Question from a Reader: how do these words, from Lincoln's Speech of 1854 on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, apply to the relationship between an Israeli man and a Palestinian man? Does Barack Obama and do American liberals dare to think of the words when we contemplate the Israeli attempt at "teaching a lesson" to the men of Gaza?
[Lincoln begins by noting that the people of one state of the U.S. should not trouble
themselves about the laws of another state regulating oysters or cranberries, then moves on to the principle of self-government with respect to slavery.]"The doctrine of self-government is right–absolutely and eternally right–but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is NOT or IS a man. If he is NOT a man, why in that case, he who IS a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if a negro IS a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern HIMSELF? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs ANOTHER man, that is MORE than self-government–that is despotism."
Nothing in this speech is inconsistent with Lincoln's preference that Negros be deported to Latin America or back to Africa, where they could 'govern themselves.'
In Israeli-Palestianian terms, Lincoln was a 'two-state solution' proponent. He did not envision the 'one-state solution' which we have today, in which blacks vote on equal terms with, and even govern whites.
Wholesale, fraudulent historical revisionism has allowed Barack Obama to pose as a philosophical acolyte of Lincoln. It makes for wonderful, entertaining political theater. But Lincoln, transported to 2009 by a time machine, would have been utterly appalled at Obama's accession to power, and probably would have rejected the philosophical embrace.
I have seen arguments that Lincoln's opinion changed over time.
Anyway, my wife has address the same subject as Lincoln's speech in Polite Discussion of Zionism — Is it Possible?
When you preface your opinion, as Joachim does in his blog, with an obvious racist lie, a polite discussion is not possible.
But thanks for asking.
I have spent a lot of time in studying Rabbinic literature of the 18th, 19th, 20th century as well as Yiddish literature of the 19th and 20th century.
It is hard to deny that E. European ethnic Ashkenazim were well in advance of other E. Europeans in developing a full-fledged ideology of racism.
Just take a look at the Tanya — especially the original Hebrew.
See this Mumbai comment and Gentiles Less Human Than Jews.
Of course you did. Is that the basis of your racism?