FinalBoy1975

I'm sorry, but you're really trying hard to violate a rule of this community but not quite violating it. Can you tell me which rule you're trying to break but you just aren't breaking it, being very careful with your wording? I know which one. I'd just love it if you just came out and said which one. I'd also really love it if you read the book yourself and made a post about the book, according to your own reading of it, instead of following a different track. You seem to think I'm an idiot, I don't read the world news, or anything. Your problem is that you fear actually posting some opinion of your own. You are not sure how to word it so it isn't removed. Or you're not sure how to word it because you fear being banned. All you have to do, right here and right now, is just read the book yourself and talk about it or ask about it. Hell, even ask other people if they would like to read it with you. The rest of what you have to say to me also follows the rules precisely. I really don't have anything else to say to you than this. I said what I think about the shitty book review you seem to think is gold. You think it's gold. I think it's crap. I happen to moderate this place, I didn't delete your stuff or ban you. I think at this point I am politely requesting that you actually use your intellect more and be less of a coward. If you have something to share, do so from the heart without breaking the rules, something you are trying to do and failing to do because you don't know quite how to do that. Figure it out on your own and do that. Sorry I was critical of your share. It's not a good share. It isn't worthy of removal, either. Waiting for someone to report it so I can remove it, though.

It isn't there in the books you didn't read. And I am absolutely not defending the USA's Jim Crow laws. I'm saying the argument of the book, according to this review, is weak because it does not tell me much about the author's research. That's all. Read the book yourself, show me where it has solid evidence, then I'll engage with you more.

Yeah, that doesn't convince me. Sorry. Plenty of racists in the USA. Absolutely. What this review says is that the Nazis were looking to the USA as a fine racist example. Still not convinced. Racists on this level are not looking at themselves as racists. They're looking at something else using their racism as an unrecognized motivator to achieve another end. I suppose you don't want to read the books I recommended because you're too busy. The review article sucks, in my opinion. And that's just the way it goes. Nothing you're saying convinces me that this is actually good content. It's mediocre content. You'd get my point if you were well read.

It's just a review that isn't very good, in my opinion.

They'll get around to it. What they need to get around to doing is telling people this. So many mods don't know and a lot of their problems would be solved if they were informed. I totally figured it out by accident. Wherever and whenever, I just let other mods know this, because their problem might be because of a block list.

Well, he must taste like a cheeseburger. He eats one every day doesn't he? Imagine eating a person and every bite tastes like a cheeseburger. If people tasted delicious like a cheeseburger, I'd totally hop on board the Hannibal train. I could put up with bringing my jar of pickles, my chopped onions, and other condiments to the love fest.

Not just lack of them. The system gives you mod privileges, but as soon as you become a mod, all the things you did as a free and happy user sort of cave in. For example, super cool how users can block instances with the new update. If you're a mod, if you block an instance, you can't see posts in the community you moderate from instances you blocked, I'm guessing. I'm guessing, but it makes perfect sense. If you block a user and you're a mod, you can't see posts from that user in the community you moderate. I figured this out and right now, am I free as a moderator to block people? Nope. If I want to do my job (which I totally volunteered for, by the way) I have to just let people harass me. For me, it's no big, because whatever (as I shake my blonde pony tail back and forth). But, you know, they need some programmers to make it so you can be a good moderator and block people who harass you and still see their posts and comments in the community you moderate. Until then, you have to bend over and take it. It's not so bad, though. I mean, it's been a long time since my old block list came back to haunt my ass. However, it's something that is missing that needs to be addressed. My recommendation (because I've been burnt as a mod) is to just never block anything. It's sad. I mean, mods do the job because they want to, but they can't ever be a user that can block shit when they're being a user and not modding.

My only question about this is: Why did the Nazis specifically look to Jim Crow laws? Ease of use and accessibility in a time before the internet or something? They could have looked at any other laws as a model in the world that were similar in scope and effect. Plenty of European neighbors, quite recently (in the 19th century) had established similar racist laws in their colonies. I can't seem to find an answer to my question. Any colonial law code from a European power invested in colonizing and subjugating people would have sufficed, actually, because the Nazis were trying to achieve world domination through the subjugation of "others" who were not of what they called the "Aryan" race (hence the outbreak of two World Wars). It's an interesting essay, but it doesn't answer this question. It would have been much better and more convincing if it had taken colonial and post-colonial theories into question, for the simple fact that the Nazi agenda was an empire building enterprise. If the essay had asked this question and addressed it, perhaps it would have discovered and communicated to us why the Nazi enterprise ultimately failed. The Jim Crow laws were disgusting. So were all the others similar to Jim Crow laws invented by colonizing European powers in the 19th century. I would recommend further reading. Authors that come to mind are Ann Laura Stoler, Rolena Adorno, Homi Bhahba, and Gayatri Spivak (but there are more to consider). I'm just throwing out what I like to call the "Golden Oldies." There are certainly more. To me, this essay is interesting for a high school project, but needs help if it should be considered actually worthy of attention, specifically because of my question. Why did the Nazis look to American law? It seems inefficient to me. They could have looked at their own laws, or even laws adjacent to them, such as Prussian laws. There are lots of questions to consider here inside my initial question.