politics, Satire

Michele Bachman Meant Whites Were Better Off During Slavery

By Bill Matthews

Bachmann has already picked out the woman she will enslave.

(WOODBURY, MN) Michele Bachmann has drafted a bill to bring back slavery. The Congresswoman hopes to reverse the 13th amendment, which put a stop to the practice in 1864.

Bachmann got the idea recently, after she signed a document that indicated African American families were better off during slavery. She didn’t actually read the document before signing it, but after hearing media reports about the section concerning blacks during slavery, Bachmann had a brainstorm.

“Well, once I thought about it, I realized that the blacks really were better off back then. They had free room and board, they had steady work, they could be raped at any minute by a white person, they loved their masters,” Bachmann told The Peoples News. “We would be doing the blacks a favor if we re-instituted a national policy that kept them off the streets.”

Bachmann also realized that while blacks were better off during slavery, whites were really better off.

“Can you imagine how cool it would be to own someone and make them do whatever you want?” Bachmann said. “If Gone With The Wind has taught us anything, and I think it has, it would be totally wicked!”

The Tea Party hadn’t decided whether to support Bachmann’s proposal.

“Does it raise taxes? Does it lower taxes? We need some hard numbers before we get behind something like this,” said Tea Party spokesman Kellie Martin. “We won’t support anything that raises taxes. We mean that.”

Bachmann said under her plan, anyone could be a slave, regardless of their sexual orientation, religion, sexuality or national origin, so long as they’re black.

“I hope we get some volunteers so we can have a trial run,” she said. Then referring to her hometown Minnesota Vikings, she added, “I hope I get Adrian Peterson.”

NAACP President Ben Jealous was dumbfounded. Or actually, he said he found Bachmann to be dumb.

“She signed the document without reading it? Well it’s a good thing presidents don’t have to comprehend and sign lengthy documents,” Jealous said. “Oh wait.”

Bachmann promised that she would read everything she signs from now on, but said she would have to brush up on her comprehension skills.

“Then someday, hopefully, I can get so good at reading that I teach it to my very own slave mammy. Secretly, of course. I wouldn’t want her to be sold away from me,” Bachmann said. Then she added wistfully, “A girl can dream.”

© 2011 The Peoples News

Advertisements

Discussion

17 thoughts on “Michele Bachman Meant Whites Were Better Off During Slavery

  1. Not only does the preamble to this agreement make the implication that the black family was better off during slavery, it also makes the even more absurd suggestion that Obama’s presidency has had a negative effect of some kind on the state of the black family….and the main theme of the document is about gay marriage. ????? How did black people and slavery get pulled into this?
    I guess p!ssing on gays wasn’t enough, they had to pull in another demographic that they dislike almost equally as much.

    Kinda reminds me of the whole Mel Gibson phone conversation where all of a sudden he starts shooting off the n word for no apparent reason.

    Posted by Lou | July 13, 2011, 9:36 am
  2. Nice – I hope we who recognize evil when we see it realize Bachman or whoever the Repugnat Party candidate turns out to be will be a formidable foe and we need to all join in to help Obama stay in the White House where he belongs.

    Posted by Tom | July 13, 2011, 10:14 am
  3. okay, let’s get past all white people are racists and all black people are victims and get to what I am most curious about. The truth. Is the statement true? Were children born to people in slavery more likely to be raised by their biological parents, together, than are black children born today? Is that true? That is a provocative statement. Aren’t you curious as to whether or not that is even true? I think we should all read the whole document because it seems to hit on a lot of subjects. None of which is a return to slavery. – I know, I know… satire.

    Bill Matthews responds: I read the pledge. It’s what you would expect from a ‘conservative’ group. Some of it I agreed with. But they do imply that being born a slave to two enslaved parents is better than being born free. That deserves ridicule. I tried to find out the validity of the statement, but even if it’s true: What point are they trying to make? I’ll ask you and anyone else who wants to weigh in: What point do you think they were trying to make by saying that?

    Double edit: What am I thinking: 1860 Census data rarely included slaves. Slaves marriages also weren’t recognized legally. So I call shenanigans on this statistic.

    Posted by Renee | July 13, 2011, 11:19 am
  4. Thank goodness the risk of being sold and sent away from your family at a very early age doesn’t rank with being born into a single parent household or to gay parents. Whew!

