For his follow-up piece, the reich-wing twit is going to publish: "The holocaust...it just wasn't that bad."

why isnt medved in prison??

he fronts for rabbi daniel lapin who laundered money for jack abramoff

medved sounds so reasonable on the radio....until you truly listen to him...and then you find out that he is nucking futs

Typical. It's always these right wing fuckwits that like to minimize the impact slavery had on this country and for that matter the African countries which the slaves were kidnapped from. These people have no shame.

"pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity" - i can't get past that line...

what a nut job

Daily Show: Slavery in American 2007
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/09/slavery_in_amer.html
Jon Stewart interviews John Bowe author of Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy

Medved's comments and arguments display a astounding historical ignorance - every one of his factual claims have been definitively rejected in the studies of those who actually employ facts in their analysis. If he sat through my Hst. 101 course he would at least be exposed to the information that historical research has generated about these baseless assertions. Who ever taught him American history (if anyone)should blush.

3. Though brutal, slavery wasn’t genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.

Huh. Slaves emerged from their brutal kidnapping with their lives, ergo they now owe the kidnappers, who decree that the slaves pay them back by turning those lives over to picking cotton and bringing their kidnappers their comestibles on command. The kidnappers may, of course, unsave the kidnapped persons' lives at the merest whim.

Sounds fair if one's thought-trains run, like Medved's, on tracks that are pretzel or moebius-strip shaped.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Soul: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Matt is dead on with the holocaust comparison. This kind of point-by-point flawed progression of logic system is precisely how the holocaust deniers and apologists operate. Number six is the most rediculous of all. If there were no slavery in the US there would be only a relatively miniscule black population in the US today so it's an idiotic statement no matter how you cut it. But in all likelihood that small population would be heavily upper middle class to wealthy just like much of the asian population in the US.

WTF reason did he have for even going into this? Was he inspired by Amistad all of a sudden?

And what is there to be gained by pandering to racists?

Things probably weren't that bad in whatever country he or his forebears drifted in from. Why doesn't he return to the old country and rediscover how lovely it is somewhere else.

Turd.

justabill @ 5:

VA was by far the most prosperous colony. At the time of the Revolution, 80% of all wealth in the colonies was in VA, and was almost completely due to slavery.

The US lagged long behind all of Europe in banning slavery.

As far as ancestors not being better off in Africa, that's probably true. Slavery existed long before the Dutch traded for the first slaves and continures to this day. If you eat big corp chocolate you support child slave labor.

The US also lagged behind MEXICO in banning slavery. Remember the Alamo?

5 posts into the comment section, critics are called "socialists"

7 posts into the comment section, and the anti-abortionists are chiming in.

i don't think i can stomach reading any more of these...

"The slaves were so overwhelmed by the hospitality of their Masters. And so many of the slaves in the slave quarters, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them,"
~Barbara Bush

Someone, go gather his family and sell them. No seriously, he just gave you the green light. And if he complains, tie him to a tree and castrate him.

Not only is he unhinged, he also smells like urine.

I think this dimwit was trying to make the entirely pointless point that the United States government is somehow less culpable in slavery than it might be otherwise. Or something like that. Sort of. Reparations-wise.

And you're giving this ZERO attention because?????

Johnny2Bad @ 36:

And you're giving this ZERO attention because?????

This does deserve attention to further prove that reich-wingers are anti-minority racists.

I read townhall.com a couple times a week for the comedic value - it rivals The Onion.

Most of what Medved argues appears in more verbose form in Dinesh D'Souza's racist tract "The End of Racism." So not only is Medved a bigot, he is an unoriginal bigot.

Jeebus @ 35:

Hate to be devil's advocate, but that first point:

1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

happens to be true

Yeah, but it's a strawman. Who ever argued that slavery was unique to America?

Medved is lying, or else uninformed.

1 -- There were African slaves in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619.

2 -- During America's pre-Revolutionary period from the 1600s to the late 1700s, EVERY colony had slavery, whether Africans or Native Americans. In South Carolina in the early 1700s as much as 65 percent of the population was slaves.

3 -- 50 percent mortality among captives on slave ships was not unheard of.

4 -- Severe punishments including death for even minor offenses was typical. Slave sales that broke up families were also typical, whether for punishment or for the financial benefit of the owners.

