A Confederacy of Dunces?

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

irihapthe effect is the same tho

the effect of the act. The act of subjugation

---

Subjugation is

not

the same as removal.

The effect of slavery is one group being exploited. The effect of extermination is not comparable.

To paint a picture...

You can't possible mean putting a certain group of people on their seperate train is the same as putting a group of people on a train on their way to a certain death?

---

the people on the slavery train would dispute the distinction. The slave would say that they are enslaved until they die

your argument seems to be based on the premise that is better to die later than sooner 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

irihapeti wrote:

the people on the slavery train would dispute the distinction. The slave would say that they are enslaved until they die

your argument seems to be based on the premise that is better to die later than sooner 

---

There weren't any slaves on the "Jim Crow trains".

Anyway, you seem to be saying that the mere fact of "living" has no value. Only freedom has. Slaves, as hard as their life must have been, were able to have friendship, family, laughter, and above all hope. Their history has been a struggle (and it still is for their descendants), whereas the nazis wanted to remove entire groups of people from history altogether.

The big difference is one group is viewed and treated as useful, the other as unwanted.

[irihapeti]

you wrote: "or (southern) slavery even."

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

The big difference is one group is viewed and treated as useful, the other as unwanted.

---

which part of Jim Crow doesnt make them unwanted

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Hence my last reply.

The leap from slavery to extermination is huge, but not as huge as the difference between the Jim Crow laws and the Final Solution (or Action T4, or the extermination of gypsies, homosexuals etc).

So please keep those three apart in this discussion.

"Unwanted" as not wanted to be part of society, as in segregation, is not the same as not wanted to exist. I think I was very clear on that earlier.

[Dresden]

It's not the level of atrocities committed, but the incredibly similar, hate-fueled, supremacist ideology of both movements which are legitimately comparable.  Just because one people had it worse than the other, doesn't make the ideology behind such atrocities of either level any more or less atrocious.

...Dres

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Dresden wrote:

It's not the level of atrocities committed, but the incredibly similar, hate-fueled, supremacist ideology of both movements which are legitimately comparable.  Just because one people had it worse than the other, doesn't make the ideology behind such atrocities of either level any more or less atrocious.

...Dres

---

You completely miss my point, as do irihapeti and Theresa apparently. If we're talking sheer numbers, many more people were and are affected by racism and slavery than there are by genocide. Unfortunately, racism is widely spread throughout history and throughout the world, and (again unfortunately) can be considered quite normal. It's embedded in human nature, based on a healthy fear of the unknown.

It is a big leap from "we are not equal" to "you are a pest to society and you need to be exterminated"

Certainly not the same ideology.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

Hence my last reply.

The leap from slavery to extermination is huge, but not as huge as the difference between the Jim Crow laws and the Final Solution (or Action T4, or the extermination of gypsies, homosexuals etc).

So

please

keep those three apart in this discussion.

"Unwanted" as not wanted to be part of society, as in segregation, is not the same as not wanted to exist. I think I was very clear on that earlier.

---

Difference between Jim Crow laws and the Final Solution? Huge. Difference between Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws of 1933 to the beginning of World War II? Very small.

There's an atrocity that needs to be added to the side of slavery in the Western Hemisphere - the slave class wasn't even originally part of the society in the first place. They had to be shipped in because most of the original native population/slave candidates died off.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Difference between Jim Crow laws and the Final Solution? Huge. Difference between Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws of 1933 to the beginning of World War II? Very small.

There's an atrocity that needs to be added to the side of slavery in the Western Hemisphere -

the slave class wasn't even originally part of the society in the first place.

They had to be shipped in because most of the original native population/slave candidates died off.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm

---

Exactly. The (1935) laws were very similar. That's why I do consider it a leap, not a warp. It's frightning to see how the nazis took this enormous leap from segregation to extermination in under 10 years. The circumstances were there, if not the intentions. I do not see how the Jim Crow laws would have ever resulted in genocide.

U.S. slavery has its origins in Europe. From white slavery it became red slavery, until it was more economical to use black slaves. This is where the two "ideologies" differ so greatly. Slavery was not a goal, the goal was cheap labour. So the driving force was cold economics. Although woven into Southern society, it wasn't the basis of the community. It wasn't an ideology.

The Final Solution was a goal, although the question might be what the result would have been had it been completely executed. You could argue the goal was creating a common enemy to strengthen the nation, with the extermination of Jews being the means. Either way the society of nazi Germany was built around creating enemies and getting rid of them one way or another. The driving force was hatred.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Difference between Jim Crow laws and the Final Solution? Huge. Difference between Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws of 1933 to the beginning of World War II? Very small.

There's an atrocity that needs to be added to the side of slavery in the Western Hemisphere -

the slave class wasn't even originally part of the society in the first place.

They had to be shipped in because most of the original native population/slave candidates died off.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm

---

Exactly. The (1935) laws were very similar. That's why I do consider it a leap, not a warp. It's frightning to see how the nazis took this enormous leap from segregation to extermination in under 10 years. The circumstances were there, if not the intentions. I do not see how the Jim Crow laws would have ever resulted in genocide.

