You might want to look at the aftermath before you make that distinction
“For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!”
What does this change? Slaves are still the good guys compared to slave owners. Institutionalized rape and torture sometimes causes a backlash, quite reasonably so.
So how many women can the good guys rape and children can they kill before they’re not being reasonable? Is there a set number, is it a ratio?
“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it”.
I said above that Jus ad bellum is one thing and jus in bello is another. Nobody gets out of a war with clean hands. That’s not anything to take lightly. But to turn your question to @iiandyiiii around: what’s the standard to which rebelling slaves must be held to which safeguards the morality of their cause?
The American civil war.
The bad guys were fighting to preserve slavery.
The Indonesian independence war.
The bad guys (the Dutch) were fighting to preserve a brutal colonial system. They were just liberated from a Nazi occupation so they really should have known better. They also conducted themselves in a way that would put a tear in the eye of the most brutal SS commander. And then we put up monuments all over the Netherlands to honor that black page of our history, just to confirm we’re totally unrepentant assholes.
Apparently, you think that any country that doesn’t run things the way YOU think they should be run isn’t worthy of an independent existence or protection against military aggression. As one of the many faces of America that have been looking intently into a mirror, I firmly disagree because, in our case, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
No, not at all. I’m saying it wasn’t a Good Guy vs Bad Guy war. There were no good guys. An oppressive regime invaded a somewhat less oppressive regime.
And America only got involved because of oil. No interest in human rights. They weren’t the good guy either.
You might want to look at exactly the sorts of things the Haitian enslavers were doing a couple weeks before the Revolution before you decry the people who turned a small fraction of that suffering back at the oppressors.
You should look into how many women and children (and men) were brutally raped, killed, and tortured in a whole host of imaginative ways under Haitian slavery, for decades and decades, day in and day out.
There is a reason we call it the declaration of “universal” human rights.
I’ll respect any culture up to the point they stop seeing other humans as valuable as themselves.
(The Qatari regime for instance can fuck right off)
So, we (Americans) have valued Native Americans, Black Americans, and even Latino Americans as much as “ourselves”? “With freedom and justice for ALL” is or even has ever been true?
Not quite. The black codes pretty quickly brought slavery back under a slightly modified system, the 13th amendment left a pretty big loop hole for the legal slavery that is still going on today, and while non-convict slavery was no longer state sanctioned, Congress did not pass much in the way of “appropriate legislation” to prevent private and state actors from just taking black people as slaves.
Jim Crow was terrible but it was not chattel slavery. None of the progress after the Civil War would have been possible without Union victory. Confederate apologia is bullshit pseudo historical nonsense.
I agree, and do define the Civil War as Good Guy Vs. Bad Guy (I have highly enjoyed and recommend the YouTube series "Checkmate Lincolnites), but the victory over slavery is lessoned by the fact that keeping black people as slaves was the equivalent of a white collar crime more than 30 years after the war ended.
I asked what’s the standard of revenge they can extract after they’ve won which safeguards their status as good guys?
Getting out of a war with clean hands is one thing, seeking out fresh blood after is another. I think this example has more shades of grey than some other posters. --shrug–
Why, I’m not defending those assholes.
Okay, I understand what you’re saying.
You’re criticizing the people who lived under their bondage for not expressing enough restraint while breaking free.
No, I’m criticizing them for the genocide they committed after they’d won.
Their actions are understandable, perhaps even forgivable, but certainly not noble.
Colonial powers have shown on many occasions what they do to “mutinies” and “uprisings” if given the chance. A student of history would have to be very, very naïve to leave them walking around.