After taxes and navigating transport and lodging a lot of people are looking at a slave like existence. A badly treated slave.

    Noblesse oblige as a concept has almost entirely disappeared.

    Slavery is a many-splendored thing. Read Robert Wilken on the treatment of manual workers in early Christianizing imperial Rome, they were “free men” all right. Or free to die quickly and be a cheap funeral, as Hank Scorpio might say

    Read More
  95. The real problem for the Left with the revelation of these kinds of practices isn’t that it undermines their case for immigration, per se. The number of immigrants sneaking in slaves, or engaging in other practices such as the sex trade, is probably way less than 1%.

    Where it really hurts the left is with their abuse of white guilt for political gain. That case rests on the assumption by masses of ignorant voters that white countries are uniquely guilty of such practices. The more that people become aware of how many non-white countries practice everything from slavery to religious persecution (esp. of Christians) to misogyny, the harder it is to make the case that whites – and whites alone – have some especially nasty history they have to atone for.

    White guilt has become a very, very powerful political weapon. Neutralizing it needs to be a primary goal.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator, Kylie
    • Replies: @anonguy

    The more that people become aware of how many non-white countries practice everything from slavery to religious persecution (esp. of Christians) to misogyny, the harder it is to make the case that whites – and whites alone – have some especially nasty history they have to atone for.
     
    You state this as a fact. Do you have any support for this other than your own contention?

    Whataboutism isn't going to work any better here than it does for men's rights activists and rightly so. It is perceived as punching down. Whether or not it actually is isn't the issue, but that one is being perceived as doing so.

    Or whining, in essence.

    Note that I included some supporting elements for my contention - a comparison to men's rights, punching down, etc. May or may not be right, but one tries to support things with more than, "yeah, well I say...."

  96. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @D. K.
    I was responding to this blog post-- not to a June 2017 article in "The Atlantic" to which this blog post did not see fit to include a link! If you have read that article, already, then what evidence does it contain in support of your characterization, aside from the dubious word of a deceased journalist, who gave a wholly divergent account in 2011, when he had procured a glowing obituary of the same woman from his former colleagues at "The Seattle Times"? Was he lying back then, or was he lying just recently? Are there other living, first-hand witnesses cited in the article as to any force or coercion being responsible for the woman's decades of service, or is the evidence merely his unsupported word, contrary to what he had previously claimed, in the wake of her death?

    You sound like the CATO Institute sponsored lawyer for this dead overclass AZN belle-lettrist of peonage. Put down the Ayn Rand potboiler for a second and show some respect for Who We Are As Americans, i.e. transcontinental slavewhuppers

    Read More
  97. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Daniel H
    What an instructive lesson. Behold, when SJWs get hold of a narrative look how far from the truth they take it in order to make themselves look good.

    “What an instructive lesson. Behold, when SJWs get hold of a narrative look how far from the truth they take it in order to make themselves look good.”

    They’re masters at turning anything into the narrative they want it to be.

    Read More
  98. Some children would rather go to boarding school than live with parents.

    Read More
  99. @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    Thanks so much for all the research you do. This explanation for foot binding is very interesting and makes a lot of sense.

    Read More
  100. @Mike1
    There is not much difference between this and paying the prevailing wage in cities like LA. Surviving on $12.00 an hour in a major city is almost certainly an inferior position to a live in slave. After taxes and navigating transport and lodging a lot of people are looking at a slave like existence. A badly treated slave.

    Noblesse oblige as a concept has almost entirely disappeared.

    There is not much difference between this and paying the prevailing wage in cities like LA. Surviving on $12.00 an hour in a major city is almost certainly an inferior position to a live in slave. After taxes and navigating transport and lodging a lot of people are looking at a slave like existence. A badly treated slave.

    No, that’s not true. A slave is stuck. Most people making $12/hr can move up with a little patience.

    Being a slave is an abject existence without hope in this world.

    It’s a peculiarly oriental tendency to enslave young women for the purpose of domestic work.

    The Chinese character for slave depicts a woman taken by a hand:

    奴隸

    I’ve heard alternate explanations of the radical, such as the character depicting a woman in manacles, but I rather think it’s similar to how slave women are described in the Quran:

    “Those whom your right hands possess”

    Read More
  101. @D. K.
    How did my aunts mistreat their sister? By giving her a nice home and feeding her for decades, instead of letting her die homeless, back in the 1950s?

    >die homeless, back in the 1950s

    How do you know she would have died homeless? Maybe the obligation to support herself would have been just what she needed to overcome her phobias. You’re very persnickety about how we can’t know which of the deathbead-confession virtue-signal version of the story or the loving-saintly-family-friend obituary is the truth, but you’ll let a counterfactual reaching back 60 years into evidence. And for what? To justify and forgive the abuse of this poor woman because the perpetrators were the right race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    In the case of my late aunt, I was making a reasonable assumption of a likely outcome, based upon an hypothetical circumstance contrary to what happened historically. In the case of the late Filipina, Lola, I was judging, as a former attorney, whether a case was made by the author that the circumstances alleged amounted to de facto slavery, as a matter of law.
  102. @D. K.
    Excuse me, but wherein lies the slavery? Agreeing to perform domestic chores in return for room and board does not amount to slavery, even absent a salary, wages, a per diem or an allowance. If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery. The fact that a dying race hustler, hoping to make one last journalistic splash, albeit posthumously, supposedly decided, years after her death, to call the woman's choice "slavery" does not make it so, legally or factually.

    I had an old-maid aunt who was unable to function in the workplace due to her phobic nature. She kept house for my two other old-maid aunts, one of whom was a secretary and one of whom was a public-school teacher. She was not paid by them, but she was kept from homelessness and a premature death by their allowing her to live with them for virtually her entire adult life, until she died in her mid-80s, four years after one of her older sisters. My surviving aunt, now 90, was not a slavemaster for housing and feeding her baby sister for decades-- which she did even though they did not get along and argued constantly!

    If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery.

    But if she in effect had no choice, that is, had no other practical option in her life that was reasonable, then what is the difference?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    So, your agreeing to something because you see "no other practical option" turns you into a de facto slave and the other party into a de facto slavemaster? How many billions of slaves are there, at present, under that rubric of your philosophy?
  103. @D. K.
    The salient issue has nothing to do with cultural relativism. It has to do with whether the new story is essentially true or not. There is no de jure slavery in the United States. Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion-- not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion– not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    "Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable."

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she could make a valid civil claim or criminal charge against anyone else for involuntary servitude and/or false imprisonment.
    , @Cloudbuster
    I'm a slave to the government every year from January until sometime in April, when I've paid off my yearly slave debt. I don't have a practical option to do something else reasonable.
  104. @Anonymous
    How about actually reading the article? Your phobic aunt (who was presumably not deceived, regularly worked to exhaustion at the beck and call of a household of 7, fed scraps, or beaten) is not relevant here. This was an apparently healthy girl browbeaten into servitude from early youth, abused physically and mentally, and then only lured to the US under false pretenses.

    Once there, I'm sure she could've slipped away. However, we don't know what she might've been threatened with by the people who'd abused her her entire adult life. Or what she, as an illiterate Tagalog-speaking peasant, was told or allowed to know about the outside world and American laws and authorities. Alex Tizon could have told us, but his story was never really about the woman his family abused, only about what a stand-up guy and brave journalist he supposedly was.

    Okay, I now have read a long article that I could have done just as well without reading. (I lived with several Filipinas, in Seattle, in my younger days, so I am quite familiar with their cultural proclivities.) As a former attorney, I fail to see a case of de facto slavery– even before the father deserted the family, or the doctor-mother’s death. The late author calls her a slave– whether he actually called her that when he was a young man, as he claimed in this posthumously published article– but his mother obviously was taken aback by the notion that the arrangement amounted to slavery. He provides no evidence that Lola ever attempted to leave, and was prohibited. He provides no evidence that she even desired to leave, other than to visit the Philippines– which was a prohibitively expensive undertaking, back then, for a financially strapped family, as he paints his. She agreed to move with the family to America– which is hardly standard operating procedure in a master-slave relationship. She was allowed to leave the house, apparently without supervision or accompaniment. Her working long hours and being chastised constantly by his parents do not equate to her being enslaved, as a matter of either criminal or civil law. Her having a lonely, loveless, heavily circumscribed life that none of us would desire, choose or accept does not make her a retroactive slave, just because the author supposedly chose to view her that way.

    Then again, I have watched “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence” (1962) countless times, in the fifty-some years since it premiered on network television, when I was a boy, and it never once struck me that ‘Pompey’ (Woody Strode) was the slave (whether de jure, then, or de facto, years earlier) of ‘Tom Doniphon’ (John Wayne), as claimed by the late author of the new “Atlantic” article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    ERRATUM: I meant to say "whether de facto, then, or de jure, years earlier," rather than the other way around, as I mistakenly did, of course. "Mea culpa!"
  105. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dulse
    Forgive the off topic post:

    http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/yale-dean-loves-diversity-except-for-white-trash

    Asian professor leaves hate-filled yelp reviews ranting about white trash, is not asked to resign. An iSteveish gem.
    Read More
  106. @Opinionator
    If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery.

    But if she in effect had no choice, that is, had no other practical option in her life that was reasonable, then what is the difference?

    So, your agreeing to something because you see “no other practical option” turns you into a de facto slave and the other party into a de facto slavemaster? How many billions of slaves are there, at present, under that rubric of your philosophy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Why should we distinguish between a relationship in which someone may not leave for one reason versus one in which someone may not leave for another reason?

    At root, isn't our objection to "slavery" based on an understanding that the enslaved suffers because he lacks freedom of action?
  107. @D. K.
    Okay, I now have read a long article that I could have done just as well without reading. (I lived with several Filipinas, in Seattle, in my younger days, so I am quite familiar with their cultural proclivities.) As a former attorney, I fail to see a case of de facto slavery-- even before the father deserted the family, or the doctor-mother's death. The late author calls her a slave-- whether he actually called her that when he was a young man, as he claimed in this posthumously published article-- but his mother obviously was taken aback by the notion that the arrangement amounted to slavery. He provides no evidence that Lola ever attempted to leave, and was prohibited. He provides no evidence that she even desired to leave, other than to visit the Philippines-- which was a prohibitively expensive undertaking, back then, for a financially strapped family, as he paints his. She agreed to move with the family to America-- which is hardly standard operating procedure in a master-slave relationship. She was allowed to leave the house, apparently without supervision or accompaniment. Her working long hours and being chastised constantly by his parents do not equate to her being enslaved, as a matter of either criminal or civil law. Her having a lonely, loveless, heavily circumscribed life that none of us would desire, choose or accept does not make her a retroactive slave, just because the author supposedly chose to view her that way.

    Then again, I have watched "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" (1962) countless times, in the fifty-some years since it premiered on network television, when I was a boy, and it never once struck me that 'Pompey' (Woody Strode) was the slave (whether de jure, then, or de facto, years earlier) of 'Tom Doniphon' (John Wayne), as claimed by the late author of the new "Atlantic" article.

    ERRATUM: I meant to say “whether de facto, then, or de jure, years earlier,” rather than the other way around, as I mistakenly did, of course. “Mea culpa!”

    Read More
  108. @Opinionator
    Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion– not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable.

    “Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable.”

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she could make a valid civil claim or criminal charge against anyone else for involuntary servitude and/or false imprisonment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Wrong. You are talking about only one kind of de jure slavery.
  109. @Wilkey
    The real problem for the Left with the revelation of these kinds of practices isn't that it undermines their case for immigration, per se. The number of immigrants sneaking in slaves, or engaging in other practices such as the sex trade, is probably way less than 1%.

    Where it really hurts the left is with their abuse of white guilt for political gain. That case rests on the assumption by masses of ignorant voters that white countries are uniquely guilty of such practices. The more that people become aware of how many non-white countries practice everything from slavery to religious persecution (esp. of Christians) to misogyny, the harder it is to make the case that whites - and whites alone - have some especially nasty history they have to atone for.

    White guilt has become a very, very powerful political weapon. Neutralizing it needs to be a primary goal.

    The more that people become aware of how many non-white countries practice everything from slavery to religious persecution (esp. of Christians) to misogyny, the harder it is to make the case that whites – and whites alone – have some especially nasty history they have to atone for.

    You state this as a fact. Do you have any support for this other than your own contention?