U.S. slavery has its origins in Europe. From white slavery it became red slavery, until it was more economical to use black slaves. This is where the two "ideologies" differ so greatly.

Slavery was not a goal, the goal was cheap labour. So the driving force was cold economics. Although woven into Southern society, it wasn't the basis of the community. It wasn't an ideology.

The Final Solution

was

a goal, although the question might be what the result would have been had it been completely executed. You could argue the goal was creating a common enemy to strengthen the nation, with the extermination of Jews being the means. Either way the society of nazi Germany was built around creating enemies and getting rid of them one way or another. The driving force was hatred.

---

The Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws were both the most those societies felt they could get away with at the time. The difference was  the Nuremberg laws came before the highest level of atrocity and the Jim Crow laws came after (and after an incredibly bloody war.)

As far as the portion of your quote I bolded, the Vice President of the Confederate States of America begs to differ with you - he said slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy, in so many words. Apparently you didn't read the entire thread:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws were both the most those societies felt they could get away with at the time. The difference was  the Nuremberg laws came before the highest level of atrocity and the Jim Crow laws came after (and after an incredibly bloody war.)

---

I do believe that to be true, the laws going as far as public opinion would accept. Still I do not believe the Jim Crow laws were ever a preindication of mass murder (I think your blue quote pretty much proves that), where the Nuremberg laws were. Of course that's impossible to prove.

 

---

As far as the portion of your quote I bolded, the Vice President of the Confederate States of America begs to differ with you - he said slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy, in so many words. Apparently you didn't read the entire thread:

[...]

---

I was referring to the origins of American or U.S. slavery, not the confederate society. I'm sure after so many generations, a lot of people considered slavery to be a big part of their heritage or way of life. You have to place the speech, on the eve of the civil war, in that perspective.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

---

I was referring to the

origins

of American or U.S. slavery, not the confederate society. I'm sure after so many generations, a lot of people considered slavery to be a big part of their heritage or way of life. You have to place the speech, on the eve of the civil war, in that perspective.

---

However, this whole thread is actually about [what people think of as*] the battle flag of the Confederate States of America.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America literally had a clause saying that the government was forbidden from ever passing a law forbidding Negro slavery.

Article I, Section 9, Part 4:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed."

 

http://www.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/selections/confed/trans.html

------------------

* A lot of people flying Confederate flags don't really know a lot about them. For example the Duke boys in the "Dukes of Hazzard" television show named their car "The General Lee" (after the general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia) but painted on the battle flag from the Confederate Army of the Tennessee.

 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America literally had a clause saying that the government was forbidden from ever passing a law forbidding Negro slavery.

Article I, Section 9, Part 4:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed."

---

Which indicates to me that they didn't find it natural at all to have slavery. Would that have been the case, why would they have such a clause?

[Dresden]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Dresden wrote:

It's not the level of atrocities committed, but the incredibly similar, hate-fueled, supremacist ideology of both movements which are legitimately comparable.  Just because one people had it worse than the other, doesn't make the ideology behind such atrocities of either level any more or less atrocious.

...Dres

---

You completely miss my point, as do

irihapeti and Theresa apparently. If we're talking sheer numbers, many more people were and are affected by racism and slavery than there are by genocide. Unfortunately, racism is widely spread throughout history and throughout the world, and (again unfortunately) can be considered quite normal. It's embedded in human nature, based on a healthy fear of the unknown.

It is a big leap from "we are not equal" to "

you are a pest to society

and you need to be exterminated"

Certainly

not

the same ideology.

---

Are you suggesting that no black person has ever been killed in the name of white supremacy?  Because, that would be the only case in which your point would have any validity whatsoever.

...Dres

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Dresden wrote:

Are you suggesting that no black person has ever been killed in the name of white supremacy?  Because, that would be the only case in which your point would have any validity whatsoever.

---

I am saying that racism and genocide, or more precise, racism embedded in society and a society based on the extermination of an ethnic group are not the same, not even close.

If anyone starts preaching the extermination of an ethnic group, and as long as the person doing so might have the opportunity to execute his insane ideas, and is aware of it, whether it results in no casualties at all or in 500 million, I will consider that to be as evil as nazism.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws were both the most those societies felt they could get away with at the time. The difference was  the Nuremberg laws came before the highest level of atrocity and the Jim Crow laws came after (and after an incredibly bloody war.)

---

I do believe that to be true, the laws going as far as public opinion would accept. Still I do not believe the Jim Crow laws were ever a preindication of mass murder (I think your blue quote pretty much proves that), where the Nuremberg laws were. Of course that's impossible to prove.

 

---

As far as the portion of your quote I bolded, the Vice President of the Confederate States of America begs to differ with you - he said slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy, in so many words. Apparently you didn't read the entire thread:

[...]

---

I was referring to the

origins

of American or U.S. slavery, not the confederate society. I'm sure after so many generations, a lot of people considered slavery to be a big part of their heritage or way of life. You have to place the speech, on the eve of the civil war, in that perspective.

---

 

Let's talk origins.  Slavers went to Africa and took people into slavery.  Tribes living there who wanted to exterminate their enemies cooperated by capturing them and selling into slavery.  During this process many died.

