It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

United Nations Does Clinton No Favors Today

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:50 PM
Ok,why were the reparations paid after the Civil War to the ACTUAL slaves not enough?And the confiscated lands that were given to the ex-slaves?They deserved it,but why do people who never were slaves deserve a penny?Most of those pushing for them never have even done a days work in their lives,much less been beaten for not working hard enough.Yes,many are trapped in a horrible cycle of poverty not of their own making,but that's not because of slavery,rather a caste system politicians use to stay in power.There should be a effort to find a way to provide opportunity to earn a living,not a handout.My ancestory has a lot of Irish and Cherokee,I don`t want reparations for the Irish slavery or the taking of Indian lands,this is a different time and a different society than those times.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:51 PM
Good lord. A Trumpeteer starfest for a nonissue. Not a surprise but so damn obvious.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:51 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko

What about the free blacks who owned slaves themselves in the US? Should their descendants have to pay along with anyone else who can be traced to owning slaves, even those who have both slave and slave owner blood?

you know thats not happening.
this pay up scheme will only apply to white people

+5 more 
posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:53 PM
a reply to: intrepid
We are what we are

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:55 PM
a reply to: Martin75

No worries, Martin.

This breaks down how much, and where the money went.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:57 PM
a reply to: Hazardous1408
Thanks! Looks like I have some history to learn ....

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:03 PM
a reply to: ridgerunner

Because after the Civil War was over the way Reconstruction was handled was a joke for everyone in the South, white and black. Maybe if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated ... but he was. And the leadership that followed more or less moved in and was more interested in looting what it could than it was in any real and meaningful reform or reconstructive efforts.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:31 PM
a reply to: ketsukoPretty much,carpetbaggers got rich,govt officials got rich,and every body else got swindled.Some things never seem to change.Lots of misery for most people then,black and white.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:50 PM
a reply to: intrepid

the trumpeteers starfesting nonissues are the majority of threads these days. and, it's SO obvious. I've lost respect for most here. i's sad really. and, telling.

they do their side no favors, that's for sure.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:06 PM
The US already ignores a plethora of UN resolutions and agreed-upon commitments. So ignoring this one would be nothing new, regardless of who is in the White House, because it's really a congressional issue more than anything.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:16 PM

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
The US already ignores a plethora of UN resolutions and agreed-upon commitments. So ignoring this one would be nothing new, regardless of who is in the White House, because it's really a congressional issue more than anything.

OK, it's not so much about the UN as it is about perceived global opinion which the UN claims to be arbiter of. Then you have domestic pressure from special interests both racial and left wing social justice who will use it as leverage to power their own agitation for this item internally.

Depending on whom the president ends up being and what favors they do or do not feel they owe, they could align with this opinion and use the bully pulpit to further fuel the push which increases internal social tensions.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:17 PM
african americans and indendutred servants were originally treated about the same until 1654, and well you can blame
Anthony Johnson for the change...
anyone care to guess what color Anthony Johnson was?

so well, it gonna be kind of hard to sort out just who is descended from the "slaves" and who wasn't. (I'm white and I am!!) and what about all those white people who operated the underground railroad helping the slaves reach freedom, feeding them, hiding them, sheltering them, and risking their own necks in the process.. do their ancestors deserve payment for the services their ancestors rendered also?

Indentured Servants

Indentured Servants. Indentured servants are laborers who are under a contract with their master to serve the master for a period of time. In exchange for being servants, they received shelter, food, passage across seas, and accommodations.
Indentured Servants in America. In Colonial America, indentured slaves did not only consist of Africans, but a large majority of them were Irish, Scottish, English, and Germans, who were brought over from Europe and were paying their debt for the passage over sea.
Anthony Johnson. Anthony Johnson was one of the first African Americans to have finished his services as an indentured servant and become a landowner on the Eastern Shore and slave-owner himself.
Bacon's Rebellion. Although indentured servants become free and obtained their own land, they were given land that no one wanted. This discrimination led to Bacon's rebellion. Bacon's rebellion was the first rebellion in Colonial America. The rebellion was a protest against Sir William Berkeley, governors of Virginia.

Indentured to Chattel

Gradual Change of Status. There was a gradual change in the status of African Americans from indentured servants to chattel slaves.
1640 Virginia Courts. In 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced one of the first black indentured servants to slavery.
John Casor. In 1654, John Casor became the first legal slave in America. Anthony Johnson, previously an African indentured slave, claimed John Casor as his slave. The Northampton County rule against Casor, and declared him propter for life by Anthony Johnson.Since Africans were not English, they were not covered by the English Common Law.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:22 PM
I have an idea... treat reparations as inheritance.

As with inheritance in absence of a will, claimant must prove their heritage and upon proper documentation, will receive the appropriate proportion of reparations to which they would be entitled to. Additionally, for any former slave who had received some sort of reparations, their living descendants would be ineligible.

If, during discovery of one's lineage, additional living descendants are discovered, they will be included within the award. For instance, if one former slave, a "Mr. Jackson" had not received reparations, and while one living descendant discovered the lineage today consists of 200 living descendants, "Mr. Jackson's" reparations would be divided equally amongst those living.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:29 PM
The United Nations should focus on defeating global terrorism. WTF has the U.N. accomplished in the past 50 years? Anything at all, besides reports and warnings?

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:38 PM

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Wow ... I cannot believe this.

Slavery ended in the US over 150 years ago.

Nobody alive remembers it. My own family of immigrants came here after it was done, and my wife's family are both immigrants and Native Americans. If anyone deserves reparations it is the Native Americans....

So: wtf? Where does the money for reparations come from? Our taxes?

And not all people of color in the US have slavery in their past, though probably most do, admittedly.

I am actually pissed about this -- the UN. Fools. I am becoming anti-UN pretty fast these days. They don't represent me, that is for sure.

Yeah, my family came from Sweden around 1900. This concept that anybody with a certain pigment (white/pink) is guilty because certain others (that weren't even their ancestors necessarily nor countrymen) with a similar pigment did something bad, is ludicrous in the extreme.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:45 PM

originally posted by: MrSpad
Some sub group of a sub group of an UN affiliated group had a panel that suggested this. Not like it is the UN itself. Considering the US ignores the US over hundreds of things why would this be any different? Granted Trump would likely get confused and and think that the UN was the University of Nebraska and spend an hour bashing Nebraskans, then when somebody corrects him and asks if he owns Nebraska an apology, he would deny he ever said anything about Nebraska.

Considering that was a panel that met and not the UN itself I do not see what this would have to do with Clinton or Trump. This is like asking a President weigh in on a PTA meeting in Guam.

Absolutely. I did UN work at one point not too long ago. ALL of the time there are meetings on just about every topic with various parties, stakeholders, corporations, NGOs, etc. I've sat in on them. Most of the time these meetings are literally just a small conference room, that happens to be at the UN.

As you noted, most of these discussions are in no way some official resolution or statement from the UN writ large.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: Martin75

a reply to: ketsuko My family were Irish slaves (my cousin found this when tracing our history) I get money? Woohoo!

The Irish were never in chattel slavery in the US no matter what your cousin told you.

a reply to: ridgerunner

Ok,why were the reparations paid after the Civil War to the ACTUAL slaves not enough?And the confiscated lands that were given to the ex-slaves?They deserved it,but why do people who never were slaves deserve a penny

What reparations where those? Sherman promised 40 acres and a mule but that was all reversed after the war.

Just pointing out a few obvious inaccuracies.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:12 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Leave it to our resident neoconfederate.

Reparations will never be paid. They clearly should have been paid at the end of the Civil War though. The plantations should have been chopped up and redistributed to the slaves. Instead, many just went back to work in the fields as share croppers. Still others were forced into labor by vagrancy laws.

The for another century, people blathering about "heritage" (white Southern heritage that is) waved Confederate flags around while they created ever more elaborate laws to oppress the people and their descendants that they and their antecedents had enslaved. They fought tooth and nail against integration of the descendants of slaves all the way up to the 60's.

Then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed and *poof* like magic, centuries of history were undone and opinions changed overnight. It was a miracle the likes of which the... oh wait, that didn't happen.

It's too late to pay reparations and it wouldn't do any good now. It would have done a lot of good 150 years ago.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:19 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

It *might* have happened 150 years ago had the Union not decided to rape and pillage the South, particularly the 97% of Southern whites who didn't own slaves and were scraping by before Grant's savages decided to "teach them a lesson".

I do appreciate the neocon federated tag, however. That's a new one and, honestly, it has a nice ring to it.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:21 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Hillary would go with it; she pretty much said last night that we're all a bunch of racists.

If that's how you really feel, then perhaps the most rational response isn't to fall into reactionary trap getting all worked up about something that has absolutely no chance of ever happening.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in