    Whataboutism isn’t going to work any better here than it does for men’s rights activists and rightly so. It is perceived as punching down. Whether or not it actually is isn’t the issue, but that one is being perceived as doing so.

    Or whining, in essence.

    Note that I included some supporting elements for my contention – a comparison to men’s rights, punching down, etc. May or may not be right, but one tries to support things with more than, “yeah, well I say….”

    Read More
  110. @Contaminated NEET
    >die homeless, back in the 1950s

    How do you know she would have died homeless? Maybe the obligation to support herself would have been just what she needed to overcome her phobias. You're very persnickety about how we can't know which of the deathbead-confession virtue-signal version of the story or the loving-saintly-family-friend obituary is the truth, but you'll let a counterfactual reaching back 60 years into evidence. And for what? To justify and forgive the abuse of this poor woman because the perpetrators were the right race.

    In the case of my late aunt, I was making a reasonable assumption of a likely outcome, based upon an hypothetical circumstance contrary to what happened historically. In the case of the late Filipina, Lola, I was judging, as a former attorney, whether a case was made by the author that the circumstances alleged amounted to de facto slavery, as a matter of law.

    Read More
  111. @D. K.
    Excuse me, but wherein lies the slavery? Agreeing to perform domestic chores in return for room and board does not amount to slavery, even absent a salary, wages, a per diem or an allowance. If she agreed to do so, absent any actual force or legally recognizable coercion making her stay and comply, then there was no de facto slavery, let alone any de jure slavery. The fact that a dying race hustler, hoping to make one last journalistic splash, albeit posthumously, supposedly decided, years after her death, to call the woman's choice "slavery" does not make it so, legally or factually.

    I had an old-maid aunt who was unable to function in the workplace due to her phobic nature. She kept house for my two other old-maid aunts, one of whom was a secretary and one of whom was a public-school teacher. She was not paid by them, but she was kept from homelessness and a premature death by their allowing her to live with them for virtually her entire adult life, until she died in her mid-80s, four years after one of her older sisters. My surviving aunt, now 90, was not a slavemaster for housing and feeding her baby sister for decades-- which she did even though they did not get along and argued constantly!

    I was going to write something along these lines but you’ve read my mind and transcribed my thoughts.
    Tizon chose to use the inflammatory word “slave’ to make his story sexy. And it worked. people worldwide are talking about it. maybe he was angling for a second Pulitzer

    If the same story was told without that one word. It would be an all too familiar tale of a life spent in domestic service, a life of endless work and drudgery. But not slavery in the sense that she could be bought or sold or subject to brutality or even murder with no consequence. As many other s have said this is an all too common arrangement in the third world. We wealthy westerners have forgotten that in much of the world guaranteed food and shelter in exchange for (unlimited) work is thought to be a fair deal

    Read More
  112. @D. K.
    "Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable."

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she could make a valid civil claim or criminal charge against anyone else for involuntary servitude and/or false imprisonment.

    Wrong. You are talking about only one kind of de jure slavery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    By "de jure slavery," I am referring only to slavery that is legally authorized by the state. That was outlawed in the United States, in late 1865, through the ratification of the 13th Amendment. By "de facto slavery," I am referring only to involuntary servitude or false imprisonment that is not legally authorized by the state, but rather is legally proscribed by the state. When I write "de facto slavery," I am not referring to "virtual slavery"-- i.e., to someone's subjective opinion, whether reasonable or not, that some circumstance is essentially no better than de facto slavery.
  113. @D. K.
    So, your agreeing to something because you see "no other practical option" turns you into a de facto slave and the other party into a de facto slavemaster? How many billions of slaves are there, at present, under that rubric of your philosophy?

    Why should we distinguish between a relationship in which someone may not leave for one reason versus one in which someone may not leave for another reason?

    At root, isn’t our objection to “slavery” based on an understanding that the enslaved suffers because he lacks freedom of action?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "At root, isn't our objection to 'slavery' based on an understanding that the enslaved suffers because he lacks freedom of action?"

    No, not when you put it that way. Because there are about a billion morally acceptable ways to lack freedom without being a slave. Marxists have it, for instance, that societies set up on a "if a man does not work, he shall not eat" basis are full of "wage slaves." Such pseudo-slaves supposedly lack freedom because they have to earn a living. Which I find ridiculous.

    Humans lack true freedom of action, even outside society. (Where nature restrains us.) What constitutes slavery depends on what you consider legitimate, reasonable, just l, or whatever restriction of freedom. It's not enough to say plainly that this woman lacked freedom of action.

    , @D. K.
    Both civil liability and criminal culpability are based upon the intention(s) and behavior(s) of an accused party. McDonald's does not become guilty of involuntary servitude because one of its hires feels, rightly or wrongly, that he cannot find work elsewhere. A man does not become guilty of involuntary servitude for taking a wife who believes, rightly or wrongly, that no other man would have her to wed. Slavery was outlawed because it was held, by certain factions, that it was morally wrong, per se, to own other human beings as chattel property. Someone's accepting certain employment that he would prefer not to take, under more favorable circumstances, does not make the employer civilly liable or criminally culpable for the other's willful acceptance of the offered terms, so long as the terms are lawful per se, and the potential employee is free from illicit coercion by the hiring party-- not from any coercive circumstances that the employee might have been facing, otherwise, at the time that he accepted!
  114. The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Are you a Yankee? They always conveniently forget who actually did the forcing in the matter. By your own logic, Yankees are the worst social class in history (P.S., as for brutality, Yankee elite waged a war of choice that killed 700k-1m Americans; how many slaves did the Southern elite kill? And if they were parasites, who was their host? The forerunner of today’s Black economic miracle?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Are you a Yankee? They always conveniently forget who actually did the forcing in the matter.
     
    The South was "forced" to have slaves?By Northerners? Well, an argument could be made for the Crown forcing slavery upon the colonies during the the pre-1776 era, I suppose, ....But then you get the period from 1776 on....the massive expansion of slavery into new territories (Mississippi, Alabama, etc)...and the frenzied importation of Black flesh. For example, South Carolina alone imported approx 40,000 slaves during the period 1803-1807.

    (P.S., as for brutality, Yankee elite waged a war of choice that killed 700k-1m Americans;
     
    Of course, the Southern elite's decision to fight in the name of secession was also a war of choice.....and a really stupid one at that, seeing as how it led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.....
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Give me a break. The Southern elites were the ones who consciously provoked a completely unnecessary war through their own stupid paranoia and encouragement of Federal overreach, such as the "fugitive Slave act". The fact that many ordinary Southern whites still worship the corrupt and arrogant class of elites that destroyed their nation is one of history's great jokes.
  115. @Opinionator
    Wrong. You are talking about only one kind of de jure slavery.

    By “de jure slavery,” I am referring only to slavery that is legally authorized by the state. That was outlawed in the United States, in late 1865, through the ratification of the 13th Amendment. By “de facto slavery,” I am referring only to involuntary servitude or false imprisonment that is not legally authorized by the state, but rather is legally proscribed by the state. When I write “de facto slavery,” I am not referring to “virtual slavery”– i.e., to someone’s subjective opinion, whether reasonable or not, that some circumstance is essentially no better than de facto slavery.

    Read More
  116. @Opinionator
    Why should we distinguish between a relationship in which someone may not leave for one reason versus one in which someone may not leave for another reason?

    At root, isn't our objection to "slavery" based on an understanding that the enslaved suffers because he lacks freedom of action?

    “At root, isn’t our objection to ‘slavery’ based on an understanding that the enslaved suffers because he lacks freedom of action?”

    No, not when you put it that way. Because there are about a billion morally acceptable ways to lack freedom without being a slave. Marxists have it, for instance, that societies set up on a “if a man does not work, he shall not eat” basis are full of “wage slaves.” Such pseudo-slaves supposedly lack freedom because they have to earn a living. Which I find ridiculous.

    Humans lack true freedom of action, even outside society. (Where nature restrains us.) What constitutes slavery depends on what you consider legitimate, reasonable, just l, or whatever restriction of freedom. It’s not enough to say plainly that this woman lacked freedom of action.

    Read More
  117. @guest
    "forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history"

    That's like blaming the Romanovs for the crimes of the Bolsheviks because Tsarist misrule made the October Coup possible. You know who's more to blame for Bolshevism? The Bolsheviks.

    In any case, who says the black population had (or have) to be here permanently? Why ignore the fact that the Southern elites weren't alone in importing Africans? Or that the South isn't to blame for the rest of the nation preventing them using the system they had developed for dealing with the Black Question (apartheid plus periodic terrorism)?

    There were a lot of slaves in colonial New York. Both in the city and in the surrounding farm areas.

    Read More
  118. @Svigor

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.
     
    Are you a Yankee? They always conveniently forget who actually did the forcing in the matter. By your own logic, Yankees are the worst social class in history (P.S., as for brutality, Yankee elite waged a war of choice that killed 700k-1m Americans; how many slaves did the Southern elite kill? And if they were parasites, who was their host? The forerunner of today's Black economic miracle?).

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Are you a Yankee? They always conveniently forget who actually did the forcing in the matter.

    The South was “forced” to have slaves?By Northerners? Well, an argument could be made for the Crown forcing slavery upon the colonies during the the pre-1776 era, I suppose, ….But then you get the period from 1776 on….the massive expansion of slavery into new territories (Mississippi, Alabama, etc)…and the frenzied importation of Black flesh. For example, South Carolina alone imported approx 40,000 slaves during the period 1803-1807.

    (P.S., as for brutality, Yankee elite waged a war of choice that killed 700k-1m Americans;

    Of course, the Southern elite’s decision to fight in the name of secession was also a war of choice…..and a really stupid one at that, seeing as how it led to hundreds of thousands of deaths…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Is it your choice to fight when a bully punches you? (Or Washington blockades/invades you.) I suppose. You can always surrender. But generally speaking we say you fight a "war of choice" when you start it. Otherwise , what isn't a war of choice?
  119. @syonredux

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Are you a Yankee? They always conveniently forget who actually did the forcing in the matter.
     
    The South was "forced" to have slaves?By Northerners? Well, an argument could be made for the Crown forcing slavery upon the colonies during the the pre-1776 era, I suppose, ....But then you get the period from 1776 on....the massive expansion of slavery into new territories (Mississippi, Alabama, etc)...and the frenzied importation of Black flesh. For example, South Carolina alone imported approx 40,000 slaves during the period 1803-1807.

    (P.S., as for brutality, Yankee elite waged a war of choice that killed 700k-1m Americans;
     
    Of course, the Southern elite's decision to fight in the name of secession was also a war of choice.....and a really stupid one at that, seeing as how it led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.....

    Is it your choice to fight when a bully punches you? (Or Washington blockades/invades you.) I suppose. You can always surrender. But generally speaking we say you fight a “war of choice” when you start it. Otherwise , what isn’t a war of choice?

    Read More
  120. @Opinionator
    Why should we distinguish between a relationship in which someone may not leave for one reason versus one in which someone may not leave for another reason?

    At root, isn't our objection to "slavery" based on an understanding that the enslaved suffers because he lacks freedom of action?

    Both civil liability and criminal culpability are based upon the intention(s) and behavior(s) of an accused party. McDonald’s does not become guilty of involuntary servitude because one of its hires feels, rightly or wrongly, that he cannot find work elsewhere. A man does not become guilty of involuntary servitude for taking a wife who believes, rightly or wrongly, that no other man would have her to wed. Slavery was outlawed because it was held, by certain factions, that it was morally wrong, per se, to own other human beings as chattel property. Someone’s accepting certain employment that he would prefer not to take, under more favorable circumstances, does not make the employer civilly liable or criminally culpable for the other’s willful acceptance of the offered terms, so long as the terms are lawful per se, and the potential employee is free from illicit coercion by the hiring party– not from any coercive circumstances that the employee might have been facing, otherwise, at the time that he accepted!

    Read More
  121. @guest
    I don't much care whether she was actually a slave. She's just one person. The salient issue for me is what sort of culture is being imported, plus how uncomfortable can we make progs about it.

    I am against mass immigration on principle– not just into the United States, but everywhere. I consider the 1965 Hart-Celler Act to have been the death warrant for the American nation. I have not opined on whether what happened to Lola was moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, understandable or unconscionable. I merely have stated my opinion, as a retired attorney, that I do not see her described circumstances– even accepting those described circumstances at face value, for the sake of argument– to amount to slavery, as a matter of American law, be it civil or criminal. If someone wants to argue that her circumstances were “akin to slavery,” fine; that is not a legal description or prohibition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    " If someone wants to argue that her circumstances were “akin to slavery,” fine; that is not a legal description or prohibition."

