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.

 

Payment for Services Rendered

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Again, the question is: Do we (as Americans, not 'whites') owe these people payment for services rendered?


No. THESE PEOPLE have not provided any service let alone services that need to be paid for. Please tell us exactly what service 'these people' have done that requires payment. Simply being born black is not 'a service' requiring payment. Black people born in the last 150 years have provided no 'service' (slavery) to pay for.


The money should come out of the government's coffers, however they manage to get it.

That would be from us. Tax payers.


The US Treasury is NOT "your pocketbook."

Yes it is. The money comes from our paychecks, our pocketbooks.

The Federal Government (MY tax money) already has Affirmative Action as well as other federal programs that help those in this country that need it - black people especially. Programs for housing, jobs, education, etc etc Plenty of money is spent on those programs that all people, mostly black people, can take advantage of.

The 'reparations' lump sum handout shouldn't happen, and it isn't going to happen. Plenty of money has been handed out, and is still being handed out, in these programs.

If black Americans want someone to stick a wad of cash in their hands then they can go look for it from AFRICA (which enslaved them to begin with) and from the Muslim great-great grandchildren of the Barbary Pirates, and from Portugal. We American tax payers are already paying (and paying and paying).


Originally posted by jsobecky
I see this topic as a typical Jesse Jakson shakedown scam.


Yep.


Originally posted by df1
the slaves had a picnic lunch when compared to the treatment received by American Indians at the hands of the white man.


I hardly ever agree with df1 ... so everyone mark your calendars ... today we are in agreement.

edited ONCE for spelling



[edit on 2/25/2007 by FlyersFan]




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I think the only responsibility the people of today have is to recognize that our forefathers made some pretty bad mistakes and the past and work to correct them....paying a bunch of money off won't correct them. being able to look each other in the eyes and see each other as equals, and acting accordingly will. so won't accepting the responsibilities that equality and freedom have connected to them.
you can't say leave the endentured servants, the native americans, ect out of it, since well, they were also pretty much enslaved and therefore any compensation now would rightfully be owed to them also, wouldn't it....or do you want this compensation itself to have racial undertones?
ya see, I am an ancestor of one of these servants....as well as many other americans. and well, want to talk about the white women who were auctioned off as wives? that should be a good one, don't ya think?

and, what about those white people of the north who risked their lives and well being to run the underground railroad? I am also a decendent of some of them...what do they owe you? or maybe you owe them something, like a thank you for having ancestors brave enough to secretly shuttle slaves to canada?

meanwhile while the government is struggling to pay out this huge sum of money for the errors of those dead and gone, EVERYBODY'S taxes will skyrocket, or do you propose a racist tax, on only white people?

we have a black man running for the white house. white people living in the ghettos, as far as I can see in my personal life, opportunity for either seems to be pretty much color blind. I think it's more of a matter of who is accepting those responsibilities I spoke of earlier, and who isn't. and well, the government uses our taxes for these people without any preference to color.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
what about those white people of the north who risked their lives and well being to run the underground railroad? I am also a decendent of some of them...what do they owe you? or maybe you owe them something,


So am I. We had the underground railroad running right through our backyard (our home is 200 years old) in Connecticut. Obviously with the permission and cooperation of my ancestors. I had relatives die in the Civil War fighting against slavery.

My husband's family wasn't even here then.

'Reparations'?? Bah!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No. THESE PEOPLE have not provided any service let alone services that need to be paid for.


I have to agree with this point. The descendants of slaves have not rendered services. The slaves did, granted, and they should have been paid. But it's impossible to right this wrong, because they're dead.

Slavery was wrong; I think we can all agree.

And even though we CAN identify the descendants of slaves, that doesn't mean that they are owed for the work someone else did.

Paying the descendants of slaves for the work someone else did is the same as holding the descendants of slave-owners guilty and responsible for the wrong that someone else did.

IF the descendants of slaves are owed a debt, then it's the descendants of slave-owners that are responsible for that debt. Not the government and not the population at large.

If restitution is "Payment for Services Rendered":

And IF this debt exists:

Then the responsible parties are the descendants of the slave-owners who directly profited from the services rendered. If the guy next door remodels his house, MY property values go up. I benefit. But I don't owe him anything toward the price of his remodel.

When a company underpays someone, THE COMPANY is sued, not the government and not the population. And the beneficiaries of that lawsuit are the employees themselves, not the descendants of the employees.

Giant Big Apple Beer
Sewing Systems

[edit on 25-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

dock6
I don't think they'd even evolved to the extent they had the wheel, had they?


Originally posted by Nygdan

What?

Are you kidding?

You need to educate yourself bub.


