Poll: Gender recognition offence

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

At the very least I can say you have a very rose tinted view of the goings on in South East Asia, I'll grant Singapore might be magnitudes better than the rest the region. Having said that I've heard more than enough personal horror stories, read more than enough news articles about the rest of that region of the world to curl my toenails. If what I'm saying is the first you're hearing, then your news sources are really sanitized by the censors, or you just don't get exposed to the kind of news I do. When it comes down to it, human trafficking in Asia is a BIG business, this includes the transit of people forced into prostitution.

Also if regional powers, like China, continue to keep their sights set on foreign expansion, don't expect the good times to last.

I'll leave it at that, though, it's a discussion for another thread.

Edit: Also as melting pots go, Singapore is without a doubt diverse, but America is even more so. Here we have representatives of virtually every race, religion, ideology, and culture. People question our level of diversity as a melting pot, but I live in a fairly small city, and you can find representation of a huge number of cultures here. That's if anything, typical of most places in the US.

 

[Lictor Face]

-snip-

At the very least I can say you have a very rose tinted view of the goings on in South East Asia, I'll grant Singapore might be magnitudes better than the rest the region. Having said that I've heard more than enough personal horror stories, read more than enough news articles about the rest of that region of the world to curl my toenails. If what I'm saying is the first you're hearing, then your news sources are really sanitized by the censors, or you just don't get exposed to the kind of news I do. When it comes down to it, human trafficking in Asia is a BIG business, this includes the transit of people forced into prostitution.

Also if regional powers, like China, continue to keep their sights set on foreign expansion, don't expect the good times to last.

I'll leave it at that, though, it's a discussion for another thread.

Edit: Also as melting pots go, Singapore is without a doubt diverse, but America is even more so. Here we have representatives of virtually every race, religion, ideology, and culture. People question our level of diversity as a melting pot, but I live in a fairly small city, and you can find representation of a huge number of cultures here. That's if anything, typical of most places in the US.

Do not mistake me for being willingly naive, I do not appreciate that, and it is unbecoming to assume just because I give appropriate information on the topic at hand. I am very much aware of the trafficking industry revolving around kidnappings and children in Asia and the various syndicates that engage in the trade. I do live here after all. I myself am more likely to unwillingly experience it than you are.

But I have reponded accordingly to your mentioned point (of transgenders being targets in this trade).

And I have never heard of transgenders being kidnapped into the sex trade in my entire life in Asia. Where you discover this very fact would be greatly appreciated.


Singapore does host the US navy every now and then, we're one of the many Pro-US lynchpins that America has in this region. Granted its not full-proof, this sort of thing never is, but its something, and we've been trading with China for decades while having a humorously tiny territory. And lets be real. Given how tiny we are, if China really wanted to do something about us, no force on this globe can stop them. That's the reality. So we make do and move on.

I don't disagree regarding culture. But you're not in the same region, you are your own region (if that makes any sense). Having a multi-cultural composition in a ridiculously tiny country while surrounded by countries that are homogeneous, its trickier then it sounds.

This doesn't even take extremism into consideration, of which Malaysia and Indonesia are a hotbed for, and our bi-lateral relations with our neighbors.

But as you say, it is a discussion for another time. Its been interesting regardless.

 

[Lictor Face]

I personally feel that concern for human rights can be an obstacle to making the best possible decision for the state and country.

One wonders what the purpose of state and country is, if not to protect and provide for the humans who live in it.

Two purposes.

1. As you said. Protect and provide for its citizens
2. To strengthen and improve itself so as to better achieve 1.

The priority of the two are interchangeable, but ultimately linked.

As much as I'd like to discuss, this really isn't the thread for it. Maybe on a different one.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Don't mistake me for naive. I am very much aware of the trafficking industry revolving around kidnappings and children.


Point in case. Transgenders are not a part of those.

And I have never heard of transgenders being kidnapped into the sex trade. Ever.

I've heard plenty about children, teenagers, and even adults, also Caucasians are extremely desirable. Worse still the children and teens are often sold off by family members as they are kidnapped. Many adults end up in the sex trade by brokering shady deals to be smuggled overseas in to prosperous Western nations, particularly the USA.

Again you might not heard of trans folk being abducted, I however have. Though I'll concede I hear about a lot more because I'm transgender, thus people, most of whom are trans folk, tend show me such news stories.

Also I wish you'd stop referring to trans folk as "transgenders" it sounds demeaning, trans people or trans folk sounds a lot less, loaded as far as terminology.

Anyways this is a discussion for else where, at a different time. We're talking here about pronoun usage, not issues on a global scale.

 

[Silvanus]

Two purposes.

1. As you said. Protect and provide for its citizens
2. To strengthen and improve itself so as to better achieve 1.

The priority of the two are interchangeable, but ultimately linked.

As much as I'd like to discuss, this really isn't the thread for it. Maybe on a different one.

It's well enough linked, I think. #1, there, is really the only primary purpose; #2 is secondary, being a means to achieve #1. To disregard "concern for human rights" would be to effectively disregard #1.

"white male privilege"

Not sure who you're quoting, there. It's not 01189998819991197253 at any rate. (There's a forum name that's no fun to type out...)

I've never liked how westerners enjoy forcing their ideologies on their asian counterparts anyway. What works there or may be apparent there does not mean the same is true on the other side of the globe.

I'm pretty sure the crux of what he was criticising was the notion that the country should provide for some more than others.

 

[Lictor Face]

It's well enough linked, I think. #1, there, is really the only primary purpose; #2 is secondary, being a means to achieve #1. To disregard "concern for human rights" would be to effectively disregard #1.

You can easily protect and provide for your citizens while curtailing or even violating certain human rights. Freedom of speech for example.

They're not primary or secondary, I would say that they are both equally important, but occasionally one is more urgent than the other.

Say in times of war. Acts like rationing and conscription does not contribute to #1, but #2.

Etc

 

[Silvanus]

You can easily protect and provide for your citizens while curtailing or even violating certain human rights. Freedom of speech for example.

The limitations we accept to the freedom of speech, I believe, are on elements we do not generally consider to be a fundamental human right. Harassment is a restriction we generally accept; harassment is not considered a human right. Only those basic provisions considered inviolable under normal circumstances are usually termed "human rights".

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You can easily protect and provide for your citizens while curtailing or even violating certain human rights. Freedom of speech for example.

The limitations we accept to the freedom of speech, I believe, are on elements we do not generally consider to be a fundamental human right. Harassment is a restriction we generally accept; harassment is not considered a human right. Only those basic provisions considered inviolable under normal circumstances are usually termed "human rights".

Singapore has pretty limited speech, it's by no means free, strict government speech rules also means there is virtually no freedom of the press in Singapore either. Due to government rules and pressuring, most outlets in Singapore heavily self censor. Singapore scores very low on the scales of human and civil rights.

-snip-

I found out something really interesting about Singapore: Transgneder folk are allowed to legally change their gender on official documents, however only for people who are post-operative, I.E. have had sexual reassignment surgery. That's a profoundly backwards way of doing things, for two reasons, it prevents people in transition, or just starting from changing their legal gender, it also ignores trans folk who don't want sexual reassignment. As full sexual reassignment surgery is often enough unnecessary and unwanted as a treatment for gender dysphoria, further more for some trans folk, sexual reassignment is impossible. That's a fair failure in my eyes.

Also in Singapore, homosexual activity is illegal between men, not women. Though the law is seldom enforced, it still stands unchallenged and that's pretty awful for a nation that prides it self on being "modern", because it means that a leader could simply demand the law be enforced. That would lead to homosexuals being rounded up and imprisoned. The strange part, because of the wording of the law, lesbian sexual activity is perfectly legal.

All said that's pretty pitiful.

 

[Silvanus]

Singapore has pretty limited speech, it's by no means free, strict government speech rules also means there is virtually no freedom of the press in Singapore either. Due to government rules and pressuring, most outlets in Singapore heavily self censor. Singapore scores very low on the scales of human and civil rights.

Ah, I was referring to the limitations we accept here, in the UK (where there are some pretty shoddy instances, but it's overall relatively good on that front). Sorry, I wasn't clear.

If a government is severely limiting speech, then I would not consider it to be doing its duty to protect and provide for its citizens a reasonable legal code.

