Race, lets make this serious! It is nearly 2013.

[Vrede too]

So, if the willing participants in a massive system that knowingly and intentionally slaughtered millions and destroyed entire cultures don't FEEL like it's their fault we should cut them some slack, right? I guess I'm just not as sympathetic as y'all are.

In other words, I reject your insistence that we get into the heads of the slave owners and traders and try to UNDERSTAND where their vile acts were coming from. To me, it's sufficient to look at the results in Africa, the Caribbean and Brasil. And even here it's not like slavers allowed African religion and culture, even the slaves' actual names, to continue to exist - that's genocide.

I missed the reference cite about the "...knowingly and intentionally slaughtered millions and destroyed entire cultures..."

Which of the assertions are you challenging, the certainty of the millions that died or the undeniable effect of these deaths on West African culture and of the repression of historical Black culture on those that survived as slaves?

Atlantic slave trade: Human toll

The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside the Americas. "More than a million people are thought to have died" during their transport to the New World according to a BBC report. More died soon after 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.

The trade led to the destruction of individuals and cultures....

... Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young....

African conflicts
(lengthy discussion of how African society was forever altered)

Effect on the economy of West Africa
(huge impacts)

Legacy of racism

Walter Rodney states:

The role of slavery in promoting racist prejudice and ideology has been carefully studied in certain situations, especially in the USA. The simple fact is that no people can enslave another for four centuries without coming out with a notion of superiority, and when the colour and other physical traits of those peoples were quite different it was inevitable that the prejudice should take a racist form.

Eric Williams argued that "A racial twist [was] given to what is basically an economic phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery."

Similarly, John Darwin writes "The rapid conversion from white indentured labour to black slavery... made the English Caribbean a frontier of civility where English (later British) ideas about race and slave labour were ruthlessly adapted to local self-interest...Indeed, the root justification for the system of slavery and the savage apparatus of coercion on which its preservation depended was the ineradicable barbarism of the slave population, a product, it was argued, of its African origins".

Hasn't someone argued that, "you can make a very good case for Black genocide during Jim Crow and the eugenics experiments"? They don't exist without Black enslavement.

[billy.pilgrim]

Thanks for supporting my point; those Indians were victims of genocide - they tried to starve them by killing off the buffalo. But the buffalo weren't killed for being buffalo - they were killed for being food.

Did I? Sounds like you're saying that you have to accept the exterminators' perspective on the matter in order to define "genocide". Ewww. Indians weren't massacred for being Indian, they were massacred for being on the "wrong" land. Thus, no genocide, right?

And in labor law, too, intent matters. If you don't know how to calculate overtime and you don't pay your people correctly, the penalty is two years of back pay. If you intentionally short your employees, the penalty goes back three years and is double the amount shorted.

If a workforce is entirely White it's deemed discrimination without examining the validity of "more qualified" claims with each hire. Same with an entirely male management.

IMNVHO, you guys are chasing the wrong rabbit. Many, if not most, slave owners and traders were cruel inhumane people, but clearly they didn't try to kill off their merchandise for being merchandise. But you can make a very good case for Black genocide during Jim Crow and the eugenics experiments.

So, if the willing participants in a massive system that knowingly and intentionally slaughtered millions and destroyed entire cultures don't FEEL like it's their fault we should cut them some slack, right? I guess I'm just not as sympathetic as y'all are.

In other words, I reject your insistence that we get into the heads of the slave owners and traders and try to UNDERSTAND where their vile acts were coming from. To me, it's sufficient to look at the results in Africa, the Caribbean and Brasil. And even here it's not like slavers allowed African religion and culture, even the slaves' actual names, to continue to exist - that's genocide.

No one said cut anyone any slack. I'm pretty sure I said more than once words like horrendous. I see this as a sort of piling on victimhood, conflating everything lessens an understanding of the truth.
Let the word Slavery describe the horrors. I see what you're saying. Sure, there's a connection, but they aren't the same. Let what we did to the NAs, what Hitler and others have done be described also as horrendous.