5 -- After some colonies (later states) abolished slavery, the wealth disparity was not between slave states and free, but between slave holders and non-slaveholders. A benefit of unpaid labor was that the small number of rich plantation owners made much more money and property than the rest of the white population. These rich slaveholders hoarded the wealth, to the detriment of everyone else in their states.

Assuming he's not lying, I suggest that Medved might want to read a history book from time to time, or learn how to use "the Google."

This guy is largely a moron, but to the six points he specifically makes, only #5 could really be contested.

It's a terrible way to look at the situation, and I don't think that Medved is actually arguing that "slavery was worth enduring", but how can one argue anything but that the decendents of American slaves aren't better off than those living in most parts of the Gold Coast region.

And they wonder why the GOP doesn’t get the African American vote.

That may very well be true. The majoroty of blacks will likely never vote GOP but enough of them did in Florida to put that tard in the WH in the first place and then in Ohio to re-elect him. Don't misunderstand. I'm not putting this disaster on African Americans, I'm just saying. And what, exactly, was it about monkey boy that was attractive to any black American to begin with?

For all the blather here, few take on his points.

Medved gets away with murder by starting the clock at the inception of the republic, thereby losing centuries of slavery by the very same people. His 'tiny percentage' isn't supported. He ignores that what the northern states dealt in was often southern product, and their riches were indeed partially based upon slavery. And, dead slaves increased the monetary value of those that survived at lesser expense for transport.

There are African Americans of note who have indeed pointed out that, however awful, they're certainly better off than they would be in Africa. Medved isn't racist in that particular observation.

The losers and their camp followers at Culloden Moor were sold as slaves to the Tidewater. Scots. And the slave trade of North Africans stealing southern Europeans is now suggested as a larger trade than the Africans to America. (Unknown, though) Millions of people over centuries.

Slavery is noted and more horrible in the US because of the institutionalized hypocrisy. The Civil War was, contrary to revisionists, totally about slavery at rock bottom and required, as Brown knew, much blood to atone. The question is, will the price ever be allowed to have been paid? I'm a liberal. We still owe, but not in perpetuity unless everyone is held to the same standard. Asians and Africans wouldn't want that anymore than Europeans would.

Slavery as an acient and universal institution - yes but to use that to excuse the American form of slavery ignores the fact that American slavery was unique compared to historical, traditional slavery. Historically slavery resulted from being captured in a military action or being unable to pay off a debt - not based on ones skin color. Historical slavery was not passed on to the off spring of enslaved people. Historically slavery was not a perpetual state for the enslaved. America's slavery were all of those things. The Americans made it a racially based institution supported by and justified upon doctrines of racial inferiority. Our society still struggles with the consequences of that.

Hate to be devil's advocate, but that first point:

1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

happens to be true

but he's still a psychopath -- those other 5 points are nuts

In Rome, a slave's testimony was only allowed in court if it was given under torture.

In Barbados, you weren't allowed to kill your own slaves (because that might be abusive), but you were allowed to kill someone else's.

I think one thing is clear, slavery in the USA wasn't that much worse than everywhere else. In fact, it was so fantastic, that we should bring it back and sign up Medved as our first slave. We can control him through starvation and beatings. If we need to know what he thinks of it, we can torture him to make sure to hear what he really thinks.

Michael, just think, it will be great, we'll take care of your reproduction, food and shelter. In return, you just give up your liberty. Sounds like a deal to me.

I guess this is Town Hall's version of humor

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GaryMcCoy

WARNING: Apparently Ann Coulter has a new "book" out and her mug is splattered on every page at the site!

I heard most of this clapptrap from Rush Limbaugh over 10 years ago. It's not just Michael Needs-Medved

Ah, the insights available through home schooling...

azureblue,
forest for the trees, my friend, forest for the trees. medved could be entirely factually correct with triple annotated footnotes. it just doesn't matter. the thrust of the article is "slavery wasn't that bad."

if you want to have a scholarly debate about the impact of slavery on our society, fine. if you're a right-wing pundit publishing an opinion piece in a conservative media outlet, it's no longer a scholarly debate, it's a talking point.

as i said before, this is just fine by me; conservatives need to just go ahead and let the raging beast of prejudice roam free for all to witness. then the truth will be out and we'll know where we stand: are we a nation of bigots or are we past that? which party do you choose?

The English abolished slavery in their Empire in the 1830 with a stroke of a pen, without a shot being fired.

