The Fifty First State

[hobbsyoyo]

Anyone who views it as a rosy picture has....... "issues".

Indeed.

In my opinion, "abused" was referring to whippings and beatings.

He wasn't justifying slavery. As he said, it is evil, but he was pointing out the common mistake of people thinking that most slave owners beat or whipped there slaves, or otherwise physically maltreated them.

Most of what's in this thread has been widely whitewashing and bashing all the things CSA as being racism, which is not correct.

You think the overseers were friendly?

Nope, they exited solely to

"abused" (was referring to whippings and beatings)

the slaves. And every slaveowner had one or was one themselves. But hey,

common mistake of people thinking that most slave owners beat or whipped there slaves, or otherwise physically maltreated them

right?

 

[NickyJ]

Not being whipped, but still being a slave, sounds good to you? Yeesh.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not being whipped, but still being a slave, sounds good to you? Yeesh.

Then why bring it up in the first place?

 

[NickyJ]

Then why bring it up in the first place?

Ties in with my response to your post before, which I missed for a bit:

The truth is that slavery means owning another human being, wholly and completely, and so represents an unqualified abhorrence. Whether you need to beat them to maintain that reality- and let's be very clear, the amount of violence deployed in these relationships is at its root matter of necessity, not sentimental disposition- is a fact so irrelevant to this judgement that introducing it could only be suspicious. We may as well point out that the inmates of the Nazi death camps were provided with latrines rather than having to crap in the corner, because, hey, it's just facts, right?

While comparing slavery to death camps is a bit extreme, as I said before they are facts that are commonly ignored. Do you see people claiming that all inmates at death camps had to crap in corners? No, so I don't say anything, because obviously, those facts are known.

Likewise, there are many people who believe that all slaves were whipped and beaten. I try to correct that mistaken belief. I don't attempt to say that that makes slavery any better, for it clearly doesn't. But it does help provide a more accurate view of slavery's evil.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

While comparing slavery to death camps is a bit extreme, as I said before they are facts that are commonly ignored. Do you see people claiming that all inmates at death camps had to crap in corners? No, so I don't say anything, because obviously, those facts are known.

Likewise, there are many people who believe that all slaves were whipped and beaten. I try to correct that mistaken belief. I don't attempt to say that that makes slavery any better, for it clearly doesn't. But it does help provide a more accurate view of slavery's evil.

It's an apt comparison for numerous reasons. Again, read a history book.

And all slaves were all beaten, by whip, by hand or both. Yet another rosy picture you paint.

 

[Traitorfish]

While comparing slavery to death camps is a bit extreme...

I don't see why. Both are acts of extreme racial violence organised on a mass scale and supported by the state. The only pertinent difference that springs to mind is that it is very easy to depict the Holocaust as an aberration from Western capitalism, while the length and durability of chattel slavery means that even liberals have to find some apologetic way of incorporating into their March Of Progress narratives.

...as I said before they are facts that are commonly ignored. Do you see people claiming that all inmates at death camps had to crap in corners? No, so I don't say anything, because obviously, those facts are known.

You do actually see some people on the far-right attempting to minimise the violence of the Nazi regime in this manner, all in the interests of "factuality". I suppose it's a European thing, your media being for all its flaws smart enough not to hand honest-to-god fascists a microphone.

Likewise, there are many people who believe that all slaves were whipped and beaten. I try to correct that mistaken belief. I don't attempt to say that that makes slavery any better, for it clearly doesn't. But it does help provide a more accurate view of slavery's evil.

Maybe that's true for you, but the majority of those who feel the need to jump in with these "clarifications" are engaged in fairly blatant Confederate apologism- the example here is a self-declared "neo-Confederate", as if it could not be made clearer- and it doesn't reflect well on you if you defend them when people call them out on it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe that's true for you, but the majority of those who feel the need to jump in with these "clarifications" are engaged in fairly blatant Confederate apologism- the example here is a self-declared "neo-Confederate", as if it could not be made clearer- and it doesn't reflect well on you if you defend them when people call them out on it.

Only Sith see in black and white.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Only Sith see in black and white.

And they killed off all the jedi who were stuck in grayscale . What's your point?

 

[Farm Boy]

Perhaps might does make right, then.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Perhaps might does make right, then.

