Slavery and Segregation vs. Holocaust

i saw sparks:

But is that not basically the same implication, just sugar-coated? There's no way you can honestly say that one form of hatred somehow "did more damage" than the other because that hatred, persecution, and discrimination of both races were equally devastating, and each had great cultural significance

This is where I disagree. I understand why so much defense is being taken, but there's always more damage done in similar events, especially when dealing with time. It's almost like invasion of America versus invasion of Britain. Which do you believe caused more damage? I know for sure invasion of America did because you almost never see a Native American true to their culture, language and all in the states, and their numbers are dying out. Although Britain's ancient culture, language and etc. have been completely demolished, they're population wasn't wiped out like the Native American's therefore the damage was not as severe.

i saw sparks:

And you ignored the fact that Hebrew people have also been enslaved (by Africans, might I add), so the suffering of African slaves can't really be made out to be any worse because the Jews have experienced the exact same thing except they were persecuted because of their religion, not the color of their skin, which is equally disgusting. Slavery is not solely a caucasian European on a plantation in the pre-Civil War southern US owning African American slaves; many cultures have been victims to slavery, and to imply that somehow the more well-known slavery that I mentioned before is somehow worse/more damaging/greater suffering than all the other cultures and races that have been enslaved across the world is just ridiculous, I'm sorry.

What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about two different subject matters and two different numbers here. I am solely talking about Slavery and Segregation vs. The Holocaust, not other peoples slavery. I made it clear later on that I was referring to slavery in America. And Jews weren't just "of Jewish race" since you want to say that it's a race. I must tell you that some of the first Jews were in fact black. But most wouldn't know that or even care to know.

i saw sparks:

I think it's just as equally hateful and disgusting to try to make it out as if one people's suffering was somehow more significant/worst/had a greater impact than the other, when it's practically the same thing. I don't know, I just find it completely incomprehensible as to why anyone would want to say one race has experienced more hatred than the other as if that somehow makes them more entitled. Actually, I find the entire topic of this thread to just be fueling and justifying hate with more hate. To brush off the Holocaust or slavery as if it's nothing is something I just can't wrap my mind around.

But to everything disgusting, there's an ugly truth... right? You find it incomprehensible, but I'm sure some of the things you do, say and believe would be disgusting and "incomprehensible" just as equally to this. But some of us humans can be so full of ourselves that we miss some of the things we say that aren't acceptable to other people. Did you even read what my first post on the whole debate said in the first place? And who the fuck heck said anything about brushing of The Holocaust? But it's whatever, I realized that's something you do quite often in debates.

i saw sparks:

The idea that this is some sort of "olympics of suffering" and that either Jews or African Americans have gone home with the gold is just utter bullshit, and I can't even imagine how anyone could honestly and efficiently debate that one somehow suffered more than the other. Hell, what about the Native Americans? If we're comparing hatred, racism, and discrimination here, why haven't the Native Americans come into play? I mean, they were practically forced off their own land by the US government, and I do believe the Trail of Tears was just as much an act of hate as slavery and segregation were?

Well, this was not created for them... right? There's already a thread about them, and if there weren't there still would be because I would have made one. Also, I said something about them earlier in this comment.

i saw sparks:

Also, I disagree with the notion you keep trying to bring up that somehow the Holocaust is discussed more in schools than African American enslavement and segregation. Growing up in the beautiful state of South Carolina, I learned just as much, if not more, about the Underground Railroad, the Antebellum period, the Civil War, Jim Crow laws, and other aspects of segregation, because they're all deeply embedded in the state's history, than I did about the Holocaust and World War II, so I find that implication that one is somehow drawn upon more to be unfounded. And on international terms, of course the Holocaust and World War II are going to be taught more because it had more of a global reach and an effect on more countries than just the enslavement and segregation of African Americans in the good ole US of A.

Hmm.... South Carolina....
Anyway, tell me how and why it had a more global affect on countries? Because the media was better at that time where it could be spread to other countries? Or was it a deeper, more uglier meaning behind it? Explain that to me because I honestly don't see how it would have a more "global" affect. No, I know the answer, if not the first thing I said, it must be the second.

Your anger shows through a lot in this comment. A lot of profanity and passion. I can feel something deeper than you words, it's right there in-front of my face and with almost every comment you have towards me.

ayanasioux:

This is where I disagree. I understand why so much defense is being taken, but there's always more damage done in similar events, especially when dealing with time. It's almost like invasion of America versus invasion of Britain. Which do you believe caused more damage? I know for sure invasion of America did because you almost never see a Native American true to their culture, language and all in the states, and their numbers are dying out. Although Britain's ancient culture, language and etc. have been completely demolished, they're population wasn't wiped out like the Native American's therefore the damage was not as severe.

