SO THAT’S WHY IT IS AN INSULT

Before we take people who do not deserve to be taken seriously too seriously, let’s define a term.

slang   /slæŋ/ –noun

1.very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language, as Hit the road.

2.(in English and some other languages) speech and writing characterized by the use of vulgar and socially taboo vocabulary and idiomatic expressions.

3.the jargon of a particular class, profession, etc.

4.the special vocabulary of thieves, vagabonds, etc.; argot.

As the definition suggest, slang is quite often used by people who do not know how to communicate properly in standard English. 

Now to the subject at hand. From time to time I discover a local blog which is either new or I just did not know about it.  The latter is the case with To Be Right!.  The author is Harry Brooks.  His latest post is The 10th amendment – The Pro-Slavery Constitution.  Harry’s post contains some interesting and some ….”curious” links.

Harry desires to defend the Tea Party Movement from its assailants, mostly elitist Liberal Democrats. So he tackles their nonsensical assault on states’rights and the “proslavery Constitution.” Since I sympathize with this goal, let me add my thoughts.

Proslavery Constitution?

Any American with even a minimal knowledge of history knows that at one time slavery was a common institution.  Slave owners did not see anything immoral in owning a slave. Even the slaves did not see much wrong with it. They just would have preferred to be the master.  

Unfortunately, when the Founders wrote our Constitution, attitudes towards slavery were still in flux. So imperfect men dealt with the slavery issue as best they could. In the interest of national union, they compromised. The Constitution recognized slavery existed, and it permitted Congress to terminate the importation of slaves in 1808, but that was the best the people who wrote the Constitution could do. The Southerners kept their slaves, and the Northerners sole what slaves they had to the Southerners. 

We can stand back from 200 hundred years and criticize, but the truth is we would not have done any better. In fact, we probably would have done much worse.

Consider what a pious soul some Liberal Democrats would appear to be. They would have never owned a slave and never permitted one to be owned. In the 1790′s? 

One of the peculiar accusations Liberal Democrats level against Conservatives is that “Conservatives are against government.” Nonetheless, Conservatives don’t have any problem understanding the need for compromise.  In this case it is the Liberal Democrats who cannot get a grip on the idea. Perhaps that is because Liberal Democrats don’t understand how to govern and never really compromise.  After all, consider their definition of “bipartisanship.”

States’Rights = Slavery?

Without a doubt, the South did use states rights to defend the enslavement and the abuse of Blacks. Unfortunately, the efforts of Southern slaveholders uphold the institution of slavery did not stop at the borders of the slave states. These people also wanted to extend slavery into non-slave states and the territories. Their aims would have violated the rights of the non-slave states. For example, the results of their efforts included the Dred Scot decision.

Over the following decades, another central dispute over states’rights moved to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the Jeffersonian principles often being used by both sides—anti-slavery Northerners, and Southern slaveholders and secessionists—in debates that ultimately led to the American Civil War. Supporters of slavery often argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In contrast, opponents of slavery argued that the non-slave-states’rights were violated both by that decision and by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Exactly which—and whose—states’rights were the casus belli in the Civil War remain in controversy. (from here)

Thus, states’rights did not equal slavery. The real problem is that some people insisted on forcing other people to work for them. Fortunately, we have moved beyond slavery. Today we can force other people to work for us using government ”entitlements” and welfare programs.

The Slang Definition

When I first heard the expression “tea bagger,” I understood that those using this expression intended to be offensive, but I had no idea why. The reason for that is that I have minimal interest in slang. Since so much slang truly is vulgar, what is the point? When we use such language, what have we proved except our own vulgarity.

Nonetheless, whether we want to or not, we often stumble upon information for which we have no real use.  Thus, I learned the slang definition of the expression “tea bagger.”  The 10th Ammendment – The Pro-Slavery Constitution contains a link to Loudoun County Democratic Chairman slams “extremist Cuccinelli and tea bagger friends”; promotes fellow Dem’s letter claiming Nazi flags predominate at gun shows which contains a link to the Urban Dictionary, a repository of useless knowledge for the pseudosophisticated.

How should we respond to the expression “tea bagger?” I would advise Tea Party activists, Republicans, and/or Conservatives to remember why Liberal Democrats tend to be so familiar with the slang definition of “tea bagger.” What have they been doing that requires such a “technical” expression? Can we not make an accurate guess? Then every time they use the expression”tea bagger” in derision, we can all shrug our shoulders in pity for them. They merely seek to unload upon us that shame they feel for their own conduct.

In fact, we don’t have to accept the definitions and corruptions of Liberal Democrats. Consider Fisherville Mike’s approach, “I’m a teabagger”.  Let the fools chortle with foolish, meaningless laughter. We have work to do. We are taking our country back.