Wojtek wrote:
> The "two shits" hyperbole was meant to underscore the line that slavery was not the only, or even the main reason behind the civil war, as most modern hagiographic accounts want us to believe.
While I agree that it was not the only reason, preserving slavery was the main reason behind the South seceding. The South desperately wanted to maintain its "peculiar institution." It had a higher per capita income than the North ($3,978 vs. $2,040) and 60% of the wealthiest men while having only 30% of the population.
> Likewise, whatever we might think of the Northern economy and society, their value systems and Lincoln's personality, the fact of the matter is that the North fought an imperial war that was rationalized by the values of the Enlightenment.
Opposition to human chattel slavery is not just an Enlightenment value. I also think it is deeply important value and one worth fighting over.
> The point is, therefore, to separate these two phenomena and do not let one overshadow the other. It is not dissimilar to the ACLU stance on the Nazi parade in Skokie, IL: no matter how despicable an ideology might be, using the power of the state to censor it is even worse evil.
I have always thought arguing by analogy was suspect, but this analogy deserves an award. There is no sense in comparing the right free speech with the right to own human beings. Chattel slavery was not just an ideology, it was a fact that resulted in the Middle Passage and many other horrors. The exercising of speech in Skokie did not cause even a small percentage of the harm that the Middle Passage and chattel slavery caused.
> What I find objectionable is that many Leftists fall for this imperial logic and exonerate the war acts of the empire on the grounds of disapproval of the social order of the attacked.
I do not think it is imperial logic to disapprove of enslaving Africans (or any people). It is especially not imperial when the enslavement is going on in your own country.
> That logic would only be justified if the imperial war brought actual progress (cf. Marx's argument about the British rule in India). But I do not think that this is the case of the United States.
My lover and our families and friends will be delighted to know that you believe remaining in chains was preferable to being free.
> I also think that the effect of the civil war on the condition of African Americans was negligible, at least in the long run.
Huh? I just really do not know what to type.
> This can be inferred from comparing US to South Africa (no "anti-slavery" civil war). Both countries went through similar trajectories: apartheid and civil rights struggle and both ended with a more or less same political
outcome.
So the American South in the 1860's and South Africa in 1990's are comparable? South Africa where Black Africans were an overwhelming majority and the American South where they were not? Apartheid and chattel slavery had very different histories and procedures.
> If anything, SA Blacks today have more political power than US Blacks, which could be used to argue that the civil war actually halted the political empowerment of Blacks in the long run.
Because South African Blacks are a huge majority.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister