Neutrality in History IS a bias.

[Zinegata]

In that vein, where does Sparta fit into the hierarchy of evil historical nations?

They practiced a very brutal form of slavery that would rank them alongside South African Apartheid at best - if we were to judge them by modern standards.

By the standards of the time period however, Sparta wasn't very unusual in having slaves as most ancient-era nations practiced slavery. Their brutality towards the Helots - which included periodic raids to murder young male Helots - still made them a class of their own.

On the other hand, the Spartans were largely insular and didn't go off genociding their neighbors. As far as I know, they also largely adhered to the Greek rules of war which included honoring even the enemy dead. So they don't reach the level of cold-blooded extermination of enemies that the Romans or the Mongols practiced, or the simple wanton destruction of the Huns.

I'd put them worst than most of the other ancient-era slave-owning states, but not as bad as the "Genocide! Exterminate!" states.

[Zinegata]

There were a number of reasons why they South wasn't going to win the war in the long run. A lot of these factors had to do with the actual South itself. These factors combined with the fact that the South in and of itself had no practical navy to speak of.

A key problem is FOOD. An army lives on being well fed. In the 19th century, this means that meat had to be constantly preserved and delivered to the battlefields. But the South depended on evaporation techniques for salt production (the North ironically had salt mines) and these ponds were vulnerable to naval attack. Later in the war, Sherman's march to the sea didn't help the food situation any.

The biggest reason why the South wasn't going to win was because their wealth was invented. The South was technically richer than the North at the start of the war.

However, much of this "wealth" was actually in the form of counting the number of slaves they had and multiplying it by the slave's dollar value, which had ballooned by 1860.

In real war fighting terms however, this "wealth" amounted to nothing. Slaves will generally not fight for the people trying to keep them slaves unless considerable concessions are granted, which the South was never going to grant for fear of it triggering the dissolution of slavery.

Even if the South had unlimited food, they would have lost. Their government was corrupt and incompetent. They had no industry to speak of. They seriously had one real ironworks to make all of their cannons and railroads from, and only one real gunpowder mill. Purchasing from abroad was not feasible without a navy, which the South did not possess.

[K]

I'm amused that people keep trying to tease out fine distinctions between how terrible the Nazis are as compared to the South.

There seriously is a certain level of evil where your nation/regime gets to live in infamy forever and then you get to be used as a caricature to frighten schoolchildren.

The horrors of American-style slavery are so great that they reach that level. Let's not pretend that the South's stated decision to defend that practice doesn't put them among the worst of history's villains.

Because such distinctions are in fact important. The Nazi regime is specifically reviled not only because it is part of recent memory, as some would claim, but because of the systematic genocide of millions of people is a very specific moral wrong that is hugely frowned upon by civilization.

Like it or not, the destruction of an entire race is different from the enslavement of an entire people. If you are not willing to draw distinctions between different types of evil, then you devalue the magnitude of the crimes of the worst villains in history. Any idiot can then argue that modern-day America is a criminal regime on the same level as Nazis because of incidents such as Mai Lai, but they'd be wrong because there's a difference between one massacre and the systematic genocide of an entire people.

In short, it works the other way too. If you start calling everyone evil then truly evil acts start losing meaning.

Only if you take it to the insane extreme.

If you are making over-simplifications like comparing everything bad to Nazis, then you aren't making distinctions at all and are trying to diminish various evils. No one arguing in good faith does that because it's obviously nonsense.

Broad distinctions between various levels of evils is useful, but fighting over the details to get to a fine distinction between two genocides and/or institutional slavery systems just gives ammunition to the apologists and the people flagellating themselves to myths of a past that never was.

[Zinegata]

Only if you take it to the insane extreme.

If you are making over-simplifications like comparing everything bad to Nazis, then you aren't making distinctions at all and are trying to diminish various evils. No one arguing in good faith does that because it's obviously nonsense.

Broad distinctions between various levels of evils is useful, but fighting over the details to get to a fine distinction between two genocides and/or institutional slavery systems just gives ammunition to the apologists and the people flagellating themselves to myths of a past that never was.

