๐ณ๐ฑ
Interesting fact of the day: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation **only** freed the southern slaves and kept the north slaves legal and enslaved. It was a sort "screw you to the south" more so than to abolish slavery.
Lincoln only supported and pushed through the 13th amendment once slavery was voluntarily abolished at the state level first.
@freemo Instead they went and did the ONE THING without even trying to use their bargaining position. They could have used the good cop bad cop strategy, threatening secession every time they did not get what they wanted, doing another little Bleeding Kansas act every now and then, and wielded outrageous power like they did at the Constitutional Convention.
If they wanted to secede, just about any other time would have been better.
It was their game to lose and they lost it.
@freemo Slavery makes you stupid, lazy, and overconfident, and you eventually blunder and lose everything. Is there anyone that has not happened to?
Four Union States allowed slavery when the war started.
@threalist Yup, it was all the states that bordered the south but were in the north.
Though technically you could argue after the emancipation proclimation (since the north is the legal recognized government) the north was the only region left with slaves after that moment..
Of course the reality is more complex since southern states didnt recognize the authority. But at least from the perspective of the north, as the one true government, after that point slavery existed **only** in the north (legally).
@freemo @threalist Speaking of border states, one problem the South had was all the high tech industry was either in the North or in those border states that sided with the North.
The Confederates built a big powder mill - one of their few industrial successes - and they had to confiscate a Northern made steam engine to make it go!
They also wound up pulling railcars with horses because their steam locomotives were broken and they could not fix them.
> 25% of the white men who served were immigrants, and further 25% were first-generation Americans
Yea and similar the native americans (a group i am part of) were vastly abused by the north and sided mostly with the south.
Usually the picture painted as the north as some hero for minorities and the south as a bunch of racists is a gross oversimplification... The truth is both sides were just racists fighting racists, as would be the case at that time in history when everything and everyone was racist.
@threalist @freemo The history books are more like: up until maybe the 1700s bad guys ruled the world. Good guys existed but they were few and weak.
Then starting with the French Revolution and really gaining ground with the American Revolution, good guys gradually cleared a small foothold for themselves.
The Civil War and the World Wars was good guys extending their reach. Soon good guys will control most of the world.
Of course that is mostly BS but that's how it is told.
@threalist @mike805 @freemo@qoto.org Why am I reminded od Otto's emotional cry in A Fish Called Wanda... "Vietnam was a tie!!!"
@croyle @threalist Funny, the Americans claim the B-52s brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table.
In Vietnam there is a museum to the SAM crews that makes the exact opposite argument. The success in shooting down B-52s brought the Americans to the table.
@mike805 @threalist Yes, a lot of strong emotions involved there and a lot of resulting spin on why things happened as they did.
@freemo @threalist Yes the Civil War was, like most wars, a battle between two forms of exploitation. The North practiced the modern interest and debt serfdom method, while the South took the old fashioned approach.
The Northern approach made better use of technology.
As far as I can tell there have been very few wars with an actual good guy involved, and those few had the good guy on defense.
At best you have a bad guy versus a really horrible guy.
I might be wrong on this, reading history, I have the impression that white European elite(intellectuals, politicians, high class families, etc.) looked at many human civilizations and considered many as subhuman and treated their people as commodity i.e India, Africa, South America, Polynesia, etc).
I don't believe that this the defacto human civilization dynamic, were the dominant civilization enslave the other ones.
I think this white European Elite Ideology that still persist to this day in other forms of control at the global level, i.e modern debt slavery, IMF, WHO, etc.
@voidabyss @freemo @threalist How about the Aztecs before the Europeans arrived?
Islam taking over the Middle East?
Japan in the early 20th century?
China today versus its ethnic minorities?
That sort of a dominant civilization, dominant race, everyone else is expendable thing has happened in lots of places. Yes white people did that. No they were not the only ones. Not even close.
Half true... it isnt "white European elite"... its literally every society, including minorities themselves.
The northern africans enslaved white people... we had to go to war to stop them from enslaving whites....
Central africans enslaved their own people for sale to salve traders, so they had a hand in their own slavery, and sometimes even owned their own slaves within tribes.
Native americans would enslave other native americans.
There is no shortage of examples of every race, any race, enslaving almost any other... this includes white people on both sides of slavery throughout history.
@freemo @voidabyss @threalist Absolutely. You also had Black people in the South who owned other Black people. Slavery was normal in Africa, so if an African made it big in America, well of course he'd buy himself some slaves.
Democracy and human rights are rare, fragile, and under threat. Slavery, domination, and killing people just to display your power (Roman gladiators and Aztec sacrifices being prime examples) are the norm. Making this a race thing is a big mistake.
@freemo @voidabyss @threalist The reason the South was all upset about tariffs was they were not industrialized and had to import everything. (The tariffs applied to everyone.)
They were not industrialized because slavery retards technological progress.
The cotton picking machine was invented in the 1920s but did not come into widespread use until World War 2 drew the Southern field workers off the plantation and into factories that paid cash wages.
Ancient Greece discovered steam power too.
Civilizations fighting each other has always occurred, I agree, human using others for slaves or free labor, has occurred in many civilizations, I agree. But Human considering others as subhuman or even another race, this is white European Elite Ideology.
> The northern africans enslaved white people... we had to go to war to stop them from enslaving whites....
Bullshit, how much many of "white slave" descendant live in North Africa right now? Compare that of black slaves descendant that live in US or European colonies.
They were act of ship piracy, yes! The European were the ones taking north African for slaves thought out history from the Roman Empire to recent European colonization of North Africa.
>Central africans enslaved their own people for sale to salve traders, so they had a hand in their own slavery, and sometimes even owned their own slaves within tribes.
The slave trade has been forced to many African nations back then as they are now force to sell their natural resources for cheap.
>There is no shortage of examples of every race, any race, enslaving almost any other... this includes white people on both sides of slavery throughout history.
Classic history whitewash to justify the massive industrial scale of the European international slave trade.
I just want to add that the majority of white European are the victim of the white European Elite ideology, through out history i.e (WWI, WWII) and up to this day.
But Human considering others as subhuman or even another race, this is white European Elite Ideology.
Not really, racial superiority is a concept that is as old as time.
Bullshit, how much many of “white slave” descendant live in North Africa right now? Compare that of black slaves descendant that live in US or European colonies.
What? You say its bullshit and then argue against something no one said… We said northern africa enslaved whites and we had to go to war to get them to stop… this is true… what does that have to do with the number that survived or live there today? I mean I made no assertions about that so no matter what the answer, how does that relate to if what I said was bullshit or not?
They were act of ship piracy, yes! The European were the ones taking north African for slaves thought out history from the Roman Empire to recent European colonization of North Africa.
I mean the ship piracy certainly was a source of the slavery industry in norther africa… but white slaves were very much documented and a historical fact fromt he period.
The slave trade has been forced to many African nations back then as they are now force to sell their natural resources for cheap.
Forced is a matter of opinion… These were wholly native blacks operating it locally, capturing, enslaving and selling other blacks. Obviously whites did come and buy those blacks, and that money is what encouraged the trade. But when those whites set off and sailed again those black people that remained, free black people, kept the business going until the next ship arrived.
Classic history whitewash to justify the massive industrial scale of the European international slave trade.
I mean if you want to call actual historic facts white washing… go ahead… everything I said was true.
I notice again you talk about scale, and thats valid, at no point did I suggest the less populace nations with fewer resources were able to scale at anywhere near white nations… probably not… but also largely irrelevant. Per capita it was more or less the same, whites arent guilty just for being more industrial or there being more of them.
We can argue back and forth all day about history.
notice again you talk about scale, and thats valid, at no point did I suggest the less populace nations with fewer resources were able to scale at anywhere near white nationsโฆ probably notโฆ but also largely irrelevant. Per capita it was more or less the same, whites arent guilty just for being more industrial or there being more of them.
We can agree that scale matter a lot, whether in terms of slave trade impact on the European global dominance with a large network of slave colonies, or recent massive scale of use fossil fuels, the wars to control that trade and it’s impact on the planet in terms of climate change.
It seems like that the white European Elite greed has no limit until the destruction of the planet. Ether by nukes or climate change.
We can argue back and forth all day about history.
We can. And considering the gross misrepresentation of history you seem to be selling, I suspect we probably should.
We can agree that scale matter a lot, whether in terms of slave trade impact on the European global dominance with a large network of slave colonies, or recent massive scale of use fossil fuels, the wars to control that trade and itโs impact on the planet in terms of climate change.
Scale matters in terms of effect, sure, but lets go back to your original claim being debunked:
But Human considering others as subhuman or even another race, this is white European Elite Ideology.
The truth of this statement has nothing to do with scale. So while scale may “matter a lot” due to societal impact (and it does) that still has no relevance to the argument in debate at the moment.
But Human considering others as subhuman or even another race, this is white European Elite Ideology.
The truth of this statement has nothing to do with scale. So while scale may โmatter a lotโ due to societal impact (and it does) that still has no relevance to the argument in debate at the moment.
