Obama comparing Slavery to the Holocaust

[Boo Stinking Boo]

While listing to a commentary this morning, the announcer described witnessing Obama's speech in Ghana. The commentator stated he found hope and yet disappointment in Obama's speech when he compared Slavery to the Holocaust. He felt the President was being too politically correct to appease his audience and there should never be a comparison of the two. He stated having never heard a Jewish person compare the Holocaust to Slavery and in addition to hardly ever seeing documentaries on the history channel and beyond about Slavery and the effects thereafter.

I recall taking an African American History class in which the Professor stated more Slaves were killed than the Holocaust. I objected her statement and felt that more Jews were killed than Slaves. As I look back my objection spawned from being educated that African slavery deaths are often exaggerated by race baiting African American Historians. Yet, are there any real numbers that support which group had the highest numbers in terms of killings? Regardless of the numbers, lives were lost, families were split apart and the sadness still lingers. We all still feel the effects on racism and the repercussions on both ends, whether your Black, White, Irish, Jewish, Polish, Middle Eastern, etc.

Do you think Obama was politically correct or incorrect when comparing the Slave trade to the Holocaust?

[Ray1936]

Apples and Oranges, I would say. Both were horrible historical events, but I couldn't make a direct comparison of the two. I'd say he was politically correct to his Ghana audience, but incorrect to his constituents. But no harm done, in my view.

[MoparDan]

Apples and Oranges, I would say. Both were horrible historical events, but I couldn't make a direct comparison of the two. I'd say he was politically correct to his Ghana audience, but incorrect to his constituents. But no harm done, in my view.

I agree.
But to play Devil's Advocate by expounding a bit:
One has to consider how obsessed the Nazis[[Eichmann in particular) were in accounting for the numbers of people "exterminated". Those guys put a lot of energy into the logistics & turning it into an industrial enterprise. As a side note, just think if they'd used that kind of effort in running the war.
I doubt anyone could give a remotely accurate number of how many slaves were captured/sold/bought let alone how many died in the process such as on ships, at the hands of their owners/overseers, disease, or attempting to escape. My take is that anyone who could get a boat to Africa to become involved in the slave trade may be a clue that any "official" record may be on the low side.

[firstandten]

I think you need to take the Presidents quotes in context. He made this comparision to Anderson Cooper not in a speech. He also made the comparison to the killings in Darfur. He was speaking of man's inhumane treatment to other men in which there are comparisions. People want to play the "my victimhood was worst than yours" game so lets play it for a minute. I'll make the case that the Atlantic slave trade was worst than the holocaust.

First it lasted longer- est time frame about two hundred years versus about 9 years for the holocaust

The holocaust caused around 6 million deaths, while the slave trade while impossible to put a firm number on it because of the time frame and many of the killings weren't a direct result of a mass extermination but estimates are at a floor of 6 million and more likely around 15 million or so.

Because of the harshness of chattel slavery there is a legacy that exists to this day in terms of psychological issues, not being able to trace family roots more than about 150 years for most black families, familes being broken up etc.

My point is this, playing the which event is worst downplays the horror of both events.

[East Detroit]

Yes, but it happens all the time. It was the resounding thing I heard in AFS class. "7 years versus 300 years" as if people were jealous.

I think they see that the Holocaust has been given "respect" as an atrocity with reparations, etc, but slavery has not. Fine, yet they incorrectly then attack the Holocaust [[and Jews, go figure), instead of attacking those who do not satisfy their needs.

[gibran]

Primo Levi wrote that while there are monsters in the world, they rank few in number compared to the evil that people do everyday bureaucratically...while looking at the horrors of the Holocaust we can't compare it to many things [[sometimes these horrors stand alone) since it was the first time that a whole system from transportation, to schedules, to daily quota's, to a industry based on death was completed so systematically by ordinary people "just following orders"...that is the shock behind this horror..

But to the 20 million dead Russians, Chinese, or the Millions of displaced people by war and conflict their horror is their own private hell...how can anyone say that their horror is worse that another's....

children, parents, family friends...killed, displaced or jailed.. it all should effect all of us...and it doesnt need ranking even though some are far more mind boggling...but it is fueld by hate and fear of losing control or thinking one person is better than another.

now with that said...ever since man has walked upright we have faced evil...and that evil is not some supernatural being with horns..it is someone that looks just like us ...because evil has not mask- it is us...and when we follow someone blindly, demonize another culture, kill or ethnically cleanse we become evil when we don't stand and confront it. Passivity is what allows genocide in Darfur and Sub Saharan Africa...It allows walls to be built in Warsaw, South Africa and Israel...the guise to keeping people safe is one persons wall another's jail. Who ever controls the images controls the message. But the reality is people that just want to live a normal life are caught in the train wreck that is power and land control.

Evil has a face and it can become personified like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chiang, Idi Amin Saddam or others..or it can take on the face of familiarity and a business suit and run countries.

now who defines evil can be evil themselves if they forget the humanity that is collectively disposed of when evil is waged for territory and power.

[Omaha]

Nicely done all. Reasonable thoughtful comments with a lack of spin. I can only hope that DY’s most prolific poster will do the same whenever s/he runs the board. Again congratulations to all who have posted. Stephen Colbert would be proud of you all.

[Patrick]

Armenia fit in anywhere in this argument?

[gibran]

Armenia fit in anywhere in this argument?

Absolutely...these are the forgotten victims...actually they were the inital victims of a century of horror..bookends

Armenia and Africa...

sorry for leaving that out..again,,Christian Arabs, Cambodia..

I think what my message is that silence is deadly..and that if a child dies in any conflict innocently we all die a little

[firstandten]

I did some reading on the Rwanda genocide and even though its not in the class of the holocaust maybe less than 1 million killed, the sheer horror and brutality and people killing and maining each other was very hard to take. Can you see yourself in your house when a mob of people would come and drag you out of your house and then maybe do unspeakable things to you and your family.

Evil is evil no matter where you find it, the numbers or lack thereof shouldn't have a thing to do with it.

[gnome]

Since the slave traders were both europeans and africans, wasn't President Obama speaking to desendants of slave traders?

[Sstashmoo]

I got two words for Obama: Move on

[Gistok]

...

He's one step ahead of you... he already has moved on... he's no longer in Ghana...

[PlymouthRes]

Ah, someone finally mentioned the Armenians! I was wondering when their plight would be mentioned, considering historians worldwide view that as the first genocide of the 20th century.

Also, based on percentage, the Armenian Genocide wiped out almost 3/4 to 7/8 of the Armenian population known to exist on the earth at the time [[3 million to start, approximately 3/4 million when it was over), therefore ranking it amongst the worst genocides ever committed. As an example, the Jews had approximately 10 million people in their culture throughout the world of which 6 million [[est.) were eliminated, leaving a remnant of 4 million to perpetuate the race. The Armenians fared far worse than ANY nationality in the 20th century, as their numbers were small to begin with.

Also saw a great article today on CNN which has some of the issues discussed here addressed as well. Check it out here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/14/afr...tml?eref=ib_us

And no, I don't think it was a strong comparision....

[Omaha]

As a Colbert Conservative, let me say that the discussion remains civil and enlightening. Nice work all. So far the comments on what to compare and how to compare it is best handled, in my opinion, by gibran and firstandten’s observations.

Additionally there is an other underappreciated piece of fallout with the slave trader thing that isn’t at first obvious.

What did Christopher Columbus do before he “discovered America?� He sailed for Portugal. And part of his captain’s responsibilities was sailing down the African coast and picking up slaves to be brought back to Portugal to be sold.

That behavior would brand him, in the eyes of many, as a slave trader. He also brought back Native American with him as slaves after his first and second voyages. That made him the world’s first trans-Atlantic slave trader.

We have a founding document that, while it doesn’t say slavery, recognized and perpetuated slavery...until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. We have had Presidents who were buyers and sellers of slaves. And we’ve had Presidents who supported the expansion of slavery into the newly bought/won territories. But our admiration of them is clearly tempered by their behaviors.

But because the "rest of the story" concerning Columbus is widely unknown, it is not part of our “history� or consciousness. Because that information is not taught and because Columbus was uplifted to mythic proportions in popular culture at the end of the 1800s, the first time elementary students today are taught about Columbus and the meeting of two distinct cultures it is “all good.� We also have a highly respected civic group called the Knights of Columbus.

Sometimes the tearing down of proud historical figures is painful. I just pray and hope that nothing is brought to light that would make me reconsider my devotion to that great conservative...Stephen Colbert.

[gibran]

Omaha: I just heard Colbert was Palin around with terrorists...

[ccbatson]

Both horrible, but different motives with different degrees of evil. Slavery to steal an individual's rights at all levels, the holocaust, hateful attempted genocide

[Omaha]

Again, thoughtful comments and puns without spin until, as I predicted, the most prolific added a pearl of ____, as s/he is want to do.

[ccbatson]

Again, no substantive reply to my valid arguments.

[Omaha]

Again: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

[ccbatson]

Are you on my side Omaha? It sure seems like it. How so? I say that you make no substantive arguments [[a surrender) and you respond with "blah, blah, blah". You do realize that you are doing my work for me and against your position in the debate, don't you?

[Omaha]

cc, on your side? I am a Colbert Conservative and a Social Darwinist. You are neither!

Your many posts just add more to the stinking pile that you have already left. So when I deign to read and respond to your maniacal ego-driven running of the board, it seems "blah, blah, blah blah, blah...." is enough.

Alas, more or less of a response on my part [[or anyone else's for that matter), won't inspire or limit you to "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" one iota.

[Danny]

Slavery of Africans in United States was a HOLOCAUST! Obama was right about his comment.

A free nation with slaves, that was America.

[oladub]

Danny, Start with the definition. Meanings 2 and 3 are very loose fits for what Obama said. Nothing wrong with poetic license. There was significant loss of life in the capture of slaves and in the slave ships. However, most property owners have an interest in the viability of their property. However cruel and inhumane slavery is, whether in the early US or Africa and the Middle East today, slaves are of no value to their owners once dead.

ho·lo·caust
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn — more at caustic 1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 aoften capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b: a mass slaughter of people ; especially : genocide
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust

[Omaha]

Oladub, exactly right. Maximization of profits is an economic principle that has been serving our economy proudly for centuries.

Slavery was created in the mid 1600s because it was more profitable than hiring indentured servants who left their master after a given period of time and became “free labor.� But life for indentured servants wasn’t all a bowl of cherries either. Maryland in 1641 passed a law making it a felony for a servant [[not a slave) to run away from his or her master. The felony was punishable with death!

And even if chattel slavery as was created in America was the most inhuman and degrading modern mankind has known, as Oladub said, employers didn’t want to screw with “their property.� Gee, with slaves if there was ever a time when the master had more slaves than he needed, he could hire them out to others in need of workers.

And that is possibly why females slaves were treated less inhumanely than their male counterparts…females could create new property for their owners.

But let’s not forget that the first Africans into North America came as indentured servants. It took the white population [[who had the right to vote and elect representatives) to come up with the political process of creating slave codes. I mean the law that declared slave children are the legal property of their owners is just one example of a great profit-maximizing law. And the ability to bear children may be one reason why female slaves were treated less inhumanely than their male counterparts. The ability to create property shouldn’t be messed with.

Forbidding slaves to meet in groups, or bear arms, or leave the plantation without written permission, or to testify against a white man all are consistent with keeping powerless slaves…well, powerless.

If a slave hit a white person, regardless of who is to blame…40 lashes. If a master kills a slave…no crime was committed. Why? It was assumed that no master would want to intentionally hurt his property and the killing must have happened as the result of self-defense.

So in Maryland in 1656 when a master killed a slave by pouring hot lead over him, the master was acquitted because the court accepted the defense that the slave was “incorrigible.� In New York [[hardly a plantation state) in 1735, John Van Zandt whipped a slave to death without punishment. But the jury decided that the whipping was NOT the cause of death. Death came to the slave because there was a “visitation of God.�

Man, this country has loved profit maximization for a long time. I’d even argue that one of the reasons we split from Mother England is that the laws were stacked in her favor when it came to making a profit. We united [[united we stand, divided we fall), much like a labor union, to break a legally binding contract so that those in on this side of the Atlantic could have the freedom and liberty to maximize profits.