Politesse said:
Of course it was. The war that resulted was nearly genocidal in scope, easily the most violent conflict the world had ever seen, and the violence of that war spilled over into literal genocides against the inhabitants of the Plains during the same years. And its influence on actual civil rights was incremental in exchange for the loss of life that it required; much better strides were made through passive resistance and peaceful demonstrations that occurred nearly a century later. On some level, the war was probably necessarily, or at least inevitable. But I would not consider such tactics to be anything like the ideal mechanism of social change. And the behemoth that it created, the federal government and its role, remains a principal source of argument and contention between Americans that seeps into every modern political conflict somehow.
Whether it's the
ideal mechanism was not the issue. You said earlier that "When one group tries to use the government as a weapon against another, no one wins and everyone loses rights."
Banning slavery is a case that matches what you count as a case of a group trying to use the government as a weapon against another, and yet many people won, not everyone lost legal rights, and many gained legal rights. So, I was using this as a counterexample.
As for Civil Rights Movement in the 20th century, that (and other factors) also resulted in (among other things) bans on a number of behaviors, such as racial discrimination in public accommodations. Were those not also cases of a group of people using the government as a weapon against another group?
Granted, there were also many attempts to persuade people. And the same happened a century earlier, before slavery was banned at a federal level. And the same happened much earlier too, before slavery was banned in many states. But a lot of people were not persuaded at all. They were forced to change their behavior. In all cases, there were positive and negative results; in all but one, there was no war, and in all of them, there were winners and losers. In some cases, people lost some legal rights (e.g., the right to discriminate on the basis of race in public accommodations), but gained also some legal rights (e.g., the right not to be discriminated on the basis of race in public accommodations); in some cases, some people did not lose any legal rights, but gained some, and so on.
I would say the matter has to be assessed as usual on a case-by-case basis.
Politesse said:
Sort of. I'm glad that slavery was banned, certainly. Given my mixed ancestry, I wouldn't exist if it had not. But I note that this success was very limited, and remains incomplete, with something like ten percent of the target population still performing unpaid labor for the rest of us via the prison system. I do not believe that the emancipation itself can be credited to the war alone; without the acts of many, many courageous writers and activists and lawyers from the creation of the country until and past the war itself, it would not have been possible for these changes to occur no matter how many bullets and shells you used to rip the flesh from the bones of your enemies.
Sure, but I wasn't crediting it to the war alone (I wasn't even crediting it to the war, but asking about the ban on slavery).
In fact, before the war began, slavery had already been banned in most American states, in some of them a long time earlier. Those bans did not result in wars. And they did take away some legal rights (e.g., rights to own slaves), while granting other legal rights.
Do you think that those cases were also cases of groups trying to use the (state) government as a weapon against other groups?
If so, as before, I would point out that many people won with those laws.
If not, why would these not be cases of groups trying to use the government as a weapon against other groups?
Politesse said:
Did the war solve a problem? Yes. Was it the best solution to the problem? That requires more omniscience concerning the alternatives than I in fact possess. But I find it hard to look at such a violent experience as somehow ideal and desirable.
We may then leave the war aside, and consider instead bans on slavery at a state level in the 18th and early 19th century, or bans on racial discrimination in public accommodation in the 20th century, and so on. Those bans were also cases of groups using the government as a weapon against other groups (if I understand what you mean by that correctly; else, please let me know), and not everyone lost. In some cases, not everyone lost legal rights, either, it seems to me (e.g., what legal rights did slaves lose?), and in any event, the loss of some legal rights (such as the legal right to own slaves) is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Politesse said:
I also note that this "culture" idea of yours is very flawed.
I did not express any idea of culture. I'm trying to go with what you say. I don't know why you bring this up.
Politesse said:
Not everyone in the South held exclusively one perspective on the issue, nor everyone in the North. Whose opinion do you decide to nominate as "the" opinion of the "culture" of the North or the South respectively?
I don't know. I did not say anything about the opinion of any culture. I'm not even sure what that would mean. Have you mistaken me for another poster, perhaps?
My only use of the word "culture" was in a question I asked you, in response to a post of yours in which you talked about "my culture's principles", so I would ask you about your idea of culture. I could have objected to your post in a way similar to the way you're now objecting to something you seem to think I said, but I decided to let that pass and focus on a different issue.
Anyway, of course not everyone held exclusively one perspective on the the issue, either in the North or in the South. But also, of course the same goes for any of the behaviors that the OP proposes be banned. In fact, even in California (LordKiran's location), it seems prevalence (in males) is still over 20% of newborns (source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preva...ates_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg ) (in the US as a whole, it's not a minority, but a majority practice).
Politesse said:
I wouldn't. Even if you think a particular instance of it is justified or even necessary, using a state apparatus to detain or murder everyone who disagrees with you still constitutes using the government as a weapon. You just used it as a weapon "for good", if you did.
But the proposed ban is not about detaining everyone who disagrees, or murdering anyone. It's about banning certain behaviors other than opinions. Disagreement would not count. Also, the proposed ban does not say anything about intended punishment.
That aside, even bans on slavery or bans on racial discrimination in public accommodations do not constitute examples of using a state apparatus to detain or murder everyone who disagrees with the people who proposed the ban. Disagreement was and is indeed allowed. I'm still unsure what you count as using the government as a weapon (and when it's by a group against another group), because on one hand, you seem to indicate a broad use, but on the other hand, you make now an odd claim regarding detaining or even murdering dissenters. So, I'd like to ask:
Do you consider that passing a law imposing a ban on certain behavior (e.g., slavery, rape, bank robbery, etc.), constitute an instance of using the government as a weapon against some group (e.g., people who engage in slavery, rapists, bank robbers, etc.)? If not, how do you go about distinguishing them? (if you have no definition, that's fair enough - if you give me several examples that constitute the behavior in question and let me know whether bans on rape, bank robbery, etc., count, I can work with that.
