No. It was a pro slave state position
It was an anti-human position.
And some have expressed a wish for the death penalty for murders. Damn!
Lord Feldon’s point was that the “3/5 compromise” wasn’t to set a value on human life based on color of skin. It was a compromise to determine the population level on which representation in the federal government would be determined. It’s fairly safe to observe that the life of a slave wasn’t valued at all when that clause was in force. The clause’s purpose was to garner more representation for the wealthy white population in the slave states.
You do realize that if the slaves had been counted as “full persons” for the purpose of representation than the slave states would have had even more power than they did in our timeline.
Anyway, at this point I’m not sure how this relates to the execution referred to in the OP.
For myself, I object to the death penalty for a number of reasons, but said the botched execution in Oklahoma was hardly comparable to Rosa Parks because it’s hard to have sympathy for someone who laughingly buried alive a 19 year-old girl.
Similarly, John Wayne Gacy had a botched execution and that didn’t wind up turning people against the death penalty because he was a serial killer.
Frankly, Europe has laws that negatively impact vastly more people who’ve committed no crimes than the American death penalty which receive little criticism. There are millions of people who’ve been born and raised in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries who’ve been denied citizenship due to racist, xenophobic bigotry.
Perhaps you can tell us why the "civilized " Europeans don’t care more them than the few hundred convicted murderers who’ve been executed in the last 40 years in America.
Perhaps both are wrong but I care more for the innocent millions denied citizenship in the country of their birth due to bigotry than a few hundred people executed for committing murder.
Perhaps you can point to some posts on SDMB where you’ve spoken out about this disgusting bigotry and how you’re ashamed that the “civilized” European nations don’t stand up and condemn it.
:dubious:
Clearly you’re not familiar with the history of the British Empire. You especially might want to brush up on your knowledge of Irish history.
Never mind the background. I am very familiar with the history of repression within the empire. Nevertheless, the statement is true:
“No person resident in the UK has ever been denied a vote because of the colour of their skin. People in the US were for over a century.”
Admittedly the British Empire itself was doubtful , but so far as the UK is concerned, suffrage has always been colour-blind.
Even today, any Commonwealth citizen who takes up residence in the UK (whether permanent or temporary) is able to vote in all elections.
I am aware of the German restriction on citizenship, but nothing in the Netherlands or Spain- perhaps you could explain.
The German law is not anti-black at all. German citizenship is almost always determined by heritage rather than birth. An American white person born in Germany cannot claim citizenship of Germany any more than a Turkish Gastarbeiter can. It may be xenophobic in character but it is not racist.
But that doesn’t mean that some of their actions weren’t just as bad, if not worse.
Agreed, but that is a side-step argument.
Pjen, you’re not doing our side any favours with these chauvinistic arguments.
Ibn Warraq, I’m going to need a cite for your statement that “people who’ve been born in Spain (have) been denied citizenship due to racist, xenophobic bigotry”. My initial reaction is that you don’t really understand Spain’s citizenship laws.
It lodges in people’s minds the fact that this is a moral issue like slavery or torture, not a criminal justice issue.
Race of defendants executed in the US since 1976
BLACK 473 34%
LATINO 110 8%
WHITE 771 56%
OTHER 24 2%
Seems to me like most victims of judicial killings are white. So, no strange fruit here.
Apologies if I’m wrong but my understanding is that Spain did not grant citizenship to all born in Spain.
He also seems to somehow think that “xenophobia” is somehow different and less immoral than “racism”. And I did love the “they don’t discriminate on the basis of ‘colour’ they discriminate on the basis of 'heritage”.
I’m reminded of the saying “a distinction without a difference.”
That said it is fascinating to meet someone who thinks that the Jews in Germany weren’t victims of “racism” because they weren’t discriminated based on their “colour” but on their heritage.
OK, the proportion of people executed is greatest for African Americans:
Black 34% killed population proportion 12%
Latino 8% killed 16%
White 56% killed 73%
Disproportionately the greatest figure is African Americans who kill white folk.
Cite? for Netherlands and Spain!
Xenophobia is different from Racism.
Most countries in the world define their population by being born of people born there. In countries where these are all one stock (Germany, Japan, India, China, Russia) then nationality tends to pass down genetically and hence by race. However if a child is born with one German parent (such as new African related Germans from US servicemen with German mothers, they have citizenship. Relatively few countries award citizenship by accident of birth.
Straw Man- I was talking of Modern Germany, not the Third Reich.
I believe your statement was that no one in Europe has ever been discriminated against in that manner. Are we now redefining “ever” to mean “since 1946”?
M statement was:
"“No person resident in the UK has ever been denied a vote because of the colour of their skin. People in the US were for over a century.”