Re:Genders.wtf
by MockObject on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @01:22PM
(#34342248)
You quote the Cornerstone Speech correctly, which was a post-hoc rationalization, a propaganda effort to encourage millions of fighting age men to lay down their lives for an economic system that was based on slavery which, I've already proven, was not an essentially racist institution.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
You have proven no such thing, unless you're using some sort of definition of racism so outside the norm that either way it looks like a poor use of my time to try to explain your mistake to you.
Re:Genders.wtf
by MockObject on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:06PM
(#34343867)
Now this is the second time you're ignoring the context of the supply of the very slaves being discussed, so I determine that you are not discussing honestly.
I don't feel responsible for what you have chosen to conclude here, so go wild.
Remind me again, in the US, how many white people were sold in to chattel slavery?
If even you could somehow make a convincing argument that the pre-war system was not inherently racist (which you cannot), the post-war system of neoslavery would put the final nail in that coffin.
Re:Genders.wtf
by MockObject on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:11PM
(#34343923)
> Remind me again, in the US, how many white people were sold in to chattel slavery?
Even an answer of zero doesn't address or contradict my original point.
There's no such thing as "neoslavery". Racism was certainly used after the war to reduce labor solidarity between the white working class and the newly-freed black laborers, however, that fact also doesn't address or contradict my original point.