What the Retraction of the ‘Slavery Language’ Really Means
By now we’ve all heard of the infamous slavery comparison in the preamble to the pledge that Bachman and Santorum have signed. In case you missed it, here it is again:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA?s first African-American President
Of course, they were “shocked” when people found this offensive. And I was “shocked” when they retracted it. In case you missed the retraction, here it is again:
It was not meant to be racist or anything. it was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife…we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today.
So what was the point of the original preamble? It was to express just how vital the traditional nuclear family was to our values (though their history was completely incorrect, the point is that they actually believed it).
Yet, despite how “important” they believe the family is, they admit in their retraction that things were worse for African American children back then.
Conclusion: A traditional nuclear family does not guarantee happiness.
Either they stand by their original (highly flawed) analogy, or they keep the retraction that completely negates their viewpoint. What’s it going to be?