1/ Some folks intellectual obtuseness is stunning. When I said last night that MS white folks should have been crushed after the civil war--their property redistributed to former slaves, etc--it is OBVIOUS I am talking about what should have happened then, not now...
2/ I am not saying we should crush whites today. I am saying what would have been just at the time, which seems inarguable to me. Defenders of slavery deserved to lose everything...
3/ Hell, I'd go further. Slaveowners were kidnappers in effect & if those they held in bondage had slit their throats in the middle of the night it would have been justifiable, just as it would b justifiable 4u 2 kill your kidnapper if you were held against your will today...
4/ I doubt anyone would argue the women that Ariel Castro held in bondage for years, for instance, would have been morally wrong to kill his ass had they done so in order to get free...but I'm guessing some will get mighty upset about what I just said about slaveowners...
5/ even tho there is no moral difference...just as folks got pissy bc I said white MS folk should have been crushed politically & economically after the war ended. But if some1 said Germany should have been crushed & not rebuilt w/U.S help after WWII folks wouldn't bat an eye..
6/ Why the difference? We all know why. 1) the people getting upset don't think white southerners were all that bad during slavery, 2) they don't think slavery was all that bad, and 3) they know that could have been their families in some cases, and so...
7/ In any event, its not racist 2 say that as a matter of historical justice, white MS folk should have lost everything after the war. That's not saying they should have been crushed bc they were white...it's because they defended an evil system and should have paid the price