    How about the unpaid FICA+UI taxes for 56 yrs, to say the least? I also think they owe the estate her earned income tax credit.
  122. @Anon
    Progs used to love to spout off about Equality.

    But because the socio-economic reality dominated by globo-progs is so unequal, the preferred terminology is 'inclusion' than 'equality'.

    It's like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they've been 'included' to serve as nannies and helots.

    And at least give that Filo family the decency of 'including' a slave into their family.

    That is real tolerance.

    IOW, the slave is the litmus for how they really feel about HBD.

    I like it!

    Read More
  123. @Svigor

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.
     
    Are you a Yankee? They always conveniently forget who actually did the forcing in the matter. By your own logic, Yankees are the worst social class in history (P.S., as for brutality, Yankee elite waged a war of choice that killed 700k-1m Americans; how many slaves did the Southern elite kill? And if they were parasites, who was their host? The forerunner of today's Black economic miracle?).

    Give me a break. The Southern elites were the ones who consciously provoked a completely unnecessary war through their own stupid paranoia and encouragement of Federal overreach, such as the “fugitive Slave act”. The fact that many ordinary Southern whites still worship the corrupt and arrogant class of elites that destroyed their nation is one of history’s great jokes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    one of history’s great jokes

    Tragedy; one of history's great tragedies.
  124. @J.Ross
    I might be wrong but my understanding of the basis of American slavery was that it grew gradually out of debt to be paid in labor like in feudalism, rather than springing forth fully formed like Tennessee Totes would babble about. In other words, at the very beginning, these debts were theoretically dischargeable, but piled up company store style.

    Not true, the first American slaveowner was an immigrant from Africa. Slavery was, in fact, imported wholesale by the ‘diverse’ folk. (And black ones, no less!)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

    This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.

    Read More
  125. @tsotha
    Clearly you are a slave. You should start putting your memoir together.

    Thanks for the advice.

    Here is a new word for you: Corvee.

    Read all about it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvee

    Read More
  126. @Jefferson
    "Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?"

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

    Filipinos are a carefree people with a great sense of humour. Not all peoples have that.

    Read More
  127. Hey everyone come see, you say the word ‘slavery’ to a bunch of Americans and they start doing these weird dance movements around each other, like mad mimes.

    Read More
  128. By the way, what % of slaveowners in modern America are immigrants?

    Who has time to inquire into this when there is so much time and effort required to hound and intimidate the descendants of Southern slaveholders in the 4rd and 5th generations and the descendants of those people who knew about slavery in the 19th century, but failed to commit suicide and refuse to leave descendants in protest?

    Read More
  129. @Formerly CARealist
    Strange that so many women have children that they don't want to raise. I agree with Dr. Laura. Just get a dog instead.

    I worked with a woman who had two children that she barely saw: she worked 10 hour days as a manager, never mind after work obligations, and went home exhausted. A nanny took care of all their needs, including driving them around after school for sports and arts/music. Then she would tell me what a great mother she was. I guess she gave them hard-work genes, but not much in the way of care-taking genes.

    I know rich, non-working mothers who do not raise their own children. This is common where I live.

    Such women have nothing to do but go to yoga classes and complain about how hard it is being mothers. Their preferred nannys come from Europe: typically nice, pretty girls who come to America for awhile and take the nanny job for the visa and a place to stay. When I was a bachelor, I dated one of those girls.

    There are rotten people everywhere who will use other people to avoid labor of any kind, even when that labor is just taking care of the offspring they supposedly love.

    Read More
  130. @D. K.
    I am against mass immigration on principle-- not just into the United States, but everywhere. I consider the 1965 Hart-Celler Act to have been the death warrant for the American nation. I have not opined on whether what happened to Lola was moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, understandable or unconscionable. I merely have stated my opinion, as a retired attorney, that I do not see her described circumstances-- even accepting those described circumstances at face value, for the sake of argument-- to amount to slavery, as a matter of American law, be it civil or criminal. If someone wants to argue that her circumstances were "akin to slavery," fine; that is not a legal description or prohibition.

    ” If someone wants to argue that her circumstances were “akin to slavery,” fine; that is not a legal description or prohibition.”

    How about the unpaid FICA+UI taxes for 56 yrs, to say the least? I also think they owe the estate her earned income tax credit.

    Read More
  131. @J.Ross
    I might be wrong but my understanding of the basis of American slavery was that it grew gradually out of debt to be paid in labor like in feudalism, rather than springing forth fully formed like Tennessee Totes would babble about. In other words, at the very beginning, these debts were theoretically dischargeable, but piled up company store style.

    Your understanding is incorrect.

    Read More
  132. @Peter Akuleyev
    Give me a break. The Southern elites were the ones who consciously provoked a completely unnecessary war through their own stupid paranoia and encouragement of Federal overreach, such as the "fugitive Slave act". The fact that many ordinary Southern whites still worship the corrupt and arrogant class of elites that destroyed their nation is one of history's great jokes.

    one of history’s great jokes

    Tragedy; one of history’s great tragedies.

    Read More
  133. @Jefferson
    "Isn’t it multiple forms of “cultural aggression” to insist that the Pinoy should be ashamed of their culture?"

    Pinoys treat Manny Pacquiao who is just a boxer like he is a God because Filipinos have nothing else going for their culture.

    It would be the equivalent of like if Americans treated Mike Tyson like he is a God.

    Filipinos are definitely one of the most pathetic ethnic groups in the world.

    I know a Filipino family and the husband worships Duterte, I have endless fun trolling the guy about his support for a genocidal Nazi.

    Read More
  134. @guest
    "This used to be common in Latin America and I think it may still be common in the Philippines"

    What does that have to do with Current Year mainstream America? You think part of Steve's point in posting these stories is to highlight how un-American imported Latin American/Filipino culture can be?

    Actually, I know it was, because it was in his headline.

    What’s new? Import the third world, get the third world.

    By the way, isn’t it time to change this “third world” nomenclature? The “second world” doesn’t even exist anymore.

    Read More
  135. @D. K.
    How did my aunts mistreat their sister? By giving her a nice home and feeding her for decades, instead of letting her die homeless, back in the 1950s?

    As is now well known, written permission is required before entering into an exploitative relationship with anyone (including, but not limited to one-night stands.)

    Even then, written permission can be retroactively declared null and void and evil-white-people behavior.

    Read More
  136. @Marina
    My vague memory from school was that African slavery started with indenture terms to pay for passage, under similar terms as white indentured servants from the British Isles: 7 years, and about a 50-50 chance of living to the end of your indenture. But African indentures were always coercive and British ones sometimes were (indentured servitude to the New World or imprisonment, forcible impressment, etc.) and sometimes weren't. Actual enslavement followed as it became clear that Africans could survive tropical diseases that killed indentured Europeans and because it was much harder for them to run away and fade into the surrounding society due to a different skin color. That's also when the whole idea of generational enslavement happened: the children of white indentured servants were always born free. Does that match anybody else's recollections?

    No. Slavery is older than America, and older than indentured servitude. The Portuguese were trading slaves along the west coast of Africa before Columbus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    But (((which))) Portuguese?
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    Slavery is probably as old as human history. It's in the Old Testament (Sarah gives Hagar to her husband for him to impregnate), it's in ancient Chinese, Egyptian, Greek and Roman society, in Viking society, in Muslim societies up to within living memory.

    Domesday book lists the number of slaves in each village. There was a thriving slave trade between Bristol and Viking Ireland long before Europeans sailed to West Africa.
  137. The South was “forced” to have slaves?By Northerners? Well, an argument could be made for the Crown forcing slavery upon the colonies during the the pre-1776 era, I suppose, ….But then you get the period from 1776 on….the massive expansion of slavery into new territories (Mississippi, Alabama, etc)…and the frenzied importation of Black flesh. For example, South Carolina alone imported approx 40,000 slaves during the period 1803-1807.

    Usually your reading comprehension’s pretty good, but as usual, your brain turns to mush when it comes to your glorious Yankee history. Southerners didn’t force the population in question on anyone; the Union did.

    For example, South Carolina alone imported approx 40,000 slaves during the period 1803-1807.

    Well, if you skip the Yankee ship owners, Yankee ship crews, etc. But never mind that – how many slaves did South Carolina kill? To justify the 700k-1m American deaths the Union caused, I mean.

    Of course, the Southern elite’s decision to fight in the name of secession was also a war of choice…..and a really stupid one at that, seeing as how it led to hundreds of thousands of deaths…..

    There you go with that “in the name of” thing. It’s immaterial what you add to “oh, and they invaded us” as far as reasons go. When people invade you, you fight back. Except in the warped minds of Yankees, I suppose. “If she hadn’t tried to divorce me in the name of sleeping with some other guy, it would’ve been her right to leave me.”

    You’re too intelligent to believe that BS.

    Give me a break. The Southern elites were the ones who consciously provoked a completely unnecessary war through their own stupid paranoia and encouragement of Federal overreach, such as the “fugitive Slave act”. The fact that many ordinary Southern whites still worship the corrupt and arrogant class of elites that destroyed their nation is one of history’s great jokes.

    “She shouldn’t have worn that dress. She provoked the rape by wearing it. Plus, she was strutting around like a slut.”

    The…South…Had…Them…In…Chains…The…Union…Broke…Those…Chains.

    Deal with it. Reconcile the warring thoughts in your heads, boys.

    “They forced us to invade, even though they were never going to invade us.” Repeat that to yourselves until you understand how silly it is.

    Read More
  138. What’s worse, provoking a stupid, unnecessary war that kills 1m of your own people, or starting that war? Listen to yourself, man.

    And it’s still funny to me how slavery was just hunkey-dorey in America from 1619 to 1861, but then all of a sudden, “the name of slavery” on the lips of Southerners was cause for 1m American deaths.

    Read More
  139. @Anonymous
    The city I'm in charges me a city tax, to cover presumably all the shiftless bums I see slumming around on my way to my 60hr wk job. I'm none too fond of it, either.

    Just part of modern American life under liberal occupation. Let those who work hard pay for those who won't, blame the productive for the faults of the incompetent, and indoctrinate the kids of those who behave to hate them and by extension themselves unless they chip in to keep the liberal train recklessly zooming along towards the cliff...

    … while being told, “you didn’t build that”.

    Read More
  140. Colonies that entered the Union ignorant of the institution of slavery, the size of the slave population, the scale of the slave economy, etc., etc., etc: 0.

    Ratifiers of the Constitution who were ignorant of these things: 0.

    Blacks are right when they say the taint of slavery is all over American history. You guys are wrong when you act like you can have your cake and eat it too. I don’t have a problem with Blacks’ position, because the “taint” isn’t really a “taint.” But for you guys, well, you’re on the Black side of the argument; America’s history is an evil one. Have you somehow failed to grasp this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Are sure government schooling is not playing a significant roll in this matter?

    February 26, 2017 Democrat Party . . . White sheets to brown shirts Part 1

    The Democrat Party is the oldest continually functioning political party in the world, dating back to 1792, as the Jeffersonian Republicans or Democratic-Republicans. it was the party of Thomas Jefferson; a party formed in opposition to the aristocratic Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and the Founders who believed in a strong central government. The name “Democrat Party” was adopted in the 1830’s during the Jackson Presidency.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/02/26/democrat-party-white-sheets-to-brown-shirts-part-1/
  141. For example, South Carolina alone imported approx 40,000 slaves during the period 1803-1807.

    And that offended Yankee morality so much, it only took them 54 years to “start a war over it.”

    It’s obviously a selectively high figure, because if that rate had held constant, SC alone would have imported c. 2,420,000 slaves. But in fact only about 500,000 were brought to the US, in all. The rest of the 12m brought over went to the death mills in South America and the Caribbean.

    Read More
  142. @Mike1
    There is not much difference between this and paying the prevailing wage in cities like LA. Surviving on $12.00 an hour in a major city is almost certainly an inferior position to a live in slave. After taxes and navigating transport and lodging a lot of people are looking at a slave like existence. A badly treated slave.

    Noblesse oblige as a concept has almost entirely disappeared.

    People making $12/hour are not paying taxes, unless they’re teens living with middle class parents. Even their SS and Medicare can be refunded under the EIC. If they have kids they’ll pay a negative income tax: we pay them for working.

