Slavery (Originally Published On 5/11/2019)

One of the areas that the Left takes as a political stronghold is the topic of slavery often going so far as to say that talks of reparation should begin as we assess the damages done and take steps to improving conditions. But the talks alluded to somehow leave the listener in as much confusion over the matter as when the idea itself is even presented. Now, I do think there is a lot to unpack in this entire fiasco and it is very much like attempting to disarm a bomb with bulky metal gloves as your only means of protection, it is unlikely unless we can set the terms in the right order and be consistent with the rules.

Before we begin, let's put a few nuggets of truth out there: slavery is wrong. That is a fact that should in no way ever be allowed to be compromised and therefore rendered as a taboo.

Without dressing it up and “whitewashing” it, to start with my own home country, the United States has had a tragic past when it comes to slavery. Sure, at some point you could make the argument,the slaves were treated like kings when compared to their original habitats like Bill O’Reilly, and, like I'd tell him, that's probably one of the dumbest arguments to mark regarding the participation of those founding father's as it relates to slavery. Why? Because it strips the dignity from those humans that were caught in that deadly cycle; it removes that which gives us each our own value: choice. They were indeed caught, perhaps by a black man, perhaps by a white man, perhaps an arab, or asian, or indian; the truth remains in tact: it was a poor set of decisions by those people.

See, the conservative movement has long been issue-centric with their political presentations. Consider that conservatives are “pro-life” and the liberal movement took a base with a twisted bit of rhetoric calling themselves “pro-choice”, which is a little pretentious but it is beautifully ironic in a divinely poetic sense because a man (actually, let me rephrase that to: a member of the human species; or, a member of mankind) actively worked toward getting this perspective to set right in the mind of a woman by telling her that by being with a man who would rather her carry a child to term, if possible, is a woman who is being controlled by a man who does not want her to have a choice over what she does with her own body. He is, and I kid you not, anti-choice.

This has actually been the claim, in the least in headlines. November 8, 2018, hardly a year ago, Sue Halpern wrote an article titled “How Republicans Became Antichoice” in the New York Review of Books. With this, the frame has been shifted from a “let's not abort what we could call a baby” stance to a “I know we’ve both played active roles in this so far but how dare you question my choice” stance, it has gone from a mindset of future and family and possibility to a mindset of you can't know what's best for me because you're not a woman.

None I this is to say that life doesn't change when you get pregnant and people won't suck and dates won't flake and friends won't question you and losers won’t abuse you because they will, but consider the other side; consider the side where, as they say, the grass looks greener and this is a case where I would nearly always agree that the grass would be greener. Maybe not the first day (The birthday), or the second or the first year, or the second, or fifth, or fifteenth when the boy wants to go out with his first girlfriend or she wants to go hangout at that guys house and we all know he's trouble in shoes.

None of this means a man, or woman, is antichoice. Admittedly though, I don't like that option. While we are talking choice and antichoice and the political conundrums in what we could call the “surface level politics” of the Left, Leftists typically use the term “anti gay” to describe those who offer any critique of those who identify as anything other than straight but, as with antichoice, this is hardly the position or opinion of any of those offering such critiques, though, even if it were, wouldn't that be used disparagingly to reinforce a possible antichoice bias? Perhaps the criticisms levied is merited.  

This is where we have to get out the measuring stick and see why something does or doesn't fit and why. The intellectual area these claims sit in don't quite hold the substance which these fine folks proport it to hold. if choice is that important to the Left, why tell people they have no choice over who they knock boots with? Taking a blind look, why tell a women it's her choice whether should she want to end what could be a life or not, while telling a man he has  no choice in a partner for the act of copulation? Or that he or she is wrong for acting on their choice?

See, I believe people should have the choice to act almost any way they want to, wear any thing they want to, speak any way they want to, moreover conduct themselves in almost any fashion they wish, so long as they do not infringe on another person's liberties. ThIs is why we have laws. Dennis Prager has said that if man were good by nature God wouldn't have needed to give the 10 commandments. Not to get too religious with it, but I think sometimes we need a reminder that nearly everything is choice driven. It is a selection of selections that help determine the particulars of an outcome; this outcome is in a constant state of revision, update and consequence.

This is why slavery is so hard to come to terms with for leftists. The right tends to lean toward getting away from the narrative of this happened and now the projects are in shambles with a lead in the new business sectors while the Left can't leave the gallows because that means leaving their voter base. The left has shifted the terms from “the gallows are here to serve justice to the criminal” to “disagree with our ideals and face your fate up here”.

We have something of a gag about women marching for women's equality everywhere but where women are unequal then going for a steam with a waiter after the protest but it's a real phenomenon that creates a heart wrenching paradigm for those who care enough to comment on the matter and earns those who enter that intellectual space an unfancy title.

Consider for a minute that slavery in America was ended as early as 1863 while giving the citizen the freedom to critique the government came in as issue number one amongst the founding fathers, the U.K. abolished slavery in 1833 but still keeps a close eye on criticism of the crown, New Zealand was still in the raid and slave trade until at least 1863, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970; and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007. There are movies and YouTube interviews and books about the continued affairs of the slave trafficking under world.

I don't see a talk about reparations being the slightest bit productive until we can come to the understand that this is a real issue that deserves real solutions and not merely a dollar sign selling out the dignity of so many that died because slaves were Indian just like they were black and white and asian. Slavery is a very serious and indiscriminately sordid set of events. Maybe if the Left wanted to show people they're taking the reparations path seriously they would stop supporting candidates who make deals to worsen the lives of those who are enslaved, or perhaps they could help expose the freaks who hold these rings together. Because in all honesty,  writing and reading this makes my spine tingle and has me a good bit fearful for my own life and that of my family and the Left wants me to forgo my God given right to self preservation and defense? Not on your life. You can take that into tomorrow.

Thanks for reading.