Your analogy falls completely flat. Invasions are not an act of hatred or discrimination; invasions are driven by financial gain and the acquisition of land and resources. I don't see what invasions of two countries have to do with slavery, segregration, or the Holocaust.

ayanasioux:

What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about two different subject matters and two different numbers here. I am solely talking about Slavery and Segregation vs. The Holocaust, not other peoples slavery. I made it clear later on that I was referring to slavery in America. And Jews weren't just "of Jewish race" since you want to say that it's a race. I must tell you that some of the first Jews were in fact black. But most wouldn't know that or even care to know.

Well, if you're going to make it out that the African American race has had it "so much more worse" throughout history, paint the entire portrait, not just the facts that you want to acknowledge. Fact is, neither slavery/segregation nor the Holocaust was truly a single occurence, both acts stemmed from racism/hate/anti-semitism that were well into place before each event occured or else none of this history would've taken place at all, so yes, I do think that the enslavement of Jews in Egypt is relevant because it shows that the Jews have endured constant persecution throughout history as African Americans have.

And though Judaism applies to the religion, Hebrew is in fact a race, and there are prominent physical traits that are carried down with that race, such as dark hair and eyes, a more prominent nose, and a higher frequency of predisposition to several genetic disorders such as Tay Sachs and Bloom Syndrome. The existence of an Ashkenazi race is not up for discussion because it does in fact exist. Personally, I am of Ashkenazi descent, but I don't practice Judaism, so that in itself shows that it's more than "just a religion."

ayanasioux:

But to everything disgusting, there's an ugly truth... right? You find it incomprehensible, but I'm sure some of the things you do, say and believe would be disgusting and "incomprehensible" just as equally to this. But some of us humans can be so full of ourselves that we miss some of the things we say that aren't acceptable to other people. Did you even read what my first post on the whole debate said in the first place? And who the fuck heck said anything about brushing of The Holocaust? But it's whatever, I realized that's something you do quite often in debates.

Not really, and I don't like the way you're trying to imply that I'm somehow secretly racist when I am not. There isn't a single shred of racism in any of my posts on this thread, but yet there are multiple blatantly racist statements made by yourself throughout the thread. Maybe you have this hatred towards white people, but that doesn't mean everyone is racist or prejudice. Honestly, any form of prejudice or discrimination sickens me on a human level because I am a human being foremost, so witnessing another human being experiencing unjust hatred disgusts me, no matter what race, religion, sexual orientation, or beliefs they may have.

And I'm sorry, but I see the way you constantly try to make the Holocaust appear as if it is a "lesser suffering" as brushing it off, quite frankly.

ayanasioux:

Well, this was not created for them... right? There's already a thread about them, and if there weren't there still would be because I would have made one. Also, I said something about them earlier in this comment.

You obviously missed the point of my post completely. I don't care what the thread was created for (the fact that it was even created disgusts me), I was illustrating my point that there is no way you can honestly compare undeserved human suffering as if it's a title to be earned in the olympics: whoever has experienced the most hatred wins the right to hold it above everyone else's head.

ayanasioux:

Hmm.... South Carolina....
Anyway, tell me how and why it had a more global affect on countries? Because the media was better at that time where it could be spread to other countries? Or was it a deeper, more uglier meaning behind it? Explain that to me because I honestly don't see how it would have a more "global" affect. No, I know the answer, if not the first thing I said, it must be the second.

Your anger shows through a lot in this comment. A lot of profanity and passion. I can feel something deeper than you words, it's right there in-front of my face and with almost every comment you have towards me.

Yeah, I don't like the way you're implying that because I'm from the South (the first state to secede from the union, to be exact) that I'm inherently racist. That's prejudice in itself right there.

World War II (which the Holocaust was a part of) was a world war. It affected multiple countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and both North and South America. It was a global war, while the American Civil War (which African American enslavement was a part of) only affected one country: the US. That's how World War II had a more global effect.

And I don't know if you read my post, but where are all these profanities I've used? The only thing even close to a profane word I used was "hell" once, which is a lot less profanity than I've seen you use over the course of this discussion. And yes, I am passionate, I'm passionate because I feel that the amount of racism and hatred used over the course of this debate is immoral, and I'm very big about sticking up for what I believe is unjust.

And delving further back into this discussion...

ayanasioux:

A lot of people like to say that race doesn't matter (mostly white people) that is until you personally are a different race.

It's true, race doesn't matter to me. I see human beings as individuals and not just the color of their skin. And I do find it very unfair to say that caucasians do not experience racism; they do. I've been the butt of many jokes due to my "Jew nose" and my fair skin. In fact, I remember an instance in which an African American girl in my Economics class in high school told me that my "white skin was disgusting" and that it was "unnatural to be able to see my veins through my skin." How is that not hatred? How is that not racism? Can I help having fair skin or a large nose? No. Do I go around deeming all African Americans as "cruel" or "racist" because of a few instances of hate I've experienced from them? No, I don't because I can't see a way to justify hate on either parts.

