NashVol11
Gloomed to Fail
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 26,422
- Likes
- 10,148
"Accepted practice" would mean you were there to witness everything on a widespread basis? More likely the "accepted practice" is as portrayed in your party documents and in the movies and perhaps fictional accounts that fit your mindset. Historically the weak and disenfranchised are vulnerable to crime and violence - don't forget some Africans enslaved others and sold them.
If you equate the treatment of a slave used for labor with that of someone selected for ethnic cleansing, I can't help you in your bigoted view of history. If you elect to equate any number of slaveholders (including the likes of Washington of Jefferson) with the likes of a Mengele or an SS thug, I can't help you with that view either. One group of people were used as labor; the other were objects selected for elimination - the matter was how and when.
Rather than question other's "false equivalencies"; look at your own.
You're missing the point, which doesn't change whether you equate those groups or not.
You defend slaveowners by saying that their actions were an "accepted practice," but it was largely accepted by other slaveowners. That's like me saying we can't judge Nazis because their actions were accepted by other Nazis, or saying we can't judge KKK members because their actions were accepted by other KKK members. Every group, by definition, has other members within the same group that "accept their practices."