    Oh, and “prevailing wage” has a specific meaning that gets perverted into “outrageous costs for gov’t structures.”

    But I understand the point you’re trying to make. Being a low-wage earner in an expensive city can be pretty tough.

    Read More
  143. Aug 16, 2011 The Tale of the Slave – Robert Nozick

    “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. I would recommend re-watching the video to see clearly if Nozick’s question is answerable.

    Read More
  144. @Svigor
    Colonies that entered the Union ignorant of the institution of slavery, the size of the slave population, the scale of the slave economy, etc., etc., etc: 0.

    Ratifiers of the Constitution who were ignorant of these things: 0.

    Blacks are right when they say the taint of slavery is all over American history. You guys are wrong when you act like you can have your cake and eat it too. I don't have a problem with Blacks' position, because the "taint" isn't really a "taint." But for you guys, well, you're on the Black side of the argument; America's history is an evil one. Have you somehow failed to grasp this?

    Are sure government schooling is not playing a significant roll in this matter?

    February 26, 2017 Democrat Party . . . White sheets to brown shirts Part 1

    The Democrat Party is the oldest continually functioning political party in the world, dating back to 1792, as the Jeffersonian Republicans or Democratic-Republicans. it was the party of Thomas Jefferson; a party formed in opposition to the aristocratic Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and the Founders who believed in a strong central government. The name “Democrat Party” was adopted in the 1830’s during the Jackson Presidency.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/02/26/democrat-party-white-sheets-to-brown-shirts-part-1/

    Read More
  145. @Sammler
    No. Slavery is older than America, and older than indentured servitude. The Portuguese were trading slaves along the west coast of Africa before Columbus.

    But (((which))) Portuguese?

    Read More
  146. I finally read the original story plus others surrounding it and reacting to it… I deeply regret my snarky comment about Tizon being the ultimate neoliberal for being a slaver who complained about microaggressions.

    He saved this woman from slavery. He was not a psychologist with any kind of understanding of what abuse or slavery does to a person’s psyche, but he was trying his very best to help this woman and give her her freedom as well as joy and happiness.

    I think this also killed him. This was his last piece and he died the day they decided to publish it, in his sleep of natural causes.

    To anyone who has ever helped or rescued broken people, “thanks”.

    Alex Tizon, RIP

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is a joke, right? He saved her by letting her continue being his mother's slave until his mother died and thus had no need for a slave anymore. By that time, he was in his forties. 30 years had gone by since he realized she was a slave, 20 years since he reached adulthood. A Stanford-educated, successful journalist, praised for writing about plucky Asian immigrants and American injustice (and "injustice").

    At that point, he moved her to his home and supposedly told her she didn't have to work (suddenly we believe slaweowner narratives now?), but after a lifetime of knowing only work (under threat of abuse), she continued with housework and childcare, though he (supposedly) started giving her money (no reparations for years of slavery, though... huh...). Then he waited 8 years, until she was 83, to fly her back home and see what little was left of her family, though he'd been aware of her desire to see her family for many years. What a mensch.

    Then when she died, instead of sending her body home, he had her cremated (contrary to her and her family's religious beliefs), crammed her ashes into a plastic box, and had the disgusting obit above written, talking about how lovely it was that she never thought she deserved anything, even happiness.

    He waited until he couldn't be charged with anything (the plastic box probably waiting in a shed or a garage), and only then went to return her remains to her family (great Pulitzer bait for the article!). He wrote and submitted the article about a lifetime of condoning his family owning a slave, an article that (according to Jeffrey Goldberg's editor note praising Lola's young massa) he considered his greatest story, casting his mother as the humanized villain, deadbeat dad and stepdad as supporting role brutes, and himself as victim and reluctant hero. Now his widow, Melissa Tizon, is on Twitter accepting praise and talking about how much she and her husband loved the family slave who didn't even merit an urn after raising Tizon's mother, Tizon and the other 4 brats, and Alex and Melissa's own children. No mention of offering Pulido's family reparations (I'm sure we can rest easy and Tizon's colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates is on the case).

    Some savior.

  147. @Sammler
    No. Slavery is older than America, and older than indentured servitude. The Portuguese were trading slaves along the west coast of Africa before Columbus.

    Slavery is probably as old as human history. It’s in the Old Testament (Sarah gives Hagar to her husband for him to impregnate), it’s in ancient Chinese, Egyptian, Greek and Roman society, in Viking society, in Muslim societies up to within living memory.

    Domesday book lists the number of slaves in each village. There was a thriving slave trade between Bristol and Viking Ireland long before Europeans sailed to West Africa.

    Read More
  148. @Opinionator
    Whether the woman was a de facto slave depends upon whether her presence and services were arranged and maintained through force or coercion– not whether she drew a salary, in addition to her room and board!

    Wrong. Whether she was a de facto slave depends on whether she had a practical option to do something else reasonable.

    I’m a slave to the government every year from January until sometime in April, when I’ve paid off my yearly slave debt. I don’t have a practical option to do something else reasonable.

    Read More
  149. So much for the Sailer boast about the Filipinos becoming the new Italians… This is what happens to a neophyte (in the sense that his ‘people’ do not have the learning curve of the Tribe) delivering over his pay grade!

    Read More
  150. @Anon
    Progs used to love to spout off about Equality.

    But because the socio-economic reality dominated by globo-progs is so unequal, the preferred terminology is 'inclusion' than 'equality'.

    It's like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they've been 'included' to serve as nannies and helots.

    And at least give that Filo family the decency of 'including' a slave into their family.

    That is real tolerance.

    The slave holding Filipinos in question are most likely ethnic Chinese and not the Malay (for the lack of a better word) of the Philippines, who have come to control, nay, have a stranglehold on the economies of Southeast Asia from Burma (Myanmar) to Indochina, so in that sense they are the elites you’re describing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Tizons aren't part of the Chinese minority, though it's possible they have some Chinese ancestry, as many upper class Filipinos do.

    Looking at his photo, the maternal grandfather (Pulido's first owner) was a mestizo.

  151. People are being a little duplicitous with regards to the origins of slavery here. Slavery was extremely widespread throughout ancient history, such as Rome, and prior to the introduction of feudalism. Republican Greece, for example, was full of slaves, and should be considered to be an oligarchic republic.

    Feudalism simply changed slaves to serfs, by assigning them to some tiny parcel of land. In regions that did not develop feudalism, such as Africa, slavery was still widespread. Which is basically the issue, slaves were the losers in African wars who were sold by the victors to Muslims and Christians. Arabs/Turks were the biggest importers of slaves for a long time for well over a thousand years, but they had some nasty revolts in Iraq so they shifted from labor slavery to house servants. Technically it’s illegal in Islam to own slaves, unless they aren’t Muslim of course. Which is why Saudi Arabia was the last non-third-world country to ‘officially’ outlaw slavery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

    Anyway a big reason for the push around the Cape Horn of Africa by the Portuguese was to interdict the Ottoman supply of slaves from Zanzibar (although they still had their Caucasus and Balkan recruiting grounds). It just so happened that they couldn’t resist the economic pull of plantation farming with forced labor, and neither could anyone else until the Dutch outlawed it and eventually the British followed suit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    >duplicitous
    Is it anything but dishonest to take a discussion of specifics into Ultimate Origins? Yes, it's also sophomoric.
    >Slavery is illegal in Islam.
    No. Read Coughlin's book Catastrophic Failure. Trust no explanations until you read Coughlin. Consider the structuring of Islamic law to heavily incentivize conversion. Consider the normality of slave-like conditions and the conflation of power with authority and the total lack of checks and balances which define the Orient. Given all this, saying that slavery is even technically illegal in Islam is duplicitous.
  152. @Kyle Searle
    People are being a little duplicitous with regards to the origins of slavery here. Slavery was extremely widespread throughout ancient history, such as Rome, and prior to the introduction of feudalism. Republican Greece, for example, was full of slaves, and should be considered to be an oligarchic republic.

    Feudalism simply changed slaves to serfs, by assigning them to some tiny parcel of land. In regions that did not develop feudalism, such as Africa, slavery was still widespread. Which is basically the issue, slaves were the losers in African wars who were sold by the victors to Muslims and Christians. Arabs/Turks were the biggest importers of slaves for a long time for well over a thousand years, but they had some nasty revolts in Iraq so they shifted from labor slavery to house servants. Technically it's illegal in Islam to own slaves, unless they aren't Muslim of course. Which is why Saudi Arabia was the last non-third-world country to 'officially' outlaw slavery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

    Anyway a big reason for the push around the Cape Horn of Africa by the Portuguese was to interdict the Ottoman supply of slaves from Zanzibar (although they still had their Caucasus and Balkan recruiting grounds). It just so happened that they couldn't resist the economic pull of plantation farming with forced labor, and neither could anyone else until the Dutch outlawed it and eventually the British followed suit.

    >duplicitous
    Is it anything but dishonest to take a discussion of specifics into Ultimate Origins? Yes, it’s also sophomoric.
    >Slavery is illegal in Islam.
    No. Read Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. Trust no explanations until you read Coughlin. Consider the structuring of Islamic law to heavily incentivize conversion. Consider the normality of slave-like conditions and the conflation of power with authority and the total lack of checks and balances which define the Orient. Given all this, saying that slavery is even technically illegal in Islam is duplicitous.

    Read More
  153. @Lot
    Most slaves were worked on large cotton plantations and were treated horribly.

    The parasitism, brutality, and selfish forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    That’s why I find it comical that so many posters here claim mass non-white immigration started due to the 1965 Act.

    The reality is that mass non-white immigration started way back in the colonial era, due to the slave trade. The model for slavery was first conceived around 1555.

    So rather than blaming the 1965 Immigration Act for mass non-white immigration, perhaps the posters here should start blaming the 1555 Act.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Back then, business/moneyed interests (tobbaco, cotton, agriculture, planters, etc.) wanted cheap, docile labor. So rather than import their fellow Anglos and pay them a decent wage (which was certainly affordable in a prosperous country like America), they brought in Africans.

    Rather than act in affirmation with "white nationalism" or patriotism, the old elites brought in foreign non-white laborers. So let's dispel this myth that things were different back then.

    The main difference between pre-1965 and post-1965 America (and Europe) was the availability of cheap labor. In the past, the best sources of cheap labor were African slaves (until the end of the slave trade) and poor whites. So business interests used that labor. Since wages rose quickly in the post-WWII era, business interests began to look for a new source of cheap labor. That's what triggered mass-non white immigration.

    Businesses import from wherever the labor is cheap and industrious. African slaves, the Scots-Irishland hinterlands, Germany, Ireland, southern/eastern Europe, Mexico. Whenever one source of labor dies up (ie people start asking for good wages and good working conditions/hours), they find another labor source.
    , @res
    This article makes a pretty good case for 1965 being a turning point: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/
    Is the timing just a coincidence?
    , @Opinionator
    The total number of slaves imported from Africa to the United State territory during its entire history (including colonial times) is estimated to have been less than 400,000.

    The number of immigrants we are importing EACH YEAR as a result of Hart-Celler is THREE TIMES THAT--again, EVERY YEAR. Those numbers don't even include illegal immigrants.
  154. @JohnnyWalker123
    That's why I find it comical that so many posters here claim mass non-white immigration started due to the 1965 Act.

    The reality is that mass non-white immigration started way back in the colonial era, due to the slave trade. The model for slavery was first conceived around 1555.

    So rather than blaming the 1965 Immigration Act for mass non-white immigration, perhaps the posters here should start blaming the 1555 Act.

    Back then, business/moneyed interests (tobbaco, cotton, agriculture, planters, etc.) wanted cheap, docile labor. So rather than import their fellow Anglos and pay them a decent wage (which was certainly affordable in a prosperous country like America), they brought in Africans.

    Rather than act in affirmation with “white nationalism” or patriotism, the old elites brought in foreign non-white laborers. So let’s dispel this myth that things were different back then.

    The main difference between pre-1965 and post-1965 America (and Europe) was the availability of cheap labor. In the past, the best sources of cheap labor were African slaves (until the end of the slave trade) and poor whites. So business interests used that labor. Since wages rose quickly in the post-WWII era, business interests began to look for a new source of cheap labor. That’s what triggered mass-non white immigration.