Might it be suggested to the above poster that he take his own advice.


There is no reason to think that, left to themselves, Africans would have risen from the primitive conditions in which Europeans found them.



To believe that colonization thwarted the economic development of Africa is to believe that indigenous societies were on their way towards prosperity but were brutally shoved off course by Europeans.

In fact, African societies south of the Sahara that had not had contact either with Europeans or with Middle Eastern traders showed no signs of modern development.

No pre-contact African society had devised a written language or had discovered the wheel.

None had a calendar, or built multi-story buildings.

No African had learned how to domesticate animals. The smelting of iron was widespread, as was fire-hardened pottery, but the continent did not produce anything that could be called a mechanical device.

Africans had no concept of the biological origins of disease, and attributed personal misfortunes to the work of evil spirits.

Slavery was widely practiced, and deeply rooted in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans.

There is no reason to think that, left to themselves, Africans would have risen from the primitive conditions in which Europeans found them.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The government ALLOWED the people to own slaves. They did not REQUIRE them to own slaves. The choice was the individual's. They made the choice to own slaves or not.

This adds to the argument that the slave-owners, and not the government, were ultimately responsible for owning slaves and not paying them. So, IF there is a debt involving descendants, it belongs to the descendants of slave owners, not the government or the people.

The government ALLOWS the people to go bungee jumping. They do not REQUIRE them to go bungee jumping. The choice is ours. We make the choice to go bungee jumping or not.

If we are hurt while bungee jumping, we sue the company, not the government which allows bungee jumping to be legal.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Just as American blacks blame whites for their failures, Africans deny responsibility for the misery they bring on themselves.

The population of Africa grows faster than that of any other region of the world.

The total number of children, grand children, and great-grand children that the average American woman will have is 14.

The equivalent figure for the average African woman is 258 !!

Despite the ravages of disease, starvation, and inter-tribal warfare, Africa's population increases by more than three percent a year. At that rate, populations can double in 20 years.


Just as US blacks increased their population by a staggering 3,000% in approx. 150 years.


Just as blacks in America seek to explain their own failings by blaming them on whites, Africans explain their own poverty by blaming Europe.


www.amren.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
With all due respect to HH and all black folks who feel a debt is owed them due to the history of slavery in the US, I completely disagree with reparations of any kind, and here's why:

The US inherited the system of slavery when it became a nation. The practice had been in place at the time since, I believe, at least the late 1500s, and probably earlier. The entire Western world engaged in the slave trade, with most slaves initially being sent to the West Indies to work the cane fields and sugar plantations. According to Western thought at the time, blacks were considered savages, not human beings, and had no rights. To hold the US alone responsible for slavery is ludicrous.

The US paid in blood with the lives of over 600,000 citizens to end the practice of slavery. Granted there were other issues settled by the Civil War, but ending slavery was the main human one. Yes it took another hundred years for the equal rights movement; change doesn't happen overnight.

Throughout the history of man one society has enslaved another at one time or another. How far back do you want to go?

I could go on and on, but I won't. Slavery is evil, and it still exists. 99% of Americans are enslaved by the other 1%. The monetary system is just camouflage for this.

At the most, blacks in the US are due an apology and an equal opportunity to better themselves, and they have received that, if not more.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

The argument that colonization accounts for Africa's poverty is so easily refuted that it should have gone out of currency long ago. That it has not can be attributed only to the apparently endless capacity of whites to accept arguments that paint them as villain



African societies south of the Sahara that had not had contact either with Europeans or with Middle Eastern traders

* showed no signs of modern development.

* No pre-contact African society had devised a written language or had discovered the wheel.

* None had a calendar, or built multi-story buildings.

* No African had learned how to domesticate animals.

* The smelting of iron was widespread, as was fire-hardened pottery, but the continent did not produce anything that could be called a mechanical device.

* Africans had no concept of the biological origins of disease, and attributed personal misfortunes to the work of evil spirits.

* Slavery was widely practiced, and deeply rooted in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans.

* There is no reason to think that, left to themselves, Africans would have risen from the primitive conditions in which Europeans found them.



The European slave trade, though unquestionably harmful to Africa, was hardly the depopulating scourge it is often made out to be.

When the 15th century Portuguese began sailing down the coast, they met long-established slave traders keen to sell off surpluses.

Europeans almost never went on slaving expeditions into the interior. They bought slaves from dealers, which means that slaves taken from Africa were first enslaved by other Africans
.


At the same time, Europeans introduced two New World staples that could be stored — cassava and corn — revolutionizing the African food supply. The sudden increase in population more than made up for losses to the European slave trade which, in any case, ended by the middle of the 19th century
.