If anything, America helped prolong slavery's profitablity, although after the Civil War, Arabs continued to have slaves. However, if the slave converted to Islam they were granted their freedom due to one Islamic couldn't own another. And there was no "Thou Shalt Not Steal Your Massah's Chicken," version of theology with broomstick weddings.

Medved's spiel sounds suspciously like Civil War South's propaganda during the war, as compared to the 14 hour work days and child labor of the North.

the man need to read king leopold's ghost. To learn just what the impact of the anglo was on Africa.

Call it The Right Wing Provocateur's Dilemma. To stay relevant, they continually have to ratchet-up the craziness. Malkin celebrates Japanese internment in WWII; Coulter smears widows and children who don't love Bush; and Medved tops them by defending slavery. Who in the media will come forward to praise rape, murder, genocide, global annihilation? For two minutes on Fox, there'll be a stampede.

leftminded @ 50:

And they wonder why the GOP doesn’t get the African American vote.

That may very well be true. The majoroty of blacks will likely never vote GOP but enough of them did in Florida to put that tard in the WH in the first place and then in Ohio to re-elect him. Don't misunderstand. I'm not putting this disaster on African Americans, I'm just saying. And what, exactly, was it about monkey boy that was attractive to any black American to begin with?

There were some blacks who bought the chimpy's line about gay marriage and other social conservative issues but I doubt it was a substantial amount. Let's not point to states like Ohio and Florida for accurate statistics about how blacks voted considering the GOP enacted a massive effort to disenfranchise black voters by the tens of thousands in both states. During the 2000 election in Florida, people that never committed any crime were listed as felons and knocked off the voter rolls. Do you even remember the videos of long lines of black voters in Ohio waiting past midnight just to vote during the 2004 election? It shouldn't take 7 plus hours to vote. Something tells me they weren't Bush voters.

It's all ok when it wasn't your grandparents & great grandparents who were kidnapped, beaten, starved, abused, misused and murdered. Treated like property. Bought and sold and then left disenfranchised and "free" in a foreign land where a majority of the population considered them enemy interlopers. And that's all before the start of a still ongoing struggle to achieve equality under the law.

This is what happens when the only reality you're exposed to is "reality" tv.

It's hard to take seriously any argument where "not genocidal" is a selling point.

Medved:

Moreover, the economic cost of liberation remained almost unimaginable. In nearly all other nations, the government paid some form of compensation to slave-owners at the time of emancipation, but Southern slave-owners received no reimbursement of any kind when they lost an estimated $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars

Poor, poor slave owners...

And some people wonder why America has never been able to come to grips with its racial problems...
As has been noted, the very scary part of this issue is that Medved's views are not out of the Republican mainstream. Go over to the Townhall site and read the comments on the article.
Most of the readers appear to support his argument.

The total bankruptcy of his argument can be found in my favorite sentence from the entire piece:

"Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage."

The article supposedly talks about the impact of slavery on the US. But he refuses to talk about the immediate aftermath and those very real ramifications: Jim Crow, economic oppression and discrimination raise "different issues"?
What planet is this guy living on?
That sentence shows how dishonest and deluded Medved is.

how can you argue about #1?

Bandini @ 82:

how can you argue about #1?

read #71 . . . I agree with most of it

Interesting attempt to make American slavery seem not all that bad. What's the purpose of stating crap like this? To make us white people comfortable with our racism? To make us feel better about our slave-holding ancestors?

No. 5 is patently false. The U. S. was the last country in the western hemisphere to end African slavery. We were the ONLY country that had to fight a war to end slavery, every other country legislated the institution out of existence. Even afater fighting a war and passing Consitutional Amendments to outlaw slavery, many Americans refuse to let go of the idea.

Bush's first AG--John Ashcroft--stated that he believed slavery was not wrong and should have been retained.

Snerd Gronk @ 87:

"... And they wonder why the GOP doesn’t get the African American vote."

The Black Vote ... Slaves to the (D)z, apparently

Snewrd

Fuck off bastard

Nonbeliever

Oh dear gods. The stupid, it burns. These arguments are terrible.

1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

Sure, slavery had been around a long time. But the type of chattel slavery that the US used - where slaves were treated as sub-human livestock - was NOT an ancient institution. The Bible (both old and new testaments) sets out very specific guidelines for how slaves are supposed to be treated and American-style chattel slavery does not conform to these guidelines. The Romans and the Greeks had similar provisions for how slaves were to be treated. American slaveholders treated slaves like sub-human cattle - that's certainly not how the ancients treated slaves.

2. Slavery existed only briefly, and in limited locales, in the history of the republic - involving only a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today’s Americans.

This is because valiant reformers saw how incongruent slavery was to the ideals of the republic and fought against it. This speaks nothing to the "badness" of slavery in America at all.

3. Though brutal, slavery wasn’t genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.

At least he acknowledges it was brutal. Of course it wasn't genocidal - our treatment of cows and pigs isn't genocidal either. But treating human beings like cattle is disgusting and frankly inhuman. Again, this speaks nothing to the "badness" of slavery in America at all.

4. It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.

This is terrible reasoning. This may be true AT THE TIME OF THE CIVIL WAR, but it certainly wasn't true through the history of the Republic. The early fortune of the Republic came from the Southern slave states - especially Virginia. It was only by the time the Civil War started that the Northern industrial states had outpaced the Southern slave states and become the more prosperous parts of the country. Also: STILL doesn't say anything about the relative "badness" of slavery.

5. While America deserves no unique blame for the existence of slavery, the United States merits special credit for its rapid abolition.

Except that most of Western Europe beat us to it. America were latecomers to the abolition party and only got serious about it once the economy had moved to the point where the majority of the country no longer benefited from chattel slavery (as, to be fair, was the case in Western Europe as well). But don't let that stop you from chanting USA! USA! USA! singlemindedly.

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

First of all - this doesn't speak to the "badness" of slavery either. A similar disgusting case could be made for the ancestors of the Holocaust - that the Holocaust made anti-Semitism unacceptable in modern society and therefore improved the fortunes of folks who might be worse off today without it. But one, we can't know if this is true or not, and two it doesn't negate the fact that the Holocaust was a horrible evil committed in the world. Likewise with slavery - we can't know what Africa would be like today had the European powers not used it as a hunting ground for slave labor, and even if the ancestors of slaves would have had it worse in this hypothetical world it still doesn't change the fact that chattel slavery was a horrible evil committed in the world.

Meved is an idiot. Why do they let this man continue to write?

I believe America was where "chattel slavery" was invented. In prior times and in other places, slaves were still considered human, accorded that status and consideration.

I bet Clarence Thomas lunches with Medved.

-GSD

What's next? Perhaps he'll pontificate on how much better off the Navajo and other native aboriginal north american tribes are these days courtesy of the benevolent USofA's efforts.

I suggest that Mr. Medved volunteer for a year's worth of slavery so he can really research his writing. He'll find it if he wants; China, Africa, and so many other places where he can be beaten, whipped, and subjected to incarceration as he toils for nothing 16 hours a day. Ideally, he should subjugate himself to someone of African descent.

If he can't find the situation, I'd be happy to arrange an alternative for him, there's a dog house out back no longer be used which would be ideal for his housing and I'm sure my neighbors and I can think of many things for him to occupy his time.

What an absolute idiot. Any high school debate student could shred his arguments. The only good thing about the piece is that it highlights the right wing hatred of minorities.

Oh yeah, I never thought about it in those terms.

The blankets laced with smallpox wasn't that bad because it kept the Natives warm.

Hitler wasn't that bad because it only lasted a few years.

McVey wasn't that bad because he left the rest of OK untouched.

LA Rampart division wasn't that bad because they didn't do it to everyone.

repug logic is nonexistence

You can tell by his cheesy Ron Jeremy mustache that Medved is no "slave" to fashion.

-GSD

In our version of slavery we were very methodical and pretty successful in inculcating the idea that blacks were deficient, animalistic, stupid, etc. we also destroyed the family structure with all it’s inherent support, and socialization mechanisms, including it’s role of passing information, history, wisdom on to the next generation(s), etc.

Michael Medved is speaking from white privilege – he is a product of familial history, wisdom, socialization, etc. Even those who lost their family in the holocaust could look to others in their peer/religious demographic in the US could find bits and pieces of like family history, socialization, religious needs, etc.

A member of the black community just “freed” could not look at any member of their peer group and find family history, socialization, etc. etc. because we had destroyed it with in several generations.

Including all the slaves that were brought here PRIOR to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence did not have those slaves repatriated. Despite what Michael thinks, all those slaves count too.

kaT @ 88:

No. 5 is patently false. The U. S. was the last country in the western hemisphere to end African slavery. We were the ONLY country that had to fight a war to end slavery, every other country legislated the institution out of existence. Even afater fighting a war and passing Consitutional Amendments to outlaw slavery, many Americans refuse to let go of the idea.