[billy.pilgrim]

... slaves in this country worked seasonal crops and were needed year after year. They lived a lifespan not that dissimilar to whites.

https://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnome ... evity.html

"Despite the harsh living conditions of slavery, reconstruction and twentieth century separatism, Black older adults in the United States have continued to grow stronger and live longer. Some estimates placed the average longevity of Blacks at 21.4 years of age in 1850, with the average longevity for Whites at age 25.5. The combination of lower living standards, greater exposure, heavier labor, and poorer medical care gave slaves a higher mortality rate than whites. In 1860, 3.5 percent of the slaves and 4.4 percent of the Whites were over sixty. The death rate was 1.8 percent for the slaves and 1.2 percent for Whites (Stamp, 1965, p. 77).

These conclusions should not be accepted uncritically. The findings are based upon comparisons of aggregate data collected at the national level by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1850. Mortality data at the state level, for example in Virginia, for the same year did not show the same results. Savitt (1978, p. 201) found evidence that “more slaves than whites died of old age” between 1853 and 1860 in four Virginia counties. This suggests that some Black older adultslived longer than older Whites, at least in those counties. It was also reported that there were more centenarians among Blacks than Whites in 1850 (Savitt)."

I find it hard to believe that slavers were reporting slave death rates accurately, especially things like infant deaths, accidental deaths, and the results of slaver or escaped slave chaser brutality. And, I'll bet that the cruelest of masters never reported any data at all. It's not like slaves were in a position to do their own reporting or were being surveyed directly in 1850.

http://www.csun.edu/~sjs25580/history.h ... for%20them....

You're citing a "History Paper" by a frosh at California State, Northridge.
http://www.csun.edu/%7Esjs25580/index.html

Do you really think that a black slave had a much different life expectancy than a poor white, say a Tarheel?
And tax records recorded slaves.

[billy.pilgrim]

So, if the willing participants in a massive system that knowingly and intentionally slaughtered millions and destroyed entire cultures don't FEEL like it's their fault we should cut them some slack, right? I guess I'm just not as sympathetic as y'all are.

In other words, I reject your insistence that we get into the heads of the slave owners and traders and try to UNDERSTAND where their vile acts were coming from. To me, it's sufficient to look at the results in Africa, the Caribbean and Brasil. And even here it's not like slavers allowed African religion and culture, even the slaves' actual names, to continue to exist - that's genocide.

I missed the reference cite about the "...knowingly and intentionally slaughtered millions and destroyed entire cultures..."

Which of the assertions are you challenging, the certainty of the millions that died or the undeniable effect of these deaths on West African culture and of the repression of historical Black culture on those that survived as slaves?

Atlantic slave trade: Human toll

The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside the Americas. "More than a million people are thought to have died" during their transport to the New World according to a BBC report. More died soon after 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.

The trade led to the destruction of individuals and cultures....

... Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young....

African conflicts
(lengthy discussion of how African society was forever altered)

Effect on the economy of West Africa
(huge impacts)

Legacy of racism

Walter Rodney states:

The role of slavery in promoting racist prejudice and ideology has been carefully studied in certain situations, especially in the USA. The simple fact is that no people can enslave another for four centuries without coming out with a notion of superiority, and when the colour and other physical traits of those peoples were quite different it was inevitable that the prejudice should take a racist form.

Eric Williams argued that "A racial twist [was] given to what is basically an economic phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery."

Similarly, John Darwin writes "The rapid conversion from white indentured labour to black slavery... made the English Caribbean a frontier of civility where English (later British) ideas about race and slave labour were ruthlessly adapted to local self-interest...Indeed, the root justification for the system of slavery and the savage apparatus of coercion on which its preservation depended was the ineradicable barbarism of the slave population, a product, it was argued, of its African origins".

Hasn't someone argued that, "you can make a very good case for Black genocide during Jim Crow and the eugenics experiments"? They don't exist without Black enslavement.

I said eugenics, but not JC. Eugenics was about deleting undesirable traits as seen by very white people. JC was more like slavery. Convict Labor was slavery.

Keep in mind too, that slavery was part and parcel African long before any slavers landed on the west coast.

[Vrede too]

Do you really think that a black slave had a much different life expectancy than a poor white, say a Tarheel?
And tax records recorded slaves.

I'm skeptical whether racist assholes that enslave other humans are honest with the tax man. Plus, were infants and children even taxable and thus reported?

Your own source states that life expectancy for Whites was over 19% greater than for Blacks, and I'm saying that the data collection was suspect in a way that can only make that disparity greater.

... Hasn't someone argued that, "you can make a very good case for Black genocide during Jim Crow and the eugenics experiments"? They don't exist without Black enslavement.

I said eugenics, but not JC.

I was replying to and quoting O Really.

Eugenics was about deleting undesirable traits as seen by very white people....

Would not have been applied the way it was without Black enslavement.

Keep in mind too, that slavery was part and parcel African long before any slavers landed on the west coast.

That's a common white supremacist statement. In fact, Europeans placed the traditional and localized institution of slavery on steroids.

[Ulysses]

IMNVHO, you guys are chasing the wrong rabbit. Many, if not most, slave owners and traders were cruel inhumane people, but clearly they didn't try to kill off their merchandise for being merchandise. But you can make a very good case for Black genocide during Jim Crow and the eugenics experiments.

Eugenics for sure was about eliminating the undesirable traits in humans (traits mostly found in undesirable non-white races), but Jim Crow was mainly about keeping a race subservient - or a slave in fact only.

True, but one could make an argument that during the Jim Crow era, there were quite a few efforts made to eradicate Black people entirely. I just think the argument that slavery was genocide is like saying pickleball is like tennis. Yes, it's played on a court, using raquet-type things and a ball, but that doesn't make it tennis.

Can we at least agree that both slavery and eugenics are extremely wrong, inhuman, and should be banned from the face of the earth?

[O Really]

Can we at least agree that both slavery and eugenics are extremely wrong, inhuman, and should be banned from the face of the earth?

I don't think there's any argument from anyone there.
Although, if the eugenics people figured out how to gene splice rednecks, I might vote for it.

[Vrede too]

Can we at least agree that both slavery and eugenics are extremely wrong, inhuman, and should be banned from the face of the earth?

I don't think there's any argument from anyone there.
Although, if the eugenics people figured out how to gene splice rednecks, I might vote for it.

I was going to tell Useless that I might be okay with limited, specific, retroactive eugenics. You have a broader vision than me.

[Ulysses]

Can we at least agree that both slavery and eugenics are extremely wrong, inhuman, and should be banned from the face of the earth?

I don't think there's any argument from anyone there.
Although, if the eugenics people figured out how to gene splice rednecks, I might vote for it.

I will assume by "gene splice rednecks" you mean eliminate them from the gene pool, right?

Because gene splicing, AFAIK, could go either way.

[O Really]

I will assume by "gene splice rednecks" you mean eliminate them from the gene pool, right?

That is correct. They're already swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool anyway.

[Ulysses]

I will assume by "gene splice rednecks" you mean eliminate them from the gene pool, right?

That is correct. They're already swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool anyway.

But that would be murder.

And it would be wrong.

[Vrede too]

... Although, if the eugenics people figured out how to gene splice rednecks, I might vote for it.

I will assume by "gene splice rednecks" you mean eliminate them from the gene pool, right? ...

That is correct. They're already swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool anyway.

But that would be murder.

And it would be wrong.

In theory, redneckery could be engineered out of the gene pool without killing any living rednecks. So, bigot, you're possibly safe from eugenicist O Really's scheme.

(signature: obsessed butthurt )

Awww. , Useless. So much for "Ignored". You fail again. Plus, Useless, you've been busted too many times for anyone to believe you're not reading my posts, anyhow. It's just your excuse for cowering. Awww.

[billy.pilgrim]

... Although, if the eugenics people figured out how to gene splice rednecks, I might vote for it.

I will assume by "gene splice rednecks" you mean eliminate them from the gene pool, right? ...

That is correct. They're already swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool anyway.

But that would be murder.

And it would be wrong.

In theory, redneckery could be engineered out of the gene pool without killing any living rednecks. So, bigot, you're possibly safe from eugenicist O Really's scheme.

(signature: obsessed butthurt )

Awww. , Useless. So much for "Ignored". You fail again. Plus, Useless, you've been busted too many times for anyone to believe you're not reading my posts, anyhow. It's just your excuse for cowering. Awww.

So considering that, eugenics is not genocide, as I stated earlier that it was.

[Vrede too]

In theory, redneckery could be engineered out of the gene pool without killing any living rednecks. So, (Useless) bigot, you're possibly safe from eugenicist O Really's scheme.

So considering that, eugenics is not genocide, as I stated earlier that it was.

