Drexel professor "ironically" promotes 'white genocide'

[Kubra]

One brought about a change in administration while having the nice side effect of ending slave raids once and for all, the other was a genocide.

Correction: ending slave raids over the Mediterranean. The latter certainly ended the possibility of formal slavery in Haiti.
And in any case, seeing as there's usually more brown people than white people in a given colony, chances are far more brown people died in the annexation than white people in the extermination/

[Napkiraly]

One brought about a change in administration while having the nice side effect of ending slave raids once and for all, the other was a genocide.

1)Correction: ending slave raids over the Mediterranean. 2)The latter certainly ended the possibility of formal slavery in Haiti.
3)And in any case, seeing as there's usually more brown people than white people in a given colony, chances are far more brown people died in the annexation than white people in the extermination/

1) Yes.
2) I'm sure the many white people that had helped the revolution were enemies of the newly freed slaves. Their deaths were certainly justified.
3) So? It's about intent.

[Napkiraly]

Believe it or not, being okay with imperialism does not mean one should be expected to be okay with the systemic extermination of an entire group of people.

[Kubra]

1)Correction: ending slave raids over the Mediterranean. 2)The latter certainly ended the possibility of formal slavery in Haiti.
3)And in any case, seeing as there's usually more brown people than white people in a given colony, chances are far more brown people died in the annexation than white people in the extermination/

1) Yes.
2) I'm sure the many white people that had helped the revolution were enemies of the newly freed slaves. Their deaths were certainly justified.
3) So? It's about intent.

ah, so if Dessalines had stated his intent as something other than anihilation, the same level of casualties would have been OK?

[Napkiraly]

1) Yes.
2) I'm sure the many white people that had helped the revolution were enemies of the newly freed slaves. Their deaths were certainly justified.
3) So? It's about intent.

ah, so if Dessalines had stated his intent as something other than anihilation, the same level of casualties would have been OK?

No, because it would still be obvious that the intent was to kill off the white population of Haiti.

[Kubra]

ah, so if Dessalines had stated his intent as something other than anihilation, the same level of casualties would have been OK?

No, because it would still be obvious that the intent was to kill off the white population of Haiti.

why would intent be obvious? Why could it not be viewed as an unfortunate byproduct of protecting ones rear?

[Elola]

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

I'm sure all the white slaves in North Africa and the Middle East would have agreed. Or the white farmers in Zimbabwe. Or any other number of examples of whites being shit on.

Those poor white men do still have white cis privilege. All white people do.

[Elola]

Whites have not been historically oppressed, as whites always have an advantage in life, whether they are dirt poor or filthy rich. Had this been said about a disadvantaged minority, it would've been different.

So it's okay to advocate for the death of white people and to celebrate a genocide that targeted white people?

Yes, because they have never been oppressed before.

[Jamzmania]

So it's okay to advocate for the death of white people and to celebrate a genocide that targeted white people?

Yes, because they have never been oppressed before.

They sure were being oppressed when they were being mercilessly slaughtered.

[Kubra]

Yes, because they have never been oppressed before.

They sure were being oppressed when they were being mercilessly slaughtered.

there's probably more productive uses of time than debating parody accounts

[Jamzmania]

They sure were being oppressed when they were being mercilessly slaughtered.

there's probably more productive uses of time than debating parody accounts

Probably.

[USS Monitor]

I'm sure all the white slaves in North Africa and the Middle East would have agreed. Or the white farmers in Zimbabwe. Or any other number of examples of whites being shit on.

Those poor white men do still have white cis privilege. All white people do.

When you are talking about someone that is homeless, "white privilege" doesn't count for much, and it's not really useful to bring that into the conversation.

Then again, I just disagree with the whole notion of white privilege, cis privilege, male privilege, etc. By calling it "privilege," you imply that it's something above and beyond what everyone should have. That's the wrong way to look at it. The level of respect that white people get is something that should be given to all races, not something that should be taken away from white people. When you talk about defending minority rights, that's saying they should be treated as well as white people are treated. It's saying that the way to fix inequality is to elevate disadvantaged populations. When you talk about ending white privilege, you're saying white people should be shit on, that the way to create equality is to tear down the groups that are living with dignity. Ending white privilege doesn't even imply that minorities would gain anything, only that white people's lives would be made worse. By framing it as a debate about "privilege" rather than "rights," you're basically arguing that being oppressed is the default, and being treated decently is an aberration. It's not a healthy way to view the world.

[Napkiraly]

No, because it would still be obvious that the intent was to kill off the white population of Haiti.

why would intent be obvious? Why could it not be viewed as an unfortunate byproduct of protecting ones rear?

Probably because every time Dessalines visited a town or city its white population just happened to be eradicated. And this just happened enough times to more or less completely eradicate the White Haitian population. Not to mention having previously prevented the white population from leaving.