Slavery and genocide are not "fine distinctions". This is why when apartheid fell, you got Truth and Reconciliation Trials. At the end of World War 2, you got Nuremberg. These distinctions are in fact hugely important not only from a historical perspective, but as a matter of international law.

Neither is pointing out the context of the regime a "fine distinction". Are you really going to argue that a Spartan should have rebelled against the existing social order and established a liberal state with no slavery... when a no-slavery state doesn't even really exist for its time period? Of course not.

Ignoring these details would only make people ignorant of history, and of what pitfalls to avoid. That's how you get people to think that the South was fighting the war because it was made up entirely of inbred racist rednecks, when the the issue was as much about the rich abusing their power to institutionalize racism and slavery so that they could keep and expand their wealth and power

A fine distinction would be something as insignificant as South Africans giving their blacks 8 hours of free time as opposed to 6 hours for the South as proof the South "isn't as evil and therefore absolved of its crimes". That's really just BS cherry picking.

[K]

The only "lesson of history" that needs to be remembered from this thread is that slavery and genocide are evil.

Apologize for the South as much as you like, but the distinction is clear. Comparing and contrasting WWII slavery and genocide with it is just a way of trying to muddle the issue as a prelude to excusing it.

The fact that you are literally doing it your post by trying to pretend that the culture of the South was not totally for slavery despite few people getting the benefit is a disingenuous ruse. It's no different than when conservatives today vote in tax breaks for the rich despite the profound lack of wealth of a vast majority of them... it shows that the culture is corrupt even when only a few gain the benefit.

It's counter-intuitive that people would support a power structure that does not benefit them, but history has proven that it happens all the time and those people should be blamed for it.

[violence in the media]

The thing I find funniest about this whole conversation is the amount of white knighting for Old Dixie being done by non-southerners.

[Gx1080]

Those who don't want to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Not to muddy the issue, but without fine distinctions weren't the North and the South equally evil given that the entire US succeeded in the marginalization and genocide of the First Nations Peoples?

[Gx1080]

@CatharzGodfoot

Kind of, but then everybody that lives in one place is because their ancestors genocided those who lived there before.

And then you get to the depressing reality that the world is an amoral place that rewards proffessional bullshitters and sociopaths.

So, don't think about that much.

[tzor]

All I submit is that mass murder of jews is evil, and mass enslavement of people because of their skin color is (nearly) equally so. And if you want to try to argue that with me, you have problems.

That (nearly) is important here. Without that I would definitely argue. With it, I'll just nit pick. I would also add one point to your nearly. One people clearly went out of their way to find people to murder; like Pokemon they wanted to capture and kill them all. This wasn't true in the case of the South and Slavery, sure they loved to buy from the market while it existed but they weren't looking to enslave every African on the continent.

[PoliteNewb]

That (nearly) is important here. Without that I would definitely argue. With it, I'll just nit pick. I would also add one point to your nearly. One people clearly went out of their way to find people to murder; like Pokemon they wanted to capture and kill them all. This wasn't true in the case of the South and Slavery, sure they loved to buy from the market while it existed but they weren't looking to enslave every African on the continent.

Then you have problems...like, serious mental problems. I almost didn't include that "nearly", and it really is not that important. Trying to argue that it's meaningful is like saying, "but I only raped her twice, and I didn't hit her at all!". Trying to draw fine distinctions between clearly abhorrent acts is pointless, and only makes you look bad.

[Chamomile]

Fine distinctions between abhorrent acts are actually an important thought experiment, for me, at least, because while I'll probably never be in a position to have much impact on slavery or genocide, generally training myself to think about how bad things are relative to each other helps me make effective moral decisions. So, for me, here's what this thought experiment boils down to: If I could remove the holocaust or Southern slavery from history forever without significantly altering the course of history in any other way (i.e. if I prevent the holocaust, we still get all the benefits of Nazi rocket scientists and such, because of magic), which one do I get rid of?