I still stand with that statement, because I can bring you many quotes from so many prominent white European Elite(Philosophers, politicians, rules, writer, etc) that make claim.
I challenge you bring quotes from prominent Elite from North Africa, middle eat, south America, that make that claim.
I truly believe that the master race Ideology is purely European origin.
Note:(Ideologies tend to spread, so other nations i.e Japan embracing that ideology doesโt make it less European).
I still stand with that statement, because I can bring you many quotes from so many prominent white European Elite(Philosophers, politicians, rules, writer, etc) that make claim.
You dont see the fallacy of logic there?
You are claiming “Only X does Y”.. and then go on to effectively say “I can prove it by giving examples of X doing Y”… That would only prove that X does Y, it is the “only” part you need to prove.
So if for every single one of your examples of a white man treating a non-white as lesser, if I could match each one with a historic example of a non-white person doing that to another, then do we agree you’d be wrong? If you dont agree then do you see why your approach here doesnt prove your point?
I challenge you bring quotes from prominent Elite from North Africa, middle eat, south America, that make that claim.
I’d be happy to, but before I waste my energy what is the exact number of prominent non-white people doing this do I need to actually quote for you before you agree I have proven you wrong? I mean, I need to know what the rules are if you wanna go this route.
Note:(Ideologies tend to spread, so other nations i.e Japan embracing that ideology doesโt make it less European).
Well at least you moved the goal post before I bothered… So now your saying no matter how many quotes I give you of elite non-whites looking down on other races you can always play the “well the idea originated from a white guy at some point” game and invalidate those quotes arbitrarily? I hope your seeing your biases now and how you even set the rules up knowing you will be proven wrong and giving yourself a backdoor… Because even actual evidence now you can just hand wave away with no proof.
But ya know what, sure, lets do this…. Examples of non-whites considering other races as lesser than them, genetically racially inferior, subhuan etc.
-
cast system - Specifically and explicitly designed so as to legally and personally judge people as lesser based on who they are born to (genetics). Fundementally and culturally an example. There are over 20 non-white nations, probably many more, that have employed caste systems in relatively recent history. This includes India, the elite most certainly have supported this system.
-
Ghandi, this elite non-white has quite the history of making statements about blacks where he treats them as inferior. In particular he would call them “Kaffir” (functionally similar to the english word “nigger”) and would often refer to them as savages.:
“…in the same category as the half-heathen Native and confine him to Locations, and subject him to the harsher laws by which the Transvaal Kaffir is governed.” –Ghandi
- The elites in Korean state media said the following about obama: “โstill has the figure of a monkey while the human race has evolved through millions of years,โ Another clear example of non-white elite seeing another race as genetically lesser.
We havent even gotten out of asia yet…. Shall I keep going?
caste system
it’s horrible system, but It’s more of a Hindu social class system then master race based ideology, it’s Hindu India’s version of European feudalism system.
Look up how the British exploited that system to divide and conquer India.
Ghandi
His is British educated, that’s more of the British education racist undertone.
Note, Kaffir has noting similar with “nigger”.
In Islam, Kaffir mean someone who rejected the believe in God. It’s more like Atheist. It is big deal when someone is labeled as kaffir, because the punishment is death.
Korean state media
I believe that american media said more racist claims about Obama then Korean state media.
This has nothing to do with Korean culture, beliefs or treatment of other civilizations.
QED, totally called you finding excuses, and invalid ones at that
@voidabyss nothing personal though btw
@freemo This is the internet and I am arguing behind an anon account, so nothing here is personal. I poked through all of your examples, although you haven’t point out to any invalid argument, I like the Latin abbreviation “QED” to end the debate. ๐
@voidabyss You havent poked through any of them.. you made some astoundingly bad hand waving.. but thats about it..
You tried to call the 20+ caste systems, notorious for extradinary racism and oppression “just a social system”… even when today with the caste system abolished in india the racism continues and is well known…
You’ve blamed elite non-whites for being “british educated” using the goal-post moving approach I called you out on before you even did it.
And then, you didnt even really attempt to make a sincere effort to address the “black people are monkeys” comment just saying some nonsense about how white people were racist too so that is some sort of counter argument…
Like literally you just abandoned even basic common sense to make a no-facts based nonsensical hand wavy excuse that literally poked 0 holes in anything.
@threalist @freemo Wow that's a lot. I know the South actually had a lot of slaves forced to fight for it. And there were a surprising number of Southern men - like 200K - that left to join the Union army.
The non land-owning white Southerner had to know that slavery did not serve his interests. It depressed wages and allowed the Boss to treat him with contempt. So he had to wonder "what's in it for me."
I think that is what the "Golden Circle" invade Mexico idea was for. Were they serious?
It is interesting to read the dairies of Confederates. The ones I've seen in terms of "why they fought" most often reference a pride in their homeland and the view that Washington didnt represent their interests or values..
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2001.05.0123%3Achapter%3D7.66
> Dark and lowering clouds hover over the political horizon. The recent elections in the northern States indicate the triumph of the Republican party, in which event a disruption of the Union, and a civil war will probably follow, as the South will not submit to a sectional President, and the North will not submit to a peaceable separation.
There is no doubt a large portion of the south were fighting for their right to decide for themselves how to handle slavery (and wanting to keep it, at least in the short term)...
But you are right, there are many nuanced factors overall.
@threalist @freemo What I don't get is why the South did not play the good cop/bad cop game threatening to secede unless the North relaxed the tariffs and generally backed off. They had a lot of bargaining power which they threw away once they seceded.
Everything I've read says secession was an emotional mob action not a thought through decision. They needed the strategist (Lee) THEN not once they were no the short end of a war of attrition.
Because they fought a different angle.. they wanted state rights to sort it out for themselves. Because no group could get a majority acceptance on any issue.. so everything else was a standstill.
@freemo @threalist We seem to be right back there too. Someday Congress is just going to lock up and fail to reboot and the debt ceiling deadline is going to expire. That will kick off the "interesting times."
@freemo 1. He didn't have the legal authority to unilaterally free slaves. He wasn't a dictator. He did it only in the south (where the vast majority of slaves were located) because they were in rebellion and had no means to challenge it. It was basically a psyop.
2. Presidents play NO role in constitutional amendments. The constitution assigns the power to congress and the states. The Senate passed it right away, when the House dithered, Lincoln stepped in and pushed and got it passed.
@Phil While you are right, they arent a dictator, they do still play a leadership role and can use their veto power for laws (didnt need to be an amendment) for example...
But yes he couldnt make the decision alone, he would have to simply promote a law or amendment, which he didnt even do that much at the time.
@freemo He did as soon as it became necessary. Initially it appeared that the northern states (the southern states had not yet been restored to the union) would pass it easily. As soon as it stalled, he pushed. He was very obviously in favor of the abolishment of slavery and it was his insistence that got the amendment added to the republican platform prior to his re-election. so making it seem like he was disinterested is deceptive.
> He did as soon as it became necessary.
Thats a funny way of saying "once it is pointless"... He only abolished slavery at a federal level once every single state abolished it... That reeks of insincerity and necessity.
> so making it seem like he was disinterested is deceptive.
Like I said, actions speak louder than words... If he really cared to push anti-slavery views his emancipation proclemation would look very different.
Even post slavery Lincoln was quoted saying he didnt beleive in giving blacks voting rights except for the few exceptional "intelligent ones" which is wording highly suggested was a rarity..
Politicians say what gets them elected.. gotta judge them on their actions, not their words.
I think your judgement of him is absurd and twists the history and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the times.
@Phil ditto
The question is if either of us wants to invest the time and energy citing sources, and if we do will it even matter if we agree on the actions taken.
Seems we agree ont he actions themselves. So good enough by me.
For what its worth it may help you recognize my position if you understand as someone who is native american myself I think about a lot of aspects people dont talk about... There is a reason you know that the NAtive Americans, almost all sided with the south. Its because of the two the north was far more abusive in murdering us to extinction... So excuse me if i find the "they are the good guys" narrative a bit one-dimensional
@freemo never is anybody all good and all bad, its always muddled.
@Phil Thats certainly true.. but in this case its not just muddled... its evil in specifically the treatment of minorities in fairly balanced ways... I mean sure the south is worse on blacks.. but much much better on native americans than the north, for example Asians were also more often abused/enslaved by the north (re: railroads) than the south
Point is when it comes to the treatment of minorities and their rights to autonomy both sides were bad and good in ways that kinda balance out.. plenty of evil on both sides, no one side the clear good guy
@freemo Indeed and the native Americans were't angels either.
@Phil Well since most of them are dead, they are now...
But yea native americans werent perfect people who lacked injustice, even before first contact.
@freemo Abraham Lincoln: one of the greatest Americans to ever live.
Yea he was certainly one of the biggest figures in US history... no doubt.
@freemo Looking at where the South stood when Lincoln won the election, they did the worst possible thing at the worst possible time.
They were in the relatively powerful situation of: there is ONE THING the other guy desperately does not want you to do.
They could have demanded anything else they wanted in exchange for merely not seceding. Constitutional right to slavery. Relief of the tariffs they were complaining about.
They would have got 90% and could have come back for the other 10.