If Mort Divine ruled the world

fwiw I think it's at least arguable that the white massacres weren't totally a bad thing in Haiti. From what I read, the slaves/rebels actually selectively killed their French masters, and allowed non-French white people, e.g. poorer Polish servants/workers to leave. It was more akin to a class war than a race war, even though the institution of slavery obviously helped to place the two within the same polarity. I don't see why women or even children should be spared when they directly benefited from and existed to perpetuate the institution that men put into power.

The genocide was a drop in the bucket compared to how Americans treated the Natives, for example. The real tragedy of Haiti wasn't genocide, it was how quickly a slave population that was actually relatively well-educated (compared to English and Spanish slaves) took their own freedom by force but lacked the institutions to maintain it, rapidly collapsing into a savage wasteland that to this day is one of the most backwards places on earth.

Prof is a dumbass if he think he can get away with admitting that, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Well for one, I still don't think it's reasonable to call the systematic massacring (if you read about the methods of Jean Jacques Dessalines I really can't think of any other way to describe his methods) of the whites in every area of Haiti a good thing. It's an absolutist statement on a subject way too complex to be reduced to Internet debate levels of retardation by a professor.

Two, from what I read the only common examples during the Haitian Revolution of people being given any option other than death was when many of the women were forced into arranged marriages or the biracial non-slaves being forced to massacre whites so as to not have only blacks complicit in the massacres.

But of course even this level of nuance is way above the grasp of a Drexel comrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
What else are you supposed to do with them? They'd grow up to be in a society that despised them and there would always be the potential of them turning out like their parents. The majority of whites fled before the massacres anyways, I kind of doubt there were that many children left. In general I suppose soldiers have an easier conscience letting children just starve or become street criminals after being kicked out of society, which is how it usually turns out, but the end effect isn't much different from murder.
 
What else are you supposed to do with them? They'd grow up to be in a society that despised them and there would always be the potential of them turning out like their parents. The majority of whites fled before the massacres anyways, I kind of doubt there were that many children left. In general I suppose soldiers have an easier conscience letting children just starve or become street criminals after being kicked out of society, which is how it usually turns out, but the end effect isn't much different from murder.

What a garbage opinion. Any halfway decent human being would think that the killing of the children was wrong, but you justify it because their life could potentially be shitty afterwards? The numbers dont matter either; even if it was only one child, the act of killing him/her would be just as wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
#noborders

This is pure hypocrisy. "Safe zones" are merely one set of borders substituted for the other set of borders which have not been enforced. Germany's women deserve all the Diversity that they have requested.
 
What a garbage opinion. Any halfway decent human being would think that the killing of the children was wrong, but you justify it because their life could potentially be shitty afterwards? The numbers dont matter either; even if it was only one child, the act of killing him/her would be just as wrong.

He's an edgelord in favour of eugenics. What did you expect? :tickled:
 
What a garbage opinion. Any halfway decent human being would think that the killing of the children was wrong, but you justify it because their life could potentially be shitty afterwards? The numbers dont matter either; even if it was only one child, the act of killing him/her would be just as wrong.

Most wars kill children in large numbers. Americans killed many thousands of Nazi German children. If you think one ex-slave revolutionary murdering one child of a slaver somehow disqualifies the ethical basis of the entire revolution, you're as radical a pacifist as Gandhi, or you're a hypocrite that thinks murdering by bayonet is any different from murdering by drone strike.
 
Or he opposes drone strikes, deaths during the American revolution, the death of German children during WWII and any other example of an atrocity you can dredge up to strawman him with. :lol:

If you think one ex-slave revolutionary murdering one child of a slaver somehow disqualifies the ethical basis of the entire revolution

:lol:

You're right, you can't think that killing children is bad and a slave revolution is good at the same time.
 
"Like, everything is bad dude, the solution is like, to do nothing, god it feels good being a radical centrist"
 
"Like, everything is bad dude, the solution is like, to do nothing, god it feels good being a radical centrist"

You have nothing but memes as usual. Typical /pol/tard edgelord.

"If you oppose children being massacred during a revolution that means you're either an extreme pacifist or a hypocrite because for some reason I'm assuming you support all kinds of other violence that goes on hur dur radical centrists and their fence-sitting about genocide and shiet."

Yeah, you're a genius. :rolleyes: