What if the South Won the Civil War?

Other Wars US Civil War
#61

“This seems like hopelessly ignorant or just gratuitous bullshit. Don’t push your luck.”

Australia has a long history of abusing their poor pygmis:http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Synopsis%206.htm
Ten thousand (10,000) Australian Aborigines were shipped to a British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the “missing link.” Some of the leading evolutionists of the day, including anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin wanted samples. Museums were interested in bones, fresh samples, and pickled Aboriginal brains. Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894), published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as “Australian animals.”

It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed “specimens.” He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland Law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply. Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the ‘Angel of Black Death’) came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. “She shortly returned home with her specimens.” “A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas.”

…So what I was saying…is that since slavery is related to the belief that slaves are inhuman and not subject to Natural Law, then since Pygmy’s were considered inhuman ( as the article doesn’t talk highly of them)…then I was hypothesizing that Australia could have looked at their own Pygmy population to enslave instead of importing slaves. The belief system back then was not exactly in favor of Australian Pygmy’s. I believe a genocide was also in place against them in the 1800’s.

…In conclusion what exactly am I pushing? What Bullshit? The facts and plight of the Australian Pygmy are well documented and it is a consideration to discuss and mention. If the country believed in slavery and it despised its local pygmy population, then I was merely drawing a cross reference to the slavery issue.

#62

No, it doesn’t.

There are no indigenous pygmies in Australia.

Australian aborigines are not pygmies. They are of average size for humans.

Australia has a long history of mistreating aborigines since soon after whites arrived. It also has a history for the past 40 years or so of devoting huge amounts of money and resources to try to redress that mistreatment.

Hardly the most authoritative, let alone coherent and comprehensible, source for anything, apart from proving that one of the marvels of the internet is that seriously stupid and or disturbed people can set up websites and have the whole world for an audience.

Really?

Alive or dead.

Which museum?

Because 10,000 is the estimate in some quarters of all aborigines, or perhaps all aboriginal remains (the difference is that one person might have numerous remains, e.g. skull, brain, various organs, bones, etc). sent from Australia. I’m sure the aborigines and Australian government departments working to repatriate aboriginal remains would like to know about the British museum which got 10,000 aborigines as you say, as distinct from 10,000 remains.

No, slave owners are inhuman or, more accurately, inhumane.

Wrong again. Apart from the fact natural law is a shifting philosophical concept with, unlike parliamentary laws, no single text to express it, Aristotle’s version of natural law asserted, essentially, that some people were born to be slaves as part of nature, and much later the other great figure in the history of natural law, Thomas Aquinas, agreed. Modern philosophers take natural law into areas of moral philosophy which reject slavery in all its forms.

You are so wrong on so many points, as are so many of my countrymen who have your simplistic and uninformed view.

From the beginning of British settlement the British authorities were determined to protect aborigines, but what was wanted and what happened on the ground were different things.

There were many instances of appalling mistreatment of aborigines by whites, but no worse and generally better than the conduct of some European powers in their colonies elsewhere.

The stewartsynopsis bullshit site for a start.

Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but the whole country did not believe in slavery. Just a tiny proportion of exploitative primary producers.

Mod note: I told you not to push your luck because I regard your reference to Australian aborigines as ‘pygmies’ as derogatory. ‘Pygmy’ is a term properly applied to some peoples of small stature, but most often it is used to dismiss someone as a person of lesser worth than the rest of us. The photos on that ****wit stewartsynopsis site of aborigines as pygmies are all of people of average height and build. None of them are physical or mental pygmies. Calling them pygmies when every person of even the most modest education know that they are not strikes me as intended to reduce them as people by implying that they are less than the rest of us. I’ve had a bit to do with aborigines over the past half century. The husband of one of my nieces is an aborigine. Calling them pygmies, which is the first time I’ve heard this novel type of contempt for them, perpetuates the discrimination to which they have been subjected for far too long. I won’t tolerate it.

#63

Mod note: I told you not to push your luck because I regard your reference to Australian aborigines as ‘pygmies’ as derogatory. ‘Pygmy’ is a term properly applied to some peoples of small stature, but most often it is used to dismiss someone as a person of lesser worth than the rest of us. The photos on that ****wit stewartsynopsis site of aborigines as pygmies are all of people of average height and build. None of them are physical or mental pygmies. Calling them pygmies when every person of even the most modest education know that they are not strikes me as intended to reduce them as people by implying that they are less than the rest of us. I’ve had a bit to do with aborigines over the past half century. The husband of one of my nieces is an aborigine. Calling them pygmies, which is the first time I’ve heard this novel type of contempt for them, perpetuates the discrimination to which they have been subjected for far too long. I won’t tolerate it. [/QUOTE]

First of all, I don’t know why you are posting in Red. If you mean to intimidate me by writing in Red, then I honestly don’t know how a Moderator can exercise intimidation tactics on personal bias. Anyways, if red is your color so be it. Second of all, I DID not say anything derogatory about Pygmy’s. I did not say I dismiss them as persons of lesser worth. i may have said society did, the same way society did of the slaves but it was not something I said as if I believed in it. Thirdly, I really really don’t care about your Niece. I don’t know her, i don’t have anything good or bad to say about her and i never would say anything to piss you off had I have known what you stated. I feel your animosity in replying in red is not unbiased as you obviously brought personal background information into play which is the reason you feel animosity towards my post. I have in fact researched a lot about Pygmies and I don’t see how it is a racist or contempt statement. Your Australian Newspapers call them Pygmies. Your Australian Researchers call them Pygmies. I am not calling Aboriginals Pygmies and I am not saying bad things about them. I am not going to be intimidated by your accusations. I attach article after article below including your local newspapers. Why do you get the impression I am being derogatory against Pygmies. You ask me to substantiate my opinions so i have below. I apologize if Pygmy is considerd a bad word to you but as a Moderator i don’t really think you are being moderate. If you really think that i have insulted the plight of the Pygmy, because someone in your family is one, then I am truly sorry.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines.

http://www.warriors.egympie.com.au/littlepeople.html
From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/in-depth/the-short-mob-goes-back-a-long-way/story-e6frgd9f-1225987410521
The Short Mob Goes A Long Way Back:They were very short, averaging about 150cm in height (other pygmy peoples, however, ranged as low as an average of 140cm). Their skins were dark brown, as opposed to the black of other Aboriginal peoples. Their hair, similarly, was just as curly as that of other pygmy peoples in the world.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Who-Are-the-Pygmies-72485.shtml
A pygmy population went extinct in the middle of the 20th century in northeastern Australia (Queensland).

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/pygmy-elder-faces-eviction/story-e6freoof-1111114264353
Anthropologists of the 1930s investigated reports of a lost pygmy-like tribe living in the Misty Mountain rainforest.
Photos emerged of child-size adults, carrying wooden swords and shields. Experts have been divided as to whether the tribe are true pygmies, with prehistoric links to African rainforest dwellers, or simply small people.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/08/05/is-it-appropriate-to-use-the-term-pygmy-when-speaking-of-pygmies/
“These problems may be overstated. Referring to someone by a physical trait isn’t necessarily considered negative.”

#64

I wanted to make sure you read it.

You have.

You have no excuse for ignoring it and persisting with your pseudo-science racist bullshit, which ranks with the same sort of rubbish the Nazis used to demonise and dehumanise the Jews.

Perhaps, but you have chosen to persist with your idiotic assertion that all aborigines are pygmies, despite my warning.

No, I object to the snide racism implicit in your assertion that all aborigines are pygmies. If you published your moronic comments and were resident in Australia, you would find yourself in considerable trouble under our federal Racial Discrimination Act.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

         (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                 (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                 (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

In relation to your brainless assertions about all Australian aborigines being pygmies, here is what our Federal Court thinks:

  1. It is a notorious and regrettable fact of Australian history that the flawed biological characterisations of many Aboriginal people was the basis for mistreatment, including for policies of assimilation involving the removal of many Aboriginal children from their families until the 1970s. It will be of no surprise that a race of people subjected to oppression by reason of oppressive racial categorisation will be sensitive to being racially categorised by others. I accept that to be the case in relation to Aboriginal Australians. At paragraph 36.7 of its report, the ALRC acknowledged that sensitivity with an extract from the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in the following terms:

No area of research and commentary by non-Aboriginal people has such potential to cause offence as does that which attempts to define ‘Aboriginality’. This determination of non-Aboriginal people to categorise and divide Aboriginal people is resented for many reasons, but principally, I suspect, because the worst experiences of assimilation policies and the most long term emotional scars of those policies relate directly to non-Aboriginal efforts to define ‘Aboriginality’ and to deny to those found not to fit the definition, the nurture of family, kin and culture. To Aboriginal people there appears to be a continuing aggression evident in such practices.
Eatock v Bolt http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=andrew%20bolt

One swallow does not a summer make.

Your approach requires that because there are some indigenous pygmies in Africa then all black Africans are pygmies, and by extension all African Americans are pygmies, which obviously is absurd and will come as a major surprise to, among others, American basketball leagues. As is your position equally abusrd, to the extent that it not just intentionally inflammatory racism.

You say you have researched pygmies and you put yourself forward as an expert on Australian aborigines all being pygmies. It follows that you are also fully informed of the implications of your earlier links to claims that aborigines are Negritos and the racist arguments against Australian aborigines based on those claims, as briefly summarised in this article by Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University. http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-June-2002/groves.html

You have chosen to persist with your idiotic and closet racist position after having a clear mod warning, and being told very clearly that I won’t tolerate you racism.

I’m being generous in banning you only for 48 hours. Next time a mod warns you, don’t dig your hole deeper. Just accept and comply with the warning.

#65

Ooeerr …! At the risk of beheading, I would like to add a few comments. As regards slavery, the fullest form of slavery - chattel slavery, in which one human being literally owns another - is, as far as I know, completely absent from Australian history. Perhaps the earliest British administrators on the continent might not have been averse to enslaving a suitable local population, had circumstances prompted them in this direction in the earliest days of settlement. That they did not can, I think, be put down to two factors. First, they were, after all, supposed to be there to administer a largely self-supporting criminal colony, and had enough trouble feeding and controlling the “temporary slaves” from Britain in their “care”. The convicts (and, increasingly, “ticket of leave” freedmen) provided ample labour for the needs of the early colony and, in time, for its early phases of expansion, to the extent that not only chattel slavery, but those secondary forms of slavery known as indentured service and sharecropping were superfluous. Secondly, the Australian Aborigines did not prove “suitable”. This was not a matter of some physical or intellectual “inferiority”; rather, it was a result of the very complex culture of the native Australians that took the Brits some time to get to grips with. Apart from the facility with which most Aborigine groups could simply fade away into the bush if threatened, the complexities of Aboriginal linguistics would have posed huge difficulties. One example (which, I think, I picked up from Robert Hughes’ “The Fatal Shore”) involved the earliest rulers of the penal colony taking great pains (and it must have taken great pains) to teach one Aboriginal man the English language, so that (they thought) he would be able to act as an interpreter for them with the native population in general - a time-honoured imperial/colonial practice going back at least to Cortes in Mexico. It was therefore a great disappointment that, when the British ventured just a few days’ journey inland, their “interpreter” was incapable of making himself understood by the locals; the language of the immediate coast and that of areas just a little inland were mutually unintelligible.

In any event, slavery was, by the time of the penal colonies’ establishment, going out of fashion in Britain and was, in fact, under increasing political attack that led, first, to the near-elimination of the Atlantic slave trade (the Royal Navy made it very difficult for other European states to avail of the “advantages” of importation of slaves into their colonies where Britain could no longer do so by law) and later to the abolition of slavery altogether in Britain and its dominions. For one reason or another, good and bad, the introduction of slavery of any form into Australia was never an issue. This is not to say that, in the early days, the white interlopers treated Aborigines well (although, in the early decades, they seem to have regarded the natives as being as much of a threat to them as they were to the natives). Nor does it imply that their particular needs are always well addressed even now, in spite of the great efforts made by the Australian authorities in this direction in recent decades. But enslavement ? No. Not at any time. Best regards, JR.

#66

glad it’s only for two days, my Father is kinda old fashion and calls Africans for ‘‘Negere’’ (Niggers in Norwegian) as actually most of our Northern populatons do but he isn’t racist and don’t mean anything by it and clearly neither did Herman as he didn’t even refer to aborigines as Pygmies, this seems to me to just have been a slight missunderstanding of wish has gathered mass after evry comment.

#67

Despite misunderstandings of any sort, it is a matter for Staff to assess, and resolve all issues that may arise. This Site is one of the best around because we deal with problems before they become trouble. We are not the “Off with their Heads” sort, but we are charged with keeping the Site protected, and free from trouble of all kinds. After you have been here for several years you will see how things work.

#68

and hopefully i will;) when did this site open?

#69

Geez if the south won the war a lot of things would have happened. For all we know none of us would be here that’s for sure. With the time paradox and such. I believe that the world it’s self would be a lot darker then it should be. Many wars would have been avoided yet knew ones would take their places. All I can say is that I am quite glad that the South didn’t win the civil war. Just saying… sorry if at all if I offended anyone.

#70

I don’t know which year the Site first came online, but someone here should, I’ve been on since 2007.

#71

If you don’t mind me interacting in this conversation but I think I have seen some members from 2005 and 2006?

#72

ahaa, if this site is about to get 10 years old it would be nice to know the exact date to celebrate the 10th anniversary or something:)

#73

The 2005 archives have threads dated 2/05, the site had to have started a little before that.

#74

I will bring that idea up to the owner for consideration, he may post something about it.

#75

Legally, yes. Practically, no.

Aborigines on their traditional lands often became effective slaves of white settler employers, and were not given the same wages and conditions as their white co-workers doing the same work. e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unfinished-business-of-wages-at-wave-hill/2007/12/14/1197568264693.html

No, it was the opposite. The Colonial Office was at pains to ensure that aborigines were treated properly, and reasonable attempts were generally made by local governors to implement this.

Colonial Office policy required that every effort be made to live peacefully with and respect local Aborigines. Governor Phillip and later Governors were directed to ‘educate and Christianize the Aborigines, to protect their persons and the enjoyment of their possessions, to prevent and restrain violence and injustices towards them, and to punish any of our subjects who harmed them’. Thus the Aborigines were to be protected by the punishment of white offenders ‘according to the degree of the offence’.[26] Similarly, Governor King, in his Port Regulations of 1800, warned that ‘If any of the natives are killed, or violence offered to their women, the offenders will be tried for their lives’.[27] However, official ambivalence soon emerged; it is recorded that during Governor King’s time, ‘(military) officers kept the crowd back to give native duellists room to spear each other, according to native custom, in the streets of Sydney, and then led troops out against the natives for spearing whites’.[28] In his Port Regulations and Orders of 1810, Governor Macquarie stated:

The natives of this territory are to be treated in every respect as Europeans; and any injury or violence done or offered to the men or women natives will be punished according to law in-the same manner and in equal degree as if done to any of his Majesty’s subjects or foreigners residing there.

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/4.%20Aboriginal%20Customary%20Laws%20and%20Anglo-Australian%20Law%20After%201788/australian-law-applied

It’s worth reading the full Australian Law Reform Commission article at that link to gain an understanding of the ambivalence and complexities in legal and practical treatment of aborigines in the early decades of British settlement in (or invasion of, depending upon one’s perspective) Australia.

