U.S. slavery reparations sought in first Black Lives Matter agenda

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

and here is a nice little tid bit, out of the estimated 12.5 million slaves brought to the new world less than half a million came to the U.S during anybodies rule.

We can all play with figures.

By 1860 3,953,760 where in slavery. That was 10% of The U.S. population at that time.

thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

don't you just hate those pesky facts.

I love " facts " like the ones i posted above

But but but but but but but

If you are white and disagree with reparations for slavery, then you are obviously a racist.

a reply to: alldaylong

I love " facts " like the ones i posted above

good here are a couple,

remember what this thread is about. not only did the uk not pay any reparations to freed slaves, they paid the former owners for the loss of their property.

The true scale of Britain's involvement in the slave trade has been laid bare in documents revealing how the country's wealthiest families received the modern equivalent of billions of pounds in compensation after slavery was abolished. The previously unseen records show exactly who received what in payouts from the Government when slave ownership was abolished by Britain – much to the potential embarrassment of their descendants. Dr Nick Draper from University College London, who has studied the compensation papers, says as many as one-fifth of wealthy Victorian Britons derived all or part of their fortunes from the slave economy.
As a result, there are now wealthy families all around the UK still indirectly enjoying the proceeds of slavery where it has been passed on to them. Dr Draper said: "There was a feeding frenzy around the compensation." A John Austin, for instance, owned 415 slaves, and got compensation of £20,511, a sum worth nearly £17m today. And there were many who received far more.

Academics from UCL, including Dr Draper, spent three years drawing together 46,000 records of compensation given to British slave-owners into an internet database to be launched for public use on Wednesday. But he emphasised that the claims set to be unveiled were not just from rich families but included many "very ordinary men and women" and covered the entire spectrum of society.

the above from here,
Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition

another soucre or two,
The history of British slave ownership has been buried: now its scale can be revealed
How did slave-owners shape Britain?

and here is a bit of truth, the 1833 act didn't include all slaves world wide, just those in the west Indies, cape town, mauritius and canada.

A few Britons – including the British Africans – were not content with abolition and campaigned for the emancipation of slaves. This was another long struggle. Among the most forceful were the women abolitionists, who, being denied a voice by the men, formed their own organisations and went door-knocking, asking people to stop using slave-grown products such as sugar and tobacco. The most outspoken was probably Elizabeth Heyrick who believed in immediate emancipation, as opposed to the men who supported gradual freedom. (22) This battle was won when Parliament passed the Emancipation Act in 1833; as the struggle was led by men, it was for gradual emancipation.
But protests, often violent in the West Indies, resulted in freedom in 1838. The slaveowners were granted £20 million (about £1 billion today) compensation; all the freed received was the opportunity to labour for the paltry wages that had now to be offered. This Act only freed the enslaved in the West Indies, Cape Town, Mauritius and Canada. Slavery continued in the rest of the British Empire. Even the importation of slaves into a British colony continued – into Mauritius, obtained from the French after the Napoleonic Wars, where importation was not stopped until about 1820.

It was no more difficult to evade the Acts making it illegal for Britons to hold slaves than it was to circumvent the Abolition Act. In India where, according to Sir Bartle Frere (who sat on the Viceroy's Council), there were about 9 million slaves in 1841, slavery was not outlawed till 1868. (28) In other British colonies emancipation was not granted until almost 100 years after the 1833 Emancipation Act: Malaya in 1915; Burma in 1926; Sierra Leone in 1927. The final slave emancipation colonial ordinance I have found is in the Gold Coast archives, and is dated 1928. Britons owned slave-worked mines and plantations and invested in countries which were dependent on slave labour until the 1880s when slavery was finally abolished in the Americas.

so who needs to hang their heads in shame over slavery well into the 20th century, the UK that's who.
the above two are from here.
Britain, slavery and the trade in enslaved Africans

and to be fair the U.S. also paid former slave owners but not for freeing their slaves, but for staying loyal to the union.

Did slave owners really receive $300 per slave?
Yes, but very few. In 1862 the federal government abolished slavery in Washington DC, but set up a commission to compensate slaveholders who did not join the Confederacy. In the end the government paid out an average of $300 per slave to the 979 owners of 2,989 slaves. (See the complete list here) Those 2,989 slaves represent approximately 0.075% of the 4 million slaves in the country at the time. Though many abolitionists objected on principle to any action which implied that human beings could be bought or sold, the abolition of slavery in Washington, DC created an island of freedom in between the slave states of Maryland and Virginia and became a magnet for runaways from the region. What is more, the Emancipation Act forbade slave owners from evading the act by removing slaves from the District and successfully enforced this prohibition. The Lincoln administration attempted to pursue a compensated emancipation policy in the Border States, but gave up after the Delaware legislature bluntly rejected his offer. Thus, no other American slave owner was ever compensated.
Were US Slave Owners Really Paid $300 Per Slave?

what did i say it's about the money

Dave Chappelle had some thoughts on this.