Bush's first AG--John Ashcroft--stated that he believed slavery was not wrong and should have been retained.

Ashcroft really said that?!? Holy cow. What the hell is wrong with people?

ummm, ok, i'm just gonna say you might wanna not talk about how slavery wasn't that bad. It generally pisses off black people.

I mean seriously, to say "oh it happened everywhere and for a long time" is a garbage argument. It didn't happen to your people.

Before anyone gets up in arms about that last statement, you must realize that I can give the first and last name of people in my family who were slaves. Pretty much any black person that you meet in life can do the same with only a free afternoon with their grandparents to discuss family history. I carry the name of people who owned my blood relatives! It's still really close to us, and we're still feeling the impact of it today. We are still seen as "the blacks" as if we are a separate being. We are still spoken of as if we are a lower class of human. People still wonder in amazement that I went to college (graduate school even!!) and I "speak so well" as if we're all southern rappers!!!!

Fuck Michael Medved! Fuck anyone who tries to discount the struggle that average people trying to live average lives have to go through. I will not blame white people of today for the folly of white people from yesteryear, but I will also not forget what my people have gone through and continue to go through just to get our little slice of the American pie.

I remember slavery because it is through the struggles of my ancestors that I can lift my head today, knowing that if they were strong enough to get through that, nothing can stop me!!!

i am going to get flamed here, I am not defending this right winger one bit. Remember even an idiot can say something smart once in a while… but what he says bears a core of truth in historical context. I am not defending slavery at all, it is horrible, but records of slavery extend all the way back to the Bible where it was condoned, and approved of. Even the selling of your own flesh & blood into slavery was approved of, in the Bible. America thinks of slavery in terms of Africa. African tribes routinely captured other tribal people and used them as slaves, selling them to the whites. That is how slavery in America began. Slavery is dehumanizing by its very nature. It, like the killing of your enemies, is a human custom that should end.

His points:
1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

This is true. As I said, it was accepted as normal in the Old Testament

Slavery was instituted on this continent at a time when 'civilized' humanity
had recognized that slavery was inhumane and 'sinful'. You might as easliy
defend stoning/burning witches or any other abomibale primitive practice.

2. Slavery existed only briefly, and in limited locales, in the history of the republic - involving only a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today’s Americans.

Tiny is the wrong word for today, but in the early days of America, Africans were a tiny portion of the population. But note that in Colonial Williamsburg at the time of the revolution, Slaves and free men of color were half of the population.

This is merely a sad 'excuse'. Similar to "Gee Mom and Dad I am only a tiny bit
pregnant"

3. Though brutal, slavery wasn’t genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.

This is true. Slavery means work for no pay and captivity, but ill treated slaves are not productive. Africans were treated as valuable chattel, as bad as it sounds, but slave owners, both black and white, knew that it was in their best interest to keep their “investment” healthy. Sick sounding, I know, but that’s the way it was.

No. Slavery was genocidal. It was a system of oppression and death imposed
on people based on skin color. This statement is simply untrue. It is a disingenuous
dodge.

4. It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.

This is true. But many areas of the country, North and South staked their entire economic structure upon slave labor. And when the slaves were freed, many returned to their “homes” to do the same thing they had before, out of necessity. Hence, sharecropping.

The US did become a wealthy nation based on its natural resources and the industry
of its people. Slavery was obviously the economic basis of states north and south.
The statement is partly true and wholly a lie.

5. While America deserves no unique blame for the existence of slavery, the United States merits special credit for its rapid abolition.

This is true, but a bit of hyperbole. Any nation that ends slavery deserves credit.

The United States merits special credit? That is like the lawyer telling the
prosecutor that his client the burglar merits special credit because "he hasn't
been arrested since he made bond" Wait....isn't that what civilized people are
supposed to do?

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

this is debatable. But if I were given a choice to live in say, Detroit or Somali, I would take Detroit.. Maybe if the Whites had not exploited Africa or the tribes had not been so blood thirsty (Amin) Africa would have developed much faster and grown on par with countries like Australia. Who’s to say?

What an ugly lie. One would have to be simply heartless to utter such
words if he/she had any knowledge of what the individuals who were
captured and enslaved suffered.

