The Angry Scotsman: Happiness in Slavery

Posted by Brian McLain on 06.26.2006

Scotsman returns, better late than never, with a clarification as to the similarities between black slavery in antibellum U.S. and the Mexican "slavery" of today. Scotsman is annoyed by Conservative weenies, plus yet another peice of the "Voltron" of bad presidents is revealed, Scotsman spreading the love, and of course the Super Search Words of the Week!

Greetings to one and all, everyone's favorite Scotsman is back for another round of political commentary and common sense. I would like to start out by saying I am absolutely astonished and, well, disappointed that nobody has had the chalupas to face me in the Scotsman's Throwdown. I, therefore, reissue the challenge with no rules, no restrictions, and no holds barred. Sound like an idiot at your own risk, because I will post your challenge in its entirety in the Angry Scotsman's column followed by my response. Any topic, and any issue, you pick it and run with it. Also in this column, Scotsman's Mail Sack, the second "lion" of the Voltron of bad presidents.


Scotsman's Mail Sack

Jay Hova wrote me in regards to my commentary as to why Juneteenth is a worthless holiday not fit for celebration. He primarily asks about my correlation between the African slavery of the United State's past and the Mexican "slavery" now.

"i, too, have some sense that Juneteenth is retarded...but not because of what the day is, but because of what the day has become. It is like Christmas...i mean, it is a great idea. Let's celebrate the day when America stopped being horrible, but it has become just a marketing scheme...t-shirts...hats, it is lame.

But I wasn't clear as to how this relates to the Mexicans now...i mean, i kinda got it. you think that what the illegals aliens are going through now is similar to slavery. But my question is, doesn't the issue that choice comes into play matter at all. The slaves had no choice. They couldn't decide to come or go. The slaves can (if not practically, at LEAST theoretically).

Just remember, these people want to come here. They decide to do so. and they know that they're not going to be paid even $8 an hour. And they STILL want to come. so, if they're willing to work for this much money...why not pay 'em what they thought they'd get. this is assuming of course that you're willing to break the law. Personally, I think that THAT is the only problem that i see here...

Don't get me wrong...if the companies WANT to pay more that is their prerogative. It might be a good idea to do so. It keeps people around, keeps them loyal, and makes for happier workers. But I'm not sure that they have to do so to not be considered a bad/mean/etc. company.

Thanks for the feedback, Jay. Here is my response:

Tell you what; how about let's celebrate a real holiday like when America evolved enough to give equal rights and opportunities to its citizens. The end of slavery hardly provides that background, especially since after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation went into full effect, most slaves were stuck in the south with little option but to either go back to the plantation and farm for shelter and food or hide out on their own without the slightest possibility of being employed. On the grand immigration scale of employable help, former slaves and their decedents were the least employable, setting up for some rather impoverished living. At any rate, here is the point I was making with Mexican immigration and the slave trade.

Africans were brought over as cargo entirely, for the purpose of sale as chattel or work. They provided cheap means of labor and production, doing work that was considered to demeaning for their European employers to undertake (primarily because they didn't want to pay the money for the help), and were exposed to "civilized" living which the American slave owners graciously provided. Many slave owners thought they were doing the right thing, providing an opportunity to scripture, some minor education, civilized living, and work for these poor, wretched folks who would be out climbing trees in the jungle somewhere if it hadn't been for them. Many slave owners also treated slaves as their own family, with compassion and interest in protecting them. Sort of like how one would treat their plow animals at any rate. Regardless of all of this, it was exploiting a particular group of people based upon their ethnicity, all the while thinking that one is doing the right thing in doing so and feeling charitable rather than guilty. Now let's spot the similarities between this and the current Mexican "slave" trade. Many are brought over by smugglers as cargo. These individuals actually paid their way to get into the U.S. but are treated just the same as the African slaves in transport. These Mexicans provided cheap means of labor and production, doing work that was considered to be demeaning for American citizens. Would you want to be responsible for gutting a cow at $9.00/hour? Mexican's idea of a living wage is much lower as even some of the most impoverished living in the U.S. is rich living to many Mexican immigrants. Companies recognize this and exploit this, all the while feeling that they are doing a good thing in encouraging this group of people to cross the border. They are providing an opportunity to work in America for a much higher wage then what they would ever receive in Mexico, if a wage at all. Though the path of the Mexican immigrant is by choice (sans being driven out of a country that is slowly killing you), it is still exploiting a group of people based upon their ethnicity. If you are a member of the John Birch Society you might think that Mexicans are driving down labor wages because they are willing to work for less, I say that the companies exploiting the desperation of a particular group, making them subservient to a non-living wage with no opportunity to grow because of the fact there are few places for an illegal immigrant to go is truly the criminal action and is tantamount to slavery to me.

The Voltron of Bad Presidents

A quick note regarding some feedback from fellow collogues regarding the last issue of "Voltron". One from esteemed 411 writer Ray Church who questioned my connection to Bush's attitude to nation building and making the U.S. the bad ass of the world by God's grace and Wilson's mission of unity. The connections I make are 2 in particular:

First connection is the thought that God actually chose them to lead this nation to rescue the rest of the world. Secondly, the motives may have been noble, but the plan of action, at least in my opinion, had much to be desired and left little room for something unexpected happening. With Bush it was the massive amount of resistance that we received in the invasion and nation building effort in Iraq, in Wilson it was his untimely death in office.

Next to Mr. Easley, editor of 411politics, who questioned why I left out Wilson's racist qualities. I guess mostly I really didn't pay much attention to this since Wilson was in an era still troubled over the very idea that blacks and whites were actually on the same level of the evolutionary chain. Further, Bush I don't see as being a racist. The Bush family has a bit of an issue with socioeconomic snobbism, general snootiness, and sheltered lifestyle which shows in comments that seem to liken citizens as subjects (especially if they can't afford his $500 a plate fundraisers), but racist? Nah, I don't see it. Racism is a non-issue in this matter, one that I won't fault Bush on because I don't believe it, and one I don't fault Wilson on because of the general ignorance of the time.

Green Lion: William Henry Harrison

So what would our fearless leader have in common with a guy who only served in office for 1 month? The answer is blinding pride in lieu of painfully obvious common sense. President Harrison was determined to do things a specific way which would exhibit exactly what type of man he was to lead the United States. So upon his inauguration day, rather than changing plans in the face of a horrible snow storm, he headed out on horseback with no proper clothing and proceeded to give the longest inauguration speech ever. Mind you this storm was so viscous it had chased many of those in attendance (who were properly dressed) indoors. This display resulted in showing the balls Harrison had, how unwavering he was and how a negative outside environment will fail to change his direction in an effort to complete his goal. Bush is very much this way, never really admitting when something went wrong, rather congratulating and standing by the decisions made as valid jobs well done. Approval ratings plummeting, as stated by Bush himself, do nothing to change his course and matter not to him, nor does any other negative environment outside of his little circle. Even if there were no WMDs in Iraq, no apology for the mistake, only passing the buck and a continued course. He doesn't like reading newspapers, and often only watches FOX News. Unwavering, ballsy, macho man who knows what's best and anybody who says otherwise is a gutless coward. Of course we know how Harrison's story ends…he falls ill and dies of pneumonia one month after that faithful display of "courage" and "unwavering valor". But in all this, regardless of the image he portrayed, he merely ended up in history looking like a complete failure and idiot.

Spreading the love

Joshua White has some good points at times…not many…but when he gets those points he hits them dead on. Check out why a former smoker like myself will gladly concur with his column on anti-smoking oppression.

Obviously paid off with more sexual favours, Mr. Church impresses us further with his commentary.

The ever gracious boss I must send props out to for his constant analysis and reporting. I really have to send this guy a cookie sometime for all of his hard work.

Super Search Words of the Week

Bad Presidents

Build your own "Voltron" and let me know who you think would make the list of who reminds you of Bush. Believe it or not I can guarantee that one of my picks won't be on any of your lists.


That's all for the Scotsman for now. I really do apologize for the shortened column, however I promise to make up for it in a soon to be release Scotsman's Wild Card edition that is certain to really ruffle some feathers…if not rip them straight out of the skin. This topic was originally to be part of this article, however I felt that it was a good enough topic that it would do best on its own. Again, write me, tell me what you think, answer my challenge you Conservative weenies! Think I'm Liberal, tell me why. This is the Angry Scotsman, signing off.