Things may not have advanced that much in the succeeding couple of centuries. In practice, but not in law, it is even now not unknown for magistrates and even judges in higher courts in the north and west of Australia where there are large semi-traditional aboriginal populations to temper their sentences by allowing for traditional extra-judicial punishments which will be inflicted upon offenders.

#76

First of all, I am glad someone I have never met before AGREES that I DID NOT REFER nor mention anything what I am being accused of. This member has only posted 18 posts and yet he CLEARLY states i was framed. Also, I believe my friend Nayson also stated he didn’t understand why I was framed. RS please lets put this in the past. For what ever reason, based on your background and culture I apparently hit a sensitive bone. I swear I did not mean any disrespect. RS has the right to exercise his power to ban me and I wish I could appeal but I wont go that far. But I appreciate that it was only for 48 hrs…BUT BUT it was not.RS you lied to me, because I logged on at the specific time you said my ban would be lifted and it was not lifted. You put me in a cage and you promised me it would be lifted at what I recall to be 7 am, and it was not. I logged on at 7:01 am, 7.02. 7.03 etc up until 7:15 and It was not lifted. Were we talking Australian time or NORMAL time. I was a bit disappointed to say nonetheless. Also, in future RS if I should ever piss you off, and given the fact that you usually dominate the scene, could you at least give me a private message or perhaps have a Mod like tankgeezer ban me, because he looks tough and I would respect it more lol…ok dont get upset…I thought it was funny…back to seriousness…the members have spoken,Not one person agreed with your ban on me. Even the Supermod casually redirected Naysons enquiry to our Pygmyay discussion and a new member even questioned why your doing this…I know your prone to copy and re[ost in RED statements I have listed here but I ahave the right to get it off my chest because you locked me up in a box for MORE than 48 hrs and I was upset…but I feel better now so please lets get on with more professional productive posts. Amen…Thankx RS for your understanding…P.S. you YOURSELF were also Banned once upon a time before you became Mod, so pls understand…thx RS

#77

I agree,Misunderstandings is what its about…Thank You for phrasing it like that as I agree. I also am content on keeping my head…

#78

It would have been better if the war didn’t begin/start in the first place but we can’t change that. I wonder if European trade would continue past the 1900 when Slavery became a thing of the past. I am glad too that the South did not win, but I equally disappointed that the leaders of the time could not have prevented it in the first place. I agree with ya Kilroy, ya just never know what todays world would be like if the opposition won…

#79

Rising Sun - thanks for the helpful observations and corrections. I would dissent slightly on one point - I would not equate giving a section of the population lower pay and poorer conditions of work with “slavery” in any of its manifestations. I recall a large group of people who - at least until relatively recently - were routinely awarded lower pay and poorer working conditions than another, notably in “advanced” countries such as ours. This group is called “Women” …

You may have a comment on one matter. I am a little out of touch on this, but I sometimes have the impression that many of the legislative initiatives taken by Australian governments in recent years are high on worthy aspiration, but sometimes fall rather short in terms of altering the situation of Aboriginal communities for the better. I came across this in the context of copyright law. Australian law, as I understand it, provides a background of legislative support for communal rights in creative fixations emerging from a particular culture - what used to be called “folkloric rights” or somesuch. However, when cases have come to the courts, the tendency has been to decide them on the basis of the rather more concrete principles of conventional copyright law - which supplies strong protection for the individual, personal rights of the creator. Not sure whether this tendency extends to other relevant areas such as land rights and rights in natural resources. Any thoughts ? Best regards, JR.

#80

Time to come down from the Cross Herman, you caught a short vacation according to due process. Man up, take your lumps, and learn from the experience. Everyone screws up, the true measure of the person is in how they choose to remedy that screw up. Continued insinuations of persecution in your posts on a matter now settled could be construed as both spamming, and trolling. Its over, enough already. May we now return to the Topic of this thread ?