NationStates

New Hampshire lawmaker deletes post, clarifies after saying 'owning slaves doesn't make you racist'

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/453932-new-hampshire-lawmaker-deletes-post-clarifies-after-saying

A Republican state representative from New Hampshire, is under fire for a since-deleted post in which he wrote that “owning slaves doesn’t make you racist.”

Werner Horn had made the comment on Facebook in response to a post shared by former state Rep. Dan Hynes (R) in which he bashed HuffPost for a story about a historian who said President Trump is tied with former President Andrew Johnson as the “most racist president in American history.”

“LOL. This is why no one believe the media (huffpo),” Hynes wrote. “Trump is the most racist president in American history, what does that say about all of the other presidents who owned slaves.”

Horn wrote in a since-deleted response: “Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist…”

Horn later told HuffPost in an interview released on Thursday that he was being sarcastic in his response and said that his comment is by no means to be construed as “support for either slavery or racism.”

But in a follow-up statement, Horn said that although it is “never OK to own another person,” he feels that labelling the institution of slavery “is a false narrative.”

Horn argued in the interview that slave owners were making a “an economic decision” when purchasing slaves — a decision, he told the publication, that race did not play a deciding factor in.

“Unless you’re going to try to tell me those plantation owners were so in the dark ages that they delighted in being also sexist and ageist — practicing age discrimination and sex discrimination when they bought slaves — I don’t see how you can say they’re being racist because they bought black slaves,” he continued.

“My comment specifically was aimed at a period of time when that was how you survived, that’s how you fed your family,” the lawmaker went on. “It wasn’t ‘I want to own a black person today.’ It was, ‘I need to feed my family; I need five guys who can work stupidly long hours in the sun without killing themselves.' ”

During the interview, Horn was also pressed about his thoughts on a recent controversy ensnarling the president after he told four Democratic congresswomen of color — Reps. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) – to "go back" to their where they came from.

In his response, Horn said he thought the president’s comments were “rude” and “inaccurate” but broke from other lawmakers who described the remarks as “racist.”

We've hit peak, "I'm not racist BUT..." levels here.

If I play devil's advocate (and play damn hard), I suppose I could see what Horn was trying to get at, but even that generous assumption still reveals an disgustingly unforgivable ignorance about history. He's essentially saying that because slaveowners didn't own slaves out of pure sadism and instead had some money-making interests in mind, that means that slave-owning was purely monetarily driven and therefore not racist at all, completely ignoring everything we know about how slavery in the Americas got started, how it was justified, how even many anti-slave people felt about black people, etc. 'Cuz if you don't know, there's a reason that none of those "purely economically motivated" slaves were white. (And no, the Irish were never slaves, sorry that conservative facebook meme lied to you.)

As small an incident as this may be, I believe it is emblematic of larger disturbing trends going on in America, namely the increasingly elaborate mental gymnastics of mainstream right-wingers to sympathize with horrific traditions and practices without having to suffer the label of a bigot. And, of course, continuing to cling to the notion that the south was somehow an innocent victim in the Civil War.

What says you?

Imagine if something could be multiple things at the same time.

Fuck that would be mental right, big if true

Jesus Christ.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Imagine if something could be multiple things at the same time.

Fuck that would be mental right, big if true

It's like that trope in movies where people run away from the big scary monster instead of running to the side


Only, instead of running from monsters, it's political and historical thinking

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Imagine if something could be multiple things at the same time.

Fuck that would be mental right, big if true

It's like that trope in movies where people run away from the big scary monster instead of running to the side


Only, instead of running from monsters, it's political and historical thinking

At least a monster can also change directions. It's more like walking on train tracks, seeing the train walking, and deciding to run ahead instead of jumping sideways.

The historian is an idiot. jackson and Wilson were far more racist than either Buchanan or trump.

Sometimes its best to keep some opinions to yourself, with that said the lawmaker is in the wrong here making that kind of statement.

He said owning slaves was, not the entire thing.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and on this one I think he needs it.

It seems his point was aimed at the fact that many founding fathers had slaves, and many didn't want to, i.e. George Washington, who emancipated his slaves through his will after he died.
George Washington was almost definitely not a bad person, he was extremely admirable in fact and many other 'slave owners' fell under likewise categories, granted most were less than others.
Many people back then released their slaves when they died, why? Because they only needed them and understood that it was necessary to have them.

If one company is using something that gives them an advantage but is immoral, but at the same time will definitely put you out of business if you don't do the same, are you going to just willingly fail?
Some people did choose that route, but evidently most chose to take the advantage because otherwise the economy wouldn't prosper.

Also it is incorrect for you to put the quotation like that when those were not his precise words, it is manipulated his statement.

That is my view on this situation, I do NOT intend on offending anyone in any way.

Thank you, and have a great day.
Also, since I didn't have the opportunity on the Fourth of July;
God Bless America!

It was racist and economic.

No need to excuse the one with the other.

But racism and slavery aren't inherently connected: a white person can subjugate another white person to slavery. Anyone could enslave someone else. Racism and slavery are separate, terrible ideas. The only reason they are connected in the American mind is that American philosophical thought realized slavery was wrong and needed a way to justify it. The nature of the slave trade meant racism was a natural answer, and here we are.

Oh my god. He doubled down on it.

“My comment specifically was aimed at a period of time when that was how you survived, that’s how you fed your family,” the lawmaker went on. “It wasn’t ‘I want to own a black person today.’ It was, ‘I need to feed my family; I need five guys who can work stupidly long hours in the sun without killing themselves.' ”

How you survived? Someone let him know that a majority of people got along just fine without owning other human beings.

lol stupid boomer

Ohioan Territory wrote:Oh my god. He doubled down on it.

“My comment specifically was aimed at a period of time when that was how you survived, that’s how you fed your family,” the lawmaker went on. “It wasn’t ‘I want to own a black person today.’ It was, ‘I need to feed my family; I need five guys who can work stupidly long hours in the sun without killing themselves.' ”

How you survived? Someone let him know that a majority of people got along just fine without owning other human beings.

Apparently plantation owners have a very different diet and metabolism from the rest of us, why else would they need slaves to grow so much cotton, tobacco and sugarcane to feed their families?

Depending on what period of history i guess.

Vetalia wrote:

Ohioan Territory wrote:Oh my god. He doubled down on it.



How you survived? Someone let him know that a majority of people got along just fine without owning other human beings.

Apparently plantation owners have a very different diet and metabolism from the rest of us, why else would they need slaves to grow so much cotton, tobacco and sugarcane to feed their families?

Fuck tobacco makes my mouth water.

Loben The 2nd wrote:Depending on what period of history i guess.

Remember, black people sold other black people to the Americans.

Um yeah, Slavery wasn't Racist. There were a ton of Irish and white indentured servants that came to America. Slavery was not exclusive to one race. The only reason why African slaves were so common is that a lot of the waring kingdom in Africa sold their POWs as slaves to the Europeans who then brought them to America. The Africans did it, the Aztec's did it too. Slavery wasn't a race thing, it's horrible but it's not racist. Millions of wealthy European settlers came to America with African slave and white indentured servants and indentured servants are pretty much the same as slavery.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:Depending on what period of history i guess.

Remember, black people sold other black people to the Americans.

New World slavery was not the first instance of racial slavery/caste, and nor will it be the last.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Remember, black people sold other black people to the Americans.

New World slavery was not the first instance of racial slavery/caste, and nor will it be the last.

dont tell the blue checkmarks on twitter that.

Slavery was both racist and economic, and shouldn't be defended.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Remember, black people sold other black people to the Americans.

New World slavery was not the first instance of racial slavery/caste, and nor will it be the last.

Speaking of which, slavery is still a thing in some countries. It's kinda sad how we are over here arguing about first-world problems while there are people still being exploited for labor, sex, and - more recently - organ harvesting.

Geneviev wrote:Slavery was both racist and economic, and shouldn't be defended.

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

Too bad I live in the North, where the climate just isn't suited to tobacco. I should buy some land in South Carolina and start growing my own chaw.

Russoslava wrote:Um yeah, Slavery wasn't Racist. There were a ton of Irish and white indentured servants that came to America. Slavery was not exclusive to one race. The only reason why African slaves were so common is that a lot of the waring kingdom in Africa sold their POWs as slaves to the Europeans who then brought them to America. The Africans did it, the Aztec's did it too. Slavery wasn't a race thing, it's horrible but it's not racist. Millions of wealthy European settlers came to America with African slave and white indentured servants and indentured servants are pretty much the same as slavery.

Slavery, in the American context, was definitively racist.

Russoslava wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Slavery was both racist and economic, and shouldn't be defended.

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.