You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much? Because they’re just that evil? They could be racist without owning slaves. Hell, they ended up doing that, for a hundred years after the Civil War. Hell, the North did that before the Civil War. Much of the North was very racist at the time, though that was in the process of changing.
The South fought to protect their slaves because their economy was built on slaves.
Yes, I think the traitors who started a war to maintain slavery are evil.
Why is that a question.
What the fuck.
These people screamed at the top of their lungs that low-key 1850s racism wasn’t nearly racist enough. That any black man being a citizen was a betrayal of the entire national experiment. And for some reason you’re searching for excuses to say it was rational economic incentives.
Bigotry is bad… mmkay? Bigots themselves don’t have to think they’re evil, and twirl their moustaches, to be really fucking evil. Obvious example, Nazis. Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
The both of you are trying to rationalize the worst evils in the world, as if extraordinary bigotry isn’t thoroughly sufficient.
You in particular scoff, “You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much?” Like you cannot imagine shockingly violent conflict emerging from sheer hatred. In the south. A culture stereotyped for generational blood feuds. A region that if we’re brutally honest still has a problem with lynching.
All for “nuance.”
Nuance you’re blind to, when it’s me pointing out, people make these excuses as propaganda. The other guy dying on this hill keeps ranting about Lincoln for some reason and just coincidentally drops that well okay the war was about the business of dehumanizing misery. It’s just business! A perfectly reasonable dry bloodless economic incentive. Co-equal to, y’know, openly declaring black people subhuman. Both sides.
Again reaching for the hopefully obvious comparison: would you say the holocaust was about the Nazi desire to kill Jewish Germans…'s businesses? How seriously would you take someone’s insistence that they’re not doing apologism, when all they talk about is Japanese internment and lebensraum? “I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
“I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
Well, almost. It’s a perfectly valid thing to want to acknowledge the evil of Hitler but also the oppressive economic conditions imposed on Germany after WW1. And in a broader context, the whole buildup of HOW the Nazis gained power. They weren’t just a dark cloud of evil creatures who appeared stage right and seized power in Germany. The context is important, if for nothing else so we can learn from it.
Which is nowhere close to being a Nazi apologist.
people make these excuses as propaganda.
No one is doing that here and now. I understand being on your guard, because yes people do that. Bigots do that. Apologists do that. I agree. And when they do that, we shouldn’t get hoodwinked into discussions about nuance because they’re just a cover for making their bigoted ideas sound palatable.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism. We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots. We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance - and if we do, then we won’t recognize the buildup to it next time.
Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism.
So would the asshole claiming “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
That’s how these excuses function as propaganda. They don’t come out and say “yay evil.” But they’re still defending evil… by degrees. The nuance of their claims is kinda fucking important.
We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots.
You live on a different internet.
We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance
… reducing this to ‘well you just hate nuance’ is so goddamn ironic I’m not sure where to begin.
You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much? Because they’re just that evil? They could be racist without owning slaves. Hell, they ended up doing that, for a hundred years after the Civil War. Hell, the North did that before the Civil War. Much of the North was very racist at the time, though that was in the process of changing.
The South fought to protect their slaves because their economy was built on slaves.
AND they were racist fucks.
Both can be correct.
Yes, I think the traitors who started a war to maintain slavery are evil.
Why is that a question.
What the fuck.
These people screamed at the top of their lungs that low-key 1850s racism wasn’t nearly racist enough. That any black man being a citizen was a betrayal of the entire national experiment. And for some reason you’re searching for excuses to say it was rational economic incentives.
Bigotry is bad… mmkay? Bigots themselves don’t have to think they’re evil, and twirl their moustaches, to be really fucking evil. Obvious example, Nazis. Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
No shit, genius, thank you for that massive contribution to the conversation
Now we’ve got that out of the way, want to actually talk about what I said?
Et tu?
Discuss.
Did:
The both of you are trying to rationalize the worst evils in the world, as if extraordinary bigotry isn’t thoroughly sufficient.
You in particular scoff, “You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much?” Like you cannot imagine shockingly violent conflict emerging from sheer hatred. In the south. A culture stereotyped for generational blood feuds. A region that if we’re brutally honest still has a problem with lynching.
All for “nuance.”
Nuance you’re blind to, when it’s me pointing out, people make these excuses as propaganda. The other guy dying on this hill keeps ranting about Lincoln for some reason and just coincidentally drops that well okay the war was about the business of dehumanizing misery. It’s just business! A perfectly reasonable dry bloodless economic incentive. Co-equal to, y’know, openly declaring black people subhuman. Both sides.
Again reaching for the hopefully obvious comparison: would you say the holocaust was about the Nazi desire to kill Jewish Germans…'s businesses? How seriously would you take someone’s insistence that they’re not doing apologism, when all they talk about is Japanese internment and lebensraum? “I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
Well, almost. It’s a perfectly valid thing to want to acknowledge the evil of Hitler but also the oppressive economic conditions imposed on Germany after WW1. And in a broader context, the whole buildup of HOW the Nazis gained power. They weren’t just a dark cloud of evil creatures who appeared stage right and seized power in Germany. The context is important, if for nothing else so we can learn from it.
Which is nowhere close to being a Nazi apologist.
No one is doing that here and now. I understand being on your guard, because yes people do that. Bigots do that. Apologists do that. I agree. And when they do that, we shouldn’t get hoodwinked into discussions about nuance because they’re just a cover for making their bigoted ideas sound palatable.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism. We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots. We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance - and if we do, then we won’t recognize the buildup to it next time.
So would the asshole claiming “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
That’s how these excuses function as propaganda. They don’t come out and say “yay evil.” But they’re still defending evil… by degrees. The nuance of their claims is kinda fucking important.
You live on a different internet.
… reducing this to ‘well you just hate nuance’ is so goddamn ironic I’m not sure where to begin.
How about with you not hating nuance? Because it’s kind of sounding like you do.
Maybe you just have trouble identifying real racism from discussions about racism. In that case I would suggest therapy.