So yeah, despite what you deem as popular belief, it is possible to judge an individual as a whole and not just by the color of their skin/their religious beliefs/their sexual orientation/etc.

ayanasioux:

Ya'll know I'm black right? One time my family went inside this restaurant named Your House. We walked in there and there was nothing but white people everywhere, not a black face in sight. And they looked at us as if it were the antebellum. They looked like they were getting ready to call up the KKK or a lynch mob to handle our black asses. We walked right out of there.

Yeah, that's racism right there against caucasians. Just because a restaurant has only white customers does not mean that all those caucasians are members of the Klan, are racist, and/or want to gather up a lynch mob. Honestly, that assumption is almost as racist as it would have been if the restaurant was truthfully hosting a KKK meeting.

ayanasioux:

I see these confederate flags all over the fucking place.

Jsyk, confederate flag ≠ racism. Sure, a lot of people use it in a racist manner, but the flag in itself is not racist. I view the confederate flag as more of an embelm of the Civil War, of the lives lost on both sides, and as a symbol of Southern heritage and pride. I'm sure a good bit of my own ancestors and those of others fought on the side of the South, and I see no problem in honoring them with the flag. The Civil War was about more than just slavery, and honestly, I'm tired of the racist stigma that people have burdened the flag with.

Another black-on-white example of racism: my older brother bought me a long-sleeved t-shirt from the company Dixie Outfitters (similar to this one) for Christmas a couple years back, and on the back, the shirt features the company's name is cursive script, along with a basketful of chocolate labrador puppies gnawing on a worn confederate flag. One day last winter, I wore this shirt to Walmart to grab some groceries, and as I was heading back to my car, a middle-aged African American lady began yelling obscenities at me for no reason, throwing around accusations that I was a racist because I have white skin and because my shirt had a confederate flag on it. I'm sorry, but that's a very racist assumption to make, that just because I am white and was wearing that shirt I must be racist. No, far from it, I just have pride in my southern heritage, and I see nothing wrong or inherently racist about that.

And honestly, you keep trying to make this a personal thing and make it out to be like I have this grudge or vendetta against you, and as I've said in previous discussions, I do not know you, so I have nothing against you as a person. I do, however, have a major problem with a lot of the racist comments you've made, both in this thread and throughout the site, and I do have a problem with the topic of this thread for the reasons I've stated in the first comment I made. And tbh, I find it extremely petty that you try to brush off my comment as if I only made it because I have "a personal problem with you." That simply is not the case. Reading over previous pages in this thread, I understand that you created this thread based on the sole purpose of proving a point, and I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with the point you're trying to prove. I don't think that one act of suffering is any greater or has had more impact than another.

i saw sparks:

Jsyk, confederate flag ≠ racism. Sure, a lot of people use it in a racist manner, but the flag in itself is not racist. I view the confederate flag as more of an embelm of the Civil War, of the lives lost on both sides, and as a symbol of Southern heritage and pride. I'm sure a good bit of my own ancestors and those of others fought on the side of the South, and I see no problem in honoring them with the flag. The Civil War was about more than just slavery, and honestly, I'm tired of the racist stigma that people have burdened the flag with.

I really just can't understand how the concept of 'Southern pride' works in relation to the Civil War. How can somebody honour their heritage as a people who've murdered and enslaved millions of people and fought against democratic principles? How do crimes against humanity even fit in the same sentence as 'heritage'? How can you seriously say that the Confederate flag is 'burdened with racist stigma' by ignorant African Americans? It's a symbol routinely used by people who actively supported not just racism, but genocide! To claim that African Americans are racist when they get upset because you are proud that your ancestors thought proving that African Americans are subhuman was so important they were willing to die for it is just outrageous.

Edit: Also, I invite everyone who has a strong stomach to have a look at the website of Dixie Outfitters, I think everybody will agree that screaming obscenities is not an exaggerated reaction to it. Never mind its general painfully blatant racism, its shameless mockery of the sufferance of many thousand African Americans who were forced by the Confederate government to fight in the Civil War alone is too disgusting for words.

Mr W. H.:

I really just can't understand how the concept of 'Southern pride' works in relation to the Civil War. How can somebody honour their heritage as a people who've murdered and enslaved millions of people and fought against democratic principles? How do crimes against humanity even fit in the same sentence as 'heritage'? How can you seriously say that the Confederate flag is 'burdened with racist stigma' by ignorant African Americans? It's a symbol routinely used by people who actively supported not just racism, but genocide! To claim that African Americans are racist when they get upset because you are proud that your ancestors thought proving that African Americans are subhuman was so important they were willing to die for it is just outrageous.

I don't think I'm wrong in wanting to honor my heritage as a Southerner because that's who I am, it's part of my identity, it's how I was born and raised. I think it's very unfair to pin the entire whole of slavery on the southern portion of the US while the entire country killed multitudes of people, and even in the Civil War, certain Northern states were still allowed to have slaves while all the Southern states had slavery abolished. I'm in no way, shape, or form saying that slavery was a moral or even okay thing, but it just isn't right or correct to say that slavery is somehow the South's fault.

Also, as I mentioned above, the Civil War was not only about slavery, so I see no problem with wanting to honor my ancestors that fought. And I'm just going to throw this site into the mix

And never once did I say that the flag is burdened with racist stigma by "ignorant African Americans," it's burdened by racist stigma by everyone and the media. The flag in itself is not racist; just because hate organizations such as the KKK have adopted it as one of their symbols does not in any way make the flag inherently racist.

And yes, I do believe that stereotyping someone because they are white and because they wear a shirt with puppies gnawing on a Confederate flag is racist, but no one wants to acknowledge that caucasians are also the victims of racism. Honestly, the way you brushed off my instance of being discriminated against was hurtful; I am not racist, and I don't see how wearing a shirt with a Confederate flag (which has nothing to do with racism) suddenly makes me this white biggot. Maybe I should just become one, since everyone already stereotypes me as one because I have fair skin, am from the state of South Carolina, and have a Southern drawl Yeah, that's not judging anyone based on a stereotype at all

And also, I'm sorry, but I see nothing on the Dixie Outfitters page that is offensive or "stomach-wrenching" in any way. I don't think a t-shirt with a pink pick-up truck or a buck's head on it (or the blue jeans I'm looking at right now) could be misconstrewed to be offensive. As I see it, the company is using the flag in the same way that I see it, as a form of Southern pride and heritage. Also, I never once made a mockery of slavery or African American suffering, so please tell me how I am so deserving to be cussed out in the middle of a Walmart parking lot by a stranger who knows nothing about me or my stance on racism? How is that not prejudice in itself?

And I find it very difficult to believe that because I am Southern, I'm somehow not allowed show pride in where I've come from. The entire United States of America forced Native Americans off their land and crammed them into reservations, so that must mean that wearing an American flag and showing patriotism is immoral as well, yeah? Let's apply that logic onto more than just the South, which gets enough undeserved hatred as it is.

i saw sparks.:

Your analogy falls completely flat. Invasions are not an act of hatred or discrimination; invasions are driven by financial gain and the acquisition of land and resources. I don't see what invasions of two countries have to do with slavery, segregration, or the Holocaust.

How the hell does it fall flat? I don't understand how that wasn't a good analogy. Both of them can have painstaking affects, some more painful than others. Native American's death from the small pox given to them purposely in blankets and deaths due to moving from their land and changing their culture and not being accepted by the American people is more painstaking than the native Britons just losing their language and culture. So I don't see how that isn't a good analogy.

i saw sparks.:

Well, if you're going to make it out that the African American race has had it "so much more worse" throughout history, paint the entire portrait, not just the facts that you want to acknowledge. Fact is, neither slavery/segregation nor the Holocaust was truly a single occurence, both acts stemmed from racism/hate/anti-semitism that were well into place before each event occured or else none of this history would've taken place at all, so yes, I do think that the enslavement of Jews in Egypt is relevant because it shows that the Jews have endured constant persecution throughout history as African Americans have.

And though Judaism applies to the religion, Hebrew is in fact a race, and there are prominent physical traits that are carried down with that race, such as dark hair and eyes, a more prominent nose, and a higher frequency of predisposition to several genetic disorders such as Tay Sachs and Bloom Syndrome. The existence of an Ashkenazi race is not up for discussion because it does in fact exist. Personally, I am of Ashkenazi descent, but I don't practice Judaism, so that in itself shows that it's more than "just a religion."

I guess you missed this.

And I'll tell you 100 more times that Jew is not a race, it is a religion. It doesn't matter where most of them live, it's still not a race. Most Muslims live in Africa, does that mean Muslim is a race? No! A white person can be Muslim, how would they have similar traits as a African?

i saw sparks.:

Not really, and I don't like the way you're trying to imply that I'm somehow secretly racist when I am not. There isn't a single shred of racism in any of my posts on this thread, but yet there are multiple blatantly racist statements made by yourself throughout the thread. Maybe you have this hatred towards white people, but that doesn't mean everyone is racist or prejudice. Honestly, any form of prejudice or discrimination sickens me on a human level because I am a human being foremost, so witnessing another human being experiencing unjust hatred disgusts me, no matter what race, religion, sexual orientation, or beliefs they may have.

And I'm sorry, but I see the way you constantly try to make the Holocaust appear as if it is a "lesser suffering" as brushing it off, quite frankly.

There's always an ugly truth, whether you like it or not.

Everyone is prejudice, it's just that not everyone knows it yet.
And who said anything about racism? There was no way that I was implying that you were racist, so I don't understand where in your mind that came from. But I see where your mind is at. And I was simply referring to how you tend to put words in my mouth during debates. Especially since you keep talking this... stuff about me "brushing The Holocaust off" when all I'm trying to say is that I believe Slavery and segregation did more damage than The Holocaust. Love it or hate it, it's what I believe and if I believe it, then it's true. It's not like it's something that can be proven or something that's a thought, it's a belief and you can't prove beliefs.

i saw sparks:

You obviously missed the point of my post completely. I don't care what the thread was created for (the fact that it was even created disgusts me), I was illustrating my point that there is no way you can honestly compare undeserved human suffering as if it's a title to be earned in the olympics: whoever has experienced the most hatred wins the right to hold it above everyone else's head.

I won't lie to you, I barely read the post because I saw no point of it. The point of creating forums is to talk about a specific subject. I didn't want to compare every human's suffering in this thread, that is why I was specific about what I wanted to discuss.

i saw sparks.:

World War II (which the Holocaust was a part of) was a world war. It affected multiple countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and both North and South America. It was a global war, while the American Civil War (which African American enslavement was a part of) only affected one country: the US. That's how World War II had a more global effect.

And I don't know if you read my post, but where are all these profanities I've used? The only thing even close to a profane word I used was "hell" once, which is a lot less profanity than I've seen you use over the course of this discussion. And yes, I am passionate, I'm passionate because I feel that the amount of racism and hatred used over the course of this debate is immoral, and I'm very big about sticking up for what I believe is unjust.

And delving further back into this discussion...

But people in WWII were fighting for different reasons and most of the reasons had nothing to do with The Holocaust, especially since no one truly knew about it for the longest time. So my first thought on why it was so "affective" is because of the huge advancement of the media.

i saw sparks.:

It's true, race doesn't matter to me. I see human beings as individuals and not just the color of their skin. And I do find it very unfair to say that caucasians do not experience racism; they do. I've been the butt of many jokes due to my "Jew nose" and my fair skin. In fact, I remember an instance in which an African American girl in my Economics class in high school told me that my "white skin was disgusting" and that it was "unnatural to be able to see my veins through my skin." How is that not hatred? How is that not racism? Can I help having fair skin or a large nose? No. Do I go around deeming all African Americans as "cruel" or "racist" because of a few instances of hate I've experienced from them? No, I don't because I can't see a way to justify hate on either parts.

So yeah, despite what you deem as popular belief, it is possible to judge an individual as a whole and not just by the color of their skin/their religious beliefs/their sexual orientation/etc.

Okay, this is an insult to me. Race will always matter. Nobody said anything about race mattering to everybody, but it does matter to many. This is a sheer example of how much race DOES matter and how it implies to many decisions we make and actions we take.

And when I said mostly white people have said it to me, that's exactly what I meant.

i saw sparks:

Yeah, that's racism right there against caucasians. Just because a restaurant has only white customers does not mean that all those caucasians are members of the Klan, are racist, and/or want to gather up a lynch mob. Honestly, that assumption is almost as racist as it would have been if the restaurant was truthfully hosting a KKK meeting.

It's a "hahaha" think, Jesus Christ. And why are you bringing up old ass shit as if it still applies? And you weren't there so you don't see how it seemed that way.
___
And to be honest, I really don't like debating with you because you have a tendency of taking something that I say and blowing it way out of context to make it sound much worse than it was intended to be.

I don't care what any of you southerners say, it's not like you can take a flag or symbol and just pull out any of the things it represents out of it, and act like it's okay. No matter how you put it, one of the things the confederate flag will always symbolize is the support or slavery. Don't care if the person wearing it is racist or not, it still symbolizes that. I was born and raised in the antebellum south, also, but I'm from Maryland.

i saw sparks:

I don't think I'm wrong in wanting to honor my heritage as a Southerner because that's who I am, it's part of my identity, it's how I was born and raised. I think it's very unfair to pin the entire whole of slavery on the southern portion of the US while the entire country killed multitudes of people, and even in the Civil War, certain Northern states were still allowed to have slaves while all the Southern states had slavery abolished. I'm in no way, shape, or form saying that slavery was a moral or even okay thing, but it just isn't right or correct to say that slavery is somehow the South's fault.

But you honour your heritage as a Southerner as somebody who supported slavery. That doesn't make any sense. You can honour it in other ways, the same way German people honour their German heritage in other ways than by sporting swastikas. If you're so proud of the South, you surely must have other things that tie you to it culturally than the Civil War? If so, why would you need to express your heritage simply through the South's involvement in the Civil War?

Quote

Also, as I mentioned above, the Civil War was not only about slavery, so I see no problem with wanting to honor my ancestors that fought. And I'm just going to throw this site into the mix

That's about as absurd as saying that wearing a swastika does not show that you support Nazi ideology because the swastika as a symbol originated in India and had nothing to do with anti-semitism. Symbols do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in culture and they take on the meaning that culture gives them, not the meaning that they had hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

Quote

And never once did I say that the flag is burdened with racist stigma by "ignorant African Americans," it's burdened by racist stigma by everyone and the media. The flag in itself is not racist; just because hate organizations such as the KKK have adopted it as one of their symbols does not in any way make the flag inherently racist.