Why is it Great Britain gets the blame for slavery in everyone of these types of threads. What about Egyptians, Norse (vikings), Romans, Africans, Portuguese, Spanish and and so on and so on.......people have owned other people since humans walked upright.
Slavery continues to this day, what about these people, I dont hear BLM moaning about that!!!

a reply to: Kurokage

Why is it Great Britain gets the blame for slavery in everyone of these types of threads.

if you look at my first post, you will see that i included the others, it just tuns that the uk went at it whole hog and far eclipsed everyone one of the others and spread it all over the empire, and enslaved many nationalities.
it's facts that can't be denied.

link to my first post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ive done quite a bit of geneology in my family and turns out no one was rich enough to own another person, let alone property that needed laborers.

However my Chickasaw heritage has had slaves back in the late 1700s. I cant verify a single person but it is accepted fact that many Mississippian tribes owned slaves.

So they would also tax Native American tribes for having slaves.

Reparations to Natives get funneled back into reparations for Blacks?

What a mess!

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Tell that to the Aztec and Mayan!

The US was the worst and the segregation of black people exacerbated the problem for a lot longer than it should have.

a reply to: Kurokage

Tell that to the Aztec and Mayan! The US was the worst and the segregation of black people exacerbated the problem for a lot longer than it should have.

you better go back and check your own countries history on how they treated slaves. they were the worst as far as the death toll of slaves world wide.
here is just one source from the University of London

Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans – and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognised as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human – they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.
Britain, slavery and the trade in enslaved Africans

and as to the treatment in the U.S. yes it's true they were mistreated,but the estimates that less than half a million slave were imported into North America from 1525 to 1866. in 1866 it is estimated that there were almost 4 million black people in the U.S. these were 3rd and 4th generation born in the U.S.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial “gold standard” in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.
How Many Slaves Landed in the US?

i dare say that the treatment of slaves by U.S. citizens vs british citizens was far better for the slaves, unless you think that being beaten and worked to death within a few years after being enslaved is better treatment. at least the slave in the U.S lived long enough to have a 3rd and 4th generation from a total of about 450, 000 imported to a population of 4 million.

and just so you know, the " Aztec and Mayan! " empires were long gone before the U.S. was even a nation, hell before the british even had a colony in North America. study a little history before you speak it makes you look ignorant and it helps to know what your talking about, don't be ignorant.

the Aztec were conquered by spain's Hernán Cortés and local native allies led by Xicotencatl the Younger of the city state Tlaxcala. in 1521.

the Mayan collaspe is still pretty much a mystery, the classic period ran from 250 to 900, way before any historical record of europeans being in the area.

there was how ever a remnant of the maya in the Yucatan that survived and several cities grew in that area, but again the spainish conquered them 1697. again the U.S. hadn't even been thought of and the colonization of north america was just getting started good.

hell neither the Aztec or Maya were even on the north american continent, they were in central america. although there may have been a few bands that moved into north americia, they were never a well established civilization.

i will pay repatriations when the blacks that sold their own into slavery pays their share.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I know my history very well thank you, I was referring to how the Spanish and Portuguese treated the Aztec and Mayan and other south Americans as an example, as you talked about colonialism and "slaves". Spanish History

Some people in the US like to blame the British to make there past history look a little better.
The Americans treated there "freed" slaves like lepers for nearly 200 years, they couldn't even drink from the same water fountain or use the same bathroom or get an education and much worse. That is why the US has such terrible problems now.
Europe had moved on very quickly to making us all economic slaves under industrialisation.
Hurling insults makes YOU look ignorant!!

Is it ok to opt out if you had nothing to do with it?

The Irish part of my family likely had a couple members indentured, and working the fields right there with their ancestors. The Scottish part of my family was still in the very northeast part of the country (and maybe up in Canada) before settling westward, and likely supported the abolitionist movement. The German part of my family didn't arrive until the immigration wave of the 1890's (things not so great in Europe at the time - eventually causing WWI) and didn't have anything to do with events in the U.S. prior.

Not to mention that even now I'm not getting any privelage nor help when it comes to finding decent paying work as it is. Just as broke as anyone else not on the "approved list", if such a thing exists. Maybe I should ask for reparations for the time I spent in college?