Bill O’Reilly once taught history to students.
I wonder if he imparted this little tidbit to the young’nsĀ gathered in his classroom, which is that the slaves who helped build the White House were “well-fed” and well-cared for.
I also wonder if he told them the rest of it, which is that under federal law at the time, they still were considered to be “personal property” of their owners, that they were three-fifths human and that they were no better off than, say, farm animals.
O’Reilly made his feelings known about slavery the other day after first lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention about living in the house built by slaves. She spoke also of the pride she feels that her daughters have been able to play on the White House lawn, given the slave labor that went into building the structure.
O’Reilly just had to chime on in his “O’Reilly Factor” cable show by seeming to suggest that slave life was OK because the slaves’ masters fed them well and gave them “decent lodging.”
Well, I feed my dog well, too. My puppy lives in a nice home; he’s comfortable. But for crying out loud, he’s still a dog!
I likely shouldn’t give a damn what Bill O’Reilly thinks. The issue, though, is that many Americans do give a damn.
I have members of my family who glom onto his commentary. They worship the guy. Thus, if O’Reilly says it, why it justĀ has to be true … or so these family members have actually told me.
It might be that the crux of O’Reilly’s critique of the first lady’s comments were that slaves were among the workers who helped build the White House, that others were part of the construction crew as well.
But geez, man, why suggest that their living conditions somehow justifies the ownership of human beings as pieces of property?
