Sure.

Which has been discussed quite a few times here at GC. ;)

;) He wants to inform.

Interestingly enough, this goes back to my original statement:
This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself.

Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again.

An American 'legal perspective' is completely irrelevant to a Human Rights issue. The fundamental Human Right of Self Determination is independent of any court. In particular, it is independent of the American Supreme Court. Humanity has the right to choose their own form of government no matter what the USSC says. They had this right before the USSC came into existence and they will have it when the USSC is history.

Quoting a USSC decision from just after the war is merely Victor's Justice. If Ewell had taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, that case would never have been heard. But in any case, the hearing of it or the non-hearing do not effect the right of people to govern themselves.

In logic, we abstract away to get at the underlying form of the argument. Many words that seem different are really the same from the point of view of the analysis of the form of an argument. Saying that secede and revolt are different is ingenuous as born out by the firing on Fort Sumpter, which was surely a revolt. Both words can be abstracted to leave. Then saying that the US has the right to leave GB, but that the South cannot leave the US, is the very definition of Special Pleading.

Saying that the relationship was different, is irrelevant. No mater what the previous form of the relationship, we all have a right to Self Determination which is a right not granted by the USSC, but rather by, in Jefferson's words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801, at least from the English point of view. From the Irish point of view, it was meaningless as the native Irish recognized neither the Kingdom Of Ireland nor the UK. The Irish, the Americans and every other country within the British Empire and every other place on earth had the right of Self Determination which did not depend upon any court.

Oh dear, France. I think things would have been even worse for the Confederacy if France was involved. They had helped during the Revolutionary War, and had their Revolution, Napoleon had Waterloo, and we were still paying them back borrowed money. There was the whole issue in Mexico and Cinco de Mayo and potentially pissing off the British. I could picture Britain supporting the Union just because France was supporting the Confederacy and well. Britain is still ticked at times about the Battle of Hastings. Of course if Britain hadn't done better in the French and Indian War, things could have been different.

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)

What does totality mean? Because there were alot of them? Not really. In the South, slaves consisted of perhaps 45% of the population...maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on your source.

But that's not a high percentage of the population whatsoever especially according to Encylcopaedia Brittanica's "Guide to Black History"

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157

Brutality? Nah, not really. It had it's bad spots, as slavery does but it's no where near as brutal as the Jews, during the Khmer Empire, or a few others. (Koreans in Japan)
I mentioned the Jews...the helots in Sparta I believe were enslaved much longer as well as about twenty other people's. The human race is cruel.

I don't know what that means?

Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool. I guess you have forgotten all of Central and South America. Perhaps, you should read Bartolome De Las Casas "Destruction of the Indies".

Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

I would argue that America has bloodied hands for three reasons. It is politically viable for certain demogogues to "blood-up-the-hands", sort of the "bloody flag" theory. Secondly, it is more noticeable than most of the other slavery attempts in that the skin color is almost a signifier whereas in Russia with the serfs, Greece with the Helots, and Africa with the various slavery systems, the skin color is not a signifier of slavery (it's not really here, as we have African immigrants...but the majority are not recent African immigrants). Lastly, because rights weren't fully given and African-Americans had to work to gain them.

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

http://www.picturehistory.com/images.../prod_7303.jpg

Have you heard of Doug Wilson and his writings on how slavery was beneficial for the slaves, and they were better off? He lives in my town and hosted a conference about it. No lie, google him.

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slave.../dp/188576717X You can inter-library loan it or something.

@VandalSquirrel I heard of him and if I remember correctly he had to retract a whole lot of that hooey he said.

He's anti gay too if memory serves...

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).

That doesn't debunk my statement.

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect. The poster had absolutely no idea what he was talking about in regards to the history of slavery. Would you care to debunk it?

Oh the school he runs is just strange, I love the code of conduct about narcing on others and not listening to popular music.

It's like you was saying water is 'more wet'.

Either way what you said just doesn't make sense. When people are systematically killed and their culture is wiped out after living on these shores, humane is the farthest word that comes to mind.

It's like saying a man is 'more humane' because he beats his dog a little less.

Chattel slavery in the US was far from 'humane'.

What exactly is compassionate about keeping slaves?

"I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise."

~Frederick Douglass

It didn't. But, you do dislike the difference between "it's" and "its." ;)

As for what you said, I disagree with people's (usually white people's) need to quantify and compare everything. Slavery can stand alone without being compared to anything. It was a shitty practice regardless of the fact that slavery existed outside of North America and whether or not conditions were as horrendous as reported. It (both ideologically and economically) served as the foundation for the racist ideologies and practices that still have a hold on societies (N.America and others).

I liken this discussion to that of the Holocaust. Sure, there are people here and there who will claim that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that the conditions of the Jews paled in comparison to that of (insert bullshit comparison). Jews, in general, are quick to put a foot up your ass if you EVER try to lessen the horrendousness of this experience and act as though they, as a group, have no reason to be outraged.

With all of that said, still fuck Lincoln and the horse he rode in on--and I'm not offended by the Confederate Flag ITSELF.

ETA: Oh yeah, fuck Frederick Douglass with his posthumously inducted Alpha Phi Alpha ass.

Shut up.

Better than you.

ETA: If this is my annoying cyber-boo Xanthus, I meant the "shut up" but you can add a ;) to lighten the tone.