Cool. We agree then.
I disagree. We’re talking two historical events and comparing them on common criteria.
I think some people just don’t like to think in anything less than absolute terms. The Holocaust? The most evil thing ever. Slavery? Also the most evil thing ever. The Trail of Tears? Another most evil thing ever. The 9/11 attacks? Most evil thing ever. The Zodiac killings? Most evil thing ever. Clubbing baby seals? Most evil thing ever.
These people can’t handle relativism. Is clubbing baby seals bad? Yes. Is it as bad as Auschwitz? No.
But the choice isn’t “clubbing baby seals or the Holocaust - pick one”. Saying one thing is wrong doesn’t mean everything else is right. The choices are “clubbing baby seals or not clubbing baby seals - pick one” and “killing six million people or not killing six million people - pick one”.
I’m not familiar with the specific behavior Der Trihs references, but baboons, chimps, etc. absolutely understand that these guys aren’t just the primates that happen to be in my vicinity when I wake up every day, but rather they’re my tribe, and there’s this **other **tribe living on the far side of the creek whose members are, frankly, a bunch of assholes.
If I was going to raise an objection that might disqualify other primates from “genocidal” behavior, then, it wouldn’t be because of a possible lack of the requisite group identity. A possible lack of the requisite capacity for premeditation, on other hand, seems like a more promising avenue.
Tough call, but I went with the Holocaust. I don’t know that I could say which group of victims had it worse, but I don’t consider that the only thing determining which was more evil. In both cases the perpetrators believed that another group of people were subhuman, captured these people, separated them from their families (relatives were often sent to different camps during the Holocaust), and forced them to live in terrible conditions. But the Nazis weren’t willing to stop there, they systematically killed their victims and had the ultimate goal of totally exterminating the “undesirables”.
Again, from the perspective of the victim I don’t know that I could say which is worse: to be worked to death as a slave over the course of many years or to spend a relatively brief time as a prisoner in a concentration camp before being gassed. Different people may disagree about which one they’d find one marginally less horrible than the other. But considering the mindset of the people responsible for these horrors, I think it’s more evil to look upon another ethnic group/groups as vermin than it is to view them as beasts of burden. Maybe not a lot more evil, but somewhat eviler.
It’s definitely a strategy and not just opportunistic fighting. Tribes of chimps have been observed targeting neighbouring tribes. They will scout the members of the other tribe and ambush isolated members one by one. Then when the target tribe has been reduced to a small enough number, they’ll stage a group attack to finish off the rest of the males.
Someone who truly believes that slavery is worse than death would have an interesting take on watching Schindler’s List. They’d see Goth as the hero of the movie, who by trying to kill all the Jews was saving them from Schindler’s attempts to make them work.
Do you really this is fair and nonoffensive comparison? Schindler rescued people from the ovens by having him be his workers; they were not kidnapped solely to be in his property for the rest of their lives. Chattle slaves were not rescued by anyone.
I mean, I know you believe that the Holocaust was worse, but you’re reaching way over into absurdity land now.
If slavery is worse than death, then Schindler wasn’t rescuing people - he was making it worse for them. He’d have been doing them a favor to have let them die rather than force them to work in his factory.
Personally, I don’t see it that way. But I’ve already said I think death is worse than slavery.
Schindler had a sense that the situation would end and his workers would go free in a matter of years. Furthermore, Schindler also tried to avoid torture and rape. Finally, Schindler’s end plan was not “work them to death.” He made an effort to keep his workers physically healthy and did not simply run them until they dropped dead.
This is a disingenuous comparison. Schindler very much cared whether the Jews lived or died. So the story goes, he protected them, forbade their torture, allowed them to honor the Sabbath, etc. The conditions under which they worked in his factory were therefore almost certainly better than the conditions of black American slaves.
Remember, we’re not talking about slavery in general, we’re talking about that peculiar institution of North American slavery. I would argue that North American slavery was oftentimes worse than death. The slaves who launched themselves overboard on their way to the New World would probably agree.
Have you ever observed someone suffering intensely? Do you notice how quickly they begin crying out that they want to die? In that moment nothing matters more than ending the suffering. That’s after only a few moments of intense pain. Imagine multiplying that by decades. Would you really want to live if you knew only agony and you knew that the agony would never cease?
We are talking about a specific kind of slavery that encompassed a lot more than having to work really hard all day, 'mmmkay? I hardly see why it’s necessary for you to keep glossing over this point to assert that the Holocaust was worst. If the Holocaust is so obviously more evil, there would be no need to grasp at straws like this. It makes you look like an assy idiot, truth be told, and I know that’s not a look you’re going for.
If you really think Schindler was treating these people like slaves (Did he threaten to shoot them if they ran away? Did he have people whipped if they didn’t work fast enough? Did he call them kikes and split up families to sale when he needed some extra cash? Did he allow the women to be raped? Did he forbid them from reading and socializing? Did he treat them like animals?) , then you need to either watch the movie again or bone up on your American history. I’m thinking the latter, because I’m really scratching my head over how this comparison even seemed to make sense in your head before you typed it out.
The Holocaust was vastly more evil: the systematic slaughter of so many people. People have been slaughtering each other and enslaving each other since before the dawn of recorded history, but the Holocaust took it to a whole new level.
I voted slavery, because at least the Blacks didn’t deserve their punishment…
…too soon?
Seriously, though , the Holocaust was horrible, and all, I agree, killing people like a well-oiled machine is undoubtedly a terrible evil. But slavery didn’t just fuck up one people - it fucked up a couple of continents. One of those continents is still mightily fucked up today, partly because of slavery, almost 150 years after slavery ended in the US. That’s quite the legacy.
And it was just so totally pervasive. That’s the worst kind of evil - the kind where almost everyone perpetrating it doesn’t really see the problem. The Nazis at least had the good sense to try and hide what they did, however ineptly. US slaveholders fought a bloody war to keep doing what they wanted.
Not really; look at what the Mongols did, for example. Or the complete extermination of the natives of Tasmania by the British; far fewer died, but that’s because there were far fewer Tasmanians to be killed. While arguably a lesser evil because of the scale, it was just as systematic as the Holocaust.
As I said above; the really unusual thing about the Holocaust is that it hasn’t been allowed to be shoved under the rug and ignored. Systematic mass slaughter is not all that unusual.
Based on how you framed the question, I vote “same, but in different ways”. Evil is evil. A valid but separate question is which was worse, to which end any number of facts, criteria and rationale come open for debate; another might be what we ought to [have] do[ne] about it (which would likely be based in part on our assessment of the former), but to my way of thinking, evil itself is pretty much binary.
Not a good comparison: they killed for disobedience or as an example. Not just because.
I disagree. For instance, historically, people were usually killed immediately or enslaved. Not transported to death camps.
I’m going to go with US chattel slavery as well, because of the long-term effects. And that’s US, not “North American” slavery; slavery existed in pre-1834 British North America (the future Canada) but the plantation system didn’t because of the climate and types of agriculture, and so slavery never had the pervasiveness that it did in the US.
My feelings are broadly similar to Mr Dibble’s here.
I’ll add that I have the impression that slavery among Europeans had not been considered to be particularly related to race, but that US chattel slavery created the prejudice among European descendants that a specific people were genetically inferior and thus naturally suited only to slavery.
If this impression is true, US chattel slavery did more long-term damage to US society than the Holocaust did to European society, even with all the deaths in Europe. Mind you, if Naziism had survived, it would eventually have done the same damage to European society.
No, the agricultural slavery system that existed in the American south was invented on Caribbean sugar plantations.
I’m tempted to just say “this” but I know that annoys people.
Oversimplification is teh evil.
What Diogenes said, 'cept that I’d have threatened a mongoose attack or something.