| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Thread history
| Time | User | Activity | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| No results | |||
I never said the PEOPLE weren't racist, also an organised block war is better than organised religion.
So: - You accept that the Vice President of the CSA said that the state was founded on the principle that one race is superior to another. - You do not deny racism among the population of the CSA? - You accept that the CSA would rather fight a bloody war than give up slavery; but claim that they were not racist?
By these standards, what possibly could be a racist state? Could a racist state exist, if this were not one? Surely, Apartheid South Africa was racist, with whites legally seen as superior to blacks? Well what if the whites OWNED the blacks? Would that be racist?
Also the CSA's constitution specifically gave people the right to keep slaves - and only Negro ones at that.
How is that a nation state (the CSA) the founding documents of which entrench the right of members of one racial group to own members of another (and not vice versa) can be viewed as anything other than racist?
Our friend here appears to be under the delusion that the CSA was founded on the noble philosophical principle of states' rights, which was of course completely separate from slavery and racism.
"which was of course completely separate from slavery and racism." --Seme Blue
I didn't say it was SEPERATE from slavery and racism, what I mean by "Nor do I believe the Confederacy was racist" means that I don't believe that is mainly founded on slavery. I know that it WAS a racist state, however, so was the US when it was founded(most of the founding fathers owned slaves) and we don't say the US was founded on slavery.
Putting people to high standards and then saying to supporters of a view "SEE!" is a bad arguing method.
Well if you know the Confederacy was a racist state, why do you have Nor do I think the Confederacy was racist. on your userpage?
Updated to say, don't you think you should qualify Nor do I think the Confederacy was racist. to represent what you really think?
Please, since you've spent so much effort describing what you don't think, tell us clearly what you do think.