wat0n wrote:Can we say the same about slavery and Jim Crow in the US or history matters only when it suits you, @Pants-of-dog?
The Romans were famously tough on slave rebellions and tough on the causes of slave rebellions.
Well to be honest I guess their emphasis was more on the former than the latter. Now I'm known for being relaxed about ancient Roman slavery. If i lose my citizenship and get sent on a one way trip in a time machine back to Ancient Rome, don't expect me to lift a finger to try and abolish slavery. If I were trapped in that part of the time space continuum I would be very happy if I could get myself set up as a slave owning Equestrian.
So if I'm so relaxed about Roman slavery why am I so critical of the American Founders and their early political leaders. Because the Romans didn't whine, the Americans did. Nat Turners men really did cut the heads off of babies. And the biologically racial Europeans whined like bitches about it. I have no problem with Nat Turner ordering his men to cut the heads off European babies. Although not a major virtue signaler I do think the name of America's capital should be changed to Nat Turner City.
There's nothing specifically anti Jewish about my sentiments. It doesn't matter that Madeleine Albright was Jewish. This is peripheral to the main point. She was US ambassador to the UN when she said that the deaths of half a million Arab and Kurdish Muslim children were worth it. That's fine I support free speech, but don't be surprised if some Muslims and some Arabs make a different calculation. Don't be surprised if some Muslims look for vengeance. And that's why I had absolutely zero tolerance for the wave of "poor us" whining that followed 9/11.
Is the occupation / blockade /control of Gaza and the West Bank over the last more than half a century as bad as plantation slavery? Obviously not. Is is as bad as the claimed effect of the sanctions upon Iraq? Again obviously not. But the same judgement still applies. It seems the claims of babies heads being chopped off were pure propaganda, but so what if t had been true. In my book Israelis would have had zero right whine about it. It seems the claims of systematic mass rape were also pure propaganda, but again so what if had been true? Warfare is about inflicting death, destruction, injury and suffering upon the enemy.
Sure if you can get some nice quick clean military victory and get the enemy to accede to your demands that is preferable. But a lot conflicts are just not like that. I just don't get why killing tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands or millions of people like we did in the 2nd World war is OK, but for some reason systematic mass rape is taboo.