[Kubra]

why would intent be obvious? Why could it not be viewed as an unfortunate byproduct of protecting ones rear?

Probably because every time Dessalines visited a town or city it's white population just happened to be eradicated. And this just happened enough times to more or less completely eradicate the White Haitian population.

even for the period he worked under leclerc? Even for the bit where he lead french forces against moise?

[Napkiraly]

Probably because every time Dessalines visited a town or city it's white population just happened to be eradicated. And this just happened enough times to more or less completely eradicate the White Haitian population.

even for the period he worked under leclerc? Even for the bit where he lead french forces against moise?

I am clearly talking about his actions during the genocide in 1804. Don't pretend to be obtuse.

[Kubra]

even for the period he worked under leclerc? Even for the bit where he lead french forces against moise?

I am clearly talking about his actions during the genocide in 1804. Don't pretend to be obtuse.

simply getting clarification.
Anyways, I posed a "what if" scenario, in which he explicitly justified the massacre as having an end other than itself, in this case protecting ones rear. French forces may not have made genocide the order of the day, but french forces rolling up to an Algerian village were pretty liable to raze it to the ground. That, of course, was also protecting ones rear, and ending the Mediterranean slave routes and all that.
So it follows: was Dessalines greatest folly not labelling his massacre as some practical necessity?

[Napkiraly]

I am clearly talking about his actions during the genocide in 1804. Don't pretend to be obtuse.

simply getting clarification.
Anyways, I posed a "what if" scenario, in which he explicitly justified the massacre as having an end other than itself, in this case protecting ones rear. French forces may not have made genocide the order of the day, but french forces rolling up to an Algerian village were pretty liable to raze it to the ground. That, of course, was also protecting ones rear, and ending the Mediterranean slave routes and all that.
So it follows: was Dessalines greatest folly not labelling his massacre as some practical necessity?

It's not just labeling but the actions as well. French forces during the conquest did not round up every Algerian they came across and kill them. That happened in Haiti apart from the few that were lucky enough to be protected. That is what makes it different and not to mention a genocide.

And he did label it as a practical necessity. He didn't even try to hide it from the world.

[Kubra]

simply getting clarification.
Anyways, I posed a "what if" scenario, in which he explicitly justified the massacre as having an end other than itself, in this case protecting ones rear. French forces may not have made genocide the order of the day, but french forces rolling up to an Algerian village were pretty liable to raze it to the ground. That, of course, was also protecting ones rear, and ending the Mediterranean slave routes and all that.
So it follows: was Dessalines greatest folly not labelling his massacre as some practical necessity?

It's not just labeling but the actions as well. French forces during the conquest did not round up every Algerian they came across and kill them. That happened in Haiti apart from the few that were lucky enough to be protected. That is what makes it different and not to mention a genocide.

And he did label it as a practical necessity. He didn't even try to hide it from the world.

and yet the French still managed to put em away by the thousands. The summarily executed generally do not differentiate in the reasons of their execution, and decide whether a particular one is more palatable to them than another.
And what practical necessity is it that he labelled it?

[Napkiraly]

It's not just labeling but the actions as well. French forces during the conquest did not round up every Algerian they came across and kill them. That happened in Haiti apart from the few that were lucky enough to be protected. That is what makes it different and not to mention a genocide.

And he did label it as a practical necessity. He didn't even try to hide it from the world.

and yet the French still managed to put em away by the thousands. The summarily executed generally do not differentiate in the reasons of their execution, and decide whether a particular one is more palatable to them than another.
And what practical necessity is it that he labelled it?

Yes, they did. But it was not a genocide.

National security. They were afraid they would leave and convince foreign powers to invade and reintroduce slavery.

[Kubra]

and yet the French still managed to put em away by the thousands. The summarily executed generally do not differentiate in the reasons of their execution, and decide whether a particular one is more palatable to them than another.
And what practical necessity is it that he labelled it?

Yes, they did. But it was not a genocide.

National security. They were afraid they would leave and convince foreign powers to invade and reintroduce slavery.

ah, alright, I see. Actually, in the future, I'd like to kill off has much of the human population as I can, but of course I don't want to commit a genocide. I don't want history to judge me harshly. Could you perhaps advise me on how I ought to go about doing so?

So, if Dessalines wanted to get off easy, he should have set a particular massacre cap relative to population percentage, perhaps also relative to growth rate?

[Costa Fierro]

So it's okay to advocate for the death of white people and to celebrate a genocide that targeted white people?

Yes, because they have never been oppressed before.

I'm sure there's a few Holocaust survivors who would disagree with you.

[Balkenreich]

Yes, because they have never been oppressed before.

I'm sure there's a few Holocaust survivors who would disagree with you.

Poland, Russia, half of the FSU, the Italians, the Germans, etc etc.

[New Luckyland]

I don't know what to say about the controversy, except that it looks hyped up.

There is a nice podcast on the Haitian Revolution here if you are intersested.