Earlier you talked about punishment, as a parent punishes a child. Now it’s sadism? rape amd “punishment” were no doubt common, but sadism is rare? Is that your position?
I’m sure Richard Verrall would say that he’s not endorsing or white-washing the Holocaust. He’d be wrong, though. Perhaps you are stupid enough to sincerely believe your own vile bullshit, but that doesn’t make it true.
Even comparing you to Holocaust deniers is probably giving you too much credit. Holocaust deniers usually claim that the Nazis had no policy of exterminating Jews at all rather than acknowledging that this did happen but claiming that the Jews were happy in the death camps and would have agreed that they deserved to be killed.
This was such a disgusting sentence. Mighty magnanimous of him, allowing that it can “effectively be called rape”.
Because of the position, though! That’s all! Goddamn, this is a major example of how, in his [del]oral diarrhea[/del] “musings”, only the white slave-owners are PEOPLE. The slaves are literally just objects for the slave-owner to use. I mean, I GUESS that TECHNICALLY it’s rape, or whatever. :: Vomits ::
How’s that working out for ya, dipshit?
What the fuck? “Stand in a corner”? Are you fucking retarded?
Now be fair, I’m sure **Sage Rat’s **deep knowledge of the human condition would allow him to guess that a Sonderkommando member would have, at some point, returned to his bunk and thought “all things considered, today was a pretty good day”.
He ventured to guess it so it must be true.
I’m sure it would. That’s what makes him even worse than the Holocaust deniers I’ve heard of; at least they don’t claim that millions of people were content to be exterminated by the Nazis.
That was an excellent post.
On your google search?
Were there white people in the South who fought for abolition before the Civil War?
:dubious:
I’m not really sure what your point is. I didn’t say say there couldn’t be. I said I had allways thought there were then when I went and looked for some I didn’t find any and that made me sad. It seems you are so intent on “proving me wrong” that you are not even paying attention to what I actually said or did not say.
So which is it? Are you interested in sarcasm and self righteousness or actually having a discussion?
No, you stated the non-existence of southern, white abolitionists as fact. It seems that it is your google search skills that are non-existent. What on earth did you use as search terms? I used white southern abolitionists and found any number of sources.
What bothers people is your tendency to speak in authoritative terms about subjects you don’t know much about. There’s a great deal of expertise about slavery here–why not ask your questions here and sit back and learn?
Robert’s declaration led me to google and uncover interesting stuff – some of it discussion of why there were so few abolitionists in the south, and some fascinating reading about the ones that did exist.
Short answer is that there were white abolitionists in the antebellum South. Slightly longer answer is that southerners were so hostile (to the point of lynching) to people who were antislavery that those who did feel that way either moved north or knew to keep their opinions to themselves.
I also saw a distinction made between antislavery and abolition, which I had never seen before and still don’t grasp. Apparently you could be anti-slavery but not an abolitionist? I think it was a way of mitigating the spite; “I may be antislavery but I’m not abolitionist,” which means “I don’t like it, but I’m not going to change the law or anything.” Further research is needed.
As i understand it, an abolitionist wanted the practice abolished immediately amd in full, while being against slavery meant you wanted it gone but gradual was good enough.
I am open to correction.
It’s a shame we don’t have much evidence for the period, but I think it’s pretty safe to conclude that most concentration camp guards were pretty decent people who only wanted their charges to behave. Probably there were cruel, barbaric ones, and it’s right to condemn them, but I think for the most part 99% were good, decent people. OK, there were punishments, but we have to remember that it was a vilolent age, and people were used to that kind of treatment.
I’d venture to suggest that most Jews in the camps were pretty happy because that’s just human nature, they came home to their little huts and gardens and brought up their kids and sang songs. I’m sure it would never have crossed their minds to escape, at least for the vast majority. There are always people who do things for silly reasons, so maybe some of them did try to run away, but they were probably just hotheaded kids.
And who’s to say that some of the escapees weren’t bad people either? The guards would have tried reason and gentle encouragement because that’s just human nature, but then they were just forced to harsher measures. But it was a harsh age, many people were punished in ways that we might frown on today, so we can’t really judge them by our standards. No, overall I think the Jews in Auschwitz were probably pretty content with their lot and wouldn’t have thought it unreasonable. After all, most people throughout history have adapted to harsh conditions, and it almost certainly wasn’t like the Hollywood version of the Holocaust where people were weeping and wailing day and night.
This write up about southern antislavery societies states, “At this time, however, very few of these societies or their members would be considered abolitionists (i.e., advocates of immediate and unconditional emancipation). Instead, the vast majority of anti-slavery proponents at this time were colonizationists, advocating that slaves should only be emancipated as quickly as they could be put on a boat and shipped to another continent.”
Granted, this is a post on a message board about civil war history, but it includes links to primary sources.
Too subtle.
I should have recalled this from college, but now I remember a discussion about it. It was considered radical and extremist to actually think enslaved people should be freed immediately with no compensation to their captors.
I wonder what extremist, radical, loony opinions few people have now that will be “duh” common sense in 150 years. Of course in my own lifetime I’ve seen gay marriage go from column a to column b.
No, actually, I said they were very rare 102:
Very rare, very little data
I didn’t say none existed.
I didn’t say they couldn’t or shouldn’t exist.
Yeah, I can see how that bothers people. But in - this - case I used a frowny face and specific words like “sad fact” and very rare and very little data. I think you/they are/were judging me by the way I usually act instead of what I actually said at that particular time.
BTW - I am not saying the slave owners got/get a pass because of the “product of your environment”. There were plenty of slave owners who either set their slaves free while they were alive or in their will on their death.
I am referring to the overall mood/attitude about slavery in the south. I find it very saddening and disheartening that there was not more vocal opposition.
I normally do not accept “product of your environment” reasoning. But, seeing as how actual white abolitionists were so rare, the role of the social environment must have some affect upon the whole situation. I am interested in asking how we view that. I am not making excuses for anyone.
Similarly, a person could of grown up under bad conditions of domestic abuse, neglect and violence. They could have PTSD and several issues stemming from that. They may wind up abusing and hurting their own children. Having PTSD and a bad childhood is not an excuse to harm your own children but it is a - part - of the equation. It is in this same mode that I ask, “Gee, I wonder why there was not more opposition to slavery, it makes me sad that there wasn’t.”
It’s actually fucking weird trying to think yourself into that mindset.