Mr. Medved and Mr. Azureblue simply prove that any proposition can be 'argued'. But,
by presenting such views, they simply condemn themselves. They do not need to be
flamed.

I see the "others did it so it was ok" logic here... so if all your friends jumped off a bridge, Mikey? you know the rest... what prompted him to write this? especially when his favorite political party has largely opted out of black, Hispanic and (shudder) homosexual issue presidential debates... the xenophobe party continues to live up to its name...

I just read Frederick Douglass's autobiography.

Another factor was that the master used the slave women sexually at will, and the mixed-race offspring were subject to hatred and bad treatment by the master's wife because they were living proof of his carousing.

Yeah, must've been a sweet life...

“… And they wonder why the GOP doesn’t get the African American vote.”

SG: The Black Vote … Slaves to the (D)z, apparently

Nonbeliever: "Fuck off bastard"

SG: In the context of an (R)z-Hole (R)evising down slavery AND of the GOP 'boy-caught' of the PBS debate, I 'believe' you missed the whole punch line here ...

Humour is a bitch, after all!

Snerd

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

Did they not take the strongest and healthiest from Africa to enslave them in America? And by doing so, they took those who would best be able to defend themselves and build a free society within their own country. So it's quite possible that they would be better off if they were left to live their lives in their own land. It's all about choice and forging your own destiny, not having your destiny manipulated by greed of others. Medved suggests they should be grateful for crumbs while others feast on bread?

Also, it's horrendous to human nature that slaves had little choice as to whom they could love and partner with, also, because their mobility to engage in social interaction was so limited. Needless to mention the white men who felt they had a perfect right to violate the black women with impunity, and of course the white women who fancied a black man as a sexual token.

I think defending slavery makes about as much sense as defending cancer, because that's exactly what it is, a cancer in society.

the day has finally come (i knew it would). medved has cracked up.

what sparked it? why did he waste his time – and ours – with this foolishness?

Medved's "op-ed" speaks volumes about TownHall as well!!!!!!

Bandini @ 82:

how can you argue about #1?

You can't argue about the historical truth of #1. But Medved is using all these points to make an argument that slavery was not so bad, isn't he? All the other points, BTW, are patently false.

1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

This is nothing more than moral relatavism. 'Hey, the Ancient Egyptians used slaves, so what were we supposed to do? At least we didn't make our slaves build pyramids and then bury them alive!'

2. Slavery existed only briefly, and in limited locales, in the history of the republic - involving only a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today’s Americans.

More moral relatavism. Nazi Germany existed only briefly -- for less time than slavery in America, actually -- it doesn't make either one okay.

3. Though brutal, slavery wasn’t genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.

Capturing healthy men and women to take them away from their village might very well have the same result as open genocide, as you're taking away those members who were most likely to procreate.

4. It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.

Valid only if the contributions of slave-holding states are negligible contributors to the 'wealth' of the U.S. Otherwise, it's nonsense math.

5. While America deserves no unique blame for the existence of slavery, the United States merits special credit for its rapid abolition.

What is this, a bad episode of Law & Order? 'My client wasn't alone in the child pornography ring, your honor, but he wants special credit for stopping.'

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

Therefore it was okay to bring them here and treat them like shit? Y'all should be thankin' massa for savin' you from a horrible life elsewhere?

The only thing Medved's column achieves is fulfilling the 'believe in six impossible things before breakfast' rule.

The Reslugs should be so proud of the complete stupid idiots in their hateful party.

I agree with #126.

It isn't that the arguments themselves are wrong. Bear with me.

1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

Patently true. Slavery existed for centuries before it came to America.

2. Slavery existed only briefly, and in limited locales, in the history of the republic - involving only a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today’s Americans.

Patently true IF you consider that only the WEALTHY could afford to buy slaves, so, slavery in the form of locale was "limited" to the rich's locale.

3. Though brutal, slavery wasn’t genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.

Patently true IF you ONLY consider that the whole purpose was to bring profit and FORGET to mention that the slavers ships were packed to the gills KNOWING that only a percentage would survive to be enslaved (ie, you have to NOT take into account how many actually did die).

4. It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.

This is debateable. The southern agriculture profit was DIRECTLY driven by slave labor.

5. While America deserves no unique blame for the existence of slavery, the United States merits special credit for its rapid abolition.

Patently true. You can't BLAME America for the EXISTENCE of slavery, though, I wouldn't be so fast to give us credit for its abolition. The civil war did not start over slavery, though slavery was a part of it.

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

Patently true if you consider at the time many of the slaves were from poor tribes in Africa who were, in fact, sold to the slavers.

So, while the points THEMSELVES are not patently false (though highly debatable)... the OVERALL point that slavery just wasn't that bad is beyond offensive.

[Dude. Equivocating over the length of time slavery existed in the US as an reason to consider to the brand of tripe Medved peddle, or by way of some kind of apologistic move isn't going to fly around here. If you find the site, its comments or commenters to be beneath your lofty ideals, please move along-Sitemonitor]

Damn, these people never let up!

And, Michelle Malkin thinks it was okay for us to, in 1942, round-up Japanese Americans.
Take their property and so forth.

Pretty soon we'll have John Gibson telling us that all Hispanic people in this country are
here illegally and should be deported.

Frankly, I just don't understand why Republicans are perceived to be the party of white men?

4. It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

number 6 is contradicted by number 4, which is an argument against slavery altogether... although, as others have pointed out, slavery's contemporary equivalent is in the form of economic exploitation, "slave wages"...

that photo of michael, imho, indicates an expression of "accepting one's lot in life" and playing the role of "appeaser"... he's chosen his masters and there's nothing more that can be done for him but to hope for "an enlightened return from the dark side"... ;-)

I like one of the comments over there that basically said that Americans fought to end the slavery that the British had established. Another basically stated that slavery in America was a British/Spanish/Portugese/Dutch problem that was ended by Americans.

How noble of Americans!
I wonder where they came from and where we can find more of them to solve the problems in the world, especially in the middle east!

Here's my review of Michael Medved

KOO KOO!

-love Stirfry

Patriot Actor @ 136:

Logic determines that had the slaves not been stripped of their indentities, they and their descendants would undoubtedly mostly be Muslim.

:)

Actually, those slaves who were taken from West Africa would most likely have practiced some version of Vodou, which later became voodoo.

While he is a moron, I would be far more offended if modern blacks would quit marginalizing and denying my holocaust in WWII. It gets annoying, all these people who never were slaves in their lifetime bitching about the wounds of slavery, and then, like Jesse Jackson, turn right around and scream "I'm sick and tired about hearing about the Holocaust!" and calling Ney York "Hymieville". Maybe if they let up on the anti-semetism a little, I would stick up for them. As it is however, in the eyes of the black minority, I am both a "White Devil" and a "Greedy Jew".

As best I can tell, somebody has kidnapped Medved's entire family and has threatened to "Gitmo" them if he doesn't write and say unbelievably stupid and venal things.

A tiny percentage of today's Americans? He really makes the claim that the African-American population in the US is tiny? Or is he claiming that most of them arrived via the Queen Mary and decided to stay because the weather was so nice?

I will say that, considering the continuing instability in most of sub-saharan Africa, a case can be made that it is better to be the great-great-great grandchild of a slave than to be living in Africa today. That said, that's a lot of generations before you get to the "better" part, and "better" still ain't all that good for most.

But why even try to make the argument. . . unless you want to keep your family off of Cheney's waterboard?

1. Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.

True but beside the point seeing as we kept at it long after the rest of the civilized world had abandoned it. And, am I wrong, or isn't the US of A supposed to be about freedom? I think I heard that someplace.

2. Slavery existed only briefly, and in limited locales, in the history of the republic - involving only a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today’s Americans.

Last I checked the confederacy was about half the country at the time. And when he says "a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today's Americans, did he remember to include, you know, blacks?

3. Though brutal, slavery wasn’t genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.

French Haiti, anyone?

4. It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.

This one's actually true. One of the best arguments against slavery, if your goal is to sway exactly the sort of amoral asshole who might support the practice, is that it's economically a proven loser—something we may want to point out to all those corporate bigwigs who think they're super genuses for supporting policies aimed at bankrupting their consumer base.

5. While America deserves no unique blame for the existence of slavery, the United States merits special credit for its rapid abolition.

At the point of a gun and years after other civilized countries had abandoned the practice to say nothing of the little matter of Jim Crow.

6. There is no reason to believe that today’s African Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.

Sad to say, this one's true. In fact it's even more fucked up than that. The space time continuum being what it is, most African Americans wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for slavery. Same goes for me. Same goes for you. So, if you think about it rationally, African Americans really owe us big for that one—or our alternate-universe dopplegangers.