double post

danivon

Anyways, in neither case were we saying that the CSA were the Nazis

Why don't you think a comparison is apt?
The African Slave trade was a far bigger blight on humanity than the short lived Nazi regime.
The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside America. Approximately 1.2 – 2.4 million Africans died during their transport to the New World.[65] More died soon upon their arrival. The number of lives lost in the procurement of slaves remains a mystery but may equal or exceed the number who survived to be enslaved.[66]

The savage nature of the trade led to the destruction of individuals and cultures. The following figures do not include deaths of enslaved Africans as a result of their labour, slave revolts, or diseases suffered while living among New World populations.

Historian Ana Lucia Araujo has noted that the process of enslavement did not end with arrival on the American shores; the different paths taken by the individuals and groups who were victims of the Atlantic slave trade were influenced by different factors—including the disembarking region, the kind of work performed, gender, age, religion, and language.[67]

A database compiled in the late 1990s put the figure for the transatlantic slave trade at more than 11 million people. For a long time, an accepted figure was 15 million, although this has in recent years been revised down. Estimates by Patrick Manning are that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans likely died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning's estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

Although its true that many nations were engaged in slaving, and Brazil was the last western nation to enslave people - the CSA was the only democratic nation to enshrine slavery in its constitutions and fight a war in order to maintain slavery. A war that killed more in the field than any other in which the US participated and as a percentage of the US population was by far the worst.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ies_of_war

I think it can be reasonably argued that the African slave trade, the CSA, the Civil War, and the preceding years of American participation in slavery accounted for a greater human tragedy than the Nazis. Making a comparison between the CSA and Nazis apt.

That a comedy television show (Dukes) would casually use a symbol of racism is not an excuse for the symbol. Its a comment on the casual acceptance of the experience of slavery and racism as less than its reality. The end of the use of the Confederate flag in the US similar to the end of the use of Nazi symbols marks an understanding perhaps.

danivon wrote:Well, unfortunately for you, we don't have to take your "belief" as fact. We have our own opinions. On the question of whether the soldiers agreed with the leaders' purpose in a war, it is analogous. Especially when those soldiers are conscripts (and the South did use a draft from 1862).

Germany wanted to conquer the world. Confederates fought "The War of Northern Aggression."

However, any number of southern blacks are saying they don't see it as a symbol of oppression. I don't believe it belongs on government buildings, but I don't think it is on par with the Swastika.

Is this "any number" likely to be anything close to the number of southern black people who do see it as a symbol of oppression?

I think if we put it to a vote, you might not get the numbers you expect. Yes, that's just opinion. Still, I think it's worth a vote. Right now, there's a stampede fueled by hysteria.

Should a government fly the flag of an enemy on it's government buildings?

Steve, I am only speaking about government buildings. I agree that most rebels were not fighting for slavery, but states rights. The diatribe about slavery, Brazil and death rates have nothing to do with this issue.

If a person want a flag that is offensive to some on their own property, fine. I have zero problem with it. If a neighbor posts the rainbow flag, I support their right to post it in their property, regardless of the moral offensiveness I feel from it. However, it the rainbow flag flew over a government building there is a big problem.

Double posted

rickyp wrote:danivon

Anyways, in neither case were we saying that the CSA were the Nazis

Why don't you think a comparison is apt?

A comparison is apt. An equivalence is not. Also, the Nazis were totally responsible for what they did in the 12 years they controlled Germany and the nations it invaded. The CSA was only responsible for what they did in the 4 years or so it existed before it was defeated. The USA before it, indeed even up to 1865, also allowed institutionalised slavery to continue and so is just as culpable as the CSA for the slavery that was happening between 1783 and 1861 (all the CSA did was to inherit their share of it).

You and DF are arguing both ends of an extreme case - either the CSA and Nazis are "the same" or they are "totally different". Between you, you have formed a lovely black-and-white argument, one that creates the fallacy of the excluded middle. The CSA can be "compared to" the Nazis. I never said otherwise.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:danivon

Anyways, in neither case were we saying that the CSA were the Nazis

Why don't you think a comparison is apt?