And I'd say punting slavery is the right thing to do, because it affected more people and because dying in chains seems just as bad as dying in a gas chamber, and having to work on a plantation for a few decades first doesn't really seem like it improves the deal.

[tzor]

Chamomile, that’s a completely different question. Leaving aside the problem that the question is moot because it is impossible (unfortunately, the only school that teaches man as a whole is the school of fucking hard knocks), I would have to say African American Slaves first, and the European Jews second only because there are more of the former as you have to include many generation after generation and also the potential impact on those who were left behind in Africa.

[tzor]

Then you have problems...like, serious mental problems.

The Italian word canale (plural canali) can mean "canals" (including artificial canals or ducts) or "channels" or "gullies". The first person to use the word canale in connection with Mars was Angelo Secchi in 1858, although he did not see any straight lines and applied the term to large features —for example, he used the name "Atlantic Canale" for what later came to be called Syrtis Major Planum. By the early 20th century, improved astronomical observations had revealed the "canals" to be an optical illusion, and modern high resolution mapping of the Martian surface by spacecraft shows no such features. Many people would attribute "intelligence" to those "canals" and in one sence that was true; it was the intelligence of the observer to see patterns in a blurry image of practically nothing.

So if you "see" mental problems, perhaps they are merely in the eyes of the observer. Just saying.

[Chamomile]

Chamomile, that’s a completely different question.

What? How? If one of them is worse than the other, then that's the one you'd want to be rid of. And yeah, the question isn't directly relevant, but the drills they put you through in basic training aren't directly killing any brown people, either. Doesn't mean they aren't helpful for the cause.

[tzor]

What? How? If one of them is worse than the other, then that's the one you'd want to be rid of. And yeah, the question isn't directly relevant, but the drills they put you through in basic training aren't directly killing any brown people, either. Doesn't mean they aren't helpful for the cause.

Removing something from history has nothing to do with someone else's guilt in the matter. Do you save the person from the car whose gas pedal stuck or from the car whose driver is deliberately trying to run over the person? At that point that doesn't matter. I would say that ideally, the Black Plague would get a higher priority over the two events being discussed and there no one is really "at fault" (other than those idiots who had all the cats killed because they thought there were cat worshipers in the community).

[sabs]

Except that the black Plague is one of the reasons that Europe is being hit by aids with less fervor, than Africa.

People who are descended from groups who got, and then survived the black plague, seem to be immune to HIV. It gets into their blood stream, and gets the crap beat out of it.

[Maj]

Except that the black Plague is one of the reasons that Europe is being hit by aids with less fervor, than Africa.

People who are descended from groups who got, and then survived the black plague, seem to be immune to HIV. It gets into their blood stream, and gets the crap beat out of it.

Citation please.

[virgil]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 031005.php

Their findings are saying that 10% of Europeans have resistance, and it's concentrated in Scandinavia and Russia. As a counter to it, those same people more vulnerable to West Nile Virus.

[Maj]

Very interesting theory. Thanks.

[A Man In Black]

Because such distinctions are in fact important. The Nazi regime is specifically reviled not only because it is part of recent memory, as some would claim, but because of the systematic genocide of millions of people is a very specific moral wrong that is hugely frowned upon by civilization.

You don't have to be a passive-aggressive asshole while misrepresenting my argument. The point was not about abstract measures of which nation is more or less evil, just about how time and historical presentation change the way people think about things. You all can have your (extremely dumb) argument about Which Historical Nation Is The Most Evil, just don't be disingenuous douches, please.

[PhoneLobster]

have your (extremely dumb) argument about Which Historical Nation Is The Most Evil, just don't be disingenuous douches, please.

Phonelobster now presents "Interesting intellectual exercises. Does this look like one?"

The "intellectual exercise" presented by the aggregate of pro slavery posters like Tzor went like...

