A reason why reparations, while just, may not be owed to all alleged freedmen descendants

a reply to: generikPirates could have been in contact with the natives and brought them black slaves in the centuries prior to Columbus. I have noticed that the Ottoman conquest of Europe reached its peak and stopped progressing right around the time the Spanish were confiscating the New World's main gold and silver sources.

My hypothesis put forth in the OP, however, speculates that there is etymological evidence the freedmen may have been partially replaced by African slave trading company staff just after the Civil War.

originally posted by: LSU2018
Slaves, in fact, were already here though. They weren't Africans, however, they were Irish.

Can it be the Ottoman Empire was doing some trafficking, perhaps in league with Barbary pirates?

The residents of many South American countries look Berber to my untrained eye.

As I have pointed out before, the Ottoman Empire's invasion of Europe reached its peak and started to decline right around the time the Spanish started confiscating the Western Hemisphere's gold sources.

Indentured servitude is a contract but is only meaningful if honored. Don't forget that the first legally recognized slave in the US was an indentured servant who was denied his freedom and plot of land at the end of his contract. Anthony Jackson, a black slave owner, entered a contract of servitude with John Casor. After 8 years Casor was to receive his freedom and land to call his own. However, Casor was such a good worker that Jackson refused to grant him his freedom. Casor sued in 1655 in Virginia but the court found in favor of Jackson declaring Casor the first "slave for life" in the US.

There were Irish slaves just as there were black indentured servants. No one was immune to the tyranny until the end of the civil war.

On the subject of reparations, they are not just and should not be paid, except in the most critically defined circumstances. The idea of reparations is to compensate the descendants of slaves for the suffering and missed opportunities. The problem is most descendants of slaves in this country today are also descendants of slave owners.

Slave owners had sex with slaves. It was a way to increase their wealth. If a person is descendant of both slave owners and slaves, who do they pay and who pays them? Its not fair to pay descendants of slave owners. Nor is it fair to force people whose families were never involved in slavery to pay anyone for anything. If justice is the desire, then it should be fair and just for everyone. If this is just "shut up and go away" money, you get what you pay for...

originally posted by: VroomfondelNor is it fair to force people whose families were never involved in slavery to pay anyone for anything.

I believe the rationale is the South produced considerable foreign income for the country and so the country we all live in was partially built on slave profits.

What do you think of the theory in the OP though?

a reply to: Solvedit

The end of the slave trade in the US was not the end of the slave trade everywhere. In fact, there are places where it is still practiced to this day. The market for slaves in the US closed but the industry continued.

In regards to etymology, linguistic precursors from a variety of languages existed but their evolution, at least in the US, was somewhat unique. For example, consider the difference between Creole or Cajun French compared to traditional French. Both came from the same place, but evolved differently once diverged. The comingling of other languages/dialects over time and a tendency to commune within their own society allowed Creole to evolve in a unique manner. You can trace the linguistic markers to France, but beyond that you would likely have little luck in determining nation of origin.

originally posted by: VroomfondelFor example, consider the difference between Creole or Cajun French compared to traditional French. Both came from the same place, but evolved differently once diverged.

Yeah but when you say "Cajun" everybody knows they come from Accadia. It is one of their most important words and did not evolve as much as slang or loan words for everyday things.

If reparations are to be made at all, there should be no cash reparations. There should be educational vouchers only for useful trades and professions. We don't need any more "___ Studies" degrees. Suitability testing up front and a selection of options for each demonstrated descendant of any slave freed after the civil war.

a reply to: pteridine
What do you think of the hypothetically possible etymology of "Gullah Geechee" presented in the OP? If it were so, it would tend to imply some of the slave trading prison staff came over after the war in order to replace freedmen.

originally posted by: ntech
As I said in the other thread. Reparations for chattel slavery dating back to the Civil War era were banned by the Congress of the Day. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Didn't the 14th Amendment refer to reparations to the former slave owners, like England did?

March 2, 2024

San Francisco issues a reparation, in the form of an apology, during Black History month.

Very kind of SanFran, but...: www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

There were Irish slaves.

