Bigger travesty: Slavery vs. Holocaust

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

And the centuries of being subjected to unending, unchallenged dictatorial rule by the Church.

What do you mean "unchallenged dictatorial rule"? Secular rulers challenged the authority of the Church all the time. You should read about the time the King of France had the Pope kidnapped and beaten half to death.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RainMan

Not to mention the vatican's role (or lack of concern) in regards to the Holocaust. There was no visible opposition from the Catholic Church in saying 'This is wrong'. Meanwhile, millions of jews were being killed. The point is that the church had the power to do something positive, and decided not to.

Rabbi David G. Dalin disagrees.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

You missed the slavery comment because it wasn't actually made. GhaleonQ asked if slavery did "some good", but didn't specify what kind of good, when asking what good came from ethnic cleansing.

You're arguing from a purely economic standpoint in slavery wasn't beneficial, and in that perspective, you're right, and the results of the Civil War prove as much. That isn't to say that there weren't other ways that slavery could have been beneficial. Booker T. Washington provides one argument for that position in Up From Slavery:

Quote:

"Think about it: We went into slavery pagans; we came out Christians. We went into slavery pieces of property; we came out American citizens. We went into slavery with chains clanking about our wrists; we came out with the American ballot in our hands...Notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, we are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe."

If you want to look for good that has resulted from slavery, that would probably be the best case.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

The assumption that Washington makes is that Africa would still be an ignorant global backwater without the slave trade. This likely would not be the case if people did not institutionalize forced labor, anywhere.

On what do you base this assumption, exactly? The geography and climate of subsaharan Africa in many ways precluded the development of industrial society.

For instance, part of the reason Europe was able to industrialize was its river systems, which allowed cities, large population, infrastructure and commerce to develop. Africa has a similar river system, but its rivers had the problem of breeding mosquitoes, which in turn carried malaria. As a result, Africans avoided their bodies of water as much as they could, and the societies that developed were perfectly adapted for surviving in the environment, but were ill-equipped to develop to the level that those in Europe and Asia did. (At the same time, this served to effectively bar European settlement until they could effectively combat malaria.)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?