Why do you think the KKK adopted it?

Quote

And yes, I do believe that stereotyping someone because they are white and because they wear a shirt with puppies gnawing on a Confederate flag is racist, but no one wants to acknowledge that caucasians are also the victims of racism.

You don't seem to understand what the word 'racism' means. It doesn't mean to stereotype someone, it means to institutionally oppress them for centuries. Your wearing a Confederate flag on your shirt does that to African Americans because as a privileged person (and don't tell me you're not privileged, because you are) you're saying 'after all this time and all the lives you've wasted fighting for equal rights, I still think slavery was a good idea and support the South's fight to maintain it'.

Quote

Honestly, the way you brushed off my instance of being discriminated against was hurtful;

Because you were not discriminated against.

[Edited by an admin.]

[Edited by an admin.]

Quote

And also, I'm sorry, but I see nothing on the Dixie Outfitters page that is offensive or "stomach-wrenching" in any way. I don't think a t-shirt with a pink pick-up truck or a buck's head on it (or the blue jeans I'm looking at right now) could be misconstrewed to be offensive. As I see it, the company is using the flag in the same way that I see it, as a form of Southern pride and heritage. Also, I never once made a mockery of slavery or African American suffering, so please tell me how I am so deserving to be cussed out in the middle of a Walmart parking lot by a stranger who knows nothing about me or my stance on racism? How is that not prejudice in itself?

Have you read the whole website? Because it has very, very many pages about Southern 'history' in which the website claims that slaves fought alongside their masters in the Civil War because they wanted to protect their Southern way of life (which, for slaves, was obviously slavery).

Quote

And I find it very difficult to believe that because I am Southern, I'm somehow not allowed show pride in where I've come from. The entire United States of America forced Native Americans off their land and crammed them into reservations, so that must mean that wearing an American flag and showing patriotism is immoral as well, yeah? Let's apply that logic onto more than just the South, which gets enough undeserved hatred as it is.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be proud of where you come from, but that you shouldn't be proud of where you come from because where you come from supported genocide and slavery. I'm proud of where I come from, but I'm certainly ashamed by the fact that we let the Holocaust happened. It doesn't make any sense to me to take pride in everything that your ancestors did simply because they were your ancestors. If you have a mature attitude towards your heritage and sincerely value it, you should be able to criticize your ancestors and realize that some of the things they did were bad and reflect what your area/country/culture is about very badly. But you should under no circumstance take pride especially and almost exclusively in the bad things they did. That can't be a genuine desire to take pride in your cultural heritage, just a poor disguise for racism.

ayanasioux:

And I'll tell you 100 more times that Jew is not a race, it is a religion. It doesn't matter where most of them live, it's still not a race. Most Muslims live in Africa, does that mean Muslim is a race? No! A white person can be Muslim, how would they have similar traits as a African?

You're right, Jewish is not a race, but it's not just a religion either. It's probably considered to be a racial subgroup. Ashkenazi Jews (who make up 80% of the world's Jewish population) are originally from the Middle East, so they can look quite different from other Europeans.

Of course, people can convert to Judaism (although it can be quite hard to, so I don't think it's a popular thing to do). Also, people who come from Jewish families and have 'Jewish' genes can convert to another religion or become athiest. It is possible to be (ethnically) Jewish without practising Judaism.

---

I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know if anyone else has brought this up. Aside from comparing 300 years to 4, why is this thread named 'Slavery and Segregation vs. Holocaust'? What about the Segregation of the Jews in 1930s Germany? The Nuremberg Laws meant that Jews lost their German Citizenship (even if their families had lived there for centuries) and banned them from marrying (or even just having a relationship with) a 'German'. They were forced to wear the yellow Star of David and weren't allowed to use public transport, own bicycles or shop at non-Jewish shops. If that isn't considered to be segregation, I don't know what is.

White Russian Doll:

You're right, Jewish is not a race, but it's not just a religion either. It's probably considered to be a racial subgroup. Ashkenazi Jews (who make up 80% of the world's Jewish population) are originally from the Middle East, so they can look quite different from other Europeans.

Of course, people can convert to Judaism (although it can be quite hard to, so I don't think it's a popular thing to do). Also, people who come from Jewish families and have 'Jewish' genes can convert to another religion or become athiest. It is possible to be (ethnically) Jewish without practising Judaism.

And Islam isn't easy to convert to either. Anyone can practice some Muslim traditions and call themselves "Muslim" when truthfully that aren't. I just wanted to say that so you wouldn't pull some "I know some Muslims... yada" out the air.

