cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 So...forget the Holocaust...it's a bad memory not worth dwelling on. The problem with history is that modern historians need to rewrite it in order to make a splash and be relevant. So out come the tales about how Stalingrad was actually an Allied defeat and Pearl Harbor was an inside job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 So...forget the Holocaust...it's a bad memory not worth dwelling on. The problem with history is that modern historians need to rewrite it in order to make a splash and be relevant. So out come the tales about how Stalingrad was actually an Allied defeat and Pearl Harbor was an inside job. I don't know about the kooky tinfoil hat conspiracy theories,however,My take on this is that The Holocaust was a relatively recent event.It was also,and extremely unfortunately,one of the best examples of industrialized murder based on ethnic grounds the world has ever seen.It did'nt take very long,was relatively efficient,and obviously,cold blooded. However,for sheer numbers dead,I would submit the African slave trade was equally muderous and cold blooded...The technology did'nt exist to wipe out the African race at the time,nor was that the prime intention... Both go to the dehumanizing nature of detatching oneself from reality and trying to understand the human condition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Much different motivation to the Atlantic slave trade. Sugar and tobacco, mainly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Much different motivation to the Atlantic slave trade. Sugar and tobacco, mainly. I'm thinking cheap labour (see free) more than anything...Never the less,still genocidal...It just took longer.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) I'm thinking cheap labour (see free) more than anything...Never the less,still genocidal...It just took longer.. Yes...thus the sugar and tobacco...oh, and of course King Cotton...all grown on plantations in America and the West Indies. Edited December 28, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Yes...thus the sugar and tobacco...oh, and of course King Cotton...all grown on plantations in America and the West Indies. Do you ever wonder why the Klan types always claim those who were enslaved were lazy when it was they who did all the heavy lifting?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Not so sure about being intentionally genocidal, though. Slaves were worth money to all involved including the African tribes selling them. Many died in transit especially during the early years of the Atlantic slave trade but that was due to poor conditions more than being outright killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Do you ever wonder why the Klan types always claim those who were enslaved were lazy when it was they who did all the heavy lifting?? Do they? There's something like 5000 KKK these days. Who gives a rat's rear what they think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Do they? There's something like 5000 KKK these days. Who gives a rat's rear what they think? Inbreeding is frowned upon these days... Those Klan types that pine for the Confederacy,I mean... It seems the Southern Aristocracy did'nt want to do any real labour so they went to Africa to steal it and get it for free... Who's the lazy freeloaders??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Inbreeding is frowned upon these days... Those Klan types that pine for the Confederacy,I mean... It seems the Southern Aristocracy did'nt want to do any real labour so they went to Africa to steal it and get it for free... Who's the lazy freeloaders??? The South as you well know from your studies of the US Civil War faced many uphill struggles but the hardest was a plain lack of population. As well, there was a world of difference between a Virginia land owner and a Tennessee share cropper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Not so sure about being intentionally genocidal, though. Slaves were worth money to all involved including the African tribes selling them. Many died in transit especially during the early years of the Atlantic slave trade but that was due to poor conditions more than being outright killed. This is heavily slanted towards apologist bias. This Page has a firsthand account of The Middle Passage. Although they may not have been "outright killed," it's without a doubt splitting hairs to characterize it in this way. Orlando Patterson's book Slavery and Social Death adroitly describes one of the main characteristics of slavery, regardless of what time or place it occurs, as "natal alienation." I strongly recommend this book. There is a fate worse than death and that was certainly suffered by the slaves. edit: forgot to include link Edited December 28, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 This is heavily slanted towards apologist bias. My link has a firsthand account of The Middle Passage. Although they may not have been "outright killed," it's without a doubt splitting hairs to characterize it in this way. Orlando Patterson's book Slavery and Social Death adroitly describes one of the main characteristics of slavery, regardless of what time or place it occurs, as "natal alienation." I strongly recommend this book. There is a fate worse than death and that was certainly suffered by the slaves. F--- you. I'm no apologist for the slave trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 The South as you well know from your studies of the US Civil War faced many uphill struggles but the hardest was a plain lack of population. As well, there was a world of difference between a Virginia land owner and a Tennessee share cropper. The only difference between a Virginia land owner and a Tennessee share cropper was that one was most likely educated enough to know better and the other most likely as illiterate as any African slave.... The biggest problem that held back the South was that it refused to embrace technological advancement and held on to out dated,labour intensive forms of agriculture...Not to mention,the Southern Aristocracy had more money invested in slaves than the value of the real estate they owned... A completely ass backwards society,even for that time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) The Tennessee share cropper didn't own slaves being the big difference, even though slavery was allowed in the state. The South needed these states to be pro-slavery so as to be able to legally move their property out of 'harm's way' (The Union). Edited December 28, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 The Tennessee share cropper didn't own slaves being the big difference, even though slavery was allowed in the state. No...They were too poor... Held down by the lazy and backwards aristocracy they fought thier misbegotten war for... If they had any intelligence at all,they would have backed a slave revolt a la Toussaint L'Ouverture in Haiti... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Specifics about human suffering aren't really the point though. I think the key to the article in the OP is this quote: I concluded that, after Auschwitz, history—at least the sort where historians do what they are trained to do—was certainly possible, perhaps even necessary. But, most important, it was irrelevant. This is an interesting paradox that the discipline of history needs to struggle with. How can something be necessary, but irrelevant? The article in the reminds of something else I read awhile ago about writing history. This is from Pollock & Maitland in The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I: Such is the unity of all history that any one who endeavors to tell a piece of it must feel that his first sentence tears a seamless web. Perhaps Pollock & Maitland got it wrong. Maybe there is no "unity of all history." Edited December 28, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Specifics about human suffering aren't really the point though. I think the key to the article in the OP is this quote: This is an interesting paradox that the discipline of history needs to struggle with. How can something be necessary, but irrelevant? The article in the reminds of something else I read awhile ago about writing history. This is from Pollock & Maitland in The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I: Perhaps Pollock & Maitland got it wrong. Maybe there is no "unity of all history." Is the author suggesting that the proper telling of history has been rendered irrelevent by The Holocaust,or better yet,who might be "controlling" the message??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 No...They were too poor... Poor and slavery wasn't a tradition in many Southern states no matter the legality. Not many plantations for one...these states tended to be quite wild. These states had slavery laws on the books in order to allow rich slave owners from the east an escape route for their 'property'...Texas, etc being the usual destination in a pinch (approaching Union Army, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 If they had any intelligence at all,they would have backed a slave revolt a la Toussaint L'Ouverture in Haiti... American slaves had already earned their freedom by revolting against their masters in the American Revolution. The Dunmore Proclamation granted them that in Virginia, then the Philipsbourg Proclamation later extended it for roles beyond active duty in the military and to all colonies. Black Loyalists were evacuated with other Loyalists, many of them ending up in Nova Scotia. Birchtown, NS was named after their freedom certificates (Birch Certificates). A similar thing had occurred during the War of 1812. Any slaves that made it to British forts or ships were freed and would often be put to work fighting against the Americans. So, slave revolts had been backed by the British for quite some time. In fact, this is likely the reason for Lincoln using this tactic against the South, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Poor and slavery wasn't a tradition in many Southern states no matter the legality. Not many plantations for one...these states tended to be quite wild. These states had slavery laws on the books in order to allow rich slave owners from the east an escape route for their 'property'...Texas, etc being the usual destination in a pinch (approaching Union Army, etc). I know all about the "Texas Carpetbaggers".... The KGC was very active in Texas at that time...Also Kentucky and Maryland... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Is the author suggesting that the proper telling of history has been rendered irrelevent by The Holocaust,or better yet,who might be "controlling" the message??? Some folks often claim that there needs to be objective discussion about the Holocaust and that it is being supressed by forces most powerful. But, they never seem to go beyond that and discuss the Holocaust. What's with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Some folks often claim that there needs to be objective discussion about the Holocaust and that it is being supressed by forces most powerful. But, they never seem to go beyond that and discuss the Holocaust. What's with that? I'm thinking it's a cutesy wutesy way of trying to say the cabal of "Jew controlled media" needs to be questioned??? Kinda Zundelesque if you ask me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 I'm thinking it's a cutesy wutesy way of trying to say the cabal of "Jew controlled media" needs to be questioned??? Kinda Zundelesque if you ask me... Indeed. As well, to have a fair and open discussion about the Holocaust would open a can of worms most foul in regards to the so-called Palestinians and their origins of their movement...an area where most of these folks don't like to tread. (cough cough Mufti cough cough) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Indeed. As well, to have a fair and open discussion about the Holocaust would open a can of worms most foul in regards to the so-called Palestinians and their origins of their movement...an area where most of these folks don't like to tread. (cough cough Mufti cough cough) Can of worms most foul.... You can add the other side of the two headed anti-Semitic monster of that region... The entire Pan-Arabist Ba'Athist movement that has ties to,and a historic admiration of,European Fascist idealogy (Specifically NAZI idealogy)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.