    Businesses import from wherever the labor is cheap and industrious. African slaves, the Scots-Irishland hinterlands, Germany, Ireland, southern/eastern Europe, Mexico. Whenever one source of labor dies up (ie people start asking for good wages and good working conditions/hours), they find another labor source.

    Read More
  155. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    Bound feet had erotic connotations so potent you did not discuss them in detail in mixed company, as a western missionary found when the college-age men in the audience she was lecturing to, started snickering and acting uncomfortable. This was during the 1920s when the government was trying to stamp it out. Foot binding may not often have moved women up the market, but it was considered necessary by most to be in the marriage market at all. According to many narratives collected during the government movement against footbinding, many little girls were told sternly, “you will not be able to get married if you don’t bind.”
    Chinese footbinding: the history of a curious erotic custom, by Howard Seymour Levy, W. Rawls, 1966.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Bound feet had erotic connotations so potent you did not discuss them in detail in mixed company . . .
     
    Please enlighten us.
  156. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dahlia
    I finally read the original story plus others surrounding it and reacting to it... I deeply regret my snarky comment about Tizon being the ultimate neoliberal for being a slaver who complained about microaggressions.

    He saved this woman from slavery. He was not a psychologist with any kind of understanding of what abuse or slavery does to a person's psyche, but he was trying his very best to help this woman and give her her freedom as well as joy and happiness.

    I think this also killed him. This was his last piece and he died the day they decided to publish it, in his sleep of natural causes.

    To anyone who has ever helped or rescued broken people, "thanks".

    Alex Tizon, RIP

    This is a joke, right? He saved her by letting her continue being his mother’s slave until his mother died and thus had no need for a slave anymore. By that time, he was in his forties. 30 years had gone by since he realized she was a slave, 20 years since he reached adulthood. A Stanford-educated, successful journalist, praised for writing about plucky Asian immigrants and American injustice (and “injustice”).

    At that point, he moved her to his home and supposedly told her she didn’t have to work (suddenly we believe slaweowner narratives now?), but after a lifetime of knowing only work (under threat of abuse), she continued with housework and childcare, though he (supposedly) started giving her money (no reparations for years of slavery, though… huh…). Then he waited 8 years, until she was 83, to fly her back home and see what little was left of her family, though he’d been aware of her desire to see her family for many years. What a mensch.

    Then when she died, instead of sending her body home, he had her cremated (contrary to her and her family’s religious beliefs), crammed her ashes into a plastic box, and had the disgusting obit above written, talking about how lovely it was that she never thought she deserved anything, even happiness.

    He waited until he couldn’t be charged with anything (the plastic box probably waiting in a shed or a garage), and only then went to return her remains to her family (great Pulitzer bait for the article!). He wrote and submitted the article about a lifetime of condoning his family owning a slave, an article that (according to Jeffrey Goldberg’s editor note praising Lola’s young massa) he considered his greatest story, casting his mother as the humanized villain, deadbeat dad and stepdad as supporting role brutes, and himself as victim and reluctant hero. Now his widow, Melissa Tizon, is on Twitter accepting praise and talking about how much she and her husband loved the family slave who didn’t even merit an urn after raising Tizon’s mother, Tizon and the other 4 brats, and Alex and Melissa’s own children. No mention of offering Pulido’s family reparations (I’m sure we can rest easy and Tizon’s colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates is on the case).

    Some savior.

    Read More
  157. @guest
    "forcing upon North America a huge permanent low IQ population render the old Southern elites the worst social class in American history"

    That's like blaming the Romanovs for the crimes of the Bolsheviks because Tsarist misrule made the October Coup possible. You know who's more to blame for Bolshevism? The Bolsheviks.

    In any case, who says the black population had (or have) to be here permanently? Why ignore the fact that the Southern elites weren't alone in importing Africans? Or that the South isn't to blame for the rest of the nation preventing them using the system they had developed for dealing with the Black Question (apartheid plus periodic terrorism)?

    In any case, who says the black population had (or have) to be here permanently?

    The slave owners. That’s who. They fought to keep slaves here in the U.S. Lincoln wanted to colonize (deport) slaves from America.

    Or that the South isn’t to blame for the rest of the nation preventing them using the system they had developed for dealing with the Black Question (apartheid plus periodic terrorism)?

    There was no apartheid. Blacks and whites lived and worked in the same areas. Segregation may have been an ideal, but the practical reality was that blacks and whites mixed constantly. Unlike South Africa, the U.S. never had black homelands.

    Are you saying the slavery was a successful model?

    Read More
  158. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    The slave holding Filipinos in question are most likely ethnic Chinese and not the Malay (for the lack of a better word) of the Philippines, who have come to control, nay, have a stranglehold on the economies of Southeast Asia from Burma (Myanmar) to Indochina, so in that sense they are the elites you're describing.

    The Tizons aren’t part of the Chinese minority, though it’s possible they have some Chinese ancestry, as many upper class Filipinos do.

    Looking at his photo, the maternal grandfather (Pulido’s first owner) was a mestizo.

    Read More
  159. @27 year old
    >old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It's not their fault they didn't anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc... Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It’s not their fault they didn’t anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations.

    None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.

    When slaves were brought over, the assumption was they’d forever be a cheap labor class.

    Eternal H-1bs.

    You’re defending that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    I rate the southern aristocracy higher than our current ruling class. Slavery was bad for non-wealthy Whites, but today's stuff is much much worse. The original post was that the pre war southern elites were the worst social class in American history. Which to me is ridiculous.
  160. Slavery significantly decreased the standard of living for free whites in the South. If not for the importation of slaves, wages would’ve been higher and working conditions would’ve been better. Free whites would’ve lived better.

    Also, the land wouldn’t have become so concentrated in the hands of a few planter-oligarchs. Rather, poor whites would’ve acquired a lot of land and been better off.

    Slavery was the original H-1b program for 1700s-era agriculture. The reality is that even back then, there were people pushing cheap labor migration.

    I find it remarkable that posters here are defending the importation of slaves into the U.S.

    Next time when some of you want to criticize liberals for mass immigration, I’ll bring up this topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Don't be surprised that posters here defend the importation of slaves. Don't be surprised by much of what the posters here say and defend.
    , @27 year old
    >I find it remarkable that posters here are defending the importation of slaves into the U.S.

    For a guy with as good of a post history as yours that's a really bad interpretation of what was said.

    I said I believed that slaves in the American south had it better than slaves anywhere else and that the slave owning elites were a better class of people than e.g. Mark Zuckerberg.

    Obviously I would rather the slaves never been here in the first place for all the reasons you stated.
  161. The slave owners. That’s who. They fought to keep slaves here in the U.S. Lincoln wanted to colonize (deport) slaves from America.

    If only Stalin knew! There was very little done to repatriate Blacks after the war. Yankees probably did more to prevent the Blacks they’d just freed from moving to Yankeeland than they did to repatriate them to Africa. Had Lincoln lived, little would have changed; the North didn’t care to repatriate Blacks without Lincoln, so him living wouldn’t have changed that. Lincoln talked repatriation for votes, he was a consummate politician.

    Are you saying the slavery was a successful model?

    Well, it’s still going strong in Africa.

    None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.

    Civil war killing 1m Americans was doable, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Well, it’s still going strong in Africa.
     
    So Africa is a successful model?

    Civil war killing 1m Americans was doable, though.
     
    It wasn't doable because slave owners didn't want to give up their cheap-labor slaves. Repatriation, liquidation, and reservation would've hurt slave owners financially.
  162. None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.

    Yeah they opposed having their States invaded, their men killed, and their homes burned, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say Trump attempts to deport 11 million illegals from the U.S. So they retreat to the Blue States and take jobs there. When federal forces attempt deportation, employers and white liberals fight back with violence in defense of the illegal's right to stay here.

    What should Trump do? Let them stay?
  163. @JohnnyWalker123
    That's why I find it comical that so many posters here claim mass non-white immigration started due to the 1965 Act.

    The reality is that mass non-white immigration started way back in the colonial era, due to the slave trade. The model for slavery was first conceived around 1555.

    So rather than blaming the 1965 Immigration Act for mass non-white immigration, perhaps the posters here should start blaming the 1555 Act.

    This article makes a pretty good case for 1965 being a turning point: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/
    Is the timing just a coincidence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Well, as I recall, there was a large black population pre-1965. Where did they come from?

    If America was run by patriotic white nationalists until 1965, why did we have a large black population?

    The reality is that even before this country was founded, there was mass non-white immigration. Slavery is the original H-1b program.

    Eternal guestworkers.
  164. @res
    This article makes a pretty good case for 1965 being a turning point: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/
    Is the timing just a coincidence?

    Well, as I recall, there was a large black population pre-1965. Where did they come from?

    If America was run by patriotic white nationalists until 1965, why did we have a large black population?

    The reality is that even before this country was founded, there was mass non-white immigration. Slavery is the original H-1b program.

    Eternal guestworkers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Holy non sequitur, Batman.

    I guess you don't have any substantive response to that article. Thanks for making that clear. It helps me assess the merit of the rest of your statements.
  165. @Svigor

    None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.
     
    Yeah they opposed having their States invaded, their men killed, and their homes burned, too.

    Let’s say Trump attempts to deport 11 million illegals from the U.S. So they retreat to the Blue States and take jobs there. When federal forces attempt deportation, employers and white liberals fight back with violence in defense of the illegal’s right to stay here.

    What should Trump do? Let them stay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    White-nationalist American Renaissance (which is owned by White Southerner Jared Taylor) had an article on Lincoln's colonization effort.

    https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/august-1998/

    One of the earliest and most serious solutions proposed to “the Negro problem” was colonization, or the removal of blacks beyond the boundaries of the United States. By the early 1800’s, slave revolts, the abolitionist movement, and the increasing number of free blacks convinced many great Americans that steps must be taken to keep the United States a white nation. The American Colonization Society (ACS) was the most respectable, successful and long-lasting effort to remove blacks from the United States.
     

    Founded by Rev. Robert Finley, a Presbyterian minister from New Jersey, the official title of the organization was “The American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color in the United States.” The initial meeting of the ACS was held in Washington D.C. in 1816 — thus, just 40 years after the founding, thoughtful Americans first took serious measures to separate the races. Bushrod Washington, a Supreme Court Justice and nephew of George Washington, served as the first president of the organization. The great American statesman Henry Clay of Kentucky provided its main intellectual and political leadership.

    The prestige of the ACS benefited tremendously from the high-profile association of leaders like Clay and Washington, and over the years, some of America’s greatest men were not merely members but officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Stephen Douglas, John Randolph, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, John Marshall and Roger Taney. Other great men such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, while never members of the society, strongly supported colonization and the removal of blacks from the United States. None of these men had any illusions about the desirability of a multiracial America. Over the next forty years, the ACS would work very hard to remove what Lincoln called “a troublesome presence.”
     

    For three years the society lobbied Congress for financial support. In 1817 Bushrod Washington first asked Congress for legislation to support creation of an African colony. When that request failed, the ACS sent a two-man expedition to Africa to gather and present more solidly researched data on the proposal. After a number of unsuccessful attempts, the ACS purchased land from local tribes, and in 1820 the society finally got the support it was seeking. Congress passed and President James Monroe approved a grant for $100,000 to set up a colony for free blacks. The colony was named Liberia meaning “free land,” and the first settlement was named Monrovia in appreciation of the support of President Monroe. It is the capitol of Liberia to this day.
     

    It is worth noting that in the American republic before the days of Lincoln, federal officials took the Constitutional limits placed on their authority very seriously and thus played a very limited role in running the country. It is therefore of great significance that Congress saw fit to help remove blacks from the United States. It not only reflected a wide-spread national desire, but was an important step in federal involvement in matters traditionally left up to the states.
     

    In 1825, the ACS started a monthly paper called African Repository and Colonial Journal. This helped spread the message and — later — helped defend the society against attacks from both abolitionists and slaveholders. Little by little, Liberia grew. By the start of the Civil War, after more than 40 years of colonization, the ACS had resettled more that 11,000 free blacks. It was only through the society’s support and under white leadership that the colony was able to survive malaria, wars with neighboring tribes, and the unreliability of supply shipments. Throughout this period, the ACS never gave up hope that the federal government would eventually commit itself to resettlement on a large scale.
     
    Slaveowners opposed repatriation. They didn't want to give away their slaves. Apparently, even back in the 1800s, there were "jobs that Americans won't do."