White Russian Doll:

I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know if anyone else has brought this up. Aside from comparing 300 years to 4, why is this thread named 'Slavery and Segregation vs. Holocaust'? What about the Segregation of the Jews in 1930s Germany? The Nuremberg Laws meant that Jews lost their German Citizenship (even if their families had lived there for centuries) and banned them from marrying (or even just having a relationship with) a 'German'. They were forced to wear the yellow Star of David and weren't allowed to use public transport, own bicycles or shop at non-Jewish shops. If that isn't considered to be segregation, I don't know what is.

Yes, you should read most of the thread between me and I saw sparks to understand what I really meant to make the thread title. Too late to change it now though.

Mr W. H.:

Have you read the whole website? Because it has very, very many pages about Southern 'history' in which the website claims that slaves fought alongside their masters in the Civil War because they wanted to protect their Southern way of life (which, for slaves, was obviously slavery).

Sooo I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I was lurking a little bit and this point caught my attention because I heard this piece on the radio in April and I found it very interesting. Basically the gist is that there were in fact, black soldiers in the Confederate Army who fought of their own free will. The man interviewed is the grandson of such a soldier, and he says he would do the same if presented with such a situation.

/Just wanted to point that out.

prosthetic shoulder:

Sooo I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I was lurking a little bit and this point caught my attention because I heard this piece on the radio in April and I found it very interesting. Basically the gist is that there were in fact, black soldiers in the Confederate Army who fought of their own free will. The man interviewed is the grandson of such a soldier, and he says he would do the same if presented with such a situation

/Just wanted to point that out.

Slaves were impressed during the Civil War in several states (namely, Florida, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) - but that does not mean that they fought in the Confederate Army of their own free will. Private property can be impressed during times of crisis for the use of the public good and slaves were treated like any other kind of property. Beside that, very many slaves joined their masters in the conflict as servants (and what Wikipedia tells me about Nelson Winbush suggests that was the case here, but, well, it's just Wikipedia). Towards the end of the war when the Confederate army ran out of soldiers, it finally passed legislation which allowed the enlistment of African Americans as soldiers. Slaves who enlisted were promised freedom after the war - but only if their owner gave his written approval for it. That's definitely not what I would call participating in the conflict of their own free will.

The grandfather of the man who talked on the radio died when he was 5, claiming that he can remember accurately what his grandfather said is a bit ridiculous. There are many reasons why people try to change what is recognized by almost everybody as historical truth -especially when the people trying to claim that slaves were sincerely loyal to their masters haven't witnessed their friends and family being beaten to death for no other reason than the fact that their skin colour was darker than that of a person who didn't like them

Mr W. H.:

Slaves were impressed during the Civil War in several states (namely, Florida, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) - but that does not mean that they fought in the Confederate Army of their own free will. Private property can be impressed during times of crisis for the use of the public good and slaves were treated like any other kind of property. Beside that, very many slaves joined their masters in the conflict as servants (and what Wikipedia tells me about Nelson Winbush suggests that was the case here, but, well, it's just Wikipedia). Towards the end of the war when the Confederate army ran out of soldiers, it finally passed legislation which allowed the enlistment of African Americans as soldiers. Slaves who enlisted were promised freedom after the war - but only if their owner gave his written approval for it. That's definitely not what I would call participating in the conflict of their own free will.

The grandfather of the man who talked on the radio died when he was 5, claiming that he can remember accurately what his grandfather said is a bit ridiculous. There are many reasons why people try to change what is recognized by almost everybody as historical truth -especially when the people trying to claim that slaves were sincerely loyal to their masters haven't witnessed their friends and family being beaten to death for no other reason than the fact that their skin colour was darker than that of a person who didn't like them.

Even non-enslaved black men in the south were coerced into fighting with threats of death and discriminatory laws. They may have had some perverted version of choice on the surface, but they lacked any legal protection to ensure they truly had free will.

I watched a documentary about reparations in the south awhile ago (I tried finding a clip to post I thought was interesting- it was about a modern day black man who marches through Tennessee every day in a confederate uniform, and it was on NBC or CNN I think, if anyone knows what I'm talking about.) but it also addressed how many black soldiers eventually were "honored" with a uniform and allowed to progress through army ranks, at which point they weren't slaves anymore.... but that shouldn't be used as a flag for free will or loyalty to slave owners, as they were initially forced into service. I also think there is a huge assumption that their service came as a result of loyalty to slave owners, rather than loyalty to the men they fought along with every day.

I was wrong, the guy I'm thinking of is H. K Edgerton, and he's from North Carolina, and the documentary was an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Not quite the same, but his views are still interesting and rather surprising.


He starts at 1:30.

