I keep hearing about Reparations

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Yea i find it funny that people who write endlessly about white male racism probably never spoke up once about how black people or other races feel about racism in America.

Minorities delt with racism for many generations here and white people can't even entertain the notion of privilege.

But .. that is human nature. It certainly would be no different if the races and roles were reversed.

Everybody, and I mean everybody has some form of "oppression" in their history that could be used for the cry of reparations. The only thing would be just how far back in history do you want to go back to vindicate your claim?
Well for a start, I'm in the UK so I'll start with the Anglo-Saxons, they pushed my family about. Then the Romans showed up and had their pound of flesh.
Then the Vikings appeared and through Danegeld we gave them billions. Then stab me the French came along with William the Conqueror, he enslaved my family, we were called Serfs then. Need I go on.

a reply to: Spider879

That's messed up. Never knew that. Im glad race relations and history is being addressed in this country. It's been ignored too long.

The whole "Reparations" nonsense is about dividing us, so we don't work together to fix our broken government. Just look at how BLM has been forgotten about by the corporate media and Democrats now, that the election is over.

originally posted by: menehune

originally posted by: galaga

originally posted by: murphy22
The Anglo-Irish where more "enslaved" in America than any "afro-American" can ever clame. Not to mention the Chinese, that built our railroads.

But? You don't see us wanting "40 Acr and a mule"....
We F'n fought, killed ourselves, out of "servitude". We f'n fought for North and South!

"Reparation", is the cry, for that "sick" lame, and "lazy" person, that hasn't earned it.

Very few "Black Americans" living today, can trace thier "roots", to any "slaves". That is a "fact"!

But many "white" Americans, can.

Jews, Irish,..etc....

It doesn't matter "your skin collor/colour"! Can you do what you said/say, you'd do?

Did anyone get that 40 acres and a mule? If they didn't, they are owed at least that.

As far as anything else. Nope.

40 acres and mule
unpaid wages with interest
denied the opportunity to buy land as promised.

Not only were their economic opportunities stunted, but also their ability to educate themselves on how to be part of a civilized society.

Leaving your not so hidden misinformed racist remark off to the side for a sec, AAs would have been way ahead than they are now for during those time, they built schools, founded successful towns ,engaged in industry
and finance, but white supremacist could not stomach their success, so they burnt, murdered, dispossessed and isolated them into ghettos by city planning especially over pass and high ways meant to cripple their economic progress.

a reply to: Spider879

You should read up on Black Wall Street and how that all went down... Dick Rowland allegedly assaulted Sarah Page by "touching her arm". Ridiculous I know, but that's what set this off. First, Rowland was arrested. As a crowd of whites and KKK demanded access to Rowland, Sheriff McCullough had Rowland transferred to a more secure prison to await trial. As tensions mounted and word began to spread through Greenwood Avenue that Rowland was going to be lynched, residents from Greenwood Avenue took up arms and gathered at the courthouse where one black man fired a shot. After that, both sides got into a gunfight which killed ten whites and two blacks. As the white mob pushed the black mob back, more fighting ensued over the course of a couple of days. Whites eventually made their way to an airfield, took flight, and dropped turpentine balls on buildings and fired gunshots from rifles from the planes.

Rosewood started over an escaped black prisoner, Jesse Hunter, breaking in and assaulting a white woman named Fannie Taylor. Using dogs, they were led to the house of Aaron Carrier. After the Carrier's house, the mob was then led to Sam Carter's house, a man who was hiding Jesse Hunter. After leading them to Hunter's hiding spot, Hunter never showed so Carter was shot and killed. In the end, all surviving members of this massacre were awarded reparations from the state totaling almost $330,000.00 for each person. $500,000.00 was awarded to the families who were forced to leave Rosewood, and $100,000.00 awarded in scholarships to descendants and other minorities.

I'm glad you brought up BWS and Rosewood because the common denominator in both of these stories is that the white mobs were democrats who suppressed the stories and the events that unfolded. Over the course of several decades, they've been able to point the finger at white Republicans and place blame on us, thus repeating the history that they suppressed. Now we have democrat mobs running rampant through our cities again and silencing all who oppose. Don't let yourself fall for the BS. One story you mentioned even paid out reparations, and it was a story you used as an example of reparations not being paid out.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Everybody, and I mean everybody has some form of "oppression" in their history that could be used for the cry of reparations. The only thing would be just how far back in history do you want to go back to vindicate your claim?
Well for a start, I'm in the UK so I'll start with the Anglo-Saxons, they pushed my family about. Then the Romans showed up and had their pound of flesh.
Then the Vikings appeared and through Danegeld we gave them billions. Then stab me the French came along with William the Conqueror, he enslaved my family, we were called Serfs then. Need I go on.

