Who's Worse

pjwky · #11 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:14 PM

Interesting, but really an apple or orange question. Ones internally held prejudices, while sad & somewhat ignorant, can never be as onious as ones actions.

If that "thought -vs- action" playing field is leveled: then in general prejudces held today are more distasteful & possibly evil because education & learning is more available in today's world.

Must also be said, that regardless of how abhorent we now hold slavery, some 200 years ago it was seen by church & state as an acceptable way of life.

That slavery is now seen as so abhorent & terrible, and was in the not so distant past seen as an acceptable way of life, should give pause for us to think of what prejudices & other issues will generations to come find abhorent in us today? ...pjwky

sachem · #12 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Heckler and Sachem, you make very good points. I don't believe there is anything more immoral than owning another human being, which is why I am so adamant about free market capitalism. However, I do think that the slave owners were acting in a time in which slavery was acceptable and did not "hate" his slaves, anymore than he hated his cattle or the manufacturer hated his tools. Slavery was and will always be an economic issue. People own slaves in order to get cheap labor. With that in mind is the blind hatred of another race of people ever acceptable? Personally, I don't see the anti semitism on this board any differently that I would see overt racism. We should be as insulted by Icy and Cannuck and Petey and a few others as IHNR is of me just for having my screen name.

Agree about the anti semitism. However, slave holders may have not "hated" their slaves, but just by the act of owning them, it was hate. Sure it was acceptable in that time and place. But obviously these weren't stupid animals or inanimate tools. Each act however, is immoral.

ricechickie · #13 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Actually, bond servants were mostly white europeans and the only difference between them and black slaves was the fact they could eventually become free. There are also some who believe that Lincoln's statement of We could not long remain half slave and half free meant that at some point if we allowed slavery to continue it would spill over to the white society and lower class whites would be enslaved as well.

As far as anti semitism not hurting anyone, tell that to six million dead Jews

LOL. The "only" difference is that the bond servants would eventually become free! That's the "only" difference, huh? Why, it's practically the same thing, then!

Bond servants were about paying off a debt through work. Slavery was about being "owned."

I said that prejudice TODAY doesn't necessarily affect anyone. So, don't go throwing the holocaust at me. Of course, the Nazi anti-Semitic policies hurt and killed plenty.

Agent_Grey · #14 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

In your opinion who is worse, those who owned slaves before the end of the war between the states or those today who are anti semetic? In my opinion those who are anti semitic are because owning a slave was strictly an economic act while hating Jews is pure hatred for no reason.

Disclaimer for Nazi and others who cannot engage in critical thinking. This in no way glorifies or condones the owning of slaves. Its simply a question as to which was the more evil of the two and why.

I wouldn't go that far. There were cases shortly before and during the civil war in which they found subsistance farmers with a slave. Feeding a single slave when you're on a one-acre food-plot is actually against your own economic self-interest.

In some cases they even found totally landless, unemployed confederates with slaves. It may not have been out of hatred of black people that they proudly clung to these symbols of conspicuous consumption, but it sure as heck wasn't about economic self-interest either.

IcyPeaceMaker · #15 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

In your opinion who is worse, those who owned slaves before the end of the war between the states or those today who are anti semetic? In my opinion those who are anti semitic are because owning a slave was strictly an economic act while hating Jews is pure hatred for no reason.

Only a blind moron would make such a statement, let alone make a thread and shout his stupidity/ignorance. What a fool.

If you don't understand how fucked-over you are because of jews, you need a teacher.

Agent_Grey · #16 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPeaceMaker

Only a blind moron would make such a statement, let alone make a thread and shout his stupidity/ignorance. What a fool.

Interesting tactic...and the best part is that it works with ANY argument!

IcyPeaceMaker · #17 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:29 PM

That asshole doesn't even understand who's fucking him.

Uncensored2008 · #18 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

Owning slaves was an economic situation, I'd agree with that, but the justification was that black people were inferior. Those same slave-owners, by and large, would not have considered owning another white person.

That is historically not true.

Indentured servitude, IE white slavery, was extremely common in 17th and 18th century America.

It wasn't just considered, it was widely practiced.

Agent_Grey · #19 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

That is historically not true.

Indentured servitude, IE white slavery, was extremely common in 17th and 18th century America.

It wasn't just considered, it was widely practiced.

Well hang on, indentured servitude was bad, don't get me wrong, but it at least had an obvious end-point and it couldn't transfer to your children. White people were never bred into further servitude. And they still considered indentured servents to be the same species, which I imagine must have helped at least somewhat in the treatment department in general.

Qurmudjin · #20 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Actually, bond servants were mostly white europeans and the only difference between them and black slaves was the fact they could eventually become free.

Excellent point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

There are also some who believe that Lincoln's statement of We could not long remain half slave and half free meant that at some point if we allowed slavery to continue it would spill over to the white society and lower class whites would be enslaved as well.

I don't think it was merely a matter of a ratio of numbers, and preference to enslave one race over another, but also that the European indentured had previously fought many bloody (rebellions) in England and in America to ensure their eventual freedom. Then, they fought some more to get rid of indentiture altogether (though journeymanships at the time were little better).
If slavery had continued much longer, especially if it grew, the Africans would have done the same thing, and it is no surprise to me that the recently freed Europeans who saw it coming jumped in and got it started, and that the African slaves were feverish to join in their own defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

As far as anti semitism not hurting anyone, tell that to six million dead Jews

And if anyone is unsure about just how many six million is, I highly recommend renting the documentary, "Paper Clips"

(a little sappy at times, but it does provide an interesting perspective on how to grasp such large numbers and equate each one to a real human being with feelings and hopes...)