    Though the society remained officially neutral on the subject of slavery, many slaveholders distrusted its motives. While some were members of the ACS and were eager to be rid of free blacks who might encourage insurrection, others held a lingering suspicion that in its desire to rid the nation of Africans, the society would eventually take away their slaves. Indeed, some of the rhetoric of Henry Clay, who was always closely associated with the colonization movement, gave them cause for concern.
     

    Clay spoke, for example, of reducing the number of blacks (free and slave) to five percent of the population through colonization and white immigration. And in a speech to Congress in 1850 opposing the extension of slavery to the West he said, “while you reproach, and justly so, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution on the continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and New Mexico shall reproach us for doing the same thing which we reproach Great Britain for doing to us.” Some slaveholders saw such anti-slavery rhetoric as uncomfortably close to abolitionism.
     
    Lincoln wanted to put blacks in Texas or Central/South America.

    Though never a member of the society, Lincoln was a strong proponent of colonization, and during the war had appointed a minister to investigate sites in Central and South America that would be nearby, inexpensive destinations for colonization. As the war drew to an end he became increasingly worried about the problem of what to do with freed blacks, and even considered setting aside Texas for forcible resettlement. Had he not been assassinated, there is little doubt that he would have worked energetically for a separatist solution to the Negro problem.
     
  166. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say Trump attempts to deport 11 million illegals from the U.S. So they retreat to the Blue States and take jobs there. When federal forces attempt deportation, employers and white liberals fight back with violence in defense of the illegal's right to stay here.

    What should Trump do? Let them stay?

    White-nationalist American Renaissance (which is owned by White Southerner Jared Taylor) had an article on Lincoln’s colonization effort.

    https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/august-1998/

    One of the earliest and most serious solutions proposed to “the Negro problem” was colonization, or the removal of blacks beyond the boundaries of the United States. By the early 1800’s, slave revolts, the abolitionist movement, and the increasing number of free blacks convinced many great Americans that steps must be taken to keep the United States a white nation. The American Colonization Society (ACS) was the most respectable, successful and long-lasting effort to remove blacks from the United States.

    Founded by Rev. Robert Finley, a Presbyterian minister from New Jersey, the official title of the organization was “The American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color in the United States.” The initial meeting of the ACS was held in Washington D.C. in 1816 — thus, just 40 years after the founding, thoughtful Americans first took serious measures to separate the races. Bushrod Washington, a Supreme Court Justice and nephew of George Washington, served as the first president of the organization. The great American statesman Henry Clay of Kentucky provided its main intellectual and political leadership.

    The prestige of the ACS benefited tremendously from the high-profile association of leaders like Clay and Washington, and over the years, some of America’s greatest men were not merely members but officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Stephen Douglas, John Randolph, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, John Marshall and Roger Taney. Other great men such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, while never members of the society, strongly supported colonization and the removal of blacks from the United States. None of these men had any illusions about the desirability of a multiracial America. Over the next forty years, the ACS would work very hard to remove what Lincoln called “a troublesome presence.”

    For three years the society lobbied Congress for financial support. In 1817 Bushrod Washington first asked Congress for legislation to support creation of an African colony. When that request failed, the ACS sent a two-man expedition to Africa to gather and present more solidly researched data on the proposal. After a number of unsuccessful attempts, the ACS purchased land from local tribes, and in 1820 the society finally got the support it was seeking. Congress passed and President James Monroe approved a grant for $100,000 to set up a colony for free blacks. The colony was named Liberia meaning “free land,” and the first settlement was named Monrovia in appreciation of the support of President Monroe. It is the capitol of Liberia to this day.

    It is worth noting that in the American republic before the days of Lincoln, federal officials took the Constitutional limits placed on their authority very seriously and thus played a very limited role in running the country. It is therefore of great significance that Congress saw fit to help remove blacks from the United States. It not only reflected a wide-spread national desire, but was an important step in federal involvement in matters traditionally left up to the states.

    In 1825, the ACS started a monthly paper called African Repository and Colonial Journal. This helped spread the message and — later — helped defend the society against attacks from both abolitionists and slaveholders. Little by little, Liberia grew. By the start of the Civil War, after more than 40 years of colonization, the ACS had resettled more that 11,000 free blacks. It was only through the society’s support and under white leadership that the colony was able to survive malaria, wars with neighboring tribes, and the unreliability of supply shipments. Throughout this period, the ACS never gave up hope that the federal government would eventually commit itself to resettlement on a large scale.

    Slaveowners opposed repatriation. They didn’t want to give away their slaves. Apparently, even back in the 1800s, there were “jobs that Americans won’t do.”

    Though the society remained officially neutral on the subject of slavery, many slaveholders distrusted its motives. While some were members of the ACS and were eager to be rid of free blacks who might encourage insurrection, others held a lingering suspicion that in its desire to rid the nation of Africans, the society would eventually take away their slaves. Indeed, some of the rhetoric of Henry Clay, who was always closely associated with the colonization movement, gave them cause for concern.

    Clay spoke, for example, of reducing the number of blacks (free and slave) to five percent of the population through colonization and white immigration. And in a speech to Congress in 1850 opposing the extension of slavery to the West he said, “while you reproach, and justly so, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution on the continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and New Mexico shall reproach us for doing the same thing which we reproach Great Britain for doing to us.” Some slaveholders saw such anti-slavery rhetoric as uncomfortably close to abolitionism.

    Lincoln wanted to put blacks in Texas or Central/South America.

    Though never a member of the society, Lincoln was a strong proponent of colonization, and during the war had appointed a minister to investigate sites in Central and South America that would be nearby, inexpensive destinations for colonization. As the war drew to an end he became increasingly worried about the problem of what to do with freed blacks, and even considered setting aside Texas for forcible resettlement. Had he not been assassinated, there is little doubt that he would have worked energetically for a separatist solution to the Negro problem.

    Read More
  167. @Svigor

    The slave owners. That’s who. They fought to keep slaves here in the U.S. Lincoln wanted to colonize (deport) slaves from America.



    If only Stalin knew! There was very little done to repatriate Blacks after the war. Yankees probably did more to prevent the Blacks they'd just freed from moving to Yankeeland than they did to repatriate them to Africa. Had Lincoln lived, little would have changed; the North didn't care to repatriate Blacks without Lincoln, so him living wouldn't have changed that. Lincoln talked repatriation for votes, he was a consummate politician.

    Are you saying the slavery was a successful model?
     
    Well, it's still going strong in Africa.

    None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.
     
    Civil war killing 1m Americans was doable, though.

    Well, it’s still going strong in Africa.

    So Africa is a successful model?

    Civil war killing 1m Americans was doable, though.

    It wasn’t doable because slave owners didn’t want to give up their cheap-labor slaves. Repatriation, liquidation, and reservation would’ve hurt slave owners financially.

    Read More
  168. I find it strange that some people here bash business interests who hire cheap foreign labor and want those foreigners deported, but then defend slavery. Slavery was the original H-1b program for the agriculturalist planters. Slavery was also the original workplace diversity program too. Slavery enabled the hiring of cheap foreign workers and increased the ethnic diversity of America.

    Contrary to what some people here are claiming, slaves weren’t subject to “apartheid.”

    I find it funny that people here bash liberals, but then borrow a term like “apartheid.” Blacks were not subject to any “apartheid” in the South. They lived in the same areas as whites and worked the same fields. There was no “apartheid.”

    Also, interracial unions happened too. Enough that a large mulatto population formed.

    Read More
  169. @JohnnyWalker123
    That's why I find it comical that so many posters here claim mass non-white immigration started due to the 1965 Act.

    The reality is that mass non-white immigration started way back in the colonial era, due to the slave trade. The model for slavery was first conceived around 1555.

    So rather than blaming the 1965 Immigration Act for mass non-white immigration, perhaps the posters here should start blaming the 1555 Act.

    The total number of slaves imported from Africa to the United State territory during its entire history (including colonial times) is estimated to have been less than 400,000.

    The number of immigrants we are importing EACH YEAR as a result of Hart-Celler is THREE TIMES THAT–again, EVERY YEAR. Those numbers don’t even include illegal immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    America's population was much smaller back then, so 400,000 was a huge number. Also, fertility rates were high, which is how blacks came to be about 10% of the population pre-1965 (even with mass white immigration diluting their share).
  170. @FKA Max
    This is very interesting research on foot binding, and dispels some of the popular myths surrounding the archaic and barbaric custom:


    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/


    Their findings dispel several “origin myths” and mistaken assumptions associated with the brutal custom.
    [...]
    While the women surveyed thought foot binding would lead to a good marriage, the numbers didn’t add up. After a detailed analysis, the researchers found no overall statistically significant data to support the theory that women with bound feet were in more prosperous households after marriage as compared with their birth households.

    “What we found, in fact, is that there is not a link,” said Brown, adding, “The majority show no marital mobility.”

    So why were the feet of 7-year-old girls bound so often if the end result had no impact on their ability to marry above their class?

    The answer involves a financial reality.

    “For me, the question about foot binding has always been ‘How could rural families afford to lose women’s labor’ ”? said Bossen, anthropology professor emerita at McGill University. “What work could they do when they had bound feet?”

    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     

    Consider the possibility that bound feet functioned as an obstacle to infidelity. A kind of chastity belt.

    Read More
  171. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Slavery significantly decreased the standard of living for free whites in the South. If not for the importation of slaves, wages would've been higher and working conditions would've been better. Free whites would've lived better.

    Also, the land wouldn't have become so concentrated in the hands of a few planter-oligarchs. Rather, poor whites would've acquired a lot of land and been better off.

    Slavery was the original H-1b program for 1700s-era agriculture. The reality is that even back then, there were people pushing cheap labor migration.

    I find it remarkable that posters here are defending the importation of slaves into the U.S.

    Next time when some of you want to criticize liberals for mass immigration, I'll bring up this topic.

    Don’t be surprised that posters here defend the importation of slaves. Don’t be surprised by much of what the posters here say and defend.

    Read More
  172. @JohnnyWalker123

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It’s not their fault they didn’t anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations.
     
    None of those (repatriation, liquidation, reservation) are realistic options. The slave owners actually opposed repatriation.

    When slaves were brought over, the assumption was they'd forever be a cheap labor class.

    Eternal H-1bs.

    You're defending that?

    I rate the southern aristocracy higher than our current ruling class. Slavery was bad for non-wealthy Whites, but today’s stuff is much much worse. The original post was that the pre war southern elites were the worst social class in American history. Which to me is ridiculous.

    Read More
  173. @JohnnyWalker123
    Slavery significantly decreased the standard of living for free whites in the South. If not for the importation of slaves, wages would've been higher and working conditions would've been better. Free whites would've lived better.

    Also, the land wouldn't have become so concentrated in the hands of a few planter-oligarchs. Rather, poor whites would've acquired a lot of land and been better off.

    Slavery was the original H-1b program for 1700s-era agriculture. The reality is that even back then, there were people pushing cheap labor migration.

    I find it remarkable that posters here are defending the importation of slaves into the U.S.

    Next time when some of you want to criticize liberals for mass immigration, I'll bring up this topic.

    >I find it remarkable that posters here are defending the importation of slaves into the U.S.

    For a guy with as good of a post history as yours that’s a really bad interpretation of what was said.

    I said I believed that slaves in the American south had it better than slaves anywhere else and that the slave owning elites were a better class of people than e.g. Mark Zuckerberg.

    Obviously I would rather the slaves never been here in the first place for all the reasons you stated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    I rate the southern aristocracy higher than our current ruling class. Slavery was bad for non-wealthy Whites, but today’s stuff is much much worse. The original post was that the pre war southern elites were the worst social class in American history. Which to me is ridiculous.
     
    Let's see.

    The Southern aristocracy imported huge numbers of African migrants to work the fields, rather than hire fellow White Southerners. When some people suggested repatriating those slaves, the Southern aristocracy refused. When one section of the country, the Southern aristocracy convinced the masses of Southerners (most of whom were poor farmers that competed against slave labor) to fight. In the war, over a million people died.

    Even in addition to all of the above, the South was historically much poorer than the rest of the country. There's evidence that mismanagement and slavery played a role in this. So the Southern aristocracy were poor leaders, in addition to being huge boosters of foreign African labor.

    Slavery was an unmitigated disaster for White Southern workers. So I wouldn't be defending Southern elites.

    Praising Southern elites would be like praising modern American elites, who defend their right to import foreigners and send Americans into lots of wars of dubious value.

  174. It wasn’t doable because slave owners didn’t want to give up their cheap-labor slaves. Repatriation, liquidation, and reservation would’ve hurt slave owners financially

    So, repatriation wasn’t doable because Southerners didn’t want it. But invading and burning the South, waging America’s deadliest war, resulting in the death of up to 1m Americans, that was doable. Does that mean Southerners wanted it? Is that how you square this nonsensical circle? Or are you saying that it would have been impossible to repatriate the slaves after the North had just defeated the South in the bloodiest war in our history, because the Southerners didn’t want it?

    I find it strange that some people here bash business interests who hire cheap foreign labor and want those foreigners deported, but then defend slavery.

    I haven’t defended slavery (e.g., pointing out that it’s as natural as rain for Blacks to enslave each other isn’t defending it). I’ve merely refused to join in praising the Glorious Union for waging an illegitimate war of aggression that killed 1m White Americans, the deadliest in our history, “because muh slavery.” (Notice how no one has answered my query about how many Blacks were killed by Southern slave owners, to justify the slaughter of Whites supposedly (spuriously) done to stop the institution)

    [MORE]

    One, it’s a lie; if slavery had been the matter, there’d be a Confederacy today, because the Union never would have waged a war over it (the current Yankee Narrative is a calumny against their own ancestors). Two, it’s innumerate; 4m Black slaves do not begin to justify 1m White deaths, that’s maniac leftist math. Three, it’s an obvious fig leaf for the North’s aggressive pursuit of economic self-interest; Four, slavery was baked into the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and every other fiber of the Republic’s being, from long before its birth, to its death in 1865. Five, it’s monstrous to lay siege to a prison, kill all the guards, free all the prisoners, and then blame the resulting crime wave on the guards you just killed. It’s the pinnacle of victors writing a false history. But that’s precisely what a coterie of Yankees here do, every time they blame America’s Black problems on the South (or the planter class). Slavery created the potential for a disaster, but it took Yankees, their aggressive war, and 1m Whites killed to force that potential into reality (it’s really quite a lot of work to bring such a disaster to fruition).

    It’s schizo leftism, trying to have your cake and eat it too, coming from people ostensibly on the right: “slavery was fine back when the Constitution was framed, and for nearly a century after, but suddenly it became jus casus belli, because Glorious Yankee History says so – it wasn’t America that did wrong, it wuz da souf; Blacks in America are a disaster, but setting them free wasn’t what made that so, oh no, nobody touches muh Glorious Yankee Narrative; glorious Yankeeland was somehow all glory in the Civil War, but then magically transformed into a leftist crap extruding machine from 1865 to the current year, with the former Confederate States voting against their transformative leftist legislation again, and again, and again. Put 2 and 2 together, Yankees. Your history ain’t so glorious.

    The Union had no more right to oppose secession “because slavery” than a man has the right to forbid his wife divorcing him “because she cheated on me,” “because she saved money on the side without telling me,” etc. The stream of leftist bullshit that flows vis-a-vis this subject, from Yankees openly in denial, vexes me.

    The lawyer who presses the wife’s right to divorce, regardless of her infidelities, is not (necessarily) defending infidelity, just as people who call out Yankees in denial are not (necessarily) defending slavery.

    (This is all ignoring the obvious fact that slavery wasn’t infidelity; slavery was baked right into the Union, from its birth, as were secession and revolution)

    Supposed rightists sound exactly like leftists: “HBD is defending Hitler!” “Not agreeing with Glorious Yankee Narrative is defending slavery!”

    It’s like these people don’t know that their precious Yankeeland has been the engine of American lefism.

    Don’t be surprised that posters here defend the importation of slaves. Don’t be surprised by much of what the posters here say and defend.

    Again, a quick history (and logic) lesson for Yankees:

    1. South buys lots of Black slaves (sold by the Black conquerors who enslaved them, and delivered by Yankee merchants and shippers, to a Union that for centuries had been just fine with the practice).
    2. North invades and burns the South, frees the slaves.
    3. Putting the blame for America’s current Black disaster where it belongs – on 2 – is not “defending slavery,” or “defending the importation of slaves,” or any such.

    If leftists didn’t want me advocating race realism, they shouldn’t have tried to pin “Black failure” on Whites. If leftists didn’t want me advocating Civil War realism, they shouldn’t have tried pinning “Black failure” on the South. I don’t bring this matter up; I just respond to it when leftists/Yankees open their yaps about it.

    Read More
  175. Obviously I would rather the slaves never been here in the first place for all the reasons you stated.

    Agreed. And I would also rather the North had not invaded the South. And that repatriation had preceded emancipation. The North’s aggression (and indifference to repatriation after the war) made that impossible.

    Read More
  176. @JohnnyWalker123
    Well, as I recall, there was a large black population pre-1965. Where did they come from?

    If America was run by patriotic white nationalists until 1965, why did we have a large black population?

    The reality is that even before this country was founded, there was mass non-white immigration. Slavery is the original H-1b program.

    Eternal guestworkers.

    Holy non sequitur, Batman.

    I guess you don’t have any substantive response to that article. Thanks for making that clear. It helps me assess the merit of the rest of your statements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    This isn't complicated to understand.

    There has been a large black population in America since the colonial era. Mostly because there was mass non-white immigration as early as 1600s. If bringing non-whites to America is unpatriotic, then American elites were unpatriotic even as far back as hundreds of years ago.

    Unpatriotic elites and mass non-white immigration didn't just begin in 1965, contrary to what nearly poster here believes. Business interests have been importing cheap labor, from whever they could find it, for as long as this country has existed.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    The 65 Act placed a quota on immigration from Latin America, Carribean, and Mexico. Before that, Latin/Carribean/Mexican migration was uncapped. If not for the 65 Act, America would’ve been flooded even worse. The 65 Act didn't open the southern border, it closed the border and limited Western hemisphere migration to only 150,000 per year.

    Immigration exploded in the mid 70s (not 60s) because business interests wanted lower-cost employees and were alarmed by rapidly increasing wages. Then it exploded even more in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, as more employers started to incorporate foreign labor into their business model.

    The major legislative increases in immigration happened in 1986 (amnesty), 1990 (legal immigration expanded), the 1990s (more amnesties), 1998-2000 (H-1B expansion), the late 2000s ( various OPT visa expansions), and 2015 (H-1b spouse visas).
  177. @res
    Holy non sequitur, Batman.

    I guess you don't have any substantive response to that article. Thanks for making that clear. It helps me assess the merit of the rest of your statements.

    This isn’t complicated to understand.

    There has been a large black population in America since the colonial era. Mostly because there was mass non-white immigration as early as 1600s. If bringing non-whites to America is unpatriotic, then American elites were unpatriotic even as far back as hundreds of years ago.

    Unpatriotic elites and mass non-white immigration didn’t just begin in 1965, contrary to what nearly poster here believes. Business interests have been importing cheap labor, from whever they could find it, for as long as this country has existed.

    Read More
  178. @res
    Holy non sequitur, Batman.

    I guess you don't have any substantive response to that article. Thanks for making that clear. It helps me assess the merit of the rest of your statements.

    The 65 Act placed a quota on immigration from Latin America, Carribean, and Mexico. Before that, Latin/Carribean/Mexican migration was uncapped. If not for the 65 Act, America would’ve been flooded even worse. The 65 Act didn’t open the southern border, it closed the border and limited Western hemisphere migration to only 150,000 per year.

    Immigration exploded in the mid 70s (not 60s) because business interests wanted lower-cost employees and were alarmed by rapidly increasing wages. Then it exploded even more in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, as more employers started to incorporate foreign labor into their business model.

    The major legislative increases in immigration happened in 1986 (amnesty), 1990 (legal immigration expanded), the 1990s (more amnesties), 1998-2000 (H-1B expansion), the late 2000s ( various OPT visa expansions), and 2015 (H-1b spouse visas).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The major legislative increases in immigration happened in 1986 (amnesty), 1990 (legal immigration expanded), the 1990s (more amnesties), 1998-2000 (H-1B expansion), the late 2000s ( various OPT visa expansions), and 2015 (H-1b spouse visas).
     
    As is shown clearly (not) in the plot of US Foreign-Born share in the link I gave: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/

    Still waiting for a substantive argument. Do you have any data to support your statements?
  179. @Opinionator
    The total number of slaves imported from Africa to the United State territory during its entire history (including colonial times) is estimated to have been less than 400,000.

    The number of immigrants we are importing EACH YEAR as a result of Hart-Celler is THREE TIMES THAT--again, EVERY YEAR. Those numbers don't even include illegal immigrants.

    America’s population was much smaller back then, so 400,000 was a huge number. Also, fertility rates were high, which is how blacks came to be about 10% of the population pre-1965 (even with mass white immigration diluting their share).

    Read More
  180. @27 year old
    >I find it remarkable that posters here are defending the importation of slaves into the U.S.

    For a guy with as good of a post history as yours that's a really bad interpretation of what was said.

    I said I believed that slaves in the American south had it better than slaves anywhere else and that the slave owning elites were a better class of people than e.g. Mark Zuckerberg.

    Obviously I would rather the slaves never been here in the first place for all the reasons you stated.

    I rate the southern aristocracy higher than our current ruling class. Slavery was bad for non-wealthy Whites, but today’s stuff is much much worse. The original post was that the pre war southern elites were the worst social class in American history. Which to me is ridiculous.

    Let’s see.

    The Southern aristocracy imported huge numbers of African migrants to work the fields, rather than hire fellow White Southerners. When some people suggested repatriating those slaves, the Southern aristocracy refused. When one section of the country, the Southern aristocracy convinced the masses of Southerners (most of whom were poor farmers that competed against slave labor) to fight. In the war, over a million people died.

    Even in addition to all of the above, the South was historically much poorer than the rest of the country. There’s evidence that mismanagement and slavery played a role in this. So the Southern aristocracy were poor leaders, in addition to being huge boosters of foreign African labor.

    Slavery was an unmitigated disaster for White Southern workers. So I wouldn’t be defending Southern elites.

    Praising Southern elites would be like praising modern American elites, who defend their right to import foreigners and send Americans into lots of wars of dubious value.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Southern aristocracy: on top of the world in 1860, smoking ruin in 1865.

    Ya know, they could have united behind Stephen Douglas in 1860 and won in a landslide, but no they had to run 2 other candidates, then throw a hissy fit when Lincoln won.

  181. @JohnnyWalker123

    I rate the southern aristocracy higher than our current ruling class. Slavery was bad for non-wealthy Whites, but today’s stuff is much much worse. The original post was that the pre war southern elites were the worst social class in American history. Which to me is ridiculous.
     
    Let's see.

    The Southern aristocracy imported huge numbers of African migrants to work the fields, rather than hire fellow White Southerners. When some people suggested repatriating those slaves, the Southern aristocracy refused. When one section of the country, the Southern aristocracy convinced the masses of Southerners (most of whom were poor farmers that competed against slave labor) to fight. In the war, over a million people died.

    Even in addition to all of the above, the South was historically much poorer than the rest of the country. There's evidence that mismanagement and slavery played a role in this. So the Southern aristocracy were poor leaders, in addition to being huge boosters of foreign African labor.

    Slavery was an unmitigated disaster for White Southern workers. So I wouldn't be defending Southern elites.

    Praising Southern elites would be like praising modern American elites, who defend their right to import foreigners and send Americans into lots of wars of dubious value.

    Southern aristocracy: on top of the world in 1860, smoking ruin in 1865.

    Ya know, they could have united behind Stephen Douglas in 1860 and won in a landslide, but no they had to run 2 other candidates, then throw a hissy fit when Lincoln won.

    Read More
  182. OF course White women love love love ugly and violent Third World dysfunction, as it hurts their real enemies: White men.

    Still a loon, I see.

    The 65 Act placed a quota on immigration from Latin America, Carribean, and Mexico. Before that, Latin/Carribean/Mexican migration was uncapped. If not for the 65 Act, America would’ve been flooded even worse. The 65 Act didn’t open the southern border, it closed the border and limited Western hemisphere migration to only 150,000 per year.

    Did your relative write the thing, or something? Yuuge Kennedy fan?

    Before 1965, America was almost 90% White. Today, America is 60-65% White, and falling.

    The Southern aristocracy imported huge numbers of African migrants to work the fields, rather than hire fellow White Southerners. When some people suggested repatriating those slaves, the Southern aristocracy refused. When one section of the country, the Southern aristocracy convinced the masses of Southerners (most of whom were poor farmers that competed against slave labor) to fight. In the war, over a million people died.

