It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Should we have reparations to black folk?

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: HonorablyTainted

Perhaps the US could look at the region's that received 95% of all African slave trade from 1520's to 1850's (Caribbean, Central America and South America)...perhaps the models in these historically massive slave labor nations/regions are superior...

North America constituted 3 to 5% of all African slave trade over an almost 350 year span (1520-1860). The USA only existing less than 90 years as a nation during this span...so other enslaving colonizing nations need also to be held accountable.

Don't just single out the USA on this, almost all of Europe, the western and northern coasts of Africa were profiting from this trade 100's of years prior to 1776...and had been legal for 100's of years prior.

Frankly, the USA had to attempt to adapt rapidly to the entire hot mess of Europe's colonization and conquest attempts from Native American Indians, hostile land grabs, to Slavery issues spanning 300 years before the inception of the United States.

The constant finger pointing at the US about slavery etc. needs to go further back to historical causation and events. No new nation could ever repair the damages created over centuries quickly.
It's no wonder civil war broke out in the US, the culture had been set 10's of generations past.

mg




posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
as a Native (amusing how no one really talks about Native Reparations) who lived on a Reservation, and as an anarchist I am against Reparations for anyone, it gets into who gets owed more, and continues to place "value" on experiences, situations, and "things" that is just problematic



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
No. The Red Americans should come first. They are the ones who got screwed over first.


What about the other "Red Americans" , as you call them, who were forced by other "Red Americans" to leave their lands?... SHouldn't "Red Americans" have to compensate other "Red Americans" as well?...

BTW, why stop in the U.S.? Shouldn't every other country do the same?... Heck, every citizen of every nation should be homeless because those lands belonged to someone else...

BTW, what about all those white Europeans who were taken captives by Muslim pirates for centuries? Shouldn't every Muslim nation give reparations to all white people, and other races, whom for centuries Muslim nations took as captives?...

The entire Middle East belonged to other people, including whites, before Muslim hordes took by force their lands...

This is another dumb idea from leftists...





edit on 3-4-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

Whether reparations should be given is based on the disparity between non-slave Americans and the descendent's of slaves. The outcome is far different if you compare those who were brought here and those who remained in Africa. By that measure they've fared quite well!



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

Why? there were black people in the states before they started to bring in slaves when the British took control,the filthy bastards,make the damn limey's pay the ones that were shipped here



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2

I think you will find the British were leaders abolishing the slave trade.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think you will find that to be some what of a fallacy , the United States was not the only nation who fought for abolition of the slave trade !

If by fought you mean the civil war , it was a result of the demand for an end to slavery , that is one of the possible reasons civil war broke out sure but it wasnt the only reason the civil war was multi faceted as is any military conflict.


the abolition process began in British Isles with the somerset case 1774
somerset vs stewart



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: blueman12

Why? there were black people in the states before they started to bring in slaves when the British took control,the filthy bastards,make the damn limey's pay the ones that were shipped here


You should consign yourself to the dustbin of history just like your backwards bigoted opinion!



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeh that's what I was saying imagine the Roman empire was still around , what would their slave reparations bill be like ?

Or the Viking Kings , they'd owe great Britain a pretty penny

the Vikings would owe the natives of the big turtle a lot of money as well !

the northern countries, Denmark, Norway, Iceland , how much would they owe to the natives of the big turtle hahah

one my mates from work he has viking and native dna , one of his great ancestors was taken as a slave from the native tribes of the big turtle !

Also when are we renaming the United States of America , to the United Tribes of the big turtle , since that is what it was named before whoever thought they discovered it !
plus big turtle is an infinitely cooler name!



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: sine.nomine
I'm not suggesting your generation of ancestors are evil or anything either.


"Ancestors" is a tricky one.

1.) Only a very very small percentage of Modern American Whites have ancestors who owned slaves. Even at the peak of slavery it was 1 or 2%.

2.) However. So called "African Americans" are on average 23% European genetically.


I find this hugely ironic.

The vast offspring of White American Slave owners of the past could in fact be the mixed raced group that is the African American.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:19 AM
link   
No, obviously.

The ancestors of slaves were never slaves and the vast majority of people at the time were not slave owners - and their are no living slave owners in the US.

So the very idea of reparations is nonsense.
It's just another marxist wealth distribution idea.

I wonder how many black people today would trade their outcome of today with one where Amercia never brought slaves to the country?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: Oldtimer2

I think you will find the British were leaders abolishing the slave trade.

www.reuters.com...


Interesting that it showed a time-line but no mention of the 1772 Somerset v Stewart case in England were they ruled it unlawful to own a slave in England and Wales, based on English common law. This was after ironically, a black man was purchased in the colonies and brought back to England.

An act which worried the 13 North American colonies who wanted to keep their slaves at the time.

1776 was just a coincidence people.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine




My ancestors fought a savage war to free the slaves. You're welcome. I don't know how many other countries fought wars for basic human rights for slaves


As the Middle East wars are justified by stating "invading to bring democracy", so too there was more to the Civil War than slavery. Banking!!!



www.salon.com...


Mainstream economic historians tend to portray the "free banking" or "wildcat banking" era as chaotic and prone to banking panics. Loosely regulated by states, and not at all by the federal goverment, banks had the power to issue their own currency, resulting in a proliferation of competing bank notes that sometimes weren't worth the paper they were printed on. From this perspective, the passage of the National Banking Acts in 1863 and 1864 marked a welcome step in the maturation of the U.S. financial system.


But whether or not you accept that explanation of history -- and many, many libertarians, led by Rep. Ron Paul, do not -- there was also another clear reason for the consolidation of central government control over U.S. currency. Lincoln had to find a way to pay for his enormously expensive war, and issuing paper currency theoretically backed by government securities was the method he used to do it.


If you listen to some of the more wild-eyed libertarian voices out there, you will find that it is at this point that America really went off the tracks. Abraham Lincoln centralized government control over the money supply! And freedom died. We lost our bearings during the Civil War and have never managed to find our way back.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: RickinVa
As long as there are reparations for the million plus Irish slaves... go for it.
Being of Irish descent, when does my check arrive?

Will you accept it in the form of whiskey?


Scotch only



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
And after President Trump leaves office from a second term, the next couple administrations will fall into decay and collapse. Not because of their ideology, but because the Fiat Dollar will ultimately collapse. Worldwide..... The big re-set will arive. Every country will go bankrupt, no person will be spared. You could call this re-set the great equalizer as everyman will start anew. Paper money, electric money, coins money will all be worthless.

Then everybody will be on an equal footing, able to blame no one for their future or past.


or at least that's how it should be......



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

aye but those who own the mines will be kings !

same old same old !

even if you take away fiat money , we will go back to trading resources
and those who have the land and the factories will be the richest all the while taking from the workers who create that wealth and pull from the earth!

, the workers are the people who create wealth!



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It's about the process of wealth inequality. Basically, whites got a massive head start and blacks were constantly held back by slavery and then racist laws. Or practices of racism by citizens against blacks. Therefore, the argument is that blacks were racially held back far beyond slavery. And reparations would repair that.

I'm not for it, but that's generally the argument.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

Are you saying this as a fantasy or you think will happen?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

[The only times people have been paid reparations, they were paid to those directly harmed - Germany to actual Holocaust survivors, the US to those directly harmed by Japanese interment.]

Lots of instances of this, aside from what you said. haiti is still paying back France for their uprisingb that is reperartion on profits lost.

[Most blacks in the US are descended from blacks who were never slaves. Most whites are descended from those who came here after the Civil War.]

Thats a lie, no way in hell. You got data to back that up? Actual immigration numbers?



And all that leaves out the fact that there is no one alive today who was directly harmed by the nominal reason why we are paying people these reparations. No one today is being repaired for their slave status that they suffered.


And that is the biggest damning lie of all. if you believe this straight up idoicy, then your saying the past dont count.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

So in 20 years white males will be able to use this logic to get ahead, with all the black safe spaces nowadays.

Funny how it's people of color excluding whites now, we really don't mind..



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join