 

[Lictor Face]

See the fun text in bold? Yeah, it applies just as well to the famously racist Singapore,[footnote]Like you don't already know... http://www.xojane.com/issues/racism-in-singapore for one easy example[/footnote] China, Japan, and other East Asian nations. I can't honestly say I appreciated what total racism was until I worked and traveled in that region. It's even more than that too, with all of the women trying to stay pale to avoid the "Peasant" darkness.

You are seriously using primary school and secondary school experiences to grade a country on how racist they are? I don't know what's more pathetic. That you're citing it to me as an "easy" example, or that your source's author considers having foundation that matches her skin tone to be a sign that racism isn't prevalent.

Oh yeah we are racist. I'm not denying it. Thankfully, if you broadcast it publicly, you're jailed or fined or both for sowing dissent. Forced civility is better than no civility.

I'll be honest. It takes a special sort of person to confuse the Asian perception that lighter skin is more beautiful, for racism. Fun fact, the oddly asian pre-occupation for lighter skin is a cultural thing. It is a typically Western mindset to apply their own values on people from other cultures, so I'm not all that surprised.

I take it you have no problems with the Western perception that tanned skin is beautiful for obvious reasons right?

Cry me a river.

At your ignorance? Certainly.

 

[Lictor Face]

Singapore has pretty limited speech, it's by no means free, strict government speech rules also means there is virtually no freedom of the press in Singapore either. Due to government rules and pressuring, most outlets in Singapore heavily self censor. Singapore scores very low on the scales of human and civil rights.

Other than a vocal few, most of us are quite alright with that. whether that's right or not is up for debate. Like I said, its a grim little utopia minded by an iron-fisted matron who thinks little of children.

I found out something really interesting about Singapore: Transgneder folk are allowed to legally change their gender on official documents, however only for people who are post-operative, I.E. have had sexual reassignment surgery. That's a profoundly backwards way of doing things, for two reasons, it prevents people in transition, or just starting from changing their legal gender, it also ignores trans folk who don't want sexual reassignment. As full sexual reassignment surgery is often enough unnecessary and unwanted as a treatment for gender dysphoria, further more for some trans folk, sexual reassignment is impossible. That's a fair failure in my eyes.

Also in Singapore, homosexual activity is illegal between men, not women. Though the law is seldom enforced, it still stands unchallenged and that's pretty awful for a nation that prides it self on being "modern", because it means that a leader could simply demand the law be enforced. That would lead to homosexuals being rounded up and imprisoned. The strange part, because of the wording of the law, lesbian sexual activity is perfectly legal.

All said that's pretty pitiful.

If you were looking solely at the rights of transgenders, I suppose it would.

I'm not denying that SG, as you say, pretty pitiful rights for both homosexuals and transfolk, but it is a fine example to those few in the thread who claim that a country cannot succeed or progress without true blue equal rights.

Regardless of how morally right or wrong it is. That's all I'm putting forward.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Singapore has pretty limited speech, it's by no means free, strict government speech rules also means there is virtually no freedom of the press in Singapore either. Due to government rules and pressuring, most outlets in Singapore heavily self censor. Singapore scores very low on the scales of human and civil rights.

Other than a vocal few, most of us are quite alright with that. whether that's right or not is up for debate. Like I said, its a grim little utopia minded by an iron-fisted matron who thinks little of children.

Historically speaking, such treatment breeds contempt and dissent amongst the press and the people, strict censor ship often sews the seeds of revolt and revolution. You say; "most of us are quite alright with it", but you and anecdotal support a majority does not make. What strict censorship does is drive vocally honest news sources underground, those news sources invariably start sewing seeds of dissent and unrest, not seeing it on the surface, doesn't mean it's not at a frothing boil underneath. This applies as much in South East Asia as it does in the West and anywhere else in the world.

I found out something really interesting about Singapore: Transgneder folk are allowed to legally change their gender on official documents, however only for people who are post-operative, I.E. have had sexual reassignment surgery. That's a profoundly backwards way of doing things, for two reasons, it prevents people in transition, or just starting from changing their legal gender, it also ignores trans folk who don't want sexual reassignment. As full sexual reassignment surgery is often enough unnecessary and unwanted as a treatment for gender dysphoria, further more for some trans folk, sexual reassignment is impossible. That's a fair failure in my eyes.