A comparison is apt. An equivalence is not. Also, the Nazis were totally responsible for what they did in the 12 years they controlled Germany and the nations it invaded. The CSA was only responsible for what they did in the 4 years or so it existed before it was defeated. The USA before it, indeed even up to 1865, also allowed institutionalised slavery to continue and so is just as culpable as the CSA for the slavery that was happening between 1783 and 1861 (all the CSA did was to inherit their share of it).

You and DF are arguing both ends of an extreme case - either the CSA and Nazis are "the same" or they are "totally different". Between you, you have formed a lovely black-and-white argument, one that creates the fallacy of the excluded middle. The CSA can be "compared to" the Nazis. I never said otherwise.

Well put. And the U.S. inherited slavery from England.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Well, unfortunately for you, we don't have to take your "belief" as fact. We have our own opinions. On the question of whether the soldiers agreed with the leaders' purpose in a war, it is analogous. Especially when those soldiers are conscripts (and the South did use a draft from 1862).

Germany wanted to conquer the world. Confederates fought "The War of Northern Aggression."

So? My point is that the soldiers of the nation are not the same as the leaders. And the reasons why leaders take their nations to war are not to be judged on whether the soldiery agreed with them or not. And in both cases, many of the soldiers were drafted/conscripted, and so their opinions are irrelevant in that sense.

That is where the analogy begins and ends.

I think if we put it to a vote, you might not get the numbers you expect. Yes, that's just opinion. Still, I think it's worth a vote. Right now, there's a stampede fueled by hysteria.

Do we need a vote? How about polling (taken before the attack on the church this month)?

From 2013: https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/10/1 ... rate-flag/

There is also, unsurprisingly, a divide between the opinions of white Americans and black Americans towards the meaning of the Confederate flag. Many white people (42%) believe that the flag is primarily a symbol of Southern pride, while many black people (38%) see it as being exclusively a symbol of racism, while another 28% of black Americans view it as both a symbol of racism and a symbol of Southern pride.

Does not demarcate black Americans by where they live, but shows that 66% of them see it as being a symbol of racism.

When asked whether or not it is right to display the Confederate flag in public places, many leaned towards disapproval (38%), or having no preference (34%). Only 20% of people said that they approve of displaying the Confederate flag in public places. Significantly, a majority of black Americans - 54% - disapprove of flying the confederate flag in public places, while only 12% approve.

Again, not demarcated by location, but a significant majority of black Americans disapprove of it being flown publicly.

Interestingly, approval for flying the flag in public was (marginally) higher in the North East than it was in the South.

This poll from 2014 about the actual flag in question: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-g ... 17458.html

The Confederate flag remains a racially divisive symbol in South Carolina more than a decade after a bitter feud ended with it being moved to the State House’s grounds from atop its dome.

Most whites say the rebel banner should continue flying on the State House grounds; most African Americans say it should be removed, according to an exclusive Winthrop poll asked for The State.

Overall, 61 percent of South Carolinians said the flag should continue to fly where it is, while 33 percent say it should not.

When broken down by race, three out of four whites – 73 percent – said the flag should continue flying, while 61 percent of blacks said it should come down.

These figures are pretty unsurprising.

The poll also asked respondents to rate their feelings on the flag. The results showed that nearly a third of South Carolinians have neutral feelings about the flag.

“Most people in the middle see it as a historical marker,” said Winthrop’s Huffmon.

But nearly 60 percent of blacks felt negatively about the flag, most of them very negatively. Thirty-seven percent of whites felt positively about the flag compared with 26 percent who felt negatively.

Again, I don't see this as being particularly surprising.

Now, do you really think that a "vote" or a poll of black Americans in the Southern states would show much difference today?

Ray Jay wrote:Well put. And the U.S. inherited slavery from England.

I was going to mention the pre-US history and noticed that rickyp had already.

Yes, England (and to a lesser extent France and Spain) left a legacy of slavery in North America (those countries along with the Netherlands and Portugal also installed it in Central and Southern America). Scotland was not blameless either (the events that triggered the Acts of Union in 1707 include the failed attempt by Scots to set up a colony in Darien [Panama], and slave trading was part of that scheme).

We for our part as European slave traders and owners were "industrialising" the existing trade in slaves in Africa - as well as enslaving natives of places we colonised in the Americas. The CSA was just the last in a long line of slaver nations in the continental US. Cuba (under Spain) continued for even longer.

And the U.S. inherited slavery from England.

This is only partially true. Partially in the sense that the colonists in the Americas who enthusiastically took up the institution of slavery originated from England. Slavery was outlawed in England itself in 1102 but the colonial legislatures were autonomous and many of them voted to allow slavery in their territories. I'm not sure you can really blame this on England per se, it was very much a decision taken by the colonists.

I guess you could blame us for giving you guys too much freedom, but that's not an argument many Americans care to make...

Slavery was outlawed in England itself in 1102

news to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles

Somersett's case in 1772 held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.

In 1102, the Church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals.

Owen, are you saying that slavery was outlawed in England because the Church outlawed it, even though the Church was not in power of England? If so, that seems a little too much obfuscation for me.

It's certainly debatable, but many hold that there's a long-standing common law tradition forbidding the trade in slaves which dates from that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law

In 1102 the Council of Westminster held in London issued a decree: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals." The legislative force of this decree is not certain;[5] it was intended to abolish the trading of serfs in London, but the decree is sometimes cited as authority for the proposition that trading in slaves became illegal in England at that date.

Of course, serfdom was still a thing back then and wasn't done away with for a long time, so the practical impact of this has to be called into question. It's certainly the case that slaves were not held in England by the time that we began colonising the Americas though. Initially the labour force for the plantations came from indentured servants, who were essentially poor people who signed a contract for a fixed period of labour in return for the cost of their passage. I suppose you could make a comparison between this and slavery, but it's clearly very different. The colonies were well established by the time they began importing African slaves. They were Americans in all but name.

Danivon

The CSA was only responsible for what they did in the 4 years or so it existed before it was defeated. The USA before it, indeed even up to 1865, also allowed institutionalised slavery to continue and so is just as culpable as the CSA for the slavery that was happening between 1783 and 1861 (all the CSA did was to inherit their share of it)

.
As if the States that favored slavery are not responsible for their laws and practices prior to the rebellion?
The CSA represented most of the American States that allowed slavery for most of the period that slavery existed in the US. If the flag represents a "heritage", it includes the heritage that lead to the CSA's creation.
The state governments that made up the eventual CSA are largely responsible for the existence and are also responsible for the creation of a war that killed 2.5% of the American population.
The Nazis did not cause that kind of damage to the US.

Equivalent? In terms of how the US was affected, no. The States that had legal slavery, and then rebelled were far more damaging to American citizens than the Nazis. (Especially the black citizens)So, from an American perspective - worse.

ray Jay

Well put. And the U.S. inherited slavery from England

Portugal started the African slave trade....
And England did all the heavy lifting in ending the African Slave Trade.(With some assistance from the American Navy, BTW) Including paying off Portugal and Spain to end it in their possessions.
Despite the English blockade of Africa, states in the US that were later CSA kept importing slaves right up to 1860. Illegally since the US government had outlawed importation of slaves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition ... y_timeline

The reference to 1102 is right. Though the Magna Carta was more important.

It's interesting to speculate about what may have happened if the American colonies had not rebelled. It would have meant that when slavery was eventually outlawed in the British Empire the slave holders in the colonies would have had to be compensated for the loss of their 'property' (as were the remaining slave owners in the rest of the empire). This would have more than tripled the ultimate cost, and may very well have caused Parliament to get cold feet on the issue. You guys could have held up the abolition of slavery for years...