    That’s like describing WWII without mentioning Hitler invaded half of Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Yuuge Kennedy fan?
     
    Maybe you should read the 1965 Act first. The contents are online.

    Before 1965, America was almost 90% White. Today, America is 60-65% White, and falling.
     
    This has nothing to do with the 1965 Act. If you followed the rest of the discussion, you'd see that mass migration began in the mid 1970s. Mostly due to business interests. Then there were many legislative increases in immigration during the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. Most of those increases were connected into labor migration.

    That’s like describing WWII without mentioning Hitler invaded half of Europe.
     
    My point is that slavery was utterly disastrous for both the North and South. Not only did it lower the standard of living for workers in both regions of the country, but there was a huge death toll in the Civil War.

    You can argue whether to blame North or South for all of this, but I'd assign the blame mostly to profit-seeking business interests and aristocrats.

  183. @Anon
    Bound feet had erotic connotations so potent you did not discuss them in detail in mixed company, as a western missionary found when the college-age men in the audience she was lecturing to, started snickering and acting uncomfortable. This was during the 1920s when the government was trying to stamp it out. Foot binding may not often have moved women up the market, but it was considered necessary by most to be in the marriage market at all. According to many narratives collected during the government movement against footbinding, many little girls were told sternly, "you will not be able to get married if you don't bind."
    Chinese footbinding: the history of a curious erotic custom, by Howard Seymour Levy, W. Rawls, 1966.

    Bound feet had erotic connotations so potent you did not discuss them in detail in mixed company . . .

    Please enlighten us.

    Read More
  184. @JohnnyWalker123
    The 65 Act placed a quota on immigration from Latin America, Carribean, and Mexico. Before that, Latin/Carribean/Mexican migration was uncapped. If not for the 65 Act, America would’ve been flooded even worse. The 65 Act didn't open the southern border, it closed the border and limited Western hemisphere migration to only 150,000 per year.

    Immigration exploded in the mid 70s (not 60s) because business interests wanted lower-cost employees and were alarmed by rapidly increasing wages. Then it exploded even more in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, as more employers started to incorporate foreign labor into their business model.

    The major legislative increases in immigration happened in 1986 (amnesty), 1990 (legal immigration expanded), the 1990s (more amnesties), 1998-2000 (H-1B expansion), the late 2000s ( various OPT visa expansions), and 2015 (H-1b spouse visas).

    The major legislative increases in immigration happened in 1986 (amnesty), 1990 (legal immigration expanded), the 1990s (more amnesties), 1998-2000 (H-1B expansion), the late 2000s ( various OPT visa expansions), and 2015 (H-1b spouse visas).

    As is shown clearly (not) in the plot of US Foreign-Born share in the link I gave: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/

    Still waiting for a substantive argument. Do you have any data to support your statements?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes, the graph in your link.

    Foreign-born population

    1960: 9.7 million
    1970: 9.6 million
    1980: 14.1 million

    As I said above, mass immigration began around the mid 1970s due to a tight labor market. The data show that.
  185. @res

    The major legislative increases in immigration happened in 1986 (amnesty), 1990 (legal immigration expanded), the 1990s (more amnesties), 1998-2000 (H-1B expansion), the late 2000s ( various OPT visa expansions), and 2015 (H-1b spouse visas).
     
    As is shown clearly (not) in the plot of US Foreign-Born share in the link I gave: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/

    Still waiting for a substantive argument. Do you have any data to support your statements?

    Yes, the graph in your link.

    Foreign-born population

    1960: 9.7 million
    1970: 9.6 million
    1980: 14.1 million

    As I said above, mass immigration began around the mid 1970s due to a tight labor market. The data show that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That would be Figure 5.1. One problem we have here is that much of this data is based on the US census so it is hard to see what happened from 1960 to 1965 relative to 1965 to 1970. It is worth noting that in 1960 the age pyramid for the foreign born (Figure 5.5) was strongly biased older: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-58/
    which raises the question of how many of those people died before 1970.

    You can see more recent versions of the immigrant age pyramid at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/age-sex-pyramids-immigrant-and-native-born-population-over-time
    Looking at the first of those from 1970 we can already see a significant change (e.g. notice the level of 30-34 year olds in 1970 and contrast to the 20-24 year olds from 1960).

    The changing shape of the age pyramid for immigrants over this period is an undercommented upon fact IMHO. Both in terms of reproductive tendencies and probable level of assimilation of older immigrants in the US for an extended time.

    It is also worth noting the likelihood of a time lag between legislation, change in immigration, and visibility in statistics.

    Green card data is available annually: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true
    Notice the 25% increase from 1965 to 1970. The data show that the increase started before 1970.

    You make some worthwhile points (e.g. there were plenty of contributors to increased immigration post-1965), but I really wonder about your attempt to minimize the importance of the 1965 Immigration Act. I don't think anyone here is asserting there was a step change in the immigrant population in 1965. Demographic change (replacement) takes time.

  186. @Svigor

    OF course White women love love love ugly and violent Third World dysfunction, as it hurts their real enemies: White men.



    Still a loon, I see.

    The 65 Act placed a quota on immigration from Latin America, Carribean, and Mexico. Before that, Latin/Carribean/Mexican migration was uncapped. If not for the 65 Act, America would’ve been flooded even worse. The 65 Act didn’t open the southern border, it closed the border and limited Western hemisphere migration to only 150,000 per year.
     
    Did your relative write the thing, or something? Yuuge Kennedy fan?

    Before 1965, America was almost 90% White. Today, America is 60-65% White, and falling.

    The Southern aristocracy imported huge numbers of African migrants to work the fields, rather than hire fellow White Southerners. When some people suggested repatriating those slaves, the Southern aristocracy refused. When one section of the country, the Southern aristocracy convinced the masses of Southerners (most of whom were poor farmers that competed against slave labor) to fight. In the war, over a million people died.
     
    That's like describing WWII without mentioning Hitler invaded half of Europe.

    Yuuge Kennedy fan?

    Maybe you should read the 1965 Act first. The contents are online.

    Before 1965, America was almost 90% White. Today, America is 60-65% White, and falling.

    This has nothing to do with the 1965 Act. If you followed the rest of the discussion, you’d see that mass migration began in the mid 1970s. Mostly due to business interests. Then there were many legislative increases in immigration during the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. Most of those increases were connected into labor migration.

    That’s like describing WWII without mentioning Hitler invaded half of Europe.

    My point is that slavery was utterly disastrous for both the North and South. Not only did it lower the standard of living for workers in both regions of the country, but there was a huge death toll in the Civil War.

    You can argue whether to blame North or South for all of this, but I’d assign the blame mostly to profit-seeking business interests and aristocrats.

    Read More
  187. @27 year old
    >old Southern elites the worst social class in American history.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It's not their fault they didn't anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc... Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.

    Worse than what we got now?? No way. It’s not their fault they didn’t anticipate the blacks getting full citizenship instead of being repatriated or liquidated or put onto reservations. Contrast to some social classes of the current year who openly demand the invitation of more low IQ populations and that same not only get full citizenship but get protected status over and above us natives? Even if you ignore their respective positions on Christianity, tradition, etc etc etc… Robert E Lee vs Jeff Bezos is not even close.

    Here’s something else you’re wrong about.

    The slaves, in many instances, got protected status over whites.

    Slaves were taken care of in youth (free daycare), in sickness (free healthcare), and when too old to work (free nursing home care). However, white laborers enjoyed no such privilege. Sure, better off whites could’ve afforded those services or even used the help of relatives, but there were lots of subsistence white laborers back then. Subsistence laborers (both Northern and Southern) didn’t have the privilege of daycare, healthcare, or nursing home care. They were too poor to afford it and their relatives were mostly busy in subsistence labor too, so there weren’t many family members with free-time who could be of assistance.

    Southern planters&aristocrats frequently made the argument that their slaves were often better off than poor white laborers, both in the North and the South. It’s not neccessarily because Southern elites were more humane to all workers. In the South, white laborers (often Irish) were often worked to death in extremely strenuous conditions. So not everyone benefited from paternalism.

    Another interesting fact is that in the slavery era South, whites were 4.4x more likely to be lynched than blacks.

    So you’re wrong that old Southern elites didn’t give protected status to blacks. In many ways, blacks were highly protected.

    Sure the standard of living for an average black slave was lower than that of an average White American citizen, but black slaves were better off than White American subsistence laborers (of which there were many). They also had a much better standard of living than Africans back home and were better off than even most European workers&peasants. House slaves in particular had a very high standard of living.

    Sure black slaves couldn’t vote, but neither can illegals or H-1bs or any type of guestworker. From what I’ve seen, modern leaders don’t neccessarily always care that much about foreigners voting. Also, back then, poor and uneducated whites often couldn’t vote either.

    By the way, let’s say you went to white elites of NYC and asked them if they were okay with an arrangement in which NAMs and working-class whites got disenfranchised. Under the arrangment, only college-educated whites would be able to vote in NYC. What would they think of this?

    You could make the argument that black slaves weren’t free to leave their employer, but how much “freedom” did the average subsistence laborer have back then? Lots of white subsistence laborers were too poor to move and too uneducated to change their profession. Out of poverty and neccessity, they ended up getting trapped on the plantation of a local landowner and had no way of leaving. The situation for European serfs was no different either.

    So while enslavement was certainly not a pleasant arrangement, it was roughly comparable to the work arrangment of a large fraction of White-Americans and White-Europeans.

    Due to modern propaganda, people believe that slaves had it extremely bad and whites have always had it extremely good. The reality is that back then, almost everyone had it pretty bad. In many cases, whites had it worse than black slaves.

    Both you and modern-day liberals accept the idea that black slaves were treated badly. In your opinion, this bad treatment of blacks proves that White Southern elites were good leaders. In the opinion of liberals, this bad treatment of blacks proves that White Southern elites were barbaric monsters.

    In reality, the slaves weren’t that badly treated at all (by the standard of the average White American/Euro of the time). So you (and the various white nationalists who like old Southern elites) are wrong. So are the liberals.

    White Southern elites were very much the Mark Zuckerbergs of the 1600s-1800s. They brought over foreigners, gave them (by the standards of the time) an okay standard of living, and often were paternalistic. They also were very Zuckberg-like in their poor public stewardship and leading their people to disaster.

    Read More
  188. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes, the graph in your link.

    Foreign-born population

    1960: 9.7 million
    1970: 9.6 million
    1980: 14.1 million

    As I said above, mass immigration began around the mid 1970s due to a tight labor market. The data show that.

    That would be Figure 5.1. One problem we have here is that much of this data is based on the US census so it is hard to see what happened from 1960 to 1965 relative to 1965 to 1970. It is worth noting that in 1960 the age pyramid for the foreign born (Figure 5.5) was strongly biased older: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-58/
    which raises the question of how many of those people died before 1970.

    You can see more recent versions of the immigrant age pyramid at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/age-sex-pyramids-immigrant-and-native-born-population-over-time
    Looking at the first of those from 1970 we can already see a significant change (e.g. notice the level of 30-34 year olds in 1970 and contrast to the 20-24 year olds from 1960).

    The changing shape of the age pyramid for immigrants over this period is an undercommented upon fact IMHO. Both in terms of reproductive tendencies and probable level of assimilation of older immigrants in the US for an extended time.

    It is also worth noting the likelihood of a time lag between legislation, change in immigration, and visibility in statistics.

    Green card data is available annually: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true
    Notice the 25% increase from 1965 to 1970. The data show that the increase started before 1970.

    You make some worthwhile points (e.g. there were plenty of contributors to increased immigration post-1965), but I really wonder about your attempt to minimize the importance of the 1965 Immigration Act. I don’t think anyone here is asserting there was a step change in the immigrant population in 1965. Demographic change (replacement) takes time.

    Read More
  189. @Jefferson
    "It’s like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with white/Jewish elites, but they’ve been ‘included’ to serve as nannies and helots."

    According to the pro-open borders New York Times, Mexicans are a White ethnic group so how are they not equal in wealth and income with Jews and WASPs?

    According to the pro-open borders New York Times, Mexicans are a White ethnic group so how are they not equal in wealth and income with Jews and WASPs?

    WASP’s are bigots against ethnics even if they are white, and Jews aren’t white.

    there ya go, the world according to the the NYTimes

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.