One could make that case - How can it be genocide if there are no murders? However, idk. If there was an organized program that, say, engineered Blacks out of the gene pool without killing any living Blacks, would that not still be genocide against the Black race?

Then, if no one misses the rednecks besides other rednecks, however they're disposed of, is it really still genocide?

[billy.pilgrim]

In theory, redneckery could be engineered out of the gene pool without killing any living rednecks. So, (Useless) bigot, you're possibly safe from eugenicist O Really's scheme.

So considering that, eugenics is not genocide, as I stated earlier that it was.

One could make that case - How can it be genocide if there are no murders? However, idk. If there was an organized program that, say, engineered Blacks out of the gene pool without killing any living Blacks, would that not still be genocide against the Black race?

Then, if no one misses the rednecks besides other rednecks, however they're disposed of, is it really still genocide?

By rednecks, do you mean republicans or farmers?

[Ulysses]

Here's another mention of genocide in the news recently:

"Russia calls it a 'military operation' and not a 'war.' But look what happened in Bucha. It's clear that is not even a war; it's a genocide," Zelensky said.

https://news.yahoo.com/zelensky-cnn-buz ... 01685.html

[neoplacebo]

Redneckism is not a genetic condition. It's a socioeconomic condition.
Genes cannot be removed from the gene pool without killing the people who carry those genes, or at minimum, rendering them sterile.

[billy.pilgrim]

Redneckism is not a genetic condition. It's a socioeconomic condition.
Genes cannot be removed from the gene pool without killing the people who carry those genes, or at minimum, rendering them sterile.

I believe that sterilization was the primary method to be used by our very own "scientists" and maybe a Kellogg or two.

Wikipedia
"Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented in the early 1900s.[30] It also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[31] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[32] Brazil,[33] Canada,[34] Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed it as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[35] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics")."

Edit:
Yeah, it was John Harvey Kellogg

"Kellogg dedicated the last 30 years of his life to promoting eugenics. He co-founded the Race Betterment Foundation,[7] co-organized several National Conferences on Race Betterment and attempted to create a 'eugenics registry'. Alongside discouraging 'racial mixing', Kellogg was in favor of sterilizing 'mentally defective persons', promoting a eugenics agenda while working on the Michigan Board of Health[8] and helping to enact authorization to sterilize those deemed 'mentally defective' into state laws during his tenure.["

[neoplacebo]

Redneckism is not a genetic condition. It's a socioeconomic condition.
Genes cannot be removed from the gene pool without killing the people who carry those genes, or at minimum, rendering them sterile.

I believe that sterilization was the primary method to be used by our very own "scientists" and maybe a Kellogg or two.

Wikipedia
"Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented in the early 1900s.[30] It also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[31] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[32] Brazil,[33] Canada,[34] Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed it as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[35] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics")."

Yeah, sterilization was how they intended to implement the policy. I've always thought that mental and even physical "deficiencies" (as defined by what is considered "normal" versus "inferior") are nothing more than evolution in action. A person with impaired mental ability, as defined by society, may actually have a very analytical mind or possess some other obscure mental ability that is not present in "normal" people and because of that, those possibly unique abilities go unrecognized. After all, wasn't Beethoven deaf? And The Who famously wrote about that deaf, dumb, and blind kid named Tommy that sure played a mean pinball.

[billy.pilgrim]

Redneckism is not a genetic condition. It's a socioeconomic condition.
Genes cannot be removed from the gene pool without killing the people who carry those genes, or at minimum, rendering them sterile.

I believe that sterilization was the primary method to be used by our very own "scientists" and maybe a Kellogg or two.

Wikipedia
"Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented in the early 1900s.[30] It also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[31] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[32] Brazil,[33] Canada,[34] Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed it as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[35] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics")."

Yeah, sterilization was how they intended to implement the policy. I've always thought that mental and even physical "deficiencies" (as defined by what is considered "normal" versus "inferior") are nothing more than evolution in action. A person with impaired mental ability, as defined by society, may actually have a very analytical mind or possess some other obscure mental ability that is not present in "normal" people and because of that, those possibly unique abilities go unrecognized. After all, wasn't Beethoven deaf? And The Who famously wrote about that deaf, dumb, and blind kid that sure played a mean pinball.

I remember from college, so this could just be libural doctrinations, something about most or many geniuses have at least one parent who is mentally deficient.