Also in Singapore, homosexual activity is illegal between men, not women. Though the law is seldom enforced, it still stands unchallenged and that's pretty awful for a nation that prides it self on being "modern", because it means that a leader could simply demand the law be enforced. That would lead to homosexuals being rounded up and imprisoned. The strange part, because of the wording of the law, lesbian sexual activity is perfectly legal.

All said that's pretty pitiful.

If you were looking solely at the rights of transgenders, I suppose it would.

I'm not denying that SG, as you say, pretty pitiful rights for both homosexuals and transfolk, but it is a fine example to those few in the thread who claim that a country cannot succeed or progress without true blue equal rights.

Regardless of how morally right or wrong it is. That's all I'm putting forward.

Unfortunately the point you miss is that actually a very fundamental crack in the foundation of your society, failure to protect the rights of all citizens equally is a failure of government. In a state such as Singapore it's even worse, all it takes are some radicals to move the majority into mass persecution of the marginalized groups. The other side of that coin is if the dissent stews long enough it boils over into full on revolt and revolution. Worse still because of the nature of Government and the way it works, it's not hard to imagine a situation where the iron fist is abused for the ill of the populace.

Success might be claimed by Singapore, but not really progress, especially not social progress. A moral failure of the government in an elected government is ultimately a failure of the people too. There is no stability in a place where people must balance the iron fist upon their heads. Thus any success and progress is ultimately temporary, many nations have tried to function under iron fisted control, eventually they either stagnate and begin to rot, or they collapse entirely undoing all of the success and progress.

It's happened many many times before, all over the world, until the fundamental rights of the populace are firmly upheld, success and progress are ultimately temorary.

 

[01189998819991197253]

See the fun text in bold? Yeah, it applies just as well to the famously racist Singapore,[footnote]Like you don't already know... http://www.xojane.com/issues/racism-in-singapore for one easy example[/footnote] China, Japan, and other East Asian nations. I can't honestly say I appreciated what total racism was until I worked and traveled in that region. It's even more than that too, with all of the women trying to stay pale to avoid the "Peasant" darkness.

...

Oh yeah we are racist. I'm not denying it. Thankfully, if you broadcast it publicly, you're jailed or fined or both for sowing dissent. Forced civility is better than no civility.

You're going to learn a hard lesson that shutting people up doesn't shut them down. But hey, you're a young nation, you've got a lot to learn.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

As would I. Or just people in general. Being called a pedophile isn't fun.

Yeah, not really the same thing. I am not so much concerned about being called a pedophile, I am concerned about how that false accusation is being used to deny me legal rights and social privileges (informal rights). If it was just name slinging it wouldn't be so bad.

Well that's never gonna happen, society tells everybody how they're supposed to dress. Damned if I'm going to spend $100 on a single shirt, though. I dress "inappropriately" all the time, people are always like "aren't you cold?" <_<, or "your shoes are untied", or "your shirt's inside out". Like I don't know that...I mean, sometimes I don't, but I try not to be concerned either way, I wear 6XL t-shirts with MLP Cutiemarks on them.

Ah, see, that is not what I am talking about. People criticize you for being untidy or unusual. Trans people can experience anything from verbal abuse, threats, being kicked out of a store, having the cops called and being arrested because people assume you are a prostitute, and even physical violence.

You don't hear about people being beaten to death for having their shoes untied or arrested and incarcerated for wearing a t-shirt on a cold day. It isn't even remotely the same thing.

Can't argue with that. A current platitude would be "Don't Lump me in with Trump"[/quote]

I wouldn't lump you in with people like him. He is a hate monger and weaponizes prejudice in order to benefit himself. There are few things more terrifying than the existence of people like trump, and one of them is that people support him. It's like being there when Joe McCarthy gave his first speeches about communism.

You seem neutral, maybe a tad ignorant (in the literal, non prejudiced sense that you just do not yet have information) on the issue. You seem tolerant. But the absence of malice is nothing to be proud of. You live in a bigoted society, that means you can end up hurting people entirely inadvertently. And you seem unwilling to take even the most basic precaution against doing so, placing your whim of curiosity at a position of greater importance than allowing trans people to feel and be secure.

Well, I wouldn't call it interrogation, or even public <.< I'd probably be like "psst, um, pardon me, I was just wondering..."