Those that are quick to attempt to justify America's actions as something "that has happened eveywhere" often fail (either through ignorance or intentionally) to distinguish indentured servants from serfs from the form of slavery that was practiced in America, chattel slavery.

Though all forms of oppression, these things are not at all equal.

The more popular argument is "but what about the Africans that sold other Africans" - completely disregarding the fact that in Africa slaves were actually indentured servants that could gain their freedom - children born during this servant period were free. Its not a stretch to think that those sellers could not imagine that slavery in the west would turn into a racial driven practice where at some point someone even attempted to use science to justify the practice

I'm serious when I ask this question. What if we did give descendants of slaves 40 acres of land and a truck (not a mule because that would be stupid)?

These families then get to choose their 40 acres, it doesn't have to be in one place, it could be spread throughout the country. They can do what they please with this land. They can sell it, they can develop it. They can sell some land to develop other land they own. As far as the truck goes. They all have dependable transportation.

Now, they cant claim it forever. There does need to be a cut off.

I think eventually in time, it would grow the country inward. There would be less congested cities. More small and mid size brand spanking new towns with the newest materials. Employment would skyrocket. For everyone. These are not just going to be black towns, i imagine most will be mixed. There wouldn't be enough black people to go around to create a mid sized city in 10 places around the country.

There is land all across the South West and North West just sitting there waiting like a chicken to be plucked. Oh, one rule, no selling of land to foreign investors.

a reply to: LSU2018

The revisionists history bs needs to stop.

Your current part is not the party of Lincoln. Period. The end.

Stop.

a reply to: galaga

So the government just gives up what it now says it owns? Highly unlikely.

a reply to: LSU2018

I did, matter of fact made a thread on here some yrs back but can't seemed to find it , forgot the exact title.

a reply to: ketsuko

I thought my idea was pretty good. Have a little hope.

originally posted by: Echo007
The whole "Reparations" nonsense is about dividing us, so we don't work together to fix our broken government. Just look at how BLM has been forgotten about by the corporate media and Democrats now, that the election is over.

I disagree. It's mostly due to colleges and media talking about injustices of the past. Talking about generational wealth and race privilege.

I don't think it was planned by some insidious force but rather a ongoing discussion that has just recently been brought into the mainstream.

Much like how transsexuals were a taboo subject but now are a very open subject.

I just don't like the extremism that follows. That's just general human nature though.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: CryHavoc

Are they going after the African tribes that captured the opposing tribes people during tribal wars who then sold their ancestors to the white man for profits? or does Reparations doesn't go that far back?

I’ve tracked it all down to a Nigerian prince. He claims he will pay reparations but first you must send him $500 to test the bank transfer.

And their DNA.

*giggle*

a reply to: Spider879

Those cities were paid for and built by Europeans and Americans.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: crayzeed
Everybody, and I mean everybody has some form of "oppression" in their history that could be used for the cry of reparations. The only thing would be just how far back in history do you want to go back to vindicate your claim?
Well for a start, I'm in the UK so I'll start with the Anglo-Saxons, they pushed my family about. Then the Romans showed up and had their pound of flesh.
Then the Vikings appeared and through Danegeld we gave them billions. Then stab me the French came along with William the Conqueror, he enslaved my family, we were called Serfs then. Need I go on.

Those that are quick to attempt to justify America's actions as something "that has happened eveywhere" often fail (either through ignorance or intentionally) to distinguish indentured servants from serfs from the form of slavery that was practiced in America, chattel slavery.

Though all forms of oppression, these things are not at all equal.

The more popular argument is "but what about the Africans that sold other Africans" - completely disregarding the fact that in Africa slaves were actually indentured servants that could gain their freedom - children born during this servant period were free. Its not a stretch to think that those sellers could not imagine that slavery in the west would turn into a racial driven practice where at some point someone even attempted to use science to justify the practice

The rationale that "well uh, since I as an African enslaved YOU, my fellow African, BUT you're only an /INDENTURED/ slave, so you can eventually become free again!" does not compute for me.

It sounds like a cop-out on culpability for the fact that the slave trade on the African continent was a humming commercial enterprise before Europeans ever stepped foot there. Anybody that's taken history courses on pre-Rennaisance Africa will know that there were extensive, well-traveled trade routes cutting through Western and Sub-Saharan Africa for the Kola nut and captured slaves. These were easily repurposed and directionally reversed (from the interior towards the Atlantic coast) once Europeans began visiting the Western shores of the continent.

The other facet of this discussion that is often (conveniently) overlooked is that the /Atlantic/ slave trade, while comprising the bulk of the total number of slave transactions on the continent, was not the /only/ route in which slaves traveled.

When the Atlantic slave trade began, many of the local slave systems began supplying captives for chattel slave markets outside Africa. Although the Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade from Africa, it was the largest in volume and intensity. As Elikia M’bokolo wrote in Le Monde diplomatique:

The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth).... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean.[160]

So in totality...

~10-20 million slaves transited the Atlantic (a.k.a. Triangular) trade route to the West Indies
~17 million slaves transited other way points (trans-Saharan route, Red Sea, Indian Ocean)

Everybody, including all parts of the African continent, M.E., the New World colonies, Europe and sections of the South Asian continent, were party to this enterprise. Nobody should have a clean conscience, and nobody gets to claim 'preferential victim' status in this disgusting era.

So with respect to reparations, when somewhere between 20-40 million Africans were victimized just measuring the European colonial period

...victims spanning almost the entire continent
...involving participants from almost every populated continent but Australia
...using an extensive network of African collaborators who helped move slaves/proceeds in/out of coastal areas

how does one divvy up "the bill"?

There have been 100s of millions if not billions of world-wide slaves transacted in recorded human history, EVERYWHERE.

Why is it that the connotation of reparations in modern times is that the United States government has an obligation to remunerate only descendants of African-American slaves? What about the hardships endured by Native American citizens, Asian citizens from the period of Western expansion in building the continental railroad system, Irish-American indentured servants preyed upon in fleeing the great potato famine, modern Hispanics fleeing poverty and violence in South America.

What's the decision process for how much gets paid to whom, for how long, and at the expense of what parties?
What about US citizens that arrived here post-Civil War, in the 20th century? What's their expense payable?
How do we ensure that reparation recipients don't have ancestors that partook of the slave trade themselves?
How are reparations balanced against the social cost incurred from slave descendants involved in criminal enterprise?
What about precedent? When do the payouts begin for Native Americans, Asian Americans, ....?
What role do the original founders of the slave colonies (England, Portugal, Netherlands, France) play?

All of this, the whole thing, is a philosophical endeavor akin to asking how many angels can dance on a pin head. There is no equitable, precise, fair and fool-proof way to remunerate this social group, and it also begs the question of why /they/ deserve compensation when others have faced the same fate but have received nil.

This entire issue is tantamount to picking, peeling and stabbing at an old mostly healed wound, for the sake of economic gain for a small subset of people. We need this wound to TRULY heal, and the resentment, anger, confusion and inequity this would create in the present is not worth it.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Spider879

Those cities were paid for and built by Europeans and Americans.

When?? Most of those predates European Colonizas.

Lost Cities And Architecture Of Pre-Colonial Africa

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Modern infrastructure was introduced using European techniques, but the labour and finance were done by Africans.
How ever regions all across the globe used techniques from somewhere else.
And my point still stands, as was suggested that if AAs are uncomfortable living with racism in the land of their birth, here is some reparations $$ and a one way ticket go back to your home continent, I just agreed with the poster's suggestion as a credible option.

Oh I see , you expected squalor and redundant mud huts of some of our ancestors.
African Skylines..The Other Africa
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=


Yeah Africa is part of the global economy, and AAs could play a dynamic role in pushing Africa their newly reconnected home continent fwd.

Race only matters to racists. Keep the hate alive seems to be the mantra.

a reply to: CryHavoc

originally posted by: CryHavoc
First, I'd like to explain:

No one is responsible for the crimes of their Ancestors.

I agree that no ONE should be responsible for the crimes of their ancestors but what about the U.S. government?

When talking reparations, the first thing that comes to mind is American slavery.

Reparations for black people, if a serious discussion ever happens, needs to take a back seat to the injustice inflicted upon the Native Americans by the United States government.

Do you believe that the government should make a gesture to make things right from abhorrent practices like manifest destiny and biological warfare via smallpox blankets?

What about something a little more recent like executive order 9066?

If Native and Japanese Americans do not deserve compensation for the terrible things the government put them through then doesn't it set a precedent that the government can get away with doing anything?

No. The dangerous precedent would be going the other way.

a reply to: Psilocyborg