Harvard Prof Excuses ISIS Sex Slavery and Terrorism Because USA Had Slavery 150 Years Ago

I thought liberals were always congratulating themselves on how they are so mentally superior that they see “nuances” everywhere? Now a halfwit liberal is making the lie to that by equating U.S. slavery to ISIS rape culture thereby proving he is an utter simpleton.

A pinheaded Harvard professor is now out there insisting that we shouldn’t get too upset over the fact that ISIS terrorists are using rape and sexual slavery as a weapon of war because, gosh darn it, the U.S.A. had slavery 150 years ago, too. You heard that right, that is exactly what Bloomberg columnist and Harvard professor Noah Feldman is saying. He is saying that U.S. slavery is exactly the same as ISIS using rape as a tool.

Feldman starts his facile piece with a lie on his lips right at the outset.

It’s been 150 years since U.S. law allowed masters to rape enslaved girls and women. Almost all modern Muslim societies banned slavery in the last century. So why is Islamic State turning back the clock, actively embracing and promoting enslavement of Yazidi women, thereby enabling them to be raped under one interpretation of classical Islamic law?

The first half of that is essentially a lie. U.S. law did not excuse rape of slave women in direct terms in the same way that ISIS is using rape as a tool of war and religious supremacy.

Yes, it was true that negro slave women had no standing in American law during that time period, sure, but it is not true that rape was actually ensconced in that law in certain terms. On the other hand, ISIS is making rape and sexual slavery a directly espoused practice that they are trying to back up via sharia law and interpretations of the Koran. So, the case of early 1800s American law turning a blind eye to the ravaging of slave women and ISIS directly entering sexual slavery into its political and legal codes are not at all the same thing.

There is that “nuance” of which the left claims to have sole ownership. If this nitwit “professor” can’t see the truth I just stated, the “nuance” between then and now, then he truly is a simpleton.

On top of all that, our antebellum society looked down upon slave owners raping their female slaves. Slave masters tried very hard to hide from polite society the fact that they had sexual relations with slaves.

So, it is utterly illegitimate for this professor to equate the complicated and usually undercover sexual history of U.S. slavery to the open boasting of rape by ISIS, and only a simpleton would say they are equally the same. Sex with slaves was thought dirty and shameful in antebellum America. Not so for ISIS today.

Feldman also seriously misleads when he says, “Almost all modern Muslim societies banned slavery in the last century.” In fact, Saudi Arabia and many other “modern Muslim societies” didn’t officially ban slavery until the 1960s, fully 100 years after out civil war ended slavery here. The way Feldman states this it is as if those so-called “modern Muslim societies” had banned slavery a long time ago. But in fact it was quite recent.

Feldman also trots out the lie that Thomas Jefferson had sexual relations with one of his slaves. There is absolutely no reliable proof that Thomas Jefferson had sex with Sally Hemings. None.

Naturally, like all good leftists, this pinhead says that the problems of slavery in the U.S.A. have never gone away and that slavery is still here today despite that it was eliminated over 150 years ago, despite that we have explicitly had equal civil rights for the last 50 years.

Then he says THIS lie:

And we would do well not to forget that American slavery, particularly in its last half-century before abolition, was one of the most brutal slave systems in recorded human history. In comparison, the history of Islamic slavery is relatively mild.

American slavery was never ever one of “the most brutal slave systems in recorded human history.” Slavery is certainly always wrong, but compared to other systems throughout history, the U.S. system was one of the more mild systems in history, not the “most brutal.” It is just factually incorrect to say the American system was worse than all others. As bad as it was, it just plan wasn’t as bad as that of other eras, other nations, other peoples.

And just as he essentially lied about and softened the late abolition of slavery by those “modern Muslim societies” he is so impressed with, he then swings the opposite way for the U.S.A. saying, “What we in the U.S. recently sanctioned, we now find repulsive.”

So, he doesn’t find it necessary to scold those “modern Muslim societies” for abolishing slavery a mere 50 years ago, but he DOES find it hypocritical of the U.S.A. to stand against slavery because of its “recent” acceptance of slavery… as “recent” as 150 years ago!

This shows that his hatred for the our country trumps his hatred of slavery and terrorism both.

Next, this idiot reveals that he knows nothing about the U.S. Constitution.

“The U.S. Constitution acknowledged and sanctioned slavery created by state laws,” he says. Actually, no. The U.S. Constitution did not “sanction” slavery.

In fact, the framers were pretty careful to neither outlaw nor sanction slavery. The reason was that all involved in creating the Constitution–even the southerners–imagined that slavery would be gotten rid of in a short time (they were wrong about that, sadly) and they didn’t want to permanently enshrine slavery in the document. They even put an incentive in the document to get rid of slavery by creating the three fifths clause which penalized the south by not allowing slave owners to count their slaves as a “whole” person in order to assign representation in Congress.

So, while the Constitution was often misused to allow slavery (The Dred Scott decision being a perfect example) it never gave anything like a full throated sanction of slavery.

Once again Feldman shows he lacks the left’s supposed supremacy at “nuance.”

Next he belches out another lie about the Constitution:

An unchanging Constitution would include and enshrine the racism and sexism of the founding generation.

We already addressed his lie about “racism,” but the “sexism” he notes is an obvious allusion to the fact that women didn’t have the right to vote during the founder’s time. But, by tying “sexism” to the Constitution, he lies again because the Constitution never mentions any sexism. Not once. Not at all.

And finally he lies about and speaks for Muslims who he insists have accepted modernity.

Islamic State is enslaving women to trumpet to the world that it refuses to accept the idea of contemporary progress, an idea that has, in fact, been accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.

This is a nice little white lie that liberals tell each other in order to pretend that ISIS and its ilk aren’t made up of “real” Muslims.

The truth is that the majority of Muslims have in no way “accepted” modernity. Poll after poll finds that Muslims the world over don’t want women to have rights, that they approve of harsh treatment for gays, that they agree with eliminating the free speech of “infidels,” they want laws to prevent “blasphemy,” and that they generally like the actions and goals of the most radical terrorists even if they are squeamish about all the killing, raping, and mass murder.

This entire steaming piece of garbage by this “professor” is nothing but an excuse for a leftist to claim that the U.S.A. is “just as bad” as ISIS. And that is an outright lie.

Sadly, this creep is a teacher of students and is indoctrinating American young people with his peculiar brand of self-hate.

Finally, let me say this. If after reading this whole thing your little pea brain decides that I am somehow condoning slavery, then you are a moron not worth my time to address and you are wasting valuable oxygen the rest of us could be using.

"So I wonder..."
When The Crude Oil Runs Out
  • Commander_Chico

    Feldman is right, ISIS is a reaction to and fight against modernity. Harvard has some smart people.

    Most of the Muslim world is at least 150 years behind the West and East Asia in political, legal and social development. Arabs are more or less retarded in that sense. Malaysia and Indonesia are only a little behind, on par with other places like Thailand or the Philippines. Turkey is having its ups and downs, but is comparible to the less developed parts of Eastern Europe.

    The best thing is for Muslims is to let fight them out amongst themselves and guard the borders. They will end up deciding that they prefer comfort, freedom and travel, to poverty, isolation and slavery.

    • jim_m

      Trust Chico to side with the enemy and bash America.

      • Commander_Chico

        I’ll take Noah Feldman, a guy who studied the Middle East and went to Iraq to help on their constitution over tired neocon epithets.

        • Ken in Camarillo

          Who are you going to trust, Feldman or your lying eyes?

          • Commander_Chico

            Is that “immigration was not an issue in 1868” Ken?

          • Commander_Chico

            Is that “immigration was not an issue before 1882” Ken?

    • Jwb10001

      Wow so these people are so backward in their attitudes and thinking we should forgive them their atrocities. At the same time we should continue to punish the US for advancing beyond that stage. Close off their borders and let them kill each other off, as a side benefit let’s let them have a nuke so they can take out the Jews to. That’s a win win for you isn’t it?

    • b l

      Guard the borders, and the let the barbarians come to their senses. Attila and the Huns will never cross the Rhine!

    • Scalia

      You seem to be commenting very rarely of late. You traveling or are you just getting tired of blogging?

  • Commander_Chico

    As far as Jefferson and Sally Hemings goes, the DNA evidence is pretty strong that he was tapping her. The Smithsonian endorsed that finding. There is a direct Y-DNA link between the Jeffersons and the son of Hemings and his decendants.

    http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/art/genemap.gif

    DNA don’t lie, to deny it is to turn away from reality. It was either Thomas Jefferson or his brother, and Thomas was proven to be there and had the opportunities.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/#1

    The fun fact is that Sally and Jefferson’s wife Martha had the same father. A lot of those slave owners were fucking the slaves, on the spectrum from forcible rape through various coercions to enticement and seduction. The slave women were obviously not free agents in any case.

  • b l

    There was slavery here a century and a half ago.
    Of course we fixed that with a massive war.
    Is this guy suggesting the same today?

    • MartinLandauCalrissian

      Excellent point. Maybe Feldman is saying we should kill as many muzzies as possible, then?

    • Commander_Chico

      “We” fixed it. The British and French didn’t come in and fix it.

      • b l

        Tsar Alexander, who strongly supported the north, emancipated the Russian serfs in 1861. In 1863 he sent two battle fleets to visit New York and San Francisco. They would not have been able to challenge the British navy but there was an obvious message of open, armed solidarity with the north. At the same time, opinion in Britain was mixed, but support for the South was very strong in some areas, especially around Liverpool which was virtually a forward base for the Confederate navy. The Russians wanted to make it clear that any direct action on the part of Britain favoring the south would have… implications. Costs.

        So your point that the British, French and Russians didn’t fix it is a little silly. If anything , Britain would have backed the side of slavery, and was already leaning strongly towards the south. Russia would have countered as best it could. France used the diversion to do a little adventuring elsewhere, attempting to take Mexico.

        There was no global situation analogous to today, where virtually the whole world agrees “it’s bad!”, certainly has the ability to intervene, and chooses not to.

        There was also a large, powerful, industrial nation in the north.
        Again, there is no analogue in the middle east today. There is no local great power with the ability to wage war and win. In fact, ISIS has the upper hand against the locals, because they are motivated by the power of belief. That’s why a thousand ISIS gunmen can send 5000 Iraqi soldiers into a panicked retreat even though the Iraqis are heavily armed- the ISIS fighter is motivated by a powerful set of beliefs- a fetid mix of Islam and hatred for the western “establishment”. The ISIS fighter has absorbed the lessons of the imams, and the western liberals, and believes them both. On the other hand the Iraqi knows that he’s fighting for a paycheck, on behalf of greedy, corrupt leaders.

        Leaving it up to them, and hoping for the best, will not go well.

      • b l

        But there’s another angle to look at here. What if they had? What if, instead of looking at the war from their own divergent political perspectives, Russia, Britain and France decided to band together and ally with Lincoln?
        Five years of war, more than a half million dead… might it have not happened if foreign support had given an overwhelming advantage to the north?

  • Hank_M

    Wonder what Feldman would have to say about Woodrow Wilson and the democrat party at that time.