I certainly believe this in the context of those who argue that the south had legitimate reasons to secede. They didn't, and they lost the war that proved this point. I understand that compresses a whole huge complex chapter of American history down to essentially a binary answer/response, but I feel you have to in some respects or people will go around teaching children the virtues of the CSA.

Kind of like (I guess, I'm not expert) some far-right European political parties do with the Third Reich.

 

[bhsup]

Only Sith see in black and white.

Please, please tell me you were joking by repeating that ridiculous line. There are plenty of things that warrant an absolute view.

Rape is always wrong. Pretty absolute, no room for wiggle there.
Child molestation is always wrong.
And so forth and so on...

I swear, I know hollywood loves to dump on conservatives, but that line was probably the worst attempt at Bush bashing that I saw (IIRC though, he actually said absolutes rather than black and white)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I swear, I know hollywood loves to dump on conservatives, but that line was probably the worst attempt at Bush bashing that I saw (IIRC though, he actually said absolutes rather than black and white)

Did Bush really say the word Sith, as in star wars Sith? For realz?

 

[bhsup]

What? No. The line in the movie, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" was a swipe at Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" line.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What? No. The line in the movie, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" was a swipe at Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" line.

Oh. I just thought the line was about the Sith...

 

[Traitorfish]

Only Sith see in black and white.

In that case, I'm a Nazi. Not a racist Nazi, you understand, not one of those anti-Semitic Nazis you hear about, a nice Nazi. I don't want to hurt Jews, or indeed anyone, just to restore the independence of the Aryan Race. Is that so wrong?

Oh. I just thought the line was about the Sith...

A lot of the politics of the prequel trilogy are an analogy for the Bush administration and "War on Terror". If you missed it, it's just because it's one of the most poorly-constructed and clumsily-presented such analogies in cinema history, so you tend to assume it's just bad film-making until somebody actually points it out to you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A lot of the politics of the prequel trilogy is a poorly-disguised analogy for the Bush administration. If you missed it, it's probably just because it's one of the most poorly-constructed, poorly presented, and generally ridiculous such analogies in cinema history.

But if it's so bad an analogy, isn't it fair for some people to say it isn't one at all?

 

[Phrossack]

A lot of the politics of the prequel trilogy are an analogy for the Bush administration and "War on Terror". If you missed it, it's just because it's one of the most poorly-constructed and clumsily-presented such analogies in cinema history, so you tend to assume it's just bad film-making until somebody actually points it out to you.

Eh? They were being produced and planned in the 20th century. And I'd say it was more a mix of the fall of the Roman Republic/rise of Hitler/American Civil War/purge of the Templars/massacre of the Mamluks than anything else.

 

[Traitorfish]

I said it was exceptionally poorly-constructed, didn't I?

 

[NickyJ]

It's an apt comparison for numerous reasons. Again, read a history book.

And all slaves were all beaten, by whip, by hand or both. Yet another rosy picture you paint.

Got Source? Or is it another "assumption" of yours?

I don't see why. Both are acts of extreme racial violence organised on a mass scale and supported by the state. The only pertinent difference that springs to mind is that it is very easy to depict the Holocaust as an aberration from Western capitalism, while the length and durability of chattel slavery means that even liberals have to find some apologetic way of incorporating into their March Of Progress narratives.

One is about mass-murdering, the other is about slavery. I am certain that neither Jews nor slaves would appreciate their being lumped together when they experienced different evils.

You do actually see some people on the far-right attempting to minimise the violence of the Nazi regime in this manner, all in the interests of "factuality". I suppose it's a European thing, your media being for all its flaws smart enough not to hand honest-to-god fascists a microphone.

I have yet to see anybody say that in the U.S. Those who did were neo-Nazis, and were sent to prison. (Thank goodness.)

Maybe that's true for you, but the majority of those who feel the need to jump in with these "clarifications" are engaged in fairly blatant Confederate apologism- the example here is a self-declared "neo-Confederate", as if it could not be made clearer- and it doesn't reflect well on you if you defend them when people call them out on it.

As you admitted yourself just now, I am not the majority. All I am trying to do is clear away a commonly made mistake. I have made no attempt to say that CSA was justified to break away because of slavery. Such an attempt would be idiotic, because it wasn't justified.

 

[useless]

What disturbs me the most is the apologism in this thread that surrounds slavery.