Ben Carson

[katsteve2012]

Samuel L, Jackson considers Carson to be a TOM


all criticism of Carson stops there

carson = tom

always has been for racist *******

Samuel L. Jackson is ONE PERSON. only an idiot would think that his opinion alone is the undisputed truth.

 

[Unkotare]

Samuel L, Jackson considers Carson to be a TOM


all criticism of Carson stops there

carson = tom

always has been for racist *******

Samuel L. Jackson is ONE PERSON. only an idiot would think that his opinion alone is the undisputed truth.

Key phrase, "only an idiot."

 

[Asclepias]

Samuel L, Jackson considers Carson to be a TOM


all criticism of Carson stops there

carson = tom

always has been for racist *******

Calm down flea bitten cracker. Carson was an uncle tom long before his latest gaffe. However, he did back track and correct his silly ass comment.

 

[ding]

Samuel L, Jackson considers Carson to be a TOM


all criticism of Carson stops there

carson = tom

always has been for racist *******

Calm down flea bitten cracker. Carson was an uncle tom long before his latest gaffe. However, he did back track and correct his silly ass comment.

Jealous much?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hey black people. I have a question for you. Is it ok Ben Carson said this?

Carson: 'There were other immigrants who came in the bottom of slave ships, who worked even longer, even harder, for less'

So what he is saying is that some white immigrants came to this country and worked harder longer and for less than slaves did. Does anyone agree?

And does Ben get away with such stupidity because he's black? Conservatives will say we are attacking Ben Carson but don't comments like this deserve ridicule?

How does being an immigrant who comes to America because he or she WANTS TO, goes through the LEGAL immigration process, becomes a citizen, and with that citizenship, acquires the right to vote, and not be restricted by laws limiting where he or she can go, is paid, even though he or she may earn minimum wage, and is free to go home at the end of a days work, and if he doesn't like it here can go back where he came from, compare to a slave who arrives in America in captivity, is considered "property", much like a chicken or a mule, is sold to the highest bidder, is put to work and owns nothing, and cannot just leave and go back home?

It compares as one of the best examples of being an immigrant to one of the worst examples of being an immigrant.


This might be of interest to anyone not a brain dead partisan. From that right wing rag, the Washington Post.

Analysis | Slaves as immigrants, from Ben Carson and the academy





"It turns out, though, that slavery as immigration is a not uncommon characterization in academic discussions. To be sure, usually “immigrant” has the connotation of voluntary immigration; but there are also similarities between slaves and immigrants that scholars point out, often by using the term “immigrant” to refer to those who have come here from foreign countries, freely or not. Just a few examples:

[Lolita K. Buckner Inniss, “Tricky Magic: Blacks as Immigrants and the Paradox of Foreignness," 49 Depaul L. Rev. 85 (1999):]

A. Slavery as Immigration

Immigration has been defined as the moving across national frontiers, as opposed to moving within borders. Immigration has also been defined as a history of alienation and its consequences — “broken homes, interruptions of a familiar life, separation from known surroundings, the becoming a foreigner and ceasing to belong.” These definitions have traditionally been applied to entrants from Europe and later, Asia. Blacks were often either explicitly or implicitly excluded from definitions of immigration, dismissed as being merely “imported slaves” whose movement lacked the complexity of later immigration to the Americas, or deemed unwilling victims of conquerors. Notwithstanding these pronouncements, black arrivals to the Americas had all the attributes of immigrants. In fact, they created the immigrant paradigm: arrivals with alien languages, cultures and customs, who enter at the bottom-most social and economic levels and labor tirelessly.

[Rhonda V. Magee, “Slavery as Immigration?," 44 U.S.F. L. Rev. 273 (2009):]

I have wondered whether a first generation “chattel slave” was also, in some sense, an immigrant? That is, might the involuntarily enslaved African, forcibly brought to the United States for condemnation to a life in chattel slavery, be more accurately considered a certain type of immigrant? And, if so, what are the implications of those revelations for understanding the origins and operations of U.S. immigration law? If transatlantic slavery was, in part, the earliest system for immigration in the United States, what legacies of that system should scholars of immigration law recognize, and what are the implications of that history for immigration law and policy today? That is to say, from the standpoint of immigration law, might the chattel slavery system be more accurately considered a compound institution system comprised of not only labor and sociocultural structures, but also a state-sponsored, pernicious system of immigration?

[Geoffrey Heeren, “Illegal Aid: Legal Assistance to Immigrants in the United States," 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 619 (2011):]

Slavery grew in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a more economical alternative to an earlier class of immigrant labor: white indentured servants imported from Britain. Arguably, slavery presents the best example of a hierarchical framework for immigrant rights: slaves were (involuntary) immigrants whose movement was strictly regulated according to their origin (African or domestic), legal status (slave, freedman, free born black), and each state’s laws on the subject.

[Martin W. Burke, “Reexamining Immigration: Is It a Local or National Issue?," 84 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1075:]

Black Americans are not usually mentioned in a discussion about immigrants. However, it must be remembered that African slaves were an immigrant population that was forcefully brought to our shores and not allowed to assimilate into mainstream society.

It’s pretty likely that these authors would disagree with Carson on much, and might well use their slaves-as-immigrants arguments for reasons very different from Carson’s. But they share the basic point that those who arrived in slave ships had something (though of course not everything) in common with other new arrivals. Carson’s point is that one of the things they shared in common was a need and a desire to build a better life for their children and grandchildren (a desire that might have been more acute than it was for non-immigrants). It’s hardly a deep point, I think, but not one that seems to me to merit condemnation, especially as part of off-the-cuff remarks that weren’t intended to constitute deep analysis. (Indeed, as the article I quoted notes, many in the audience seemed to take the remarks as unobjectionable.)"

Leaving a World They Never Made

It sneaks in the lie that Whites who weren't indentured came here voluntarily, in the sense of not being forced by anything against their will. They were all driven here by aristocratic tyranny in Europe. So they were innocent men escaping from prison. All came here under duress.

 

[Unkotare]

Hey black people. I have a question for you. Is it ok Ben Carson said this?

Carson: 'There were other immigrants who came in the bottom of slave ships, who worked even longer, even harder, for less'

So what he is saying is that some white immigrants came to this country and worked harder longer and for less than slaves did. Does anyone agree?

And does Ben get away with such stupidity because he's black? Conservatives will say we are attacking Ben Carson but don't comments like this deserve ridicule?

How does being an immigrant who comes to America because he or she WANTS TO, goes through the LEGAL immigration process, becomes a citizen, and with that citizenship, acquires the right to vote, and not be restricted by laws limiting where he or she can go, is paid, even though he or she may earn minimum wage, and is free to go home at the end of a days work, and if he doesn't like it here can go back where he came from, compare to a slave who arrives in America in captivity, is considered "property", much like a chicken or a mule, is sold to the highest bidder, is put to work and owns nothing, and cannot just leave and go back home?

It compares as one of the best examples of being an immigrant to one of the worst examples of being an immigrant.


This might be of interest to anyone not a brain dead partisan. From that right wing rag, the Washington Post.

Analysis | Slaves as immigrants, from Ben Carson and the academy





"It turns out, though, that slavery as immigration is a not uncommon characterization in academic discussions. To be sure, usually “immigrant” has the connotation of voluntary immigration; but there are also similarities between slaves and immigrants that scholars point out, often by using the term “immigrant” to refer to those who have come here from foreign countries, freely or not. Just a few examples:

[Lolita K. Buckner Inniss, “Tricky Magic: Blacks as Immigrants and the Paradox of Foreignness," 49 Depaul L. Rev. 85 (1999):]

A. Slavery as Immigration

Immigration has been defined as the moving across national frontiers, as opposed to moving within borders. Immigration has also been defined as a history of alienation and its consequences — “broken homes, interruptions of a familiar life, separation from known surroundings, the becoming a foreigner and ceasing to belong.” These definitions have traditionally been applied to entrants from Europe and later, Asia. Blacks were often either explicitly or implicitly excluded from definitions of immigration, dismissed as being merely “imported slaves” whose movement lacked the complexity of later immigration to the Americas, or deemed unwilling victims of conquerors. Notwithstanding these pronouncements, black arrivals to the Americas had all the attributes of immigrants. In fact, they created the immigrant paradigm: arrivals with alien languages, cultures and customs, who enter at the bottom-most social and economic levels and labor tirelessly.

[Rhonda V. Magee, “Slavery as Immigration?," 44 U.S.F. L. Rev. 273 (2009):]

I have wondered whether a first generation “chattel slave” was also, in some sense, an immigrant? That is, might the involuntarily enslaved African, forcibly brought to the United States for condemnation to a life in chattel slavery, be more accurately considered a certain type of immigrant? And, if so, what are the implications of those revelations for understanding the origins and operations of U.S. immigration law? If transatlantic slavery was, in part, the earliest system for immigration in the United States, what legacies of that system should scholars of immigration law recognize, and what are the implications of that history for immigration law and policy today? That is to say, from the standpoint of immigration law, might the chattel slavery system be more accurately considered a compound institution system comprised of not only labor and sociocultural structures, but also a state-sponsored, pernicious system of immigration?

[Geoffrey Heeren, “Illegal Aid: Legal Assistance to Immigrants in the United States," 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 619 (2011):]

Slavery grew in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a more economical alternative to an earlier class of immigrant labor: white indentured servants imported from Britain. Arguably, slavery presents the best example of a hierarchical framework for immigrant rights: slaves were (involuntary) immigrants whose movement was strictly regulated according to their origin (African or domestic), legal status (slave, freedman, free born black), and each state’s laws on the subject.

[Martin W. Burke, “Reexamining Immigration: Is It a Local or National Issue?," 84 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1075:]

Black Americans are not usually mentioned in a discussion about immigrants. However, it must be remembered that African slaves were an immigrant population that was forcefully brought to our shores and not allowed to assimilate into mainstream society.

It’s pretty likely that these authors would disagree with Carson on much, and might well use their slaves-as-immigrants arguments for reasons very different from Carson’s. But they share the basic point that those who arrived in slave ships had something (though of course not everything) in common with other new arrivals. Carson’s point is that one of the things they shared in common was a need and a desire to build a better life for their children and grandchildren (a desire that might have been more acute than it was for non-immigrants). It’s hardly a deep point, I think, but not one that seems to me to merit condemnation, especially as part of off-the-cuff remarks that weren’t intended to constitute deep analysis. (Indeed, as the article I quoted notes, many in the audience seemed to take the remarks as unobjectionable.)"

Leaving a World They Never Made

It sneaks in the lie that Whites who weren't indentured came here voluntarily, in the sense of not being forced by anything against their will. They were all driven here by aristocratic tyranny in Europe. So they were innocent men escaping from prison. All came here under duress.

All? That's just stupid.