On White Nationalism

[Lexicus]

I'd agree it wasn't but its purpose, openly admitted by the Nazis was to encourage them to leave Germany, not to retain them as an underclass.

Yes, and I think that probably springs from the fact that Jews were something like half a percent of the German population in 1933 whereas black people made up somewhere around 15% of the US population, obviously heavily concentrated in certain areas where they made up a majority of the population (e.g. the state of South Carolina). This means that black people were an important source of labor - wholly removing them from US society would have been extremely difficult.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, and I think that probably springs from the fact that Jews were something like half a percent of the German population in 1933 whereas black people made up somewhere around 15% of the US population, obviously heavily concentrated in certain areas where they made up a majority of the population (e.g. the state of South Carolina). This means that black people were an important source of labor - wholly removing them from US society would have been extremely difficult.

But whereas the Nazis and many Germans thought that was far too many Jews the plantocracy in the US before Emancipation was worried there were weren't enough black people, hence the estimated 50,000 slaves illegally imported after the US made importation of slaves illegal in 1808, and certain Southern political groups like the Fire-Eaters wanted to reopen the international slave trade. The presence of black people wasn't seen as a problem by white Southerners, the question to them was their status.

 

[Lexicus]

But whereas the Nazis and many Germans thought that was far too many Jews the plantocracy in the US before Emancipation was worried there were weren't enough black people, hence the estimated 50,000 slaves illegally imported after the US made importation of slaves illegal in 1808, and certain Southern political groups like the Fire-Eaters wanted to reopen the international slave trade. The presence of black people wasn't seen as a problem by white Southerners, the question to them was their status.

Not most Southerners, to be sure, but there were whites in the US who were worried about the high birthrates among slaves and actually advocated for the emancipation of slaves on the basis that the birthrates of free blacks were much lower than those of whites (thus emancipation was seen as the only way to avoid the existential threat of white people being literally replaced by fast-reproducing slaves).

 

[AmazonQueen]

Not most Southerners, to be sure, but there were whites in the US who were worried about the high birthrates among slaves and actually advocated for the emancipation of slaves on the basis that the birthrates of free blacks were much lower than those of whites (thus emancipation was seen as the only way to avoid the existential threat of white people being literally replaced by fast-reproducing slaves).

And ofc Lincoln amongst others felt the best solution was for the emancipated slaves to be settled outside the US. Still, I can't see a parallel between US and German rules on race, motivation and purpose were too different.

 

[Lexicus]

And ofc Lincoln amongst others felt the best solution was for the emancipated slaves to be settled outside the US. Still, I can't see a parallel between US and German rules on race, motivation and purpose were too different.

The parallel is in the fact that the Nazis literally had lawyers comb the US racial laws and the jurisprudence surrounding them to see what could be adapted to the German context.

Another point is that Hitler and eugenicists, nativists, and racists in the US were commonly-inspired by Grant's Passing of the Great Race, which AFAIK is the ur-example of the "replacement/white genocide" trope. There is a direct line between that book and the national-quota immigration laws established in the US during the 1920s.

 

[Lexicus]

That's quite the latitude you have going there for "essentially".

In that context it meant that the most important elements were copied. The exact stringency of the standard used to determine membership in a racially inferior group (one drop rule vs one grandparent rule) is imo a detail rather than the important difference you seem to think it is.

 

[Lexicus]

And there we have the point. You made an assessment of "most important" that i disagree with. We could pick other aspects of the whole matter and we'd likely disagree on that datum again and again.

Well it'd be nice if you could actually make an argument.

 

[Lexicus]

For one you have just made one for me. Thanks by the way.
For another it is not my responsibility to explain the history of my country, it is your responsibility to not misuse it as a cardboard prop.

In what way have I misused the history of your country as a cardboard prop?

 

[Patine]

In what way have I misused the history of your country as a cardboard prop?

Because only @metatron, in his point-of-view, is allowed to use other people's nations, belief-systems, whole parts of the world, cultures, and such as cardboard props. It offends and angers him when others do such, or when he even perceives or views such may be the case, whether it is or not.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well it'd be nice if you could actually make an argument.

Typical left-wing utopianism.

 

[Patine]

Were you not the person who likened the rhetoric of Trump's campaign speeches to Hitler's and got all ruffled about it, wholly undeterred by any asymmetry in language proficiency, and who also cited my avatar - clearly the young Ayn Rand in your view - as evidence i supposedly must want to lock up women in the kitchen or some such?

I think that was you.
I take note that your confidence is undamaged.

I likened Trump's CAMPAIGN SPEECH STYLE to Hitler's, yes, but, frankly, other than that and bad combovers, I really see little the two men have in common in a practical sense, and I had never made any other comparisons. But I know such a piecemeal statement is an alien concept in this growingly black-and-white, all-or-nothing, all-in-or-fold socio-political dialogue we're seeing growing in prevalence in the modern day and age - to the long-term detriment of all.

 

[Patine]

That's what i referred to.
I mean i wrote "rhetoric" not "style".
And i didn't shout as if the proverbial damn kids were trespassing on my proverbial lawn again.
But... yeah... same difference.

First, of all, I said "style", both just now and originally. The fact you said "rhetoric," and then used it to interject a "correction" is a clumsy attempt at legalistic manipulation. Second, when I started using the Internet and posting on forums, around 1996 or so, and for some time thereafter, capitalizing was used for emphasis, because a lot of older forum or email formats didn't have organic options for bold or underline. It didn't inherently mean yelling. You'll have to excuse an old man his old habits (43 seems to be old online).