    Posted by Robin | July 13, 2011, 5:48 pm
  5. Bill, funny, but as a conservative woman, I didn’t know what to expect so kudos to you for knowing what to expect. 70%! Is that true? Are you kidding me? What the heck are you so friggin’ proud of? That is horrible! I see that our society has provided for and encouraged people to bail on their commitments and we are experiencing unintended consequences. From relationships and commitments to job loyalty and personal finance. People do whatever the heck they want and if they have to divorce, abort, file bankruptcy, or sign away parental rights, to resolve their issue of the day then so be it. That is NOT the way I was raised, that is not how I raised my children, that is not what I want for my grandchildren. This world has gone crazy. What is your solution? How do you get men to stay and raise their children or is that not a priority for you?
    They do not imply that it was better to be born to slaves. They imply that even under the stress and strain of slavery, people were able to keep it together better than the free wheelin’ folk of today. You wanna be sidetracked by that statement and political crucify this woman (was she the only one to sign it or the most convenient) instead of being alarmed and frightened by 70% – then more power to ya’.

    Bill Matthews responds: You misunderstood me, Renee, and I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. When I said “it’s what you’d expect,” I was referring to the issues they were bringing up: defining marriage as between a man and woman; faithfulness to the Constitution; rejecting ‘Sharia’ Islam; downsizing government; etc. I wasn’t being derogatory toward them—these are issues that ‘conservatives’ bring up. (And I put conservatives in quotes because I don’t like the labels of Conservatives and Liberals, as people are more complex than that). I used the phrase as shorthand so my answer wouldn’t be longer than your comment!

    Had this document said “In 1960, more than 60 percent of black children were raised in two-parent homes” I would’ve had no problem. There was no need to go to 1860, especially with a stat that, I’m 99% certain, they can’t prove.

    Posted by Renee | July 13, 2011, 8:32 pm
    • Instituting laws governing and restricting sexual behavior amongst adults is pretty much in harmony with the dreaded “Sharia” law. The irony of the conservative tendency of demonizing Muslim theocracies— while at the same time wanting to implement the exact same thing here in the U.S always cracks me up.

      Posted by Lou | July 14, 2011, 9:06 am
      • Lou – cite your sources. Who wants to institute the exact same thing here in the U.S.? Who? I want names.

        Posted by Renee | July 15, 2011, 1:40 am
      • The general platform of the religious right —prayer in schools, creationism in classrooms, marriage-law restrictions, book bannings are all extremely reminescent of Saudi Wahhabism and of laws governing Muslim theocratic states. These agendas are all well known and don’t reguire the citing of individual names.

        Posted by Lou | July 18, 2011, 9:29 am
    • I can certainly see your point – why bring up slavery in the first place? Is your statement true? Have numbers gone from more than 60% to 30% in 50 years?
      Why bring up the slavery card? Not sure. But I am very confident it was for some awesome political game. I hate elections!

      Bill Matthews responds: Yes, the numbers are pathetic. (Our very first story took a jab at this—on the final line, which got us a TON of criticism). While divorce rates increased tremendously since the 1960s, I blame some of this on welfare income requirements. The 1974 movie Claudine used this as one of its plot points.

      Posted by Renee | July 15, 2011, 1:50 am
  6. I am the religious right, Lou. I don’t ban books. Prayer in school is already a protected constitutional right. I run a private school and we teach both sides of the origins of man. The public schools in our area mention creationism. And I am entitled to my opinion regarding marriage, am I not? As a tax paying, never been arrested or incarcerated, community service minded person, I am entitled to my opinion. Since marriage and weddings are more of a religious institution than a secular institution, why can’t we strive to protect it? The religious right believes all human beings are created in the image of God and deserving of respect. You have a problem with that? Don’t care!

    Posted by Renee | July 18, 2011, 6:24 pm
    • That’s great Renee–everyone is entitled to–and in my opinion should have–a moral compass. But if you can’t see the irony in condemning other countries for infusing religion into government while pressing for more religious influence in government, than I certainly can’t make you see it.