Then they were put on a boat and packed in like sardines.  This led to disease which was not treated.  In fact captains threw a good many if not all their human cargo into the ocean.

The survivors arrive in America and are treated like animals, in many cases they were worked to death.  Any  that rebelled and were considered uncontrollable were tortured and/or killed outright by their owners or the government.

The Civil War set them free, but the deaths continued through mob lynchings and murder.  A good many white people at the time would have liked to get rid of them all together, the most humane of them shipping them back to Africa.

It may or may not have been the same numbers as the nazies put to death but the same thought processes were there.  The numbers that died as a direct or indirect result of slavery will never be known and may have been as many over the years of slavery as the deaths caused by nazis.

How many have to die before you think that slavery wasn't as bad a the nazies?  This type of evil is evil, regardless of the number who actually died.. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America literally had a clause saying that the government was forbidden from ever passing a law forbidding Negro slavery.

Article I, Section 9, Part 4:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed."

---

Which indicates to me that they didn't find it natural at all to have slavery. Would that have been the case, why would they have such a clause?

---

By your reasoning every law would only exist because people thought it was unnatural to not violate them. The leaders of the Confederacy thought slavery was natural, as witnessed by thier own words, but knew that some other people didn't and they wrote that clause in case people tried to commit the "unnatural act" of banning slavery.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

How many have to die before you think that slavery wasn't as bad a the nazies?  This type of evil is evil, regardless of the number who actually died.. 

---

If you read back a bit, you will see that I do not consider the amount of casualties any kind of benchmark. That amount is not measurable anyway.

What sets slavers apart from nazis, is the fact that slavers acted on economical basis, they swapped whites for reds just as easily as the reds for blacks. Their view on the value of human life is not one I share, but it's not as horrible as blaming an entire group for something they didn't cause, then exterminating them altogether.

In the slaver's mind it is their right to prosper on the loss of others. In the mind of a nazi, it's fine to commit genocide without any valid reason.

[Dresden]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Dresden wrote:

Are you suggesting that no black person has ever been killed in the name of white supremacy?  Because, that would be the only case in which your point would have any validity whatsoever.

---

I am saying that racism and genocide, or more precise, racism embedded in society and a society based on the extermination of an ethnic group are not the same, not even close.

---

And I'm saying that the ideology of supremacy is the basis for both and is just as reprehensible in both instances.

...Dres

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

By your reasoning every law would only exist because people thought it was unnatural to not violate them. The leaders of the Confederacy thought slavery was natural, as witnessed by thier own words, but knew that some other people didn't and they wrote that clause in case people tried to commit the "unnatural act" of banning slavery.

---

Not unnatural to violate them, unnatural to change them.

Which would only happen if the government was overthrown by someone not sharing the Southern moralities, making the constitution nothing more than a piece of paper anyway.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

How many have to die before you think that slavery wasn't as bad a the nazies?  This type of evil is evil, regardless of the number who actually died.. 

---

If you read back a bit, you will see that I do not consider the amount of casualties any kind of benchmark. That amount is not measurable anyway.

What sets slavers apart from nazis, is the fact that slavers acted on economical basis,

they swapped whites for reds just as easily as the reds for blacks

. Their view on the value of human life is not one I share, but it's not as horrible as blaming an entire group for something they didn't cause, then exterminating them altogether.

In the slaver's mind it is their right to prosper on the loss of others. In the mind of a nazi, it's fine to commit genocide without any valid reason.

---

THE PARTICULAR GROUP OF SLAVERS IN QUESTION DID NOT AND WOULD NOT SWAP RACES. RACE IS WHAT THEY WERE ABOUT.  IS THERE SOME REASON WHY YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS?

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

[Dresden]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

In the slaver's mind it is their right to prosper on the loss of others. In the mind of a nazi, it's fine to commit genocide without any valid reason.

---

Oh, I get it... it isn't as bad to enslave, torture and kill people to make a buck, as it is to do it just because you just feel like it... right?

...Dres

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

No need for caps, I hear you loud and clear.

The southern states were (and are) infected with racist ideas, formed over a long period of time.

One could argue they didn't know any better. If one is raised with black slaves, who are only allowed to and therefor only able to do simple tasks and nod at the boss, it's not a big surprise they are considered inferior. If you are born into slavery, it's not a big surprise you actually feel inferior. That does not mean their society was based on having black slaves, as I pointed out.

The same is the case for the Hitler Jugend. They were raised with a certain idea and I do not blame them for believing what they were told. This is not the case for the nutjobs who started it all.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Dresden wrote:

Oh, I get it... it isn't as bad to enslave, torture and kill people to make a buck, as it is to do it just because you just feel like it... right?

...Dres

---

No you do not get it at all.

I am fairly convinced slavers felt they weren't doing anything wrong. It was all in the open. Nothing to be embarrased about.

Why do you think the death camps were all hidden from the get go and in the end for the better part destroyed? The nazis knew very well what they were doing was wrong in the mind of any sane person. Why do you think Aktion T4 was terminated the second it came into the public eye?