What Makes A Man Wear This Outfit? [Pic]

Submitted by: eugenius 5 years ago in Weird

Not a racist bone in this guy"s body.
There are 68 comments:
Male 1,243
Maybe he really liked the Dukes of Hazzard TV show, especially the General Lee?
0
Reply
Male 210
To answer the poster`s question, I`m seriously guessing he`s a Rodeo Clown.
0
Reply
Male 210
"I don`t really see how you can argue that the confederate flag is racist."

Bad troll is badly trolling. If you can`t see the connection, you`re clearly ignorant. You very well know the connection between the Confederacy, slavery and racism. You might not agree with the argument, which is your right, but that`s a different way to express your ignorance altogether.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Extracredit: What did he say that was wrong?
0
Reply
Male 453
ivran:
Do you actually believe your own BS?
Perhaps it is better to get an education prior to attempting to school others.
0
Reply
Male 54
The South Wanted a super hero too.
0
Reply
Male 599
There are some southern black folk that wear this kind of stuff, so I don`t really see how you can argue that the confederate flag is racist.
0
Reply
Male 599
flamed*
0
Reply
Male 599
@maddux32
I know I`m going to get framed for this, but here goes:
Actually slavery and race had absolutely no connection to begin with if you look at how we got the slaves. African slaves were sold by their own country to the United States. Therefor, initially slaves weren`t slaves because their skin was black. Slaves were slaves because they were sold as property and people didn`t really like the idea of the property they paid money for turning into free people and wandering off. If I had to guess, the racial issues came later on as a way of justifying mistreating humans.
0
Reply
Male 2,619
What makes a man wear this outfit.

He was born in USA?
0
Reply
Male 446
His white hood and robe at dry cleaners?
0
Reply
Male 916
i bet that`s one tolerant, open-minded fellow indeed.
0
Reply
Male 16
how do you do that!
0
Reply
Male 180
He`s a roadie for Lynyrd Skynyrd.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
what makes a man wear this outfit?
stupidity
0
Reply
Male 11,740
Maybe he`s in some sort of show.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
It`s about southern pride,folks.If he was wearing white sheets and pointy white hat,it would be racist.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
maybe all his other clothes were in the laundry...
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Is that what you guys call "redneck"?
0
Reply
Male 1,832
@Atrayu4u, Its called *concealed* carry.
0
Reply
Female 1,478
There`s a severe lack of guns in this picture.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Gerry: Probably an education of no more than 3rd grade.

Or blindness, and really really mean friends.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Otto: Amen. Freedom of expression is an unalienable right, thank goodness.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Okay, I found another text that said slave insurance was around $150 every 10 months.

Still more expensive than hiring someone after you factor in healthcare and room/board. I do acknowledge though that there could have been cost cutting.
0
Reply
Male 38,480

Back to the original question, "What makes a man wear this outfit?"

A lack of exogamic relief.
0
Reply
Male 438
"I am also right in saying that if the North weren`t so racist, there would also be no war."

aubernjunky,

I agree with your point. One thing I find interesting is usually the symbols of the losing side of civil wars are outlawed, I am glad we live in a country that did not do that.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Just a good ol` boy, never meanin` no harm, beats all you ever saw been in trouble wit` the law since the day he was born...
0
Reply
Male 926
@auburnjunky

I`ve never seen those numbers, but I just have to say, what`s the liklihood that 20,000+ over 10 years was actually being spent on a single slave. Were they actually being insured? And who`s to say that they weren`t cutting corners as much as possible when it came to living expenses. I`m curious as to what the actual numbers were. Like if there was an honest accounting somewhere of what was actually spent to maintain a slave on a yearly basis. I ask the insurance question, because if insurance was really that expensive, it would have been cheaper just to buy another slave.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I`m sure those #s aren`t 100% accurate, but they are ballpark. I searched Google for the info, and did it quick without cross referencing. Just trying to get a handle on the topic.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Just as a point of reference, not that I am still arguing the point...

in 1860, it cost an average of $1600 to buy a slave, and $1000 a year to insure the slave. Add another $1000 a year for food, shelter, and medical care, and you come to a cost of $3600 the first year, and $2000 each additional year after that.

Over 10 years (arbitrary time period) that comes to a cost of $21,600 to own one slave.

Average wage of the time for a free man? $20 a month, or $240 a year. Over 10 years? $2400. (This is all based on money of the time)

So, that being said, I take back what I said. It wasn`t about the money. It was about the hands available.

There simply were not enough free men to do the jobs needed. Not saying slavery was good, not at all, but "slaves" were needed to make this country what it is today.
0
Reply
Male 926
@Gerry

I didn`t say it, you said it. Rather, you brought it up. Rather....you know what?

I`m not doing it.

I know that slavery is not a white thing, you know that it isn`t a white thing. I understand that it`s a global thing, I understand that the United States is not the center of the universe...I get it. Lets not get caught up in that.
0
Reply
Male 926
@auburnjunky

It`s always good in the hood...unless your in it!

And if you have research to the contrary, I`d love to hear it. Everything I`ve ever read regarding the motivations surrounding the civil war have centered around economics. Maybe their motivations were unjustified because smarter analysts with the benefit of hindsight have better information, but the motivation ultimately was money.

But what do I know....books can be wrong.
0
Reply
Male 38,480

[quote]"And yes, slavery/racism is a white thing" [/quote]
Say what!
How about we just say "slavery is bad" and not make it a "white thing" ? I mean, who do you think we bought the slaves from? Who went out in the wilds of africa and kidnapped them into slavery? HINT: It wasn`t the arabs. All races were involved in slavery.

And racism being "white"...anyone of any race can be racist. Example: "Viva la Raza!"
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Agree to disagree.

Government schools taught you one thing, personal research taught me another.

It`s all good in the hood homie.
0
Reply
Male 926
@auburnjunky

I get that, but in the aggregate, compared to paying an employee fair wages, maybe the savings weren`t enormous, but I`ve seen people go into a murderous rage when told that Netflix was raising prices a few dollars a month.

Taking in the aggregate, the savings might not have been gargantuan, but they would have been substantial. Substantial enough to go to war rather than join the Union.
0
Reply
Male 926
@Gerry

Sorry, I`ve never seen Gone with the Wind. And knowing that there were slave owners who were middle class citizens just means that they were even more interested in not freeing the slaves, because they of all people could not afford to pay anybody employees wages.

Also, the fact that 25% owned slaves doesn`t mean that slaver wasn`t a huge motivation in going to war with the union. Hell, it`s 2012 and the one percent are the ones passing all the legislation. Lets get real. What kind of argument is that?

The fact that there were blacks who owned slaves is completely irrelevant. Completely. It adds nothing, and takes away nothing from anything that I said regarding the current symbolism attributed to the confederate flag.

And yes, slavery/racism is a white thing. It doesn`t become diverse just because "some" black people owned slaves. Should we get a proportional percentage on that?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"F R E E L A B O R."

Excluding the price to buy the slaves, and feed them, and house them, and care for them.

Analysts have come to the conclusion, that while the slave owners did save money by owning slaves, it wasn`t gargantuan.

It wasn`t as much of taking advantage of cheaper labor, as it was supplying workers that were needed. The available workforce was too small.

Wait, this sounds familiar! lol
0
Reply
Male 926
@auburnjunky

It wasn`t sustainable because it wasn`t going to last. If you have an endless supply of free labor, you`re going to make huge profits...but you also understand that the supply is going to dry up, because those stubborn bleeding hearts keep trying to pass legislation giving slaves more and more rights.

Sure, the Cotton Gin was an enormous boom for the cotton industry, and it sped up production, increased profits and all of that. And yes, it had the effect of lessening the need to maintain steady slave labor, but it did not eliminate altogether the economic interest for the Confederates to keep slaves captive. F R E E L A B O R. Even with technological advancements, the civil was was fought because the Confederates did not want to join the union because they would have to free their slaves and they would make substantially less money. Cotton gin, or no cotton gin.
0
Reply
Male 38,480

@ maddux32 - Gone With The Wind is not historicly accurate. The average slave owner lived in a log cabin not much better than the slave quarters and owned 1-4 slaves, not an army of them. Also, in Virginia Old South only 1 in 4 people owned a slave, or 3/4 of the population did not own slaves however you want to look at that.

Free Blacks also owned slaves but no one bothers with that info. In 1860 Louisiana, the largest number of slaves owned was 152 by a free black woman and widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who jointly owned a large sugar cane plantation. But somehow racism and slavery is a "white thing".

0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Maddux: So that`s why a southerner invented the cotton gin, which drastically cut back the number of slaves needed to manage a cotton farm.

The result of it was a huge number of slaves were either freed, or sent back to Africa.

If Southerners were so racist and dependent on slaves, then why was it Jefferson Davis who said that slavery was not sustainable as an economic policy? Why was it Robert E. Lee that supported measures to lessen the dependence on slaves?

Why was it the Lincoln who freed the Southern slaves, but kept the Northern slaves bound for years afterward?

Propaganda. The victors write history.
0
Reply
Male 926
@Gerry

The reason the Confederates didn`t want to become part of the union is because Lincoln was going to free the slaves, and the Confederates didn`t want to give up the free labor that had been monumental to their economic growth in the cotton industry. The slaves were paying for those big plantations and if you took them away, it would cut drastically into profits. The Confederates had an enormous economic interest in not joining the union and keeping the slaves captive.

I fully understand that the Confederate flag does not stand directly for slavery, or racism. However, it has become a symbol of hate, and those who continue to advance it as a national symbol that lost all meaning in this country 170 years ago do so overwhelmingly as an overt message of "**** you" to the black community.

All this is to say that it is illusory to say, "well, you know it doesn`t really stand for racism." Maybe it didn`t then, but it does now.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
uhmerikin: Yeah, and?
0
Reply
Male 876
Auburn, Lazy - Confederate Flag
0
Reply
Male 38,480

Otto, yes, slavery was a bone of contention between the states. But the Constitution allowed it under Article 1, Section 2 that stated a black persons counted as only 3/5 of a person, not a "whole person". The idea being if they`re not a person, they can be property. The Confederates did not like the federal government telling them what to do. Remember, the Union was formed as a loose `club` but States were supposed to rule themselves. Similar to the European Union of today.

The State vs Feds problem is not unlike what we face now with gay marriage, states legalizing pot, and immigration problems. States Rights vs Federal Authority.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Otto: You`re right. If it weren`t for slavery, there would not have been a civil war.

Look deeper though.

The North wanted to tax slaves at a rate of 3/5 of a person, and the South wanted a slave to count as a full person.

The South did not have enough representation to get it done, and the measure to say a slave (black person) was 3/5 human was passed. The South saw this injustice, and seceded.

So you are right. Without slavery, there would have been no war. I am also right in saying that if the North weren`t so racist, there would also be no war.
0
Reply
Male 438
"Abolishion of slavery was a result of the civil war, but not the cause of it."

Gerry,

I have heard this point before and there is some validity to it, but in the end I have to disagree in that if there was no slavery there would not have been a Civil War.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"Neither is the flag of the south."

Yes it is.

You`re saying that it has no part in this country`s history? Riiiiiiiight.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] It`s not a recognized historical national flag either[/quote]
Neither is the flag of the south.

... sorry, I tend to make generalizations when I`m 99.99% correct.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
That is not how to respect a flag.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Well Lazy, that piece of cloth in and of itself is NOT racist.

It`s not a recognized historical national flag either.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] A flag cannot be racist [/quote]
How about this one?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Don`t forget Gerry, the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing to free the slaves in the north. That had to be done by a separate proclamation, years later.

It was a political gamble.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
It`s a historical symbol, nothing more.

It`s the racist non-nice individuals (probably this guy) who tarnish it that we need to focus on.
0
Reply
Male 38,480

maddux32 [quote]"Why don`t you tell me what the Confederate army was so pissed off about, and then tell me what they were really fighting for." [/quote]
The southern states {the Confederacy} wanted to secede and be a seperate nation. The northern Union said `No Way` and forced them to remain a part of the the United States.

In 1862 Lincoln threatened Confederate states that he`d free their slaves if they did not return to the Union. None did so in 1863 he signed the Emancipation Proclomation. Abolishion of slavery was a result of the civil war, but not the cause of it.

The Dukes of Hazard had the Stars & Bars on the General Lee and no one ever called them racist.

0
Reply
Male 10,339
Eat my dick buiadh.

Hindu use the swastika. Does that make them Jew hating fascists?

That`s what I thought.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
A flag cannot be racist. Only the flag bearer is to blame.

0
Reply
Female 280
And he`s not even at WalMart...
0
Reply
Male 926
@Gerry1of1

Why don`t you tell me what the Confederate army was so pissed off about, and then tell me what they were really fighting for.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
*AJ
0
Reply
Male 6,737
It doesn`t "stand" for slavery, no.

And I fully expect to see A and others in here shortly defending the flag.

But it`s exactly the same as the swastika, in that both are not directly racist but are commonly used by racists to promote/further their cause.
0
Reply
Male 38,480

@ alsobored - that flag is the battle flag of the Confederate Army. Some people say it stands for slavery which is completely false. It`s even part of the state flag of Mississippi.

0
Reply
Male 1,754
I`m assuming he has lots of black friends.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Being a member of the KKK.
0
Reply
Male 347
what`s that flag mean again?
I`m assuming it`s something offensive, in which case that guy might actually be pretty badass.
0
Reply
Male 32
What a pole.
0
Reply
Male 771
inbredding
0
Reply
Male 5,811
The south will droop again?
0
Reply
Male 1,620
Link: What Makes A Man Wear This Outfit? [Pic] [Rate Link] - Not a racist bone in this guy`s body.
0
Reply