I'm certainly not going to dress up like batman and question you while you're hanging upside down from a roof, that'd be interrogation <.<

You make that joke, but shit happens. Interrogate is the right word for what happens to trans people. When someone wants to know our gender they generally are not kind or courteous. Physical and verbal intimidation are usually the major component, and they tend to be very public about it. It is not a pleasant experience. It is all the worse because we know that this is the most common precursor to a hate crime against us. I have been lucky enough that I have never experienced worse than intimidation, but worse happens all the time.

We live in a hostile world. That may be something you can't understand. We don't assume the worst of people because we are grumpy and cantankerous. We assume the worst because that is what we have to do to keep ourselves safe. We don't have the luxuries you have in this area.

And as for just being kind and courteous when you do ask, that isn't going to be enough most of the time. Language that is innocent in it's literal meaning can and is used as a tool of intimidation. Whatever precautions you take we are not going to know your intentions immediately, and we also know that it could quickly escalate however nice you seem. We don't know you. So we have to assume it could go bad for us and plan and act accordingly.

I am not going to say you cannot ask trans people about their gender, I am saying generally you should not. Satisfying your minor curiosity is likely going to cost that person a significant emotional toll, and that is the best case scenario. There is always the chance you out them and cause additional difficulties.

 

[Lictor Face]

You're going to learn a hard lesson that shutting people up doesn't shut them down. But hey, you're a young nation, you've got a lot to learn.

On the contrary, I'm sure Westerners could learn quite a bit from us.


Here's an example.

Ferguson riots. A young black man was shot by law enforcement and resulted in a riot where 400 people took part in, resulting in widespread destruction and looting, costing more than $4 million dollars in damages to the local county and Ferguson itself , and lasted for a combined total of 3 weeks spread over a period of a year before resolution. It remains a problem to this day.

Activism from the organisation "Black lives matter" further aggravated the situation and bogged down law enforcement procedures with multiple enquiries over racism in enforcement agencies, further extending the damage caused and delaying the deployment of further personnel while the relevant officials were bogged down from playing the political correctness carnival game.

~

Little India riots. A foreign worker was knocked down by a bus driver and killed, resulting in a riot where roughly 400 other foreign workers participated. It was permanently resolved in 1.5 hours, superficial damages of around $650,000 and remains nothing more than a particularly interesting footnote in newspaper archives.

A force drawn from the Gurkha contingent, foreign Nepalese mercenaries whom were recruited for the sole purpose of functioning as a racially neutral and indifferent force , was deployed. No racial fallout or activism. Problem was resolved in 1 and a half hours.

~

If there are positive things that can be learned from the West, it is the merits of creative and press freedom, as well as patriotism to an extent.

Otherwise, we don't need to learn much. Not in economy, not in domestic policy, and almost certainly not in "shutting people down".

 

[Lictor Face]

snip

It appears I'm not quite getting to you. So this should sum it up.

Moral failure is acceptable failure.

~

Once again I don't disagree that there is poor social progress.

But your arguments on how a nation can fall from not having equal rights for homosexuals and transfolk have yet to hold water with me. For starters, precisely what do you mean by "balancing the iron fist upon their heads" and I would like to request an example of how any country has achieved success and progress by awarding rights that were previously only available to non-homosexuals and straight folk, to homosexuals and transfolk.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

Ferguson, Mississippi, USA and Little India, Singapore are apples and oranges. For one the Ferguson protests were far larger than 400 people, the crowds numbered in the thousands, for the other Ferguson is a symptom of the larger and deeper issues we have with police corruption and mistreatment of a minority by the police. A worker hit by a bus and killed sparking a riot says a lot scarier things about a society than a predictable riot in the US regarding an African American being shot and killed by the police. The whole reason the "Black Lives Matter" movement exists is because African-Americans feel unfairly targeted by the police, along with them feeling that the police tend to use excessive force on African-Americans. That's a systemic issue versus someone being run over by a bus, even if the bus driver intentionally committed murder.

So one is a societal issue in the USA, the other was an isolated incident, the former is a complaint about society, the latter is an indicator of dangerous societal instability.

snip

It appears I'm not quite getting to you. So this should sum it up.

Moral failure is acceptable failure.

~

Once again I don't disagree that there is poor social progress.