There were no Irish slaves. Who told you that rubbish ?

a reply to: BernnieJGato

i've also read that there is dna evidence that points to south american natives having australian aboriginal dna. that is thought to be because they migrated to asia and integrated there and formed family units and came across the bering strait land bridge.

"Did dinosaurs build Stonehenge?"

"Probably not."

Apologies to Monty Python...

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
i've also read that there is dna evidence that points to south american natives having australian aboriginal dna. that is thought to be because they migrated to asia and integrated there and formed family units and came across the bering strait land bridge.

They could have come from the same place Aborigines come from without having gone first to Australia, then back to Asia and the land bridge.

originally posted by: ntech
As I said in the other thread. Reparations for chattel slavery dating back to the Civil War era were banned by the Congress of the Day. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Interesting. Do you have a link to that? I'm not finding anything ..

Closest I can come - And it's NEW, not Civil War era

Reparations are Unconstitutional

A racial entitlement is only permissible to remedy the government’s own discrimination, not societal discrimination. It cannot provide race-based “remedies that are ageless in their reach into the past, and timeless in their ability to affect the future.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 497 (1995)). Reparations for slavery would be just such an improper “remedy.” On the other hand, the government need only show a “prima facie” case of such discrimination, not smoking-gun evidence of it, to adopt race-based affirmative action

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: ntech
As I said in the other thread. Reparations for chattel slavery dating back to the Civil War era were banned by the Congress of the Day. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Interesting. Do you have a link to that? I'm not finding anything ..

The actual text of the 14th amendment says there are not to be reparations, but it sounds like they're talking about reparations to former slave owners, like they had in the UK when they banned slavery in 1807. Their slave owners were paid for the slaves.

a reply to: Solvedit

Thanks ... 14th Amendment ... 14th Amendment Text

Yeah ... well .... I'm not seeing it.
Someone will have to help me out.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Solvedit

Thanks ... 14th Amendment ... 14th Amendment Text

Yeah ... well .... I'm not seeing it.
Someone will have to help me out.

He didn't say exactly what his basis was but the only thing I could find was in the "validity of public debt" clause which banned reparations to former Confederate states for war debt along with reparations for the loss of slaves.

Something else occurred to me as worthy of investigation before money starts being handed out.

Near the end of the war especially, there was quite a food shortage.

Some of the slaves could have been shipped out for sale because the Confederacy needed the cash quickly and wasn't going to make money from them while there was not enough food to feed all of them.

Some of the slaves could have been smuggled out by unscrupulous traffickers in Union forces which occupied places like Fort Royal or New Orleans during the war.

40 acres was briefly implemented before Johnson took power and vetoed it. The land freedmen were given was on the coast of Georgia and the Carolinas. It is possible the freedmen were victimized and trafficked out while disorganized, underfed, and unprepared by the very segment which had rounded them up in Africa for sale to whites, who had coincidentally lost their gig as slavery started to go out of favor globally in the 19th century. They could have moved in and taken the freedmens' place just to have a place to go, because lost gig.

Last but not least, at the end of the war, the owners no longer had any reason to protect the slaves and the Union did not have the power to immediately occupy the entire Confederacy. The Confederate public was starving and resentful and many of the slaves were probably not yet armed or organized. It's quite possible the freedmen were killed in competition for forage foods.

originally posted by: Solvedit
40 acres was briefly implemented before Johnson took power and vetoed it. The land freedmen were given was on the coast of Georgia and the Carolinas.

Yeah ... the newly formed Republicans arranged it and the Democrats got rid of it.
400,000 acres — formerly owned by Confederate land owners.
The Republicans formed in opposition to slavery.
They were the party that newly freed blacks flocked to.

Interesting reading.
African Americans Many Rivers to Cross - History of the 400,000 Acres

originally posted by: Solvedit
This page is necessary to get the point.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what's your point when slaves from all over West Africa landed in the same port but were then sold and transported elsewhere, except for the Gullah who went to work on plantations and were basically isolated from the white man's world, so kept some of their culture.

Your thread title suggests you believe these Gullah peoples to be the only one's deserving of reparations, am I understanding that correctly? Whereas any other person taken from West Africa into slavery and not put into those plantations should not get reparations? Is that your point?