Happy Confederate History Month: April

The rub, of course, is that I am expected to believe that slavery is the sole paradigm of cheap labor in which these offenses are recorded to exist, and it is that assumption that I don't make.

Seth wrote:

The rub, of course, is that I am expected to believe that slavery is the sole paradigm of cheap labor in which these offenses are recorded to exist, and it is that assumption that I don't make.

And when they happen outside the context of slavery, they are considered criminal. You may dislike China for whatever policies it may institute, but it does have a functioning rule of law. Any of the above offenses that define slavery would be and are punishable in very severe ways in China. Some would argue that those punishments are far harsher than the ones the offenders would receive in Western countries. If you are stating that illegal slavery exists in China, I will not argue with that. I will, however, say that when it is discovered, really bad things tend to happen to those caught doing it. I can and have stated that illegal slavery exists in the United States as well. This is known, documented, and provable. And we do what we can to eradicate it. We don't equate the policies and actions of our government (and shouldn't for China's) to those of a society built on the governmental protection and encouragement of the commission of atrocities (CSA). There is zero moral equivalence. Period.

It sounds like the difference here is that you've made a very big differentiator as to whether it's explicitly state sponsored atrocities or illicit atrocities, even if the structures in place tend to encourage such atroctiies implicitly; I think the disconnection I'm having here is that you're stating that the CSA was a horrible institution because it held as one of its true tenets the abuse of another group of people, whereas China does not.

I was failing to look at it strictly from a top end perspective, and was just focusing on the reality of slavery vs the reality of sharecropping or other cheap labor, all of which share a history of horrible abuses of liberty.

Seth wrote:

It sounds like the difference here is that you've made a very big differentiator as to whether it's explicitly state sponsored atrocities or illicit atrocities, even if the structures in place tend to encourage such atroctiies implicitly; I think the disconnection I'm having here is that you're stating that the CSA was a horrible institution because it held as one of its true tenets the abuse of another group of people, whereas China does not.

I was failing to look at it strictly from a top end perspective, and was just focusing on the reality of slavery vs the reality of sharecropping or other cheap labor, all of which share a history of horrible abuses of liberty.

I think you are failing to look at a whole lot more than that, actually. The basic fundamental difference is that, whatever your misgivings about China, workers are endowed with rights and a method of obtaining recourse for abuses. It may not be to our standard, but it exists and to say otherwise is simple ignorance. Workers can and do quit and find other jobs. Workers do organize for collective action. Do abuses occur? Certainly -- much in the same way as they did in the United States in the 1930's (and only a complete historical revisionist would call that the moral equivalent of slavery).

In sharp contrast, slavery is an institution in which the individual under bondage is not a human being but a piece of property. Crimes committed against human beings are not recognized against slaves. Kidnapping is common and encouraged. Rape is common and encouraged. Torture is common and encouraged. Murder is common and encouraged. And there exists no mechanism -- even in theory -- for obtaining recourse against these offenses because they are not recognized as crimes, but elevated to good and righteous treatment.

The CSA was an evil institution that was annihilated for the good of humanity. It is a tragedy that traitors fought to defend it to the cost of 700,000 American lives. It is a continuing tragedy that people romanticize it as something noble. And it is an insult to those who fought to end it to equate its primary cause (slavery) as "business as usual".

All this continues to come off to me as justification for the treatment of other forms of cheap labor (sharecroppers, pre-union workers, foreign labor). I get that slavery was bad but I don't get this idea that other forms of disenfrachisement should shut up due to some sort of scale of badness. This whole discussion has turned into another "holocaust vs slavery" thing, which misses the entire point. I'm disappointed that my point of view on this renders the rest of my opinions devoid of legitimacy for you, Paleocon.

Regardless, I don't think we have any revisionists posting here about how the war was primarily about states' rights, so this might go a bit unchallenged, but Martin draws some parallels between Confederate soldiers and everyone's favorite overused epithet:

If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

It goes on a bit more than that, and clearly Martin is using the very narrow and very racist definition of "terrorist" as "Arabic Muslim jihadist," but I'm a little struck by the writing.

Paleocon wrote:

And when they happen outside the context of slavery, they are considered criminal. You may dislike China for whatever policies it may institute, but it does have a functioning rule of law. Any of the above offenses that define slavery would be and are punishable in very severe ways in China.

See though, this is where you're attacking a strawman by glossing over the issue of our disagreement over facts and categories.

We disagree on the PRC having anything near the functioning rule of law that America has and on the power of the Chinese worker being anything like that of the American in the 20s/30s. (for the former, show me anything in China resembling the FBI; for the latter, anything like the AFL or CIO. From what I know, there's no national police force someone who escapes a slave ring the the People's Republic can run to and be 99% sure they will protect them; I also do not know of any kind of labor organization equivalent to those two. What I do know is that the government has taken away the civil rights of the Chinese people to the point where they pull sci-fi movies with sexy blue aliens they're so paranoid about their hold on their people)

Some would argue that those punishments are far harsher than the ones the offenders would receive in Western countries.

Same deal back in Soviet Russia--what's the point here?

If you are stating that illegal slavery exists in the PRC, I will not argue with that. I will, however, say that when it is discovered, really bad things tend to happen to those caught doing it. I can and have stated that illegal slavery exists in the United States as well. This is known, documented, and provable.

And you're not addressing the issue that while we agree on that fact, we disagree over what it means: I say it's an institutional problem in the PRC while in the U.S. it is not.

And we do what we can to eradicate it. We don't equate the policies and actions of our government (and shouldn't for China's) to those of a society built on the governmental protection and encouragement of the commission of atrocities (CSA). There is zero moral equivalence. Period.

I never said there's any moral equivalence between the CSA and the USA, I just said that someone who sees the PRC the same way as the CSA is not the equivalent of someone who states "taxes are tyrrany."

Workers do organize for collective action. Do abuses occur? Certainly -- much in the same way as they did in the United States in the 1930's (and only a complete historical revisionist would call that the moral equivalent of slavery).

I would say that comparing abuse of workers in 1930s America to that which goes in the People's Republic is the act of complete historical revisionism.

In sharp contrast, slavery is an institution in which the individual under bondage is not a human being but a piece of property. Crimes committed against human beings are not recognized against slaves. Kidnapping is common and encouraged. Rape is common and encouraged. Torture is common and encouraged. Murder is common and encouraged. And there exists no mechanism -- even in theory -- for obtaining recourse against these offenses because they are not recognized as crimes, but elevated to good and righteous treatment.

The CSA was an evil institution that was annihilated for the good of humanity. It is a tragedy that traitors fought to defend it to the cost of 700,000 American lives. It is a continuing tragedy that people romanticize it as something noble.

Wait, when did anyone talking about minimum wage ever romanticize the CSA as something noble? It's one thing to disagree with people that the PRC is as bad as the CSA; it's another thing to start putting words in the mouths of others.

And it is an insult to those who fought to end it to equate its primary cause (slavery) as "business as usual".

What does this have to do with saying that drawing a connection between minimum wage and slavery is not nearly the same thing as between taxes and tyranny, by bringing up how those who fought to end it that you're referring to didn't think the 13th Amendment went far enough just banning slavery, and had to pass the 14th because they didn't fight to end slavery just to see a new system replace it where all the other civil rights of former slaves were denied to them?

I think your issue here is that because you think the PRC isn't as bad as the CSA, you see people saying 'minimum wage=slavery' as "romanticising" the CSA, when really, if they are wrong and you are right, it's because they are doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing them of: they are'demonizing' the PRC.

Even if you're right about the facts about the PRC and I'm wrong, that just means I should raise my opinion of minimum wage/the PRC, so I don't know why you feel the need to go on about people needing to lower their opinion of slavery/the CSA. Step back and re-read what I'm saying--you're arguing against me as if I disagree with you about Slavery in America, when if you check the thread, I think you'll find quite the opposite is true!

Interesting read on why confederate soldiers were terrorists -
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.

*Edit* Looks like Seth beat me to it.

Tanhausered?

SallyNasty wrote:

Interesting read on why confederate soldiers were terrorists -
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.

*Edit* Looks like Seth beat me to it.

Tanhausered?

Well, if the whole 'were the Confederates terrorists' thing is coming up, I feel obliged to mention this:

the South's desperation spawned a largely untold story: a series of terrorist plots against Washington and New York that eerily foreshadowed September 11, 2001, and its aftermath.

Hatched by politicians, rogue scientists, saboteurs and foot soldiers fanatically loyal to the Confederacy, the plans included spreading yellow fever to Washington and the White House; burning New York City to the ground; poisoning New York's water supply; and attacking Northern ports with a newly developed chemical weapon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...

Anytime anyone mentions "institutional corruption" in China, I immediately think of this.

CheezePavilion wrote:

edit: I don't get why you're pursuing this scorched earth policy towards the U.S. just to make sure people don't compare the PRC to the Confederacy.

I think you are debating this a lot harder than Paleo is.

I like to think the Cheeze is carrying a flag for me and others; I too am curious as to the indignance and outright scorn shown both by Paleocon and Ulairi when comparisons between early 19th century America and the plight of the modern worker in China are drawn.

Paleocon wrote:

Anytime anyone mentions "institutional corruption" in China, I immediately think of this.

Not only did the UMWA send speechmakers, it also contributed large amounts of weapons and ammunition. On September 2, Governor William E. Glasscock imposed martial law, dispatching 1,200 state militia to disarm both the miners and mine guards. Over the course of the strike, Glasscock sent in troops on three different occasions.

Why would you think of that when you think of China? I mean, your source states:

In 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act protected the rights of unions and allowed for the rapid organization of the southern coalfields.

Yet you are aruging:

Paleocon wrote:

I think you are failing to look at a whole lot more than that, actually. The basic fundamental difference is that, whatever your misgivings about China, workers are endowed with rights and a method of obtaining recourse for abuses. It may not be to our standard, but it exists and to say otherwise is simple ignorance. Workers can and do quit and find other jobs. Workers do organize for collective action. Do abuses occur? Certainly -- much in the same way as they did in the United States in the 1930's (and only a complete historical revisionist would call that the moral equivalent of slavery).

If I am unaware of some national law in the PRC that is protecting the rights of unions and allowing for the rapid organization of labor, then please--let me know! Fix my ignorance!

However, I do not know of any such law, I do not know of any rapid unionization in the PRC, I do not even know of any situation like that of America, where according to your source: "After several unsuccessful efforts, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) was formed in Columbus, Ohio, in 1890. In its first ten years, the UMWA successfully organized miners in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Attempts to organize West Virginia failed in 1892, 1894, 1895, and 1897."

Is my perception based on one holdout province comparable to West Virgina? Again--clear up my ignorance if that is the problem, but don't point to an American experience where one state lagged behind and call that as 'institutional' of a problem as a whole country with that issue.

I mean, Chinese people can't even watch a film about eviction while Americans were organizing into workers' armies: I don't see the comparison there.

The most prominent treason trial was that of Bill Blizzard, considered by authorities to be the "general" of the miners' army. In a change of venue, Blizzard's trial was held in the Jefferson County Courthouse in Charles Town, the same building in which John Brown had been convicted of treason in 1859. After several trials in different locations, all charges against Blizzard were dropped. Keeney and Mooney were also acquitted of murder charges. James E. Wilburn and his son were convicted of murdering the Logan County deputies. Both were pardoned by Governor Howard Gore after serving only three years of their eleven-year sentences.

Let me know when the PRC allows the leader of a workers' army to fight the legal system until all charges are dropped, or when a PRC official pardons two workers for the murder of police officers after three years.

edit: I don't get why you're pursuing this scorched earth policy towards the U.S. just to make sure people don't compare the PRC to the Confederacy. Or more accurately, to make sure people consider those who compare the PRC to the Confederacy are seen as loony as those who say taxes are tyranny.

You're kinda saying people who compare the 1st Amendment to the 13th are as hyperbolic as those who claim that the 16th Amendment is a 'repeal' of the 14th Amendment?

I'm rather indignant and scornful myself, having just stepped in here.

Do you really think that illegal slavery and institutionalized slavery are comparable?

It's just about the same saying that the institutionalized right of a samurai to test his sword by murdering a random peasant is the same as illegal murder, and therefore the modern US and feudal Japan are equivalent in terms of allowing people to be murdered.

You can go ahead and load the question, but if you ask me "do I think murder is bad?" The answer will always be "yes."

Seth wrote:

You can go ahead and load the question, but if you ask me "do I think murder is bad?" The answer will always be "yes."

Do I consider the ability to 'quit' negating your comparison to slavery? Why yes, yes I do.

Seth wrote:

You can go ahead and load the question, but if you ask me "do I think murder is bad?" The answer will always be "yes."

I'm not sure how you think I'm loading the question.

institutionalized murder : illegal murder :: institutionalized slavery : illegal slavery.

In one scenario, we have a grievous and horrible act that society condones and supports.
In the other, we have a grievous and horrible act that society deplores and punishes.

On one side, the grievous and horrible act is depriving a human being of their life.
On the other, the grievous and horrible act is treating a human being as a piece of property.

That's not loaded in any way, it's a flat-out even comparison.

Yes, murder is murder in either scenario, and slavery is slavery in either scenario. They're bad bad things. The difference is in whether the society in question doesn't think there's a problem, or whether they're trying to do something about the problem.

Hence: "slavery is a criminal offense and society is trying to stamp it out" in "modern China" is in no way a comparable scenario to "slavery is an institution and society is willing to go to war to uphold it" in "the Confederacy".

If you claim that they are the same, then you're either painting modern China blacker than it should be--equating the actual "trying and failing to do something" with the false "not trying at all", or you're painting the Confederacy whiter than it should be--equating the actual "losing the war and being forced to accept emancipation" with the false "really wanted emancipation but just couldn't manage it until they lost a war."

It's like branding the police as murderers because they can't stop all murders.

Do you not see how this could raise a certain sense of indignation?

no I cannot, because to my knowledge no one here is saying -- even hinting -- that institutionalized slavery is comparable to illicit slavery. In fact the only people even talking about that comparison is you, Paleocon, Ulairi, and now boogle.

Go back through and read my responses. I'm saying that the abuses endured by Chinese labor, like the abuses endured by pre union factory labor, and the abuses endured by sharecroppers, and the abuses endured by slaves, are all bad. and thus, they can be compared.

Everything else is a big steaming helping of putting words in my mouth, and I'm starting to lose my patience with it.

Seth wrote:

I'm saying that the abuses endured by Chinese labor, like the abuses endured by pre union factory labor, and the abuses endured by sharecroppers, and the abuses endured by slaves, are all bad. and thus, they can be compared.

So that isn't a comparison? I'm confused.

Yeah. The designated pitcher rule and gang rape are both bad, so, you know, totally the same thing.

boogle wrote:
Seth wrote:

You can go ahead and load the question, but if you ask me "do I think murder is bad?" The answer will always be "yes."

Do I consider the ability to 'quit' negating your comparison to slavery? Why yes, yes I do.

Remember, this started not just as a comparison to slavery, but with the statement that people who compare workers in the PRC to the slaves of the Confederacy are just as off-the-wall as people who consider taxes to be tyranny.

Hypatian wrote:

Yes, murder is murder in either scenario, and slavery is slavery in either scenario. They're bad bad things. The difference is in whether the society in question doesn't think there's a problem, or whether they're trying to do something about the problem.

What is similar, however, is that both the Chinese worker and the Confederate slave have been deprived of the civil rights that would allow them to fight back against their masters.

Do the Abolitionists who went crazy over Dred Scott make you "indignant and scornful" because they compared slavery to the racist denial of citizenship to African-Americans?

This is what is crazy to me: the crusade against slavery wasn't just about slavery: it was about human rights. You're all pretending like the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the 13th, like the Civil War was just about slavery and not about the violation of civil rights INCLUDING the deprivation of liberty that is slavery.

If you claim that they are the same, then you're either painting modern China blacker than it should be

My point exactly: at best, this discussion is confusing an invalid argument with an unsound one.

It's like branding the police as murderers because they can't stop all murders.

It's more like branding the police as murderers because they've taken away the free speech that would allow people to put pressure on the politicians to demand the police force do a better job of catching murderers.

Do you not see how this could raise a certain sense of indignation?

Sure, but it's all based on misunderstandings. Why would anyone in their right mind get indignant at someone comparing the 1st Amendment to the 13th?

boogle wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'm saying that the abuses endured by Chinese labor, like the abuses endured by pre union factory labor, and the abuses endured by sharecroppers, and the abuses endured by slaves, are all bad. and thus, they can be compared.

So that isn't a comparison? I'm confused.

Remember: you started by saying the ability of the first three to quit negates any comparison, not that they cannot possibly be compared in any way.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. The designated pitcher rule and gang rape are both bad, so, you know, totally the same thing.

Strawman.

Let me give you a better analogy: people who consider one-on-one sexual harassment in the workplace closer to gang rape than to the designated pitcher rule are not in the same class as people who claim taxes are tyranny.

CheezePavilion wrote:
boogle wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'm saying that the abuses endured by Chinese labor, like the abuses endured by pre union factory labor, and the abuses endured by sharecroppers, and the abuses endured by slaves, are all bad. and thus, they can be compared.

So that isn't a comparison? I'm confused.

Remember: you started by saying the ability of the first three to quit negates any comparison, not that they cannot possibly be compared in any way.

I'm sorry, negates this close of a comparison. Stop calling a duck a goose.

boogle wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
boogle wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'm saying that the abuses endured by Chinese labor, like the abuses endured by pre union factory labor, and the abuses endured by sharecroppers, and the abuses endured by slaves, are all bad. and thus, they can be compared.

So that isn't a comparison? I'm confused.

Remember: you started by saying the ability of the first three to quit negates any comparison, not that they cannot possibly be compared in any way.

I'm sorry, negates this close of a comparison.

Remember: in context, "this close" refers to 'close enough that it's different from when people compare taxes to tyranny'.

Stop calling a duck a goose.

Stop criticizing the comparison like their not both waterfowl ;-D

I mean, really: lumping the 14th Amendment in with the 13th is such a terrible thing? How is a comparison that isn't much different from making the connection between the Civil War and Reconstruction causing this much of a ruckus?

Off the deep end.