But your arguments on how a nation can fall from not having equal rights for homosexuals and transfolk have yet to hold water with me. For starters, precisely what do you mean by "balancing the iron fist upon their heads" and I would like to request an example of how any country has achieved success and progress by awarding rights that were previously only available to non-homosexuals and straight folk, to homosexuals and transfolk.

Moral failure is not acceptable failure, not on the societal level.

I could spend pages on how the lack of equal rights can benefit some classes but not others causes major societal issues, countless revolutions and civil wars have been fought because of it. I could spend pages explaining why inequality in access fundamental rights, invalidates the rights of everyone. I could spend pages explaining why having marginalized minorities is a drag on society. I could, but you're just gonna use "well it's fine here now" line. Not realizing that you live in a young nation and everything I hear does not say "stable successful" nation, it says "financial hub balanced on the point of a needle". So I'm not going to bother.

 

[01189998819991197253]

You're going to learn a hard lesson that shutting people up doesn't shut them down. But hey, you're a young nation, you've got a lot to learn.

On the contrary, I'm sure Westerners could learn quite a bit from us.

I'm sure that there's nothing to be learned from you at least.

 

[Lictor Face]

I'm sure that there's nothing to be learned from you at least.

The same could be said of your opinions.

 

[Lictor Face]

Ferguson, Mississippi, USA and Little India, Singapore are apples and oranges. For one the Ferguson protests were far larger than 400 people, the crowds numbered in the thousands, for the other Ferguson is a symptom of the larger and deeper issues we have with police corruption and mistreatment of a minority by the police. A worker hit by a bus and killed sparking a riot says a lot scarier things about a society than a predictable riot in the US regarding an African American being shot and killed by the police. The whole reason the "Black Lives Matter" movement exists is because African-Americans feel unfairly targeted by the police, along with them feeling that the police tend to use excessive force on African-Americans. That's a systemic issue versus someone being run over by a bus, even if the bus driver intentionally committed murder.

So one is a societal issue in the USA, the other was an isolated incident, the former is a complaint about society, the latter is an indicator of dangerous societal instability.

The point I am highlighting is that America was inefficient and ultimately failed in containing the riots. The fact that it lasted beyond the first 'wave' of riots is disgraceful and does not show that America is capable of protecting its citizens. Perhaps the source I used was wrong regarding the number of people involved, but if you can't douse a fire with a fire extinguisher, call a fireman with a hose. If the riot in Singapore numbered in the thousands and was spread over an equally large area, the entire Gurkha contingent would be deployed. No country should have to shoulder a $4 million dollar bill just because petty activism and political correctness slowed or distracted them from making the best possible decision.

Furthermore. The initial rioters of the Little India riots were intoxicated. The only social issue that raised over here was consumption of alcohol. Of which it was forbidden to do so outside established drinking proprieties (such as bars and clubs) after 1am, shortly after the riots.

Quick, efficient, clean.

Not bloated, slow and lingering.

Moral failure is not acceptable failure, not on the societal level.

I could spend pages on how the lack of equal rights can benefit some classes but not others causes major societal issues, countless revolutions and civil wars have been fought because of it. I could spend pages explaining why inequality in access fundamental rights, invalidates the rights of everyone. I could spend pages explaining why having marginalized minorities is a drag on society. I could, but you're just gonna use "well it's fine here now" line. Not realizing that you live in a young nation and everything I hear does not say "stable successful" nation, it says "financial hub balanced on the point of a needle". So I'm not going to bother.

You are essentially telling me that when a group of 200 or so people possess unequal rights in marriage and gender, it eventually causes the downfall of the country in 4 million. Naturally, I am incredibly doubtful.

I don't doubt that withholding equal rights have caused revolutions, civil wars and so on. But you're completely missing the difference in scale and severity. Lets take the American civil war for instance, something you should be familiar with.

Correct me if I am wrong, but black slaves were largely not considered human beings, and according to the law at the time, little more than bipedal cattle. They were withheld every single basic human right on the grounds that they weren't human (or at least developed enough to be called human). Additionally, a large number of them were present in America (I don't have an exact source but I think maybe 600,000 or so at any given time during the period is a reasonable number)

Over this, two factions in America went to war over this. So on so forth.

Lets shake it up a little.

If in the entirety of America, same circumstances and maltreatment and lack of rights, there were only 100 slaves. Would the civil war still had happen?