Todd and Rap Critc Talk About "Accidental Racist"

(391 votes, average 4.95 out of 5)
Facebook Share

Image art by Krin

Comments (217)
  • orlandorays
    This is totally friggin' hilarious! It perfectly personifies all the issues with this song.
  • LikaLaruku
    Eeeh, I think they should have done a parody song instead.
  • Ohsha  - Objectivity
    Fuck Paisely's white guilt.

    African slavery in the USA started with the African Anthony Johnson successfully arguing before a Virginia court for permanent ownership of the African John Castor in 1655.
    Only 1.8% of white men in the USA even owned slaves according to the Census of 1850.
    The African King Gezo of DaHomey said, "The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people, it is the source and glory of all their wealth. The mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery."
    Slavery as practiced in the USA was learned from Africans.
    More slaves existed in Northern African kingdoms like Dahomey contemporaneously with the Confederacy than existed in the Confederacy during any year.
    Every people in history practiced slavery. Whites uniquely decided slavery was an evil practiced and phased it out, spreading their virtuous freedom to other cultures.
    Yet some peoples still practice slavery today. South Africa after apartheid no longer upheld past nor signed new international agreements against human trafficking, a fact which has garnered Amnesty International's attention.

    Who benefited from the states being split into two groups according to slavery but America's enemies?
    To think the Union invaded the Confederacy because they cared about black men makes you a damned fool. Lincoln was a tyrant who arrested Maryland secessionists without trial, broke numerous treaties, suspended freedom of the press, and committed many evils against Southerners and northerners alike.
    All he cared about was that he ruled. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, the Union's victory proved the federal government did not recognize state sovereignty or individual liberty. The Union's victory made of each American a slave rather than a citizen, with no say in whether or not he is bound to his government.

    Whites have nothing to feel guilty for in relation to blacks. Many whites sold themselves into temporary bondage as bondsmen for passage to the colonies which africans received for free. White men did not have guaranteed shelter or food which a black slave did have provided for him. Who can say the descendents of black slaves in the USA are worse off than they would be if their ancestors had remained slaves in Africa, or become slaves in the Caribbean or South America where they would be worked to death in 3-5 years?
    The majority of Americans are white and pay the welfare many blacks live by. Meanwhile blacks rob, assault, rape and murder whites many times more than the reverse.
    In 2006, the last year the Justice Department dared collect such information, there were 32,443 cases of sexual assault by black perpetrators on white victims while
  • totes_Mcgotes
    It only took 3 comments before someone defended slavery.

    Welp, I'm out.
    *puts on jetpack, takes off for Jupiter*
  • robm  - This one is the worst so far
    Actually this one was reply that happened earlier this evening. And of all the neo-confederates on this thread so far, this one seems to be the worst. They probably posted here to get aggrieved racist bullshit noticed.
  • Dark Jak
    Wait for me
  • Nicodemous
    Did you bother to actually read and digest the comment, totes_Mcgotes? It isn't so much saying slavery was ok and defending it. It is pointing out that Africans played their part in the practice and its perpetuation. He is simply pointing out that not all of the blame rests solely on "the white man".
  • Extreme-Madness  - re:Nicodemous
    Obviously you did not read his other comments on which it is obvious that he is miserable racist and sexist, and by his poor defense of Mel Gibson in the Nostalgia Critic's video shows that he was also an anti-semite.
  • diazepam
    Not just defending slavery, but being racist in general.
    Also, he needs to lrn2benevolent slavery.
  • Tom Smith
    All cultures have had slavery, but America is the only one that is basically proud about it.
    And it has been decisively racist since 1662 where in the after math of the mulatto Elizabeth Key's trial (she sued on the ground her white father granted her freedom) where the Virginia courts basically established the one drop rule against black heritage.

    And yes, the war was expressly fought over because of slavery. This is easy to see in the countless letters from soldiers on both sides of the war, to the fact that the Republican Party was expressly founded on an anti-slavery platform and Lincoln was selected to be their first presidential candidate because of his strong stance on limiting (not eliminating) slavery. The South saw that over time slavery would be phased out and made the first move. Lincoln would have been more than content to just prevent the introduction of new slave states, but the South attacked Fort Sumter and forced his hand.

    Note that the majority of the American people wanted slavery removed which is why they voted for Lincoln. but the South didn't care about democracy or the will of the people, all they cared about was themselves so they tried to leave. The Union's victory showed that it was the will of the people that should prevail, not the will of the minority. It made sure Americans were no longer slaves, both figuratively and in the case of blacks, literally.

    My favorite part was these 2:
    "whites sold themselves into temporary bondage as bondsmen for passage to the colonies which africans received for free". Note the words TEMPORARY and SOLD THEMSELVES.

    "White men did not have guaranteed shelter or food which a black slave did have provided for him." An easy claim to make when the black slave built the house and grew the food while their master just sat around doing nothing except eat most of the food the slave grew.
  • Ohsha
    What's racist about Elizabeth Key's trial?

    Racism is the belief that any race is better or worse than another. As you tell it, the court disagreed with Liza's identification of her race. No statement was made by either party regarding one race as superior or inferior.

    Lincoln didn't claim the purpose of the Union's invasion of the Confederacy was to free the slaves until the Gettysburg Address 2 years into the war. If you can see how a modern politician like Bush is making up his lies as he goes along when the purpose of invading Iraq goes from enforcing UN authority to a terrorist connection to destroying WMDs to liberating the Iraqi people how can you be so simple you fail to apply the same awareness to historical politicians and comprehend you're witnessing the same bullshitting?

    You know what country has had a war over slavery? None. Slavery would have naturally phased out in the USA over time. Same as south American countries. If the Union cared about slaves it would have simply bought them all from their owners which would have been cheaper in greenbacks, material, and blood than invading and destroying the South.

    "An easy claim to make when the black slave built the house and grew the food while their master just sat around doing nothing except eat most of the food the slave grew."

    You read like a damned marxist. Farmers knew how to farm; their african slaves did not. This same principle is why south africans murdering white farmers and taking their land results in food shortages: stealing an asset does not transfer the skillset required to utilize that asset to its' maximum utility.
  • armagod679
    The results of the Keys trial ended up declaring her a slave, eg, declaring she was inferior because of her race. That is racism.

    No one here has defended Lincoln as a saint. War time politicians are always making things up as they go along. However, Lincoln did run on the ticket that was created to end slavery.

    Whether or not slavery would have been phased out over time is impossible to tell, except to say that the US had been trying to phase slavery out for more than fifty years before the war started and was met with resistance from the south, which then succeeded.

    The farmers in the south may have known how to farm, but so did their slaves, since the slaves were the ones doing all the leg work. And slaves murdering white farmers and taking their land resulted in food shortages? I think it was more the fact that the farmlands were burned in the war, and I don't actually remember any case of the slaves taking over a plantation that resulted in long-term food shortages.
  • Ohsha
    Keyes was declared free in 1656. The Virginia law responding to her case defined slavery maternally, not racially.

    "Whether or not slavery would have been phased out over time is impossible to tell,"

    Bullshit. You can tell by how every other european and american slave-owning country phased it out without warfare that the same would happen in the USA.

    Reread my post armagod. I was talking about food shortages in South Africa, not the Confederacy and no marxist, doing "leg work" does not transfer a foreman or overseer's skills to you.
  • armagod679
    I'm sorry for getting confused on the food shortages, since the rest of the conversation here is about racism in America.
  • Tom Smith
    The results of the Keys trial was her being declared free do to her being half white on her father's side. Slave owners saw this as a threat to their ability to keep slaves and thus asked the Virigina legislature to make is to a slave was defined by their mother rather than their father. Much like literacy tests and the grand-father clause, this was a paper thin excuse to disguise racism.
    The person who was suing and trying to keep Keys a slave was her half brother.

    My analysis:
    The thing to take from the Keys trial is how it was a tipping point in racism in the US. People often wonder which came first, slavery or racism. In reality it was both, they fed each other. The aftermath of the Keys trial was the first example I could find where slave owners took a really hard stand against blacks and aggressively moved as a unified block to suppress blacks.
    By the time the Civil War started it was a commonly accepted that a half-white child of a slave was still a slave. It was so obvious that nobody would even think to bring it up in court.
    Random fact: Frederick Douglass was half white. His father was his master.
  • robm
    "You know what country has had a war over slavery? None."

    Except that 3 southern states that the right to own slaves was the cause when they seceded and 3 more later passed resolutions to the same effect.

    "Lincoln didn't claim the purpose of the Union's invasion of the Confederacy was to free the slaves until the Gettysburg Address 2 years into the war."

    Which would be relevant if big bad Mr. Lincoln had just randomly decided one day to invade the south. In reality most of the southern states had seceded by the time Lincoln was sworn in. Further more the south decided to start the war in the first place by bombarding Fort Sumter.

    The side that started the war rebelled over slavery, that pretty clearly meets the definition of going to war of slavery. Of course none of that will make a difference to you because your well versed in apologetics for your racism.
  • Tom Smith
    How could the aftermath of the Elizabeth Key's trial be anything but racist? The Virginia legislature was deciding peoples fate's based off of the color of their skin which is arbitrary. That is quite literally the definition of racism.

    I never said Lincoln started the war to outright eliminate slavery and I specifically avoided that in my previous post. America thought that they could easily and bloodlessly subdue the rebels and then get back the work of slowly killing slavery off legally. But the war dragged on and since the situation escalated Lincoln was forced to respond in turn. Its like a cop wanting to give someone a small ticket to someone for speeding, and then the person rams the cops car. Since the situation escalated so must the retribution.

    And there have been countless conflicts over slavery. Sparta had constant uprisings, the bible lists several Jewish slaves revolts and lets not forget the Haiti revolution.
    As for slavery naturally phasing out in America... no. Just no. That was what Lincoln was trying to do originally and it didn't work. Slavery would have existed if by another name. Life long contracts, sharecropping, prison labor, limited labor rights, debt, etc. The South has shown that they are very creative in creating slavery in one form or another.
    For sin's sake, in Alabama private prisons are leasing their prisoners to farms. And since the south is racist, guess what, almost all of the convicts are black and most are on bogus charges. So you have black people, in chains against their will, picking crops on a farm. In present day.

    As for the North just buying all the slaves, also a hilarious suggestion and tries to shift the blame to the North and make them the bad guys. If the North tried to buy all the slaves then the "supply" would go down and the "demand" of a slave would go up dramatically. Also: slaves had immediate value in terms of that one slave, and infinite value in that you could keep their kids. So a family of slaves has infinity value since the family will be producing labor for the rest of time. Not to mention that slave owners could (and did) rape their female slaves for free, something that would be difficult to replace monetarily. And even if the North were to buy, lets say, 90% of slaves in the South, so what? The Southerners would sell them and then kidnap the free men, falsify ownership documents and then put them back on the farm. This was a common thing to do at the time.

    The reason for the food shortages was because the Southern economy was wrecked by the war and they refused to lend aid to the newly freed men.
    "You read like a damned marxist." No, if you read it correctly what I said was the exact opposite of Marxism. A person should keep the fruits of their labor. You work hard, you earn more. A real capitalist would look at slavery and say "these people work hard a...
  • Ohsha
    Keyes was declared free in 1656. The Virginia law responding to her case defined slavery maternally, not racially.

    You can tell by how every other european and american slave-owning country phased it out without warfare that the same would happen in the USA.

    "non sequitur"
    "non sequitur"
    "red herring"
    [still waiting for something which responds to my arguments]

    "no. Just no" does not an argument make.
    "That was what Lincoln was trying to do"
    Lincoln never offered to purchase the slaves.

    "non sequitur"
    "non sequitur"
    "red herring"
    [still waiting for something which responds to my arguments]

    " If the North tried to buy all the slaves then the "supply" would go down and the "demand" of a slave would go up dramatically."

    Glad you learned 2 economics terms. I'm sorry for presuming you understood a purchase of slaves would be a one-time piece of legislature which also banned slavery as happened in other countries.

    "non sequitur"
    "non sequitur"
    "red herring"
    [still waiting for something which addresses my arguments]

    The reason for the food shortages was because the Southern economy was wrecked by the war and they refused to lend aid to the newly freed men. "

    Reread my post Tom. I referenced food shortages in South Africa, not the Confederacy.
  • Tom Smith
    Dude, are you actually going to respond to any of my claims or just poke trivial bits and deflect the rest with with a some spiffy Latin.

    "defined slavery maternally, not racially." Really, you can't see a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge in political speak. White male masters frequently raped their black female slaves and there were tons of paternally white and maternally black babies. There were basically zero instances of White female masters raping and then getting pregnant from their black male slaves. It was for this reason that literally hundreds of years legal/social tradition of children being defined by their father was "for some reason" changed so that the child was defined by the mother.
    Its obvious that "maternally" is not a code word for "racially". Its like saying that the Literacy Tests were actually about seeing if voters could read, or that the Grandfather Clause was really to protect voting heritage.

    "You can tell by how every other european and american slave-owning country phased it out without warfare that the same would happen in the USA."
    Except for Haiti. Nice way you ignored all the Spartan / Jewish slave uprisings.
    Anyway, that is exactly what Lincoln was trying to do. Peacefully and bloodlessly starve off slavery by weakening it over time. Just like most other countries. The South saw that most Americans didn't want slavery, knew that Slavery was on borrowed time and attacked first. Lincoln thought he would easily win, he didn't, he was forced to up the ante, etc.

    I will admit that I was confused that you meant "one-time piece of legislature" because that thought had never occurred to me. I always wondered if he could Imminent Domain all slaves. Anyway, the reason I never thought of it seriously is because if Lincoln has said "I order you to sell me your slaves" it would have been treated exactly the same as "release your slaves for free". There is no price the Fed could offer that the South would accept. If the North tried to force the sale the South would have responded by attacking the North. Because nothing can replace infinite free labor, free "sex" (rape) and preserve the racial structure of the time.
    Not to mention the fact that he would be taking taxpayer money and using it to reward slave-owners for taking away people's freedom and labor.
  • Ohsha
    In your racism you take for granted that all black women are slaves. Free black women's children were legally counted as free.

    How are slave revolts in Sparta (did you mean Spartacus? b/c he's Roman) and jews leaving Egypt relevant to the necessity of warfare to end slavery?

    I ignored what you wrote because it was a reference, not an argument. To construct an argument, state a true premise from which the conclusion you wish to convince me of is logically derived.

    If his primary concern was the abolition of slavery then Lincoln would have atleast offered an agreement like the state's purchase of serfs in Russia which had occurred in his lifetime.
    You are arguing from your conclusion. Instead, observe the facts of history and derive your conclusion from them.
  • Tom Smith
    Your ability to try to manipulate what I said is very impressive. I never said anything about freed blacks or their kids. At all.
    Again: for basically all of history the male figure (husband/father) has been the focal point of the family. That is why wives/children have their father's last name and in really old document people would say "I am Bob, son of Tim" as some basic examples of this premise.
    But the in the aftermath of the Elizabeth Keys trial the legislature decided, for basically no reason, that all of that would be reversed and a child would be defined by their 'mother' as a very thinly veiled code-word for 'Blacks'. And remember, it was slave owners in the area who asked for the legislation because they saw the suit as a direct threat to their ability to keep their black slaves.

    You repeatedly mention how "slave-owning country phased it out without warfare that the same would happen in the USA". This implies that the South wasn't all that bad and they would eventually see the errors of their ways but the North were all a bunch of crazies and attacked without reason. This is done in a bizarre attempt to deflect blame onto the North because making them racist makes the South less racist in some way I can't understand. Instead of owning up to their faults they make up stuff about others.
    I reiterate my claim from before. The South would never get rid of slavery. Ever. They might change the name to share-cropping, life long contracts, blah blah blah. This is obvious in how Jim Crow laws limited blacks job opportunities, forbidding trade unions, etc. And if a black arrested then their prison labor could then be given to a farm. A practice that continues in the present day. The South was would never give up slavery without starting a war.

    Anyway, you originally said "You know what country has had a war over slavery? None." and I was just pointing out that it was wrong. Spartan slaves were constantly revolting (and then getting crushed), slaves in Haiti fought a war of independence and won, and the Jews leaving Egypt was bloody.
    And I am glad you mentions serfs as slaves. I didn't mention them before but the serfs (slaves) in France and Russia had, not wars per say, but were part of the very violent uprisings and fought for their freedom.

    And again, Lincoln wasn't trying to straight up abolish slavery. He wanted to kill it over a long period of time. Many, including Lincoln, thought it would take several presidencies. In fact, he didn't do anything at all. The South left before he took office. You tell me how he could make a proposal after the South started the war, but before he took office.
  • Tom Smith
    @Ohsha cont.
    And again, the South would never let the Fed buy all their slaves. The idea is It would be like if someone offered to buy your still beating heart. There is no amount of money worth it. Slaves are worth infinity dollars in free labor (and free 'sex'). And the newly freed blacks would be free to move around and vote, something SC was outraged that certain Northern states allowed.

    "You are arguing from your conclusion." No that is what you are doing because you are projecting. All I have been doing is listing facts that disprove your conclusions. And you in turn have not offered any valid rebuttals to my statements, just non sequiturs, deflections of blame, and trivial nitpicks.
  • Tom Smith
    @ Ohsha
    "You read like a damned marxist." No, if you read it correctly what I said was the exact opposite of Marxism. A person should keep the fruits of their labor. You work hard, you earn more. A real capitalist would look at slavery and say "these people work hard and receive nothing while these people don't work at all and receive everything and that is horrible". Slavery is worse than Marxism and is the opposite of Capitalism.

    Slaves had all the knowledge and skills they needed to farm because they were the ones doing it. A slave knew how to farm better than anyone else because that is what they did all day. After the Civil War ended Southern farmers feared they would lose all of their experience workers and be left without the knowledge to accomplish even basic tasks. But they came up with bogus dept, bogus unemployment laws, etc and that crisis was averted.

    And in some places it was common practice to grab a slave and force them to look for a job in a city. The slave would have to find the job/housing on their own and then give almost all of their wages to their master. Their master, who quite literally did nothing.
  • Extreme-Madness  - re:Ohsha Speaking of accidental racist
    This last part, are you implying that blacks "rob, assault, rape and murder whites many times more than the reverse", because they were black, or perhaps you are forgetting that most poor people in America are blacks, and poor people will be inclined to commit a crime (no matter what color they were, because that poor whites may also commit rob, assault, rape and murder).

    And the alleged fact that only 1.8% of whites owned slaves is no justification to hold slaves. These only 1.8% of whites were wealthy landowners who have had hundreds and hundreds of slaves, and who were the basis of almost the entire economy of the South.
  • Ohsha
    The point of the 1.8% statistic is that the number of whites who owned slaves was negligible and the modern descendents of slave-owners are likewise negligible in number. It's another reason whites should not feel like they owe blacks or any other race anything.

    Crime statistics correlate more strongly to race than any other factor including poverty. There are more poor whites in the USA than poor blacks and they still commit less crime.

    You're disingenuous when you imply an economic motive assuages guiltiness for an evil deed anyway. If you genuinely held such a standard of morality among your beliefs you would pardon any harm a white man did a black slave because he was economically motivated.
  • Ohsha  - Missed my Post's Clipping
    ...instances of sexual assault by white perpetrators on black victims occurred.

    How are whites treated in Africa?
    Boer settlers in South Africa built cities where there were none and allowed central-african bantu tribesmen to immigrate and live among them. Yet these tribals could not live peacefully amongst the Boers and insisted upon voting on how to administer a nation foreign to them.
    What did they decide when voting power was given to them? That whites could not own property in their newly black country. More than 70,000 Boers in SA have been murdered since. SA suffered food shortages and power outages it had never known before. This same pattern of barbarism has been observed in Rhodesia's expulsion of non-blacks from the country and Haiti's hostility to non-blacks.

    Despite these facts whites are raised by school and have the message reinforced in the media that any pride in white identity is evil, that whites are evil, and the only proper response for a man to have when he's identified as white is, "mea culpa".
    Why are whites so discouraged from having a positive group-identity? Why is white culture mocked to the point saying, "that's so white" is meant as an insult?
    Because as Willie Lynch describes in his Making of a Slave, the breaking process for domesticating human cattle requires their male self-image be destroyed so the men become docile supplicants while the women, having lost their faith in their men to protect them/selves, perpetuate a generational cycle of mental bondage where women are taught to be independent and men are taught to be meek.

    I expect if any of you have read this a series of installed emotional responses has overloaded whatever capacity for rational analysis you possess but please, try to think logically: have I wrote the truth?
  • armagod679
    No. No you haven't.

    I don't know about the statistics, so I'll let that one slide. I will, however, ask for your source on it.

    Correlation does not mean causation. That's like saying that since both ice cream sales and cases of cancer are rising, ice cream causes cancer. The two things may be related, but they really have nothing to do with each other.

    You assert that poor whites commit fewer crimes against black people than the reverse. Again, I would like to see a source, and conclusive proof that race is the main contributing factor.

    As to Africa, we are not discussing how things are in Africa. This song, and thus this review, and thus this discussion, is about how things are in America. Maybe that's egocentric of me, but that's what we're talking about.
  • Ohsha

    For which? It may surprise you to learn The Department of Justice statistics come from...The Department of Justice.

    They stopped tracking the race of victims coupled with the race of their perpetrators though so here's an FBI report from 2011 about-us/cjis/ucr/crime- in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- the-u.s.-2011/offenses- known-to-law-enforcement/ expanded/ expandhomicidemain.pdf

    which tells us
    77.27% of murderers whose race was known were black

    while the 2010 US Census prod/cen2010/briefs/ c2010br-06.pdf

    tells us blacks make up 13.6 % of the US population.

    Utilizing these figures we know blacks overrepresented themselves by around 568% in 2011 in regards to murder alone.

    These are the facts. Form your conclusions in accordance with them.

    "Correlation does not mean causation"

    Kid, a murderer is the cause of murder.

    "proof that race is the main contributing factor."

    What evidence will convince you of this conclusion?
    I could cite perpetrators screaming, "kill the white slag"
    http:// article-2070562/Muslim- girl-gang-kicked-Rhea- Page-head-yelling-kill- white-slag-FREED.html

    but you can lie and pretend some invisible factor is more pertinent than evident fact.

    "we are not discussing how things are in Africa"

    You don't determine the limits of our conversation.

    To evaluate whether the relationship between whites and blacks objectively they must all be taken into account. Your insistence we exclude how blacks abuse whites in Africa from the record is a demand we bias our evaluation in favor of a conclusion against whites.
  • robm
    "Because as Willie Lynch describes in his Making of a Slave..."

    wow. Some guy cooks up a theory of psychology/sociology AND puts it into a book that you may or may not be referencing in context, this is clearly overpowering "logic." /sarcasm

    "I expect if any of you have read this a series of installed emotional responses has overloaded whatever capacity for rational analysis you possess but please, try to think logically: have I wrote the truth?"

    Well rehearsed post-hoc rationalizations where you cherry pick events and wrongs to justify prejudice against an entire race is not logic. That you said that in defense of a conspiracy theory claiming that acknowledging wrongs committed against people because of bigotry is a conspiracy against white people perpetrated largely by other white people is the icing on the cake of deluded bullshit.
  • Ohsha
    Dumbfuck, Willie Lynch bred and broke slaves. It wasn't theory, it was practice.

    Pull your head out of your ass and learn.

    "cherry pick"

    Habeaus Corpus. If you have a body of evidence to support a counter-argument then produce it.
  • Extreme-Madness  - re:Ohsha
    The only thing I see is that you're a racist, anti-semitic and sexist.
    Every conceivable rational discussion is pointless.
  • Kavonde  - Hell's bells.
    "Despite these facts whites are raised by school and have the message reinforced in the media that any pride in white identity is evil, that whites are evil, and the only proper response for a man to have when he's identified as white is, 'mea culpa.'
    Why are whites so discouraged from having a positive group-identity? Why is white culture mocked to the point saying, 'that's so white' is meant as an insult?"

    First off. There IS no "white culture." There never really has been. There are many different cultures which contain white people, but there has never been a single, cohesive, unifying culture that unites everyone of caucasian skin color living within the United States. That is because we are the majority. We outnumber everybody else combined. We have never been enslaved, we have never had our movements restricted, we have never been forced to live in a particular area of the country, and we have never encountered blind hatred, segregation, or persecution based on the color of our skin. When people like you talk about "white culture," you are actually talking about "conservative, Protestant, southern white culture." And there are many reasons this culture is deeply unpopular throughout the country and the entire world, not the least of which is its tendency to take pride in ignorance, hypocracy, and penis-measuring macho bulls***.
  • Ohsha
    "There is no white culture"

    he wrote in English.
  • Kavonde
    I'm sure that sounded relevant in your head, but I'm left just kind of scratching mine.
  • JumpingGigawatt123  - well shit..
    All of the sudden a wild argument appears.Dude we're on a comedy site everyone calm down its starting to look like youtube.
  • equivalentexchange  - uh
    You realize we're writing a language based off an old dead language, write with Arabic numbers, and an estimated majority of our words are borrowed words that became commonplace right?

    This all sounded very repeated, like you've done this on other sites or you bounce it around in your tiny little head.

    Maybe you should pull your own head out of your ass and learn? Perhaps?
  • pryanterry
    South Africa is the worst example you could possibly choose. Seriously? Policy towards the native population was horrible. The black population reacted to years of abuse. Barbarism? What about the way people were forced into slums, pushed out of cities onto "native land" (aka the land nobody wanted), and suffered from police raids? How can you try and paint invading a land, building settlements, taking all the resources and pushing out the native people as a "nice" thing? You are defensive about criticizing actions that were cruel. Every culture is responsible for cruel acts. That doesn't make them any less cruel. No, white people aren't evil. Frankly, the concept of group identity is outdated. The only reason it persists is because of prejudice. You are not writing the truth. Sorry for wasting both of our times.
  • Bad Motherfucker  - ...
    Nice essay. I don't agree with you, but you put a small essay in a comment section. Nice.
  • Todd awesome  - grza
    bet you copied that from wiki
  • pryanterry
    The difference between african slavery and white people who sold themselves into bondage is that african descended slaves were treated worse than the others. Why? Because it they weren't white (seriously, did that have to be spelled out for you?). So slavery is ok because, according to you, slavery was learned from the Africans? You do know europeans participated in slavery since before the greeks right? Besides, slavery isn't the core issue in this day and age. It's bigotry. The Confederate flag has been used by white supremacists as a symbol to rally behind. Frankly when people think about the Confederacy, the act of secession isn't the first thing people criticize. Honestly, I let that slide. It's the bigotry, and hate filled treatment of an entire people once slavery became a North vs South issue. It's the fact that people thought it was alright to justify exploitation and enslavement because of something as trivial as skin color, and once slavery was abolished this sentiment continued. Yes, this happened in the North as well, but beatings and lynchings committed in the South with the Confederate flag being flown has only furthered the notion that it represented hate. To deny that it is ignorant of other's suffering. You wanna wear a confederate flag shirt? Fine. You just better understand why people are mad at you. But if you don't have an empathetic bone in your body, then writing this was pointless.
  • jz1337
    Super Troll!
  • equivalentexchange  - oh my word
    you can't be a real person.

    People like you are a social and moral disease.
  • GrimKiller46
    I thought Accidental Racist was supposed to be a joke, intentionally over-the-top and dumb.

    Granted, I didn't think it was a very funny joke, so there ya go.
  • TragicGuineaPig
    You think this bad? You should check out "Life's an Eskimo Pie, Let's Take a Bite" by Stevie Wonder and Frank Sinatra.
  • Pseudowolf
  • ColeYote
    You mean Cool J.
  • Ronka87
    Rap Critic, I love you.
  • bookworm87
    Yep, can't say anything else about how this song is terrible, so thanks to both of you for facing the issues with it and making me laugh at the same time.
  • Mousy Voice
    Two guys arguing over something so pointless had never been funner.
  • Me Wise Magic
    Heard about the controversy with this song a couple days ago. The whole song is a mistake; but it's entertaining and interesting to hear both Todd and Rap Critic speak their minds on the subject.
  • Mothmouth
    Oh cool. I think I was expecting this, but not with Rap Critic, which is even better.
  • Mothmouth
    4:50 Is that George Costanza?
  • trlkly
    That's what I thought, too. But he doesn't seem the type of guy that Paisley's audience would identify with.
  • EarthboundXE
    Nope, that was him, that was Jason Alexander.
  • Goobian
    Brad Paisley's song "Online" is about being a nerdy guy in real life and online you are handsome and charming and have a great job etc. Jason Alexander was playing the guy that is being described in the song in the music video.
  • Forestwater
    He shows up in another of Paisley’s videos (I wanna say “Celebrity”?). They must be friends or something.
  • Th3-_-UnKnOw
    While the Thrift Shop vs Suits and Tie video was funny. These vs episodes are a lot funnier when he is actually arguing with someone. Its a nice change of pace from the regular stuff.
    Oh and while we are on this topic, has anyone seen The Colbert Reports parody of it? It is called Oppsy Daisy Homophobe and it is the only good thing this song has done.
  • Dutchtica
    BEST you guys done.
  • General_Winter
    I didn't think that this would be that good, considering neither was really doing what they usually do, but it was surprisingly good.
  • IbanezJFS  - Getting the record straight
    Ok look I was born and raised in the South for 19 years and although RC lives there now this doesn't make him an expert on the Civil War so allow me to set the record straight. (This is just incase they werent joking)
    1.The Civil War was about The South wanting to be their own Nation. Yes they did indeed wanted to keep slaves but that wasn't the main reason for the war.

    2.Blacks who lived in the South fought in the war because they believed they needed to defend their homeland.

    3. Blacks who lived in both the American South and Africa not only owned slaves but sold them as well. So blacks aren't so innocent.

    4.Former slaves have actually said that their "owners" were some of the nicest people they have ever known.

    5.The flag is indeed a symbol of heritage. Some Nazis just starting using as a symbol of white power. That doesn't make it a racist statement. Lots of extremist have used other symbols of peace and or pride to justify their crimes but this doesn't make the symbol racist. SO yes RC there is indeed a middle ground for this.

    6.If you want proof of on any of this. Please look up a man named HK EDGERTON. I know this may have been over doing but when it comes to my heritage I DON'T F*** around with this $h!t. This is my home and we have tons of decent black folk down there that value Southern Heritage.
  • armagod679

    I have lived in several different parts of the country, and while you may not say that makes me an expert on any of them, I have taken American history from both the north and south viewpoints, so allow me to discuss your points.

    1. The reason the South wanted its own nation was because they wanted to keep slaves. Yes, there were other factors, but slavery was the biggest one.

    2. Those were the blacks who were still in the south and had not escaped to the north before or during the war.

    3. The percentage of blacks who owned and sold slaves was much lower than the percentage of whites. Also, in Africa, it was still a form of racism since the Africans selling slaves generally captured the people of a different tribe.

    4. You have evidence of that, huh? Over a hundred and fifty years later, you have talked to a former slave about their master? Putting that aside, I realize that the majority of slave owners were decent people. That does not mean that slavery as a practice is right or that one man is superior to another because of skin color.

    5. I believe you mean extremists, not Nazis. We aren't discussing Swastikas. And yes, a symbol can mean whatever the bearer intends it to mean. But it also means what the audience interprets it as, so in this case, Paisley's claim that the Confederate flag means he's a Lynyrd Skynyrd fan doesn't hold up when his audience interprets it as a sign of white supremacy. And you can't plead ignorance on that.

    6. I respect your heritage. My grandfather was from Texas, and I lived in Texas for many years. However, southern heritage does not excuse the wrongs that occurred in the past. I don't try to defend the mistakes that the northern US made-- and there are a lot. Part of respecting and celebrating heritage is acknowledging and learning from the mistakes of the past, which Paisley clearly has not, as evidenced by this song.
  • ColeYote  - @IbanezJFS
    Right, and I assume whenever you see a swastika you associate it with Hinduism, or we might be dealing with a bit of a double standard here.

    And what in the hell do 3 and 4 have to do with anything?!
    well if your a satanist like me you just have to deal with hate and have to understand that things are not always like they seem hmm mostly because a majority of the planet sees you as baby sacrifcing and/or eating phsycopaths
  • ohe

    This is the point where you should shut up, armagod. Half of those points aren't supporting any statement, you're just talking back for its own sake even if it makes you sidestep the issue by a mile.

    Like point 4, it has nothing to do with with whether slavery is right or wrong, the original point was to say that at least some slave owners weren't complete monsters. You acknowledge that much and a bit more, so how about letting it be instead of whining against every single point in there?

    1 and 5 are pretty much only points from you that deserve any sort of acknowledgement, and 5 only if we're willing for a major derailment of the conversation.
    The fact they were slaveowners makes them pretty corrupt already.

    btw, You can't believe any positive word a former captive says about his captor. Those slaves had Stockholm Syndrome and were raised to believe they were inferior to their "master".

    ohe wrote:
    "so how about letting it be instead of whining against every single point in there?"

    That is the only way any argument for slavery and "defending the south" can stand: if the opposition stays mute. The Rush Limbaugh school of Debate. You know IbanezJFS and your stance has no real foundation. If ohe can't let RC's (valid) points stand, why would we not counter ohe's B.S. ?
  • armagod679
    I'm sorry if you are offended. Actually, no I'm not, because neither you nor ibanezJFS seems to care if I am offended. There are two sides to this discussion, so let me make mine clear.

    First, every time someone makes an argument, they must be willing to listen to the other side of that argument. Otherwise, it is not an argument, it is an ego trip wherein one persons says "I'm right and everyone else is an idiot." That is not how constructive debate works.

    Second off, I do not need to shut up. I have the same right to discuss on the Internet that you do, and I will fully exercise that right, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    Now, to the actual topic we were debating. If my rebuttal to point four is irrelevant, then so is the original point four, since the song being reviewed was not about whether or not slaves were mistreated. The song under scrutiny is about the representation of slavery and the marginalization of an entire race of people. And no, I'm not just going to let it be. I am not whining about every point. I am giving the other side of the argument, since, as noted above, that is how debate works.

    But if you think that only two out of six points deserve acknowledgement, then most of the original argument is irrelevant, so I'm not entirely sure what you, ohe, are defending. Since 2/3 of the argument are derailing the discussion anyway, I fail to see how point five is any more egregious an example.

    Feel free to refute my argument in an intelligent manner, rather than just telling anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint to shut up, because that sort of rhetoric isn't getting us anywhere.
  • 13secondstomidnight  - Also...
    The only reason I can possibly fathom for your angry and very deliberate misconception of a very civil argument is that you do in fact live in the South and don't like the truth that your home has very strong historical ties to slavery.

    Damn, Americans are insane.
  • 13secondstomidnight
    I need to get this straight, because you have honestly just confused the hell out of me for one.

    1. Armagod points out that the main reason the South wanted to secede from the nation was due to wanting to keep slavery. Hence pointing out that the confederate flag has a very deep connection to the enslavement and racism against an entire race. Relevant? Yes.

    2. Armagod points out that the blacks who did fight for the South did so because they had not escaped to the north before and were forced/brainwashed into fighting. Relevant? Not really, but it was a point that really needed clarifying.

    3. Armagod points out that there was only a very small percentage of Blacks who owned slaves, Ibanez trying to foist some of the guilt of slavery off onto the race being enslaved and not looking very good for doing so. Relevant? No, but Ibanez's statement very much needed to be clarified again.

    4. Ibanez then tries to say that some slavers were very nice (and the contradiction of trying to at one point say slavery = guilt and then say not all slavers is bad is sounding very confusing), and Armagod points out that even if there was evidence of this, the right or wrong of slavery as a whole isn't dependent on how nicely some people treated their slaves. Relevant? Only in that contradicting Ibanez's statement was sorely needed. Was this relevant to whether slavery is right or wrong The point he made was that whether the owners were decent or not HAS no bearing on whether slavery is right or wrong.

    5. Ibanez says that the flag is a symbol of heritage, and that just because some extremist have started using it as a symbol of white power, that doesn't mean anything. Armagod points out that yes a symbol can be interpreted to mean anything but that same interpretative nature means that it is in the eyes of the audience. The flag's strong historical link to slavery does make it a well-known symbol of white supremacy, and this is something that is... well-known. Relevant? Oh yes. There is no derailment from the conversation whatsoever that I can see.

    6. Armagod says that h/she respects Ibanez's heritage but that just because heritage has great value, that doesn't mean it is alright to ignore the mistakes of the past/ As he/she says: "Part of respecting and celebrating heritage is acknowledging and learning from the mistakes of the past, which Paisley clearly has not, as evidenced by this song." Relevant? Completely.

    I have now just gone by a point-by-point breakdown of the relevance of Armagod's entire post, just to show you that every single thing you have said in your post is completely bullshit. You are basically telling someone to shut up just because you don't like the truth of what they are saying, and it is complete truth. Whining against every point? You mean rebutting every point and correcting the mistakes of Ibanez.
  • Clinton  - The big irony
    The big irony with this song is that Brad Paisley isn't even technically* from the South. West Virginia was a Union state. He's from the Wheeling metropolitan area, which was home of the Wheeling Conventions where West Virginia decided to split off from the Confederacy and join the Union. Wheeling is on the border with Ohio, another Union state. Wheeling is basically on the same longitude as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. It's fricken ABOVE the Mason-Dixon Line. Brad Paisley has no southern "heritage". He's appropriated it because he's a redneck and a country singer and that's what that subculture expects from them.

    *Technically in that, though West Virginia is historically not "southern", as in part of the Confederacy, there are many there who appropriate the southern redneck subculture. Doesn't excuse the fact that calling oneself a "son of the south" while being from there is the height of historical ignorance.

    /Fun fact: I live in Maryland, but I've been to WV many times and those damn roads outside the interstates nauseate me.
  • Mr.Anderssson
    Technically West Virginia is a South state. Seven Southern states which still had slavery sided with the Union. Just because they didn't join the Conederacy doesn't mean they weren't historically Southern.
  • Epockismet  - Thanks for the reminder
    It's rare for anyone to bring up this stuff without twisting it to their own political agenda. Maybe not the right venue, but probably appropriate considering the times we live in.
  • Mr.Anderssson
    1. The civil war was in fact about slavery. If you read the speeches made by the pro-secessionists right after Lincoln's election, they make it VERY clear that the war was ALL about slavery. There's a very good book collecting their speeches called "Apostles of Disunion". States rights didn't show up until after the war in Jefferson Davis's postwar biography.

    2. As soon as the war started, slaves started leaving their plantations in droves and the plantation economy effectively collapsed. This was even before the Union army made it policy to recruit escaped slaves.

    3. No argument here. Slavery existed in Africa already. However, it should be pointed out that this was more like indentured servitude instead of the chattel slavery the Spanish would introduce.

    4. Perhaps. Hardly justifies owning a human being, though.

    5. The ironic thing is that the confederate flag isn't even the confederate flag; at best it's a modified version of the confederate naval jack. So, it's not even cultural heritage based on reality.
  • trepiechick
    The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was essentially about disagreements regarding power and taxation without representation, some of the same reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The south didn't have enough representatives in DC, and wasn't happy with the idea of a government having more power than the states. The north had slaves too, you know, and still had slaves long after Lincoln died. "Freeing" the slaves was actually brought in at the last minute because Lincoln's cabinet didn't want to support something so radical, but was eventually coerced.
  • PlayMp1
    Bullshit. The vice president of the CSA, Alexander Stephens, said in an address now called the Cornerstone Speech:

    "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

    The entire point of the Confederacy, as stated by its #2 man, was slavery. Don't dance around it.
  • EarthboundXE
    Alexander Stephens sounded like a real charmer....

    The fact that there seems to be so many different opinions here on what the Civil War was about, makes me not want to trust anything that's said about history.

    History is written by the winner so it's said.
    That may be why I figure history is one of the least important things to learn in school.

    I have yet to use one fact I learned in history to improve my daily life, that didn't include something pointless like trivia.

    There really doesn't seem to be a way to fully know what happens in the distant past, otherwise there would just be one straight answer.
  • Mr.Anderssson
    Opinions are one thing, evidence is another. We can know what really happened and wade through the bullshit by finding the most direct evidence available. My particular evidence, the speeches of the secessionist commissioners prior to the war, shows exactly what the south believed before Southern apologism appeared.
  • robm
    This is not a lost civilization from 1000 B.C., this is recent history that was extensively documented by both sides. The legislatures of Texas, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia all declared that slavery was among the reasons for their secession. That's pretty compelling evidence.
  • ThatDudeInTheUshanka
    Not only that but the confederates are the ultimate proof that phrase does not apply a hundred percent of the time, because in this case most of the early civil war historians where southerners writing about the war and they defined most of the southern apologist arguments used to this day.
  • PhilthePenguin
    Your post is nonsense.

    What disagreements regarding power and taxation without representation? If anything the Southern states had inflated representation in the House since slaves (who had no rights or citizenship) were counted as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes. The only disagreement about power was whether the Federal government had the right to outlaw slavery and whether the Southern states had the right to secede over the issue of slavery. All the rhetoric at the time was about slavery. All the disagreements leading up to the war were about slavery, such as whether slaves who escaped to the North should be returned to their owners in the South. The Southern states seceded right after Lincoln's election because of his anti-slavery stance.

    It was the border states (the southern states that did not join the Confederacy) that had slavery. The rest of the Union states had already outlawed slavery. Lincoln's cabinet couldn't outlaw slavery during the war because they were afraid the border states would secede. And slavery didn't persist "long after" Lincoln's death. The 13th amendment, outlawing slavery, was passed a year before Lincoln was assassinated.
    south:we have always had slaves whats wrong with it
    north:its wrong and your stupid
    south:no your stupid
    north:NUH UH
    south: YEAH HUH
    north:your a retard
    south: so we are basically gonna be doing this again but together and against russia
    north: yep
    uh what was i typing again
  • TerminalSanity
    1. Stop ignoring the white elephant in the room just because it happens to sh!t all over your misplaced pride. The South seceded because they thought the North was going to eventually abolish slavery. There other factors yes but they all lead back to and were related to the slavery issue one way or another you can scream states rights and liberty till your blue in the face if you feel so inclined just don't expect everyone to conveniently ignore what states rights actually in contention and what liberties the south was fighting for at the time. Now to be fair it would be apt to say that the North's reasons for fighting the war were not primarily about slavery and even to the degree that it was by and large had more to do with the economic implications of competing against slave labor than moral considerations or outrage.

    2. Patently false most slaves simply abandoned their plantations at earliest opportunity if not flocked to support the Union cause in one fashion or another. Even there were loyal slaves wiling to fight for their masters if you think the antebellum south would actively arm men of color you truly know nothing about southern history.

    3. WTF does that have to do with anything? The fact that some Africans that sold other Africans (usually from rival tribes) into slavery doesn't absolve the South and its slavery in the slightest it just makes the the Africans that did that guilty too.

    4. Sentiments almost certainly limited to relatively few house slaves who treated like family by their masters because more often than not they were family by blood.

    5. Its a symbol of the confederacy which founded by and large to preserve the institution of slavery which in and of itself was steeped in racism. It was and will always be stained with racist connotations which is precisely why modern racists often adopt it.

    6. Heritage is always a mixed bag; you take strength from the good and take humility from the bad. Fuck pride. Pride is a mind killer and a form of vanity. Pride is why many a poor southerner fought and died to preserve the very institution that mired them and their families in poverty for generations (competing against slave labor when you have no slaves of your own leaves you little better off than a slave)
  • Chris P Bacon
    I think it's great that you so value the history of your homeland. Few people really appreciate where they are from. So how fluent are you in Iroquois languages?
  • BBboy
    "So blacks aren't so innocent." Looks like we have an Accidental Racist here.
  • THOOM  - ohe
    1. Lincoln's reason for keeping the Union together wasn't slavery, but the main reason the South wanted to secede certainly was. Slavery was THE money maker of the South. Not only would the Plantation owners be giving up FREE LABOR and their wealth, there was no way any white person--rich or poor-- wanted to see any black as free and equal.

    3. This stupid argument. I will exaggerate numbers here, but a handful of Africans selling out hundreds of their ENEMY tribesmen is not comparable to the thousands of Europeans and their slave trade. The slavers had a multimillion dollar business with enormous infrastructure, ships, chains, ports, thousands in manpower..They were fully aware that they were creating generations of slaves.

    Your argument is like a large group of child molesters convincing (and paying) a few 11 year old kids to lure hundreds of even younger children to the molesters' home, only for the kids to be trapped and held captive by the molesters. Then you'd turn around and say "those kids had a hand in their own kidnapping and rape! They sold themselves out!" No one ever takes into account these few Africans thought they were just getting their enemies out of their hair with no idea about the enormity and consequences of slave trade. They probably were trying to keep THEMSELVES and there families from being taken into slavery by giving them other Africans.

    4. Yeah, that is what Michelle Bachmann says. I've never read testimony to back that up. Still, I believe it could be true for some of the slaves....Do you know why? Because the were SLAVES. They had what is now referred to as Stockholm Syndrome. Those people grew up being taught to believe that they were inferior to whites. Of course they defended their former "masters".

    You may not "f*** around" when it comes to the South, but that doesn't absolve you from being wrong.
  • 3Dmadness  - Agreed
    I think what a lot of people forget is that the civil war was far from just about slavery, In fact if I was going to put it down to anything I would blame the expansion of Federal authority into state law for the war. The South has never been a big fan of centralised government and indeed is cut largely from a different cultural cloth then their Northern countrymen.

    I expect the reason that the reason why the South loves their flag so much is because it's the one they choose when the civil war started, the first time it became a matter of "Us and Them"

    I should also mention that I have seen the Union flag and the Nazi flag used by American Nazis so it's not just the Confederate flag. Nazis who happen to be in the South likely use it because its concurrent with the culture that they live in, and as we all know Americans are in a constant war for control of what things mean, it just so happens that a lot of people are letting the Nazis win this one because of a mix of misunderstanding history and perhaps because by destroying Southern cultural icons you might destroy the culture.

    The problem is now what it has always been, the North and South value totally different things:

    1. The North believes trading a little freedom for a little security is ok and the South doesn't.

    2. The South believes that God and Country should be linked and the North (for the most part) doesn't.

    Those are the two biggest differences that I can think of right now, the North wants big government, and the South and little government problem is the Northern big government effects the South more than Southern little government effects the North so the South always wants to leave.

    (Also Sherman was a huge racist, do some research into Sherman's March to see what I'm talking about.)
  • ThatDudeInTheUshanka
    Bullshit. Name me the expansion of federal authority on states rights (other than slavery). There really wasn't going on and in fact the southern states had previously been the ones forcing other states to give up their rights in order to preserve slavery (such as the Fugitive Slave Act which essentially meant free states had to hand over people who where legally free men over to southern authorities).

    and on your rock stupid numbers:
    1. Then why was the base for the biggest expansions of the federal government in recent years (the PATRIOT act and the presidential war powers act) a product of for the most part southern politicians?
    2. Actually thats not a north south thing thats an issue that varies state by state even in the south.
  • Blizz3112
    9:23 Apology accepted, Rap... ;-)

    Nah, just kidding... its an awful song indeed... and it should never be taken seriously. Ever!
  • Epockismet  - That was awesome :)
  • theprocrastinator
    paisley should have restructured the song so it doesn't sound so aimless. he should have pointed the lyrics toward the fact that southern people who wear the colors only do so for "tradition" sake should put them away for good. a big problem of the southern culture is how resistant to change they are. i think people who still wear those colors may secretly harbor some racist views, or are unenlightened to the symbolism. ll cool j was not a good pick! in fact, no rapper was! why couldn't they use just about any great black singer in the world? john legend or something. however, i'm sure if they did get an offer to do this song, i'm sure they would have declined.
  • LikaLaruku
    Eh, it's like listening to a married couple on the verge of divorce.
  • melongod
    Never has "why" been more necessary to ask.
  • Jegsimmons
    to say the southern Dixie flag has racist connotations, is a black and white view on history.

    by that logic, the entire existence of texas is racist, because they fought mexico JUST TO OWN SLAVES.

    The thing is, the Dixie Battle flag was to represent a region that HAPPENED to favor slavery.
    Thing is, both sides owned slaves, it wasnt so much about slaves as it was states right and representation. Just like how we divide us up between red and blue states, back then they divided up between slave and free states.
    and their were slave states in the union to fight the south.
    Also, only about 1.6% of whites owned slaves, 3000 blacks had slaves, ect.

    So in defense of the FLAG....its not a racist (outside of white supremacy groups) and its just a representation of a region.

    on a different note, this vid was hilarious.
  • keniakittykat
    You know, I might be Belgian, Flemish to be exact, and the whole flag thing hits closer to home than you might think.

    The Flemish flag has been the symbol of Flemish freedom since the middle ages. Our little spot of land was conquered by everyone (And I mean everyone, the Romans, the Celts, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the Germans, everyone)
    So our awesome black lion was always a symbol of courage and freedom.

    But ever since a conservative separatist political party with a strong anti-migration agenda took it as their own, people nowadays are piss scared to even wave the flag on the national holiday because it might label them as racist!

    I want my awesome flag back! =(
    your allowed to wave your flag when people of lichtenstien can wave their flag and people know what the hell they are waving for and not say "your making that country up"
    It is a racist battle flag, and the South was defending Slavery as big business. And you can believe they didn't want those negros walking around free on the streets.

    The "slavery in the North" issue was moot since Lincoln rendered slavery null and void. The South didn't want to roll with that program.

    And what do you think "representation" was all about? Slavery! The South wanted to count slaves as citizens of the states they lived in. That way the South would have more reps in congress. This, despite the fact that slave had no rights, couldn't vote or own property, were seen as less than humans and certainly not citizens. That is when the Union settled on the 3/5 of a man b.s....And the South still tried to secede. (and got their asses handed to them)
  • Jegsimmons
    1.both the north and south owned slaves
    2. slavery was not racial specific, black people just happened to be the demographic that hit a stroke of bad luck since they came from Africa as prisoners and POWs
    3.slavery was an economic issue, not a racial one. without slavery the south economy would collapse.

    remember WE have the advantage of hinesight. 1860 did not, they had to do what they thought was best for them. and unfortunately they needed slavery because tractors didnt exist. Stop thinking in black and white and see the colors in between and outside.

    also, does that mean all the southern states official flags are racist?
    or that the US flag is racist?
    no, it doesn't. a few assholes took it and made it a white supremacist symbol while others just wanted to use it as a symbol of a region and rebellious nature.

    Hell i have a few shirts with the flag on it, either part of a band, a hunting shirt or just the flag itself, and the black people here don't have a problem with it, because they know the majority of people here don't use it as a racist symbol, but more of just a cool battle flag.
  • Ankai
    "1.both the north and south owned slaves."

    Well, that requires a response. Yes, it is true that the people in both the North and South owned slaves. That excuses nothing. There was exploitative child labor in the North too, but there is no way that I am rationalizing that. There could very well be slavers in my family history too, but I would not try to trot out economic survival as reasoning.

    Towards the founding of the country, many Northern states had taken steps to either abolish slavery locally or encourage its gradual withering away. By 1840, there were very few slaves up north, at least according to the census. Illinois, being next to Missouri and Kentucky, had 331 slaves. Pennsylvania had maybe 64. Iowa had 16. Wisconsin had 11. Connecticut had 8. New York had 4 (all in the southern district). Indiana, Ohio, and Rhode Island each had three. By 1850, I saw no slaves in any of these states from the census numbers.

    Maryland and D.C. were on the borderlands, so I don't know if you were including them. The number of slaves (and proportion to Free "coloreds" and overall population) had dropped significantly in D.C. between 1840 and 1860. The number of slaves in Maryland was falling only gradually, but the number of Free"coloreds" and the overall population were rising.

    There were two definite Northern states that still had slaves in 1860. New Jersey had 18 slaves in 1860, far down from 236 in 1850 or around 650 in 1840. The number of Free "coloreds" was rising as well as the general population. Delaware was the only state with anywhere near a significant number of slaves in 1860. It had 1,800 slaves, compared with the 20,000 Free "coloreds" and the total 112,000 population. Even that number of 1,800 was lower than the 2,300 in 1850 and the 2,600 in 1840, compared with the (again) rising population of Free "Coloreds" and general population. If you want to count the territories of Utah and Nebraska as the North, then, yes, they had a few slaves too.

    Six Southern states had slaves making up around half the population, with Mississippi and South Carolina at over half. Two states had slaves making up a third of the population. Three had a quarter. Kentucky had a fifth and Missouri had maybe around a tenth though Missouri was down in proportion from 1/8 in 1850 and 1/6 or 1/7 in 1840.
  • Ankai
    "2. slavery was not racial specific, black people just happened to be the demographic that hit a stroke of bad luck since they came from Africa as prisoners and POWs"

    And WHY did they come as prisoners? Because the native non-Whites in America kept dying out due to the conditions of slavery. And what do you mean POWs? What right had America or any of the European powers have in declaring war on any of the African peoples? Or are you referring to the fact that African tribes practiced slavery against enemy tribes? If that is the case, yes, they did. That said, they had not been traditionally taken across the ocean where they could never return home. Perhaps Arab slavers made Africans more used to the happening by the time the Europeans came, but Europe (and the United States) became slave-crazy, and nearly the entire way of life in Western Africa became dominated by capturing slaves thanks to direct meddling from White people. "Stroke of bad luck" seems to imply that White people had little responsibility for what happened here; that it was just a series of occidents. Erm...sorry. I meant a series of accidents.

    "3.slavery was an economic issue, not a racial one. without slavery the south economy would collapse." was too big to fail? Thank goodness that I was not president back then. At least Lincoln, with his less-than-enlightened views regarding Black people, was initially willing to only contain slavery to the South in order to maintain the Union. I would have let the entire country collapse if I had to choose between the cold economic practicality and basic humanity. Economic imperative (and "providing for one's family") has been used way too much these days to condone and even promote social and political injustice; if one can rationalize slavery with similar economic arguments even today, then we might as well just not even bother trying.

    "1860 did not, they had to do what they thought was best for them. and unfortunately they needed slavery because tractors didnt exist."

    They? They who? They everyone in the South incluing the slaves? And I don't know about your personal feelings about tractors, but I would think twice about comparing a human being to a machine in this context.

    "Stop thinking in black and white and see the colors in between and outside."

    Speaking as someone who is neither black nor white, this statement strikes me as quite meaningless.

    "the black people here don't have a problem with it, because they know the majority of people here don't use it as a racist symbol, but more of just a cool battle flag."

    Perhaps you could convince one or two of them from wherever "here" is to maybe speak up on their own behalf so that you don't have to do it for them. I find that is usually preferable ...
  • Jegsimmons
    holy fuck I am not reading all of that. Cliff notes, please.
  • Ankai
    Oh, sorry. Would you like me to just cobble together a misleading statement in hopes to trip you up or woud you rather I throw out a couple vague terms that could reference one of multiple things in hopes that you spend hours trying to figure out what I am talking about?

    Okay, fine. Short version:

    1) The North had slaves. That North also had child labor. So what? That makes it okay?

    2) Just as White people are wont to do, they coopted one part of Black culture (African slavery in this case), hijacked it, ran it into the ground, and made it so that was all Black people could aspire to be. And I get the prisoner part of POW, but what was the war? No, I am not going to look it up; you tell me.

    3) So, economics trumps justice. That is what I am getting from you. Millions are denied their basic humanity so that some others can feed their families. I have no sympathy.

    4) You just equated a Black person to a tractor.

    5) I would rather hear said Black people chime in about the flag. It is always better when minorities are allowed to speak on their own behalf than have others speak for them unnecessarily.
  • Jegsimmons
    hate to respond to a post so late, but if i may.

    1. never said it was ok, but we have the advantage of hindsight and need to adjust our perspective on what they had at the time.
    2.the prisoner and POW part was that the slave we got from Africa were prisoners because they broke some sort of law and were being punished, or they were POWs from tribal conflicts and we sold to arabs and/or sold to whites as slaves. As stated in one of the first post, they were actually indentured servants (as in worked for 10 years then freed) until a Mr. Anthony Johnson won a court case in one of the carolinas i think and was able to own his servant/slave for life.
    3. again, im not saying economics trumps justice, but lets think about it, slavery was acceptable until the end of the civil war. and the south needed that labor force, thats what its entire economy was based on. and since tractors and others things similar did not exist they had to use what they had, and that was slaves. I mean, yeah, owning slaves today is a big no-no (as it should be) but they didnt have much of a choice back then. It was use that labor, or go out of business.
    4. Im equating a then black slave's job to the job of a tractor. dont confuse the two.
    5. while i agree getting a minorities view point on the subject is a good thing, it runs the risk of being bias and maby even incorrect.

    Here lets me see if i can explain using a comparison.
    2 flags, Nazi flag and Confederate flag.
    both flags are deemed offensive and are said to represent oppression.
    how ever heres the difference:
    the nazi flag is one not of country, but of a political party whose purpose was one of tyranny and racism.
    The confederate flag was one representing a then newer country that just happened to own slaves that were of a different color. How ever since the confederate flag only represented a region and not the views of said reason which were subject to change as the world evolved, its unfair to call the flag racist.
    It represents nothing more than a region of the United States that has its own culture and at one point its own individual nation.

    The Nazi flag is one representing the ideology and not the country itself, hence why it IS racist.

    I mean if we were going to deem flags offensive because it represents an area that just HAPPENED to have racism, the the American Flag, British flag, Texas, Spainish, ...pretty much most flags ever would have to be thrown out.

    Really the only reason why the Confederate flag gets so much shit is because the country didnt survive.
  • LexusAmaru
    Absolutely amazing! These guys have so much chemistry together.
  • KaizerJED
    Todd, Rap Critic, please...both artists suck equally. This song is awful and both Paisley and LL are to blame.
  • ClaudiaFangless
    Ha! Did anybody else catch the "This video is disowned by me" at the end? Very clever, Todd.
  • FlashMan
    Accidental Racist is African Child played straight.
  • ThatGuywiththeBowtie  - Surprise. I have none.
    Oh look. Todd and Rap Critic did a crossover. What a surprise. I wonder if it'll be amazing.

    Oh look, it is. How shocking.

    Seriously, great work, you two. That was awesome.
  • eyelasers.becausescience  - ha
    after reading so many horribly negative or racist,etc. comments here and seeing this looking so much like a troll comment, after reading it I laughed out loud. I commend you sir.
  • IbanezJFS  - HK Edgerton
    Im serious look up a guy named HK Edgerton I think you will be surprised.
  • armagod679
    All right, I have. For those unwilling to do a quick Google search, here are a few point:

    1. Edgerton is one of a few African-Americans belonging to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

    2. He was formerly president of the Asheville chapter of the NAACP and worked to improve racial relations.

    3. After making apologies for slavery and appearing at neo-Confederate rallies, he was voted out of the presidency and suspended from the NAACP.

    4. He went to work for a legal company that has defended neo-Confederates and KKK members.

    5. His philosophies do match yours, IbanezJFS, so kudos for that. However, his views are not generally accepted among other African-Americans, even from the south, and have a rather polarizing nature. So... yay?
  • robm
    Well if IbanezJFS can find one African-American who's a confederate apologist then the whole issue totally becomes not racist.
  • Jegsimmons
    so he's anti-racist, but support freespeech?
  • therooster  - my views on the issue of race relations
    seeing that picture of them with the cowboy hats and gold chains made me realize todd in the shadows can be abbreviated as T.I.T.S

    that is all
  • JacktheTrader
    Congratulations Todd and Rap Critic! You and the comment section just went through the whole review without making a single Bioshock Infinite reference! Come and claim your prize...first throw!

    Wait...0-0...aww crap!
  • TragicGuineaPig
    I think if he really wanted to make a song for overcoming racial disunity, he probably should have written it in such a way that it didn't come across as accusatory. Instead of, "Y U B all like 'RACIST!!' just b-cuz I wear rebel flag??", he could just make the point, "Not everyone who wears a rebel flag does so because they identify with white supremacy." Instead, he comes across as if he expects black people to understand his viewpoint, without taking the time to communicate it, or to try to understand theirs.

    Either that, or he should have made it a comedy song, where he and LL diss each other over perceived racial stereotypes. But then, they find they have something in common (like maybe they're both Braves fans - I don't know), and they end up hanging out and drinking beer together.

    Actually, that would be an even better song. Each one of them complains about perceived racial stereotypes, and then just say, "Screw it. Let's just drink beer." And the song would be about how beer solves all problems. The end.
  • BBboy
    That's assuming Paisley has the thought process to think that up.
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

Happy Viking: Noble Beast

Watch Video

Brad: Turkish First Blood

Watch Video

MikeJ: Wild Things Foursome

Watch Video

Shark Movies: Bitemare Before

Watch Video

Phelous: BZ - Super Hereoes

Watch Video

Horror Guru: Pumpkinhead

Watch Video

BSG: Kung Kwon Todd

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Homage

Watch Video

AWD: DreamGear Part 3

Watch Video

NC: WYNKA - Planes, Trains &

Watch Video

Bum: HG - Mockingjay P1

Watch Video

Yomarz: Farcry 3 - Blood Dragon

Watch Video

SF Debris: Dr Who - Blink

Watch Video

FB: Mr Turner & Nativity 3

Watch Video

ChaosD1: MMO - FFXIV

Watch Video

Shaun K: UG - To Be Continued

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 23 - Another

Watch Video

Linkara: Avengers #1

Watch Video

Dom Reviews: Homeworld 2

Watch Video

RR: Cloudkicker

Watch Video

Animerica: Tokyo Majin, Part 2

Watch Video

GW: Leeroy Jenkins

Watch Video

Best for a Buck: Gunpoint

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Tatoos

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 22 There's No

Watch Video

BB: UnAmazing Spiderman2

Watch Video

Todd: Dick Tracy

Watch Video

MikeJ: Bare Lifts Infomercial

Watch Video

FB: Serena/Love, Rosie

Watch Video

Brad: Tries McRibMac

Watch Video

Linkara Riff: Why Braceros

Watch Video

Vangelus: Kyoryu Red

Watch Video

Nerd3: Big Hero 6

Watch Video

Team NChick: Pumptober 21

Watch Video

WTFIWWY: Love in Penguins

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (145)
Sports (264)
News (285)
Book Reviews (569)
Funny (593)
Top # Lists (790)
Animation (1004)
Wrestling (1017)
Movies (1150)
Anime (1190)
Thoughts (1225)
Comics (1315)
Misc Reviews (1347)
Music (1550)
Video Reviews (2038)
Film Review (2863)
Uncategorized (4086)
Video Games (5437)
Old Blogs (15309)