"They are NOTHING LIKE the Nazis, not even the same order of magnitude!"
"OK so they are the same order of magnitude. But they meant well"
"OK so their intentions were worse but they didn't go as far a field to find victims"
"OKAY so they went EVEN FURTHER to find victims, but they are infinitesimally less bad than Nazis in some as yet undefined but for some reason suddenly very important way!"
"Hey look! Oppressed native Americans!"

I suggest that is not an interesting intellectual exercise that is flat out apologist revisionist bullshit trying to cover up the vast evil of the civil war South. The ENTIRE discussion they presented has been in defense of slavery every step has been a fighting retreat in the face of being embarrassingly wrong and clearly in support of outright evilness. Why fight so hard? Why DOES Tzor love slavery so much?

[Zinegata]

The only "lesson of history" that needs to be remembered from this thread is that slavery and genocide are evil.

Oh, I see. So let us ignore how it happened. So that we may blindly steer a course right back to further slavery and genocide.

Apologize for the South as much as you like, but the distinction is clear. Comparing and contrasting WWII slavery and genocide with it is just a way of trying to muddle the issue as a prelude to excusing it.

Again, you have to be an absolute retard to think that comparing the South to Apartheid is portraying them as heroes. Or that thinking systematic extermination is the same as systematic subjugation.

Still, you made my day with this statement:

The fact that you are literally doing it your post by trying to pretend that the culture of the South was not totally for slavery despite few people getting the benefit is a disingenuous ruse. It's no different than when conservatives today vote in tax breaks for the rich despite the profound lack of wealth of a vast majority of them... it shows that the culture is corrupt even when only a few gain the benefit.

It's counter-intuitive that people would support a power structure that does not benefit them, but history has proven that it happens all the time and those people should be blamed for it.

So, you are advocating that we call Americans corrupt and greedy because they allowed their banks to screw over the world financial system? That those people who lost their homes and jobs because of the mortgage crisis are just as much to blame as the bankers who cooked the books? (And do note I was deliberately pursuing the corruption of the rich Confederates tangents to show how little has changed even in the present)

Because hey, the Southeners who didn't own slaves were complicit in the system of slavery! Therefore, those who lost their mortgages are complicit in the bank scandal too and must share equal blame!

That's insane and silly, and pretending the world is easily black and white aids no one. There are differing levels of blame, and this is again hugely relevant in both historical examination and international law.

In the present case, you send the corrupt bankers to jail. You try to help the people they scammed.

Sure, you can easily argue that most people in the South are racist (all of America was very racist in that time period). But are you really going to put as much blame on a poor Alabaman farmer, as a rich plantation owner who's a member of the slave-owning class? There is a reason why not every member of the Nazi party was sentenced to death.

Because really, if that were the case then the world should really hate every single American they meet on the street for all the shit your country has pulled over the past decade. Iraq War? That ain't Bush. That's on every American's shoulder, even the ones who went to Iraq to be human shields.

[Zinegata]

You don't have to be a passive-aggressive asshole while misrepresenting my argument. The point was not about abstract measures of which nation is more or less evil, just about how time and historical presentation change the way people think about things. You all can have your (extremely dumb) argument about Which Historical Nation Is The Most Evil, just don't be disingenuous douches, please.

I was not replying to you.

I was replying to K, who was blatantly lying about what I was saying. Again, if you're a fucking moron who cannot tell that "exterminate a people" is quite a bit worst than "subjugate a people", because in the latter case the subjugated people at least gets to live and has a chance at freedom later, then you should restrict yourself to grade school history; because history is full of really dark shit and one can easily make the argument that everyone's ancestor is some kind of monster unless you're ready to take a cold, hard look at the nature of evil.

Slavery is evil. Genocide is evil. But unless you are ready to have an actual mature discussion on the nature of evil you have no place barging into an argument and shouting "There are only two boxes! Good and evil!" That's being an asshole.

Like it or not, distinctions are important. Both in terms of history and as matters of international law.

[Zinegata]

Not to muddy the issue, but without fine distinctions weren't the North and the South equally evil given that the entire US succeeded in the marginalization and genocide of the First Nations Peoples?

Pretty much.