Mr W. H.:

Slaves were impressed during the Civil War in several states (namely, Florida, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) - but that does not mean that they fought in the Confederate Army of their own free will. Private property can be impressed during times of crisis for the use of the public good and slaves were treated like any other kind of property. Beside that, very many slaves joined their masters in the conflict as servants (and what Wikipedia tells me about Nelson Winbush suggests that was the case here, but, well, it's just Wikipedia). Towards the end of the war when the Confederate army ran out of soldiers, it finally passed legislation which allowed the enlistment of African Americans as soldiers. Slaves who enlisted were promised freedom after the war - but only if their owner gave his written approval for it. That's definitely not what I would call participating in the conflict of their own free will.

The grandfather of the man who talked on the radio died when he was 5, claiming that he can remember accurately what his grandfather said is a bit ridiculous. There are many reasons why people try to change what is recognized by almost everybody as historical truth -especially when the people trying to claim that slaves were sincerely loyal to their masters haven't witnessed their friends and family being beaten to death for no other reason than the fact that their skin colour was darker than that of a person who didn't like them.

Yes, I know that, and for the most part I agree with you. I was simply pointing out that the school of thought arguing that there were slaves who freely enlisted in the Confederate army is not solely made up of racist white people trying to make their slave-owning ancestors look good, and that it is possible that a person who is at least 1/4 black to feel a sense of pride in the Confederacy. The issue is not as, er, black and white as you previously implied.

ayanasioux:

I've heard a lot of people say that they believe that the holocaust is worse than slavery and segregation and whatnot and personally, I find this kind of surprising.

What do you people think?

I think both are horrible...

My family came from the deep South, so, therefore, yes, my family owned slave, but from what's been passed down my family treated their slaves like family too...so, you have to think not all slaves were abused by their owners...when they were freed alot stayed with their masters because they loved them too much to leave them...Slavery isn't right whatsoever in my mind to clear up anything I've said that might make people think I'm ok with it...I'm just saying all people ever see is the slaves that were beaten and starved, but that's not the truth...there were a good handful that were loved and treated well, and in defense of the people who owned slaves most of them had grown up with slaves and didn't know it was wrong to enslave a person, and then later the stigma against blacks...whites didn't really know any better because they had grown up with that fear and hate.

The Holocaust on the other hand was horrid beyond horrid...there were really no happy endings for the victims of it. I've read countless books on death camps and what they did to those people, and it makes me ill. They conducted experiments on people, they forced twins to breed with one another, rape happened, torture, starvation...it was demonic what happened to them...the people who did that were monsters who knew better.

My point is that both were very wrong, but one case knew better than to commit their crime and the other did not.

God Eat God:

I think both are horrible...The Holocaust on the other hand was horrid beyond horrid...there were really no happy endings for the victims of it. I've read countless books on death camps and what they did to those people, and it makes me ill. They conducted experiments on people, they forced twins to breed with one another, rape happened, torture, starvation...it was demonic what happened to them...the people who did that were monsters who knew better.

My point is that both were very wrong, but one case knew better than to commit their crime and the other did not.

Funny you say that, those same things happened to enslaved African Americans (minus the experiments because it was before the industrialization era).

^It is really unfortunate that people don't realize the extent of the horror slaves endured just because there aren't substantial visualizations (photos, videos, etc.) of it, whereas there are of the Holocaust. And many of the situations they experienced are strikingly similar. Which is why I might understand (not agree with) why people say the Holocaust is "worse", because we have very visual depictions of it, and still can hear firsthand accounts of it. That being said, I don't think visual depictions mean anything more than other mediums. I just think a lot of people are more easily stricken by it.

ayanasioux:

Funny you say that, those same things happened to enslaved African Americans (minus the experiments because it was before the industrialization era).

I know they happened to them too...I know my history. I didn't say those things didn't happen to them also, but some were also treated very well unlike Holocaust victims.

^Actually, there are also Holocaust victims who were treated better than others/granted special privileges, like artists/musicians/craftsmen who could perform duties for the guards. They where therefore promised safety (a promise not necessarily fulfilled) as well as other rewards, such as special housing. meals, etc.

God Eat God:

The Holocaust on the other hand was horrid beyond horrid...the people who did that were monsters who knew better.

My point is that both were very wrong, but one case knew better than to commit their crime and the other did not.

If they were "monsters" they probably wouldn't, in fact, know any better because they had no moral compass. And many Nazi war criminals "justify" their crimes by saying they were "just following orders" (aka "they didn't know any better"), and many young Nazi soldiers were spoon fed antisemitic propaganda from childhood (aka "they didn't know any better"). All I'm saying is that "defense" works both ways, and I really don't see it as any sort of justification/excuse for their actions.

I don't think you can even compare the two. They are both, obviously, extremely horrific in their own rights. No need to compare.

Or, there's the Holocaust of German South-West Africa that combines the two.
It's sad to know how people who vacation there & camp out are on the graves of thousands of dead Herero people & have no clue. Imagine people doing this at Buchenwald or Auschwitz? Or, really, how most people don't know about the Herero wars at all & don't know how un-unique Nazi policies truly were.