      Posted by Lou | July 19, 2011, 7:31 am
      • Everyone has a religion, Lou. Even if it is humanism. Everyone has a moral compass. Why does your religion and your moral compass trump mine? You push for your agendas. Why do you judge me for pushing mine? I am not a malicious person. I want what I think is best for my community and my country. I don’t seek to control others; I don’t want others controlling me. If politicians and special interest groups are seeking to tear down what I think is important to the preservation of our society, why do you judge me for speaking up?
        Every politician in DC has a religion and they take it to work everyday; they use it, whatever it is, to make decisions. Our founding fathers intended to keep government out of the exercise of religion. They never intended to keep religion out of government.
        Let me ask you this: How are you going to reconcile “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ” with Sharia-type exercise of religion. Today in America – all men and women are free and equal. What will you do when someone’s free exercise of religion says women are property? It is happening now in the U.S. Is that okay with you? Or is it not part of your moral compass. What about “sex before 8 or it’s too late”? You don’t feel like someone might need to jump in and protect some boys there? Where is your moral compass heading on that one?
        Heads up, Lou. If you are going to support men raping boys and women being considered property, you will encounter some resistance. If you are not going to support those types of things…. how hypocritical of you.

        Posted by Renee | July 20, 2011, 10:37 am
  7. Are you through knocking down your straw-man now? My problem is not with our constitutional rights, but with the riduculous hypocrisy of the document discussed in this article. As far as our freedom of religion rights are concerned—I would encourage you to look more closely into the “religious” beliefs of some of our nation’s founders like Jefferson and Washington. It’s true that they wanted to protect us from religious persecution, but they also wanted to protect our freedom FROM religion if necessary. Half of these guys were “deists” who believed in a distant creator who had little or no dealings with human beings. For me the government’s job boils down to protecting us from being harmed either directly or indirectly, by others. Just because some of our modern-day laws may be religiously informed doesn’t mean they should promote any one particular religious doctrine. The anti-gay marriage thing is a little too religiously specific for my tastes. Outside of the abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity, you won’t find much mention of it. If two dudes want to get married–it has absolutely zero bearing on my life.

    Posted by Lou | July 20, 2011, 2:28 pm
  8. and no one’s “attacking” you so you can relax your Karate stance now. My post was actually meant to address Bill’s comment–which happened to be attached to your post

    Posted by Lou | July 20, 2011, 3:08 pm
  9. I don’t care who you make out with either, but I don’t think I should have to promote homosexuality as a healthy life style choice when I don’t believe it is. There are plenty of homosexuals and ex-homosexuals who can share their stories. Why am I being forced to promote it as an educator? I wouldn’t promote drug use or cheating on your taxes. I think it is wrong.

    You said, “Instituting laws governing and restricting sexual behavior amongst adults is pretty much in harmony with the dreaded “Sharia” law.”
    I agree, what laws are people pushing regarding sexual behavior between consenting adults? What are you talking about?

    You said, “But if you can’t see the irony in condemning other countries for infusing religion into government while pressing for more religious influence in government…,”
    I don’t condemn them for infusing religion into government; I condemn them for the atrocities that occur because people aren’t free to choose for themselves. I believe in personal freedom for all human beings. In America, religion can only influence individuals. It cannot influence government.

    You said, “… My problem is… with the riduculous hypocrisy of the document discussed in this article.”
    What hypocrisy? That is only your opinion. I agree with Bill that slavery did not need to be mentioned to make their point but the point is still made isn’t it? The group’s officials said in a statement. “We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58631.html#ixzz1SkfYRcTE

    You said, “I would encourage you to look more closely into the “religious” beliefs of some of our nation’s founders…”
    Really? I strike you as someone who hasn’t already studied this issue?

    You said, “The anti-gay marriage thing is a little too religiously specific for my tastes. … If two dudes want to get married–it has absolutely zero bearing on my life.”
    You understand that there is an agenda here? It has zero bearing on your life now. These people could have civil unions. They could have weddings. They could have all the advantages of marriage without calling it marriage. But they didn’t want that. They want what they want. What they want is complete acceptance. Not tolerance. Tolerance isn’t good enough. They want acceptance and promotion. You go ahead and march for them. I am not going to be pushed. I used to be much more centered in my beliefs but the liberal agenda has me headed to the right.

    Posted by Renee | July 21, 2011, 11:09 am
  10. I would like to say what does slavery have to do with gay marriages? If they want to attack gay people then so be it. But leave blacks out of this fight. Everyone always want to put blacks into every situation.
    As a political person they should not have made that statement. How was black people better off in slavery when they was mistreated. You could be rape by your master and nothing was done. It was better off for the master not the people enslaved.

    Posted by Peggy | January 13, 2012, 10:17 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Peoples News on Twitter

The People’s News Archive

invisible hit counter
%d bloggers like this: