Palin: Family life at the time of the founding was a lot like family life for Americans today..

[HipChick]

yeah..except for the 1 in 6 Americans who were held as slaves in 1790 – often unable to marry legally, and always liable to be sold and separated from spouses or children – family life was quite a lot different at the time of the founding than it is today.

A would-be president should remember that part of the American story too.

Palin’s throwaway remark about the Founders and the family has the ring of something the candidate herself dictated or remarked. It takes us inside her head, shows us something of her vision of the nation’s past.

Palin’s remark was the remark of somebody who looked back at the 1790s and saw only … white people. But America in 1790 was a country with a black population almost twice as big, relative to overall population, as it is today. In South Carolina, blacks outnumbered whites. Even in the North, blacks were held to slavery: New York for example did not abolish slavery until the 1820s.

Often and repeatedly, she writes huge numbers of people out of the American story. In that one throw-away sentence, she did it again. But it reveals something, and not for the first time or the second time or the third time even. And it’s that something that her words reveal that is a very big deal indeed.
***********************************************************************************
It must really chaffe her that there is an highly educated Black man sitting in the WH.



http://www.frumforum.com/bigger-problems-with-palin%e2%80%99s-new-book

[blue neen]

1. Women were legal property of their husbands and didn't have the right to vote. How quaint, huh?

Of course, Palinized History is just accepted by the teapartiers like it's the gospel.

[bliss_eternal]

6. given most aren't interested in reading...

...unless it's selective reading of texts that glorify "their history"...it makes sense, they just take her at her word, instead of attempting to investigate for the truth.

:grr::mad:

[Hannah Bell]

31. most men didn't have the right to vote either.

[KharmaTrain]

2. The Wingnut Are Clueless About The Constitution

If that isn't obvious by now. People like Mooselini have this fantasy Constitution they invoke to justify whatever goofy thing falls into their head without any real knowledge. Much of the word salad Palin spews is written by some neo-con wonk...she's totally clueless and has shown it anytime she has to go off script.

The hypocrisy of the "strict constitutionalists" is sometimes amusing to watch as they get wrapped up in the very words they claim to understand and defend.

[hatrack]

3. "And that makes me Martha Washington." *wink*

:puke:

[ejpoeta]

4. well black people were only 3/5ths of one white person back then.

so maybe that is why all she sees is the white america. not the slave labor that helped create it. and i am quite aware of what 1790s america had for women and any woman worth her salt wouldn't want to go back there. to think of what our grandparents and great grandparents on endured so that we would have the freedoms we have today and to just be willing to throw it all away!! just makes me physically ill. i have three daughters and i will be damned if i am going to help push them back into a position women were in even 50 years ago much less even farther back than that!!

[bliss_eternal]

11. provided...

...that black men got the right to vote (prior to women),i think the 3/5 was only referring to black men. as ultimately, a black man could plow their fields, a black woman was only good for being a wet nurse and an object of rape. so, black women weren't even 3/5 of human in the grand scheme of things. (but that's merely my theory...not necessarily fact ;)).

talk about depressing for black women.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. Three-fifths referred to ALL black people! Men and women!! n/t

[XemaSab]

30. And that was for congressional apportionment, not the vote, no?

So it was a way for southern white men to be disproportionately represented in congress?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. No black American could vote, male or female. They would considered 3/5ths

primarily for representation purposes. What you state is correct.

ETA: The 15th amendment gave black men ONLY the right to vote. But, of course, we know that there were Jim Crow laws and other impediments that states used to keep that from happening...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[bliss_eternal]

5. Just when I think...

...she couldn't possibly say anything more idiotic, *she does*. :eyes:

Good points, HipChick.
If I may add, (caucasian) women were considered property, weren't allowed to read and marriage had little to do w/a desire to spend a lifetime w/another. It was more often than not an arrangement to secure property (and in some cases resolve debt) for men. Yes, women were sold into marriage to settle family debt, routinely. Marital rape was legal.

Slaves in addition to being property, were considered a third of a person. They (slaves) couldn't read, were forced to worship the christian god (to keep them in line)...and if they attempted escape were beaten w/in an inch of their life. Additional escape attempts were met w/the removal of limbs (like a foot).

Rape was a way of life for most female slaves. Slaves were divided by color, a fact that sadly continues to this day within the race (divisiveness based on colorism). Frequently, dark skinned slaves worked the fields while lighter hued slaves worked within plantation home.

Gays and lesbians were not allowed to exist in 1790. Glbts were tortured and criminalized.

The deaf, hard of hearing and mentally disabled were mistakes...and sent away. Parents were told to forget about them, and to try to have another child.

Yep...just like it is today. :eyes:

Ms. Palin is sick.

[HipChick]

8. Thanks for adding lack of women's rights..if you were an able-bodied white male it was certainly

a paradise

[bliss_eternal]

9. definitely. and they've been mourning...

the loss of that paradise for decades. what we're witnessing now, is a full-fledged tantrum. ;) ...and no problem. :hi: thank you for the great op. :thumbsup:

[tammywammy]

39. Excellent post. n/t

[bliss_eternal]

46. thank you...!

:hi:

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Only property owners could vote

Abortion was common and not spoken about. Same thing applied to same-sex couples, at least in some regions.

[bliss_eternal]

10. same-sex couples...

...weren't allowed to exist. most had to masquerade as "roommates" or risk being jailed, killed, or shut away in a sanitorium (as it was considered a "mental illness" then). how special is that? :puke:

don't even get me started on the horrors facing glbt's that were institutionalized. :scared:

thank you for noting the commonality of abortion.
sadly, it was usually on someone's basement table with a wire hanger (or worse).

women could not be "divorced." single mothers? just tack a scarlet "W" on your lapel for "Whore," because life was over for you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. It's a ludicrous statement

Even some Freepers who are interested in history must raise their eyebrows at this. It has no basis in historical research whatsoever. Family life in colonial America was nothing like what we see today. You don't even have to get into the issue of slavery to dispute her claim. It's completely and utterly ridiculous; it would be an unacceptable statement for a high school sophomore.

[HipChick]

13. Except she gets a pass..

others would be culled on the floor..

[LiberalCatholic]

37. I agree

[somone]

14. Sarah, professor of American history

What a freakin' dolt.

[bliss_eternal]

15. women's death by child-birth...

apparently isn't a palin, concern. but the numbers of women who died in childbirth was staggering, then. not to mention all the children that eventually died, due to the rampant diseases (prior to modern medical advances).

[karynnj]

16. Great points - I guess she missed the civil rights and the woman's movement

She also missed how many women died in childbirth and how many children did not make it to adolescence. Even ignoring the big social changes, she misses how much more self sufficient people had to be just to survive. I would bet that she that she means the frontier, not the genteel class the founding fathers were almost all from. Though it sounds silly, I think she knows less of those times than little girls who read the "Little House on the Prairie" series - which I never would take as history.

If she meant the upper class, she completely misses that learning, etiquette and culture were highly valued. Her natural rudeness would not be accepted. It might be true that the wealthier founding fathers would not have faced the huge amount of work needed to provide for a family, but the daughters (and wife) would have been expected to have many social graces. Frankly, if Bristol or Willow (or Sarah) were magically transported to Williamsburg - even dressed appropriately, I doubt they would find it similar to their lives. As to Todd - imagine him trying to converse with Jefferson and Madison. let's just say that I doubt they would be good ambassadors for Alaska.

[bliss_eternal]

17. that political office she enjoys...

...that's given her a platform to "share" her insanity, would not have been a reality in the time she's praising. women couldn't vote, much less hold a political office. she wouldn't have been allowed to do much other than be a wife and mother. there's no way anyone would let her play w/guns, speak publicly, or tell others what to do.

a daughter having a child,when she isn't married? ummm, no.
bristol would have been forced to have an abortion, in order to preserve the family's social standing. no forced births for family's of wealth, then. there weren't any "home's for wayward girls" yet. the places young women were sent to school, to give birth (circa 1940's and on...i think), where their infants were taken from them, to be placed for adoption.

[karynnj]

19. Exactly

I suspect that Bristol would actually have been quickly married to either Levi, if his status would not make that a scandal, or some other young man - if they could find one who would benefit so much from the family connection, he would agree. The baby would be early - but comparing birth and marriage certificates show it happened.

[End Of The Road]

18. Yep. I sheared the sheep and spun the wool just yesterday... nt

[Binka]

36. Thanks for the Monday morning chuckle!n/t

[Turbineguy]

20. But her followers

eat that shit up.

[gulliver]

21. I do hope interviewers are taking notes.

It's clear that Palin has a deep knowledge of American history that she wants to share. And she probably wants to go into detail about why she criticized Bernanke's recent Fed moves. The media should let her have that level of conversation with the American people. She's ready.

[lunatica]

22. that woman is an idiot

thanks Keith. I borrowed it.

[treestar]

23. How did she manage to graduate from college?

Or high school for that matter? Does she not know a thing about history?

[Contrary1]

24. “But from what I’ve read..."

:rofl:

[UTUSN]

26. Yeah it was a whirl of beauty contests, attention whoring, self-promotion & insatiability n/t

[Ilsa]

43. You forgot the dancing contests for their daughters having babies out of wedlock. (sarcasm) nt

[Arkansas Granny]

27. I caught the end of a panel discussion this weekend (I believe it was

White House Chronicles) where the moderator was talking about Palin's lack of depth of knowledge. He said that most who were considering running for office, especially for the Presidency, would be studying right now, but she seems to be having fun just running around the country, making her appearances and being in the news (or words to that effect).

[joeybee12]

28. And the Native Americans outnumbered whites...racist ho's like Palin

really have tiny little minds that facts cannot enter.

[MilesColtrane]

29. *facepalm*

She's a walking, talking brain stem.

[dembotoz]

32. they bought their food at costco?????

[Mz Pip]

33. Using Sarah's logic

the same came be said for just about any culture in any period of history. Life sucked sometimes, but once in a while it didn't.

There is NO depth to this woman. NONE.

Yeah, the cavemen had it rough, all that huntin' and gatherin'. But at the end of the day they could look into the sky and see the wonderfulness of God's creation. They could draw on their walls. :sarcasm: This not a quote from Palin's book. But it sure could be.

[bluedigger]

34. In what sense, Sarah?

In the sense that families were often composed of people that were close relatives, then yes, it was exactly alike...:eyes:

[XemaSab]

35. Get this woman a copy of Albion's Seed

Does she fancy that we're like the Quakers, the Puritans, the Cavaliers, or the Scots-Irish?

That's, of course, assuming that she really does only want to count the British and their descendants as "real people." :banghead:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

38. What for? She'll just use it as a door stop. nt

[ClassWarrior]

40. The bigger story here is that it's David Frum who's nailing her on this.

NGU.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. The next two years --

will be about a certain segment of GOPers working like the devil to make sure she doesn't get anywhere near the WH.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. For the 2% that make up her entire concept of reality

now if you will excuse me, I have butter to churn

[BlueJazz]

45. Any Women here want to be my Property?? I'll treat you kinda nice but....

...you better do what I want you to do...like the dishes and housework and keep me...ah.."Happy"
I can do WHAT with the mop? :)

[bliss_eternal]

47. you're funny.

:rofl:
thanks for the laugh, BlueJazz.

[BlueJazz]

50. Thank you much!

[SalmonChantedEvening]

48. Quite so. I often winter at Valley Forge with the Wife and Infantry.

Mercy, what a stupid git she is.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Lots of young women had their first babies out of wedlock. That's still the same.