By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Family angry because supermarket won't inscribe cake to son, Adolf Hitler

rocketpig on 17 December 2008
jv103 said:
Yeah good point. I think if we've seen anything with many government mandated things, it does spark vitriol. Are you one who gets behind the idea that the segregation of blacks in the United States was in part due to the nature of their emancipation (force- not a buyout or something of that nature). I heard this argument before because someone was mentioning European countries that outlawed slavery with less problems and less backlash.
Or do you think it is because of the infrastructure that surrounded slavery?

Just curious and didn't mean to move off-topic, butit seems that when Governments try to expedite something through mandates they get a lot of blowback, often exacerbating the problem.

Well, I'm no historian but I'll give my opinions on it.

America was far different than Europe (and is less adapt to change, a good thing IMO) because, as the slavery lines were drawn, it came down to being almost two different countries. That's the problem with America and in turn, one of its greatest plusses. It's a large country of very different people. The South made its life on slavery and agriculture. The North made its life on industry and "progressive" thought. In a system such as that, breaking slavery laws were going to be an absolute nightmare for the country at large.

So, I think it was something that needed to happen and it needed someone smart enough to know what would happen should this action be made. Lincoln ran on a platform of retaining slavery IIRC, which allowed his election. Only then did he begin what he knew needed to happen, and that was the Civil War. Maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit but I think he's one of the smartest politicians to live in the modern world (up there with Napoleon, Jefferson, et al) but that's what I personally believe.

Anyway, I don't believe slavery (and later, racism) was a problem in America because of the government, but the government certainly hasn't helped things along. I think it had far more to do with one side of the Civil War losing, killing their bread 'n' butter, and basically facing humility while those damned negroes were enabled to action. That division still resonates today. Go to a Waffle House in Mississippi and tell them you're from the "North". Chances are, you'll still be called a Yankee, if not worse.

Education is the real weapon against racism. Unfortunately, there will always be stupid people, who will wash my car and serve me food. On another tangent, every society needs an underclass but that's another argument...




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 December 2008
stof said:
Guys, there isn't a single legal problem with this. The store doesn't have to do it if they don't want to. Perhaps it's because they think being associated with a hitler cake could lose business or reflect poorly on their reputation, or perhaps its just because the person behind the counter said "Adolf Hitler? No way in Hell!"

Either way, that's fine. A store isn't legally obligated to serve you, it's a private enterprise.

And no, it's not the same thing as denying service to someone based on their race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. This isn't discrimination.

 

Your right... this is actually even worse.

At least someones race gender, ethinicity or sexuality is something.

Someones name is nothign but a meaningless identifier... even more meaningless then the other things you are talking about.



jv103 on 17 December 2008
rocketpig said:
jv103 said:
Yeah good point. I think if we've seen anything with many government mandated things, it does spark vitriol. Are you one who gets behind the idea that the segregation of blacks in the United States was in part due to the nature of their emancipation (force- not a buyout or something of that nature). I heard this argument before because someone was mentioning European countries that outlawed slavery with less problems and less backlash.
Or do you think it is because of the infrastructure that surrounded slavery?

Just curious and didn't mean to move off-topic, butit seems that when Governments try to expedite something through mandates they get a lot of blowback, often exacerbating the problem.

Well, I'm no historian but I'll give my opinions on it.

America was far different than Europe (and is less adapt to change, a good thing IMO) because, as the slavery lines were drawn, it came down to being almost two different countries. That's the problem with America and in turn, one of its greatest plusses. It's a large country of very different people. The South made its life on slavery and agriculture. The North made its life on industry and "progressive" thought. In a system such as that, breaking slavery laws were going to be an absolute nightmare for the country at large.

So, I think it was something that needed to happen and it needed someone smart enough to know what would happen should this action be made. Lincoln ran on a platform of retaining slavery IIRC, which allowed his election. Only then did he begin what he knew needed to happen, and that was the Civil War. Maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit but I think he's one of the smartest politicians to live in the modern world (up there with Napoleon, Jefferson, et al) but that's what I personally believe.

Anyway, I don't believe slavery (and later, racism) was a problem in America because of the government, but the government certainly hasn't helped things along. I think it had far more to do with one side of the Civil War losing, killing their bread 'n' butter, and basically facing humility while those damned negroes were enabled to action. That division still resonates today. Go to a Waffle House in Mississippi and tell them you're from the "North". Chances are, you'll still be called a Yankee, if not worse.

Education is the real weapon against racism. Unfortunately, there will always be stupid people, who will wash my car and serve me food. On another tangent, every society needs an underclass but that's another argument...

 

 Yeah good point. People who are paid less and do menial labor are a necessity to a capitalistic society. They form the basis for the allowance of vertical progression (although no one can become 'upper class' in one generation. It takes old money, education and political power or so this sociology book I read said), Anyways peace.