It was trade with Europeans that introduced modernity to iron-age Africa.

Far from hobbling and holding the continent back, colonization laid the foundations for whatever evidence of economic progress can now be found in Africa.

It was Europeans who built roads and rail lines, introduced piped water, schools and telecommunications, and built national administrations.

Nothing suggests that Africans would have achieved any of this on their own.



There is no question but that life for Africans improved steadily under colonization.

By the 1960s, when most of Africa became independent, the region exported food. Now, it devours more than $1 billion a year in Western food aid, and thousands still starve.



It is possible to argue that Africans might have been better off if they had been left entirely alone. This is to take a romantic view of the disease, tribal warfare, slavery, and ignorance that were widespread on the continent.

Moreover, no African group that has glimpsed the possibilities of Western progress has opted to return to purely African primitivism.

This suggests that Africans themselves would rather have the benefits of Western technology than do without them. Given that people naturally yearn for medical advance and material progress, colonization was an obvious and striking benefit to Africa.


www.amren.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Marion Barry (non-white) grew up in the South, and developed an early racial consciousness that was fueled by a strong dislike for whites.

When he worked as a waiter at an American Legion post, he spat in the food that he served to white customers — just as Jesse Jackson did when he was a youngster.

He started in "civil rights" work as a college student, and was the first chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

Mr. Barry moved to Washington (DC) and adopted the 1960s activist regalia of shades, dashiki, and afro — often with a comb stuck in it. After years as a small-scale street agitator, his career took off in 1967, when he managed to shake loose a big grant from Lyndon Johnson's Labor Secretary, Barry Wirtz, to train "street dudes" for useful jobs.

In its first three years of existence, Mr. Barry's organization, Youth Pride, Inc., got an astonishing $9 million in federal money.

Some of it went astray. In 1969, 17 Pride employees were indicted for embezzlement. One pleaded guilty and four were convicted. Some of the small businesses that were started with Pride money became open drug dealerships or fencing operations.

The corruption was clear for all to see, but as black reporter, Rich Adams, explained to Mr. Agronsky, Youth Pride had a standard answer whenever white authorities asked pointed questions:

"Don't ask, honky motherf***er, because if you do, we're going to go out on the street, and we're going to start a riot and say that the white man is trying to destroy black economic progress."
And it scared the living s**t out of those liberals who didn't want any trouble.
. . . So what if Marion and [his wife] Mary Treadwell got a couple of hundred thousand dollars? It was worth it to the federal government not to have them stirring s**t in the community.

As Mr. Adams puts it in his colorful way:
. . . This was the chance for the black guy to f**k over the white system. And he [Barry] did it with style. It wasn't just rob a 7-11. It was rob the whole goddamn federal government. . . .
Some Youth Pride employees did it without style. In 1973, while Mr. Barry was still nominal head of the organization, four employees were shot to death in less than a month. Three of the killers were other Pride employees. All — both killers and killed — were members of a gang that specialized in armed robbery.

Even some of those who were doing it with style got caught. Though she was by then no longer Mr. Barry's wife, Mary Treadwell was indicted for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government. The same investigation snared four other Youth Pride administrators but couldn't get the goods on the top man.



'That's Sophistication'

In 1971, Mr. Barry expanded his empire by winning an elected seat on the Washington school board. During his campaign, he covered up his complete ignorance of school issues by sending aides to tape record his opponents' speeches and using the same phrases, often word for word. When asked about this tactic, he replied, "What's wrong with that? That's sophistication."

Mr. Barry soon won election to the DC City Council, and promptly discovered on which side the bread was buttered. He pleased businessmen, many of them white, by introducing laws to reduce taxes for merchants and developers. By the time he was ready to run for mayor in 1978, the Metropolitan Board of Trade was so beholden to him that it invited DC bigwigs to a $500-a-plate dinner and raised $60,000 for him in a single afternoon. Some white benefactors must have felt a pang of worry when Mayor Barry, as one of his first official acts, set aside 35 percent of all District contracts for non-whites.

Mr. Agronsky is hard-pressed to point to much that Mayor Barry ever did for Washington. During his first year or two, he appears to have shown a flicker of interest in improving city services, but that soon waned. All of his measures seemed designed mainly to tighten his grip on power. Not even his former aides saw things differently. Mr. Agronsky quotes one who says, "I could not separate out what he was legitimately interested in for the public good and what he was interested in for his political gain."

Spending the Public's Money

One thing Mayor Barry did was spend government money. At the end of his first year in office, he paid for a $50,000 advertising supplement in Time magazine, full of praise and photographs of the mayor. As he grew more confident, he spent more. He once took 50 city employees and consultants to the US Virgin Islands, ostensibly to give advice to the local government. He and his entourage spent $250,000 in taxpayer money sunning themselves and shopping.


www.amren.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Corruption flourished under Mayor Barry. One of his closest aides, Deputy Mayor Ivanhoe Donaldson went to jail for fleecing the government. Another deputy mayor, Alphonse Hill was convicted of extortion, tax evasion, and defrauding the city. Another aide, Robert B. Robinson, resigned after pleading guilty to embezzlement.

The Department of Human Services, the agency that was supposed to be making life better for Washington's poor, gave off a particularly bad smell. After one department head was caught with his hand in the till and fired, his successor lasted only nine months. He was found to be using city money to pay rent and buy groceries, both for himself and for his top assistants. By the time Mr. Barry finally left office, a full dozen of his chief aides had gone to jail for corruption, and many others had left under clouds.

His administration was as incompetent as it was corrupt.

Although Washington had nearly twice as many housing bureaucrats per public-housing resident as Baltimore or Detroit, one fifth of the public housing was vacant because it was waiting for repairs.

The waiting time for a unit was seven years.

Emergency services personnel were so arrogant and lazy that calls to 911 sometimes weren't even answered and an ambulance might not show up until the next day.

Fourteen people reportedly died, waiting for help that never came.

Almost one in five voters in Mayor Barry's city were on the municipal payroll — about three times the national average.

During his 12 years in office, Mayor Barry boosted the number of city bureaucrats by 27 percent while the population of the District fell by 30,000.

(black) Bureaucrats were so contemptuous of the public that the city finally started sending them to class to teach them how to answer the telephone without insulting people.


In the last three years of Mayor Barry's tenure, judges cited the city no less than seven times for systematic mistreatment of people in its care: juvenile delinquents, prisoners, and the mentally retarded.

In 1989, Washington Monthly called the Barry administration "the worst city government in America." Drugs spread across the city, and it became the murder capital of the world.


Washington was rife with rumors of mayoral womanizing and drug-taking. One of many reported lovers, Sallie Melendez, went on the city payroll at $63,185 a year before she even had a job description. Another, who used to spend days on end with the mayor, lost in a coc aine haze, got $180,000 to start a school to teach black girls how to become models.

In May of 1988, Mayor Barry reportedly threatened to cut off her funding unless she would give him oral sex.

His antics were eventually too much even for a white press that is terrified of offending blacks

but Mayor Barry brushed off criticism as "a new style of lynching." He compared himself to Jesus and Gandhi who were persecuted for the good they did. As his white critics turned up the volume, his popularity among blacks only grew.


Poor, poor Washington ! All those poor whites who planned it and built it, only to see it sink to this at the hands of .....

If all the blacks in Africa moved to the US -- let's see what they'd turn it into within 5, 10, 20 years, on their own.

And during that same time, whites who'd moved from the US to Africa would turn that current sewer of a country into a paradise to rival what the US used to be !



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Black support for the mayor was so great that when he finally went to trial on 14 counts of coc aine possession and lying to a grand jury, he boasted that it would be impossible to find a Washington jury that would convict him, no matter what the evidence. "All it takes," he said, "is one juror saying, 'I'm not going to convict Marion Barry — I don't care what you say.' "

He was very nearly right. In spite of overwhelming evidence and even an open admission by his defense lawyer that the mayor had used crack, the panel of ten blacks and two whites convicted him on only one charge of coc aine possession. On an astonishing ten out of the 14 charges, the jurors could not reach agreement.

It was later learned that a bloc of five black jurors consistently held out for acquittal. They claimed that the government had manufactured evidence and coached witnesses to lie. During deliberations, one pro-acquittal black accused another black, who was leaning towards conviction, of not sufficiently identifying with her race.

One black juror urged others to read a book about white racism before they voted on the charges.

The decision to find Mayor Barry guilty on even a single charge is something of a miracle, since the black holdouts would not even vote to convict on the possession charge supported by the FBI videotape
. Judge Jackson handed down the stiffest possible sentence for a first conviction, and Mr. Barry started serving a six-month sentence on October 6, 1991.



Does Mr. Barry's career have any larger significance? Mr. Agronsky appears to find none, though he does confess that he is "amazed at the skill, frequency, and seeming ease with which Barry, until the very end, was able to use his minority status to extract concessions from the white establishment [and] emerge unscathed from repeated allegations of wrongdoing . . . ."


Maybe Ceci, Harlemhottie and their ilk should familiarise themselves with black 'pride' or even normal human pride as it does NOT relate to the above disgusting and recent black history inflicted on taxpaying WHITE Americans by those whom the always-generous Whites gave yet another chance to show the world what they are ACTUALLY made of ?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Mr. Barry is just one in a long line of conmen like Congressman Gus Savage, Mayor Coleman Young, Reverend Al Sharpton, Miss Tawana Brawley, and a whole host of anonymous blacks who trade on their skin color every day.



Mayor Barry takes 50 friends on a taxpayer-funded tropical vacation while his city — 70 percent black — sinks ever deeper into crime, drugs, and misery.

He takes out a self-congratulatory photo supplement in Time magazine.

His appointed officers brazenly plunder the treasury.

This is what one expects from third-world potentates of impoverished countriesand what else might Mayor Barry have done were it not for the restraints of white public opinion and a white system of justice?

The other larger story that Mr. Agronsky missed is the significance of near-monolithic black support for Mr. Barry.

There could hardly have been a worse mayor for Washington, but blacks supported him to the end — even in the jury box.


Why? Because whites criticized him.

While whites parrot the mantras of racial harmony and equality, blacks put racial solidarity before all else.

While whites are taught to smother any sense of their own racial interests, blacks increasingly make race the center-piece of their lives.

There could scarcely be a better example of the radical divergence in the interests of American blacks and whites than the radical divergence in their opinions about what Mayor Barry had done and what he deserved.

Platitudes, no matter how earnestly repeated, cannot hide the vast differences in how blacks and whites see and interpret American society. What do these differences say about the prospects for the utopian, multi-racial society we are supposed to be building?


www.amren.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Some towns are rewriting their building codes so that cheaper houses can be built in what have, so far, been high-toned areas. Core Point, for example has authorized the construction of inexpensive apartment units in an area where the existing houses cost a million dollars or more.



But how to be sure that blacks/b] rather than whites move in?



New houses and apartments are advertised in black newspapers



and the same properties are sold or rented at different rates according to the race of the customer.



Blacks pay lower mortgages and lower rent than whites.


This kind of discrimination blatantly violates the Fair Housing Act, but local authorities have indicated that they will look the other way so long as the law is violated in the name of integration.


[William Celis 3rd, District finds way to end segregation and restore neighborhood schools, NYT, 9/4/91.]

Is this the sort of 'discrimination' blacks are complaining about here ? LOL



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I've been chewing on this issue for a couple days now and there are a lot of valuable points in this thread...

It seems to me however that the biggest failure of government can be pointed at, noted, logged, disected, in the hugely anti-progressive "war on poverty." The policies instituted in order to combat poverty address many of the issues underlying the reperations debate and have cost this country far more in dollars and attitudes then we've spent and earned with our defense buget.

While the government, in good conscience, has been offering a "hand up" now for generations, there is an entire segment of our population that remains seated and has treated and raised the next generation to treat it as a "hand-out" which is the basis for many decent citizens animosity towards that segment.

Of course this is incorrectly viewed as racism by the intellectually slotheful which is then used as a point of contention to get more hand-outs.

Treat the disease not the symptoms.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Why is that concept so hard for people to grasp when it comes to black Americans?

Can we all agree that this country enslaved Africans?

Nope. This country bought them after they were enslaved.
Why is this concept so hard for black Americans to grasp when it comes to white Americans?

Can we all agree that they were kidnapped, forced onto work camps, and not paid?

All true.

Can we all agree that this country only begrudgingly set them free in 1865?

If your definition of "begrudgingly" includes starting a civil war, tearing this country apart, costing millions of dollars and thousands of lives, basically forcing the will of the federal government onto the southern states (death of the "republic"?), then yes, we can agree on that.

Can we all agree that Jim Crow was just as 'freedom-inhibiting' as actual enslavement?

Not at all. Jim was free to come and go as he pleased.

Can we all agree that black Americans were just officially granted the rights and privileges of other American citizens in 1965?

Certainly.

Can we all agree that this new arrangement is still in the process of 'trickling down' to the rest of the population?

Yes, we can. Of course, the population may be a little quicker to assimilate this "new arrangement" if people stopped demanding reparations from people not involved in slavery for people not involved with slavery.

So what's the problem? Really?

Possibly the problem is people who keep screaming "You owe me!" when they're actually not entitled to any more then anyone else. Racial equality, right?

No deflection, ie, bringing up Irish indentured servants, or the perceived failings of contemporary black Americans.

No deflection, although this leaves you with an extremely narrow view of the subject at hand.

That would be off-topic.

Here at ATS? You must be kidding!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Why is that concept so hard for people to grasp when it comes to black Americans?

Can we all agree that this country enslaved Africans?

Can we all agree that they were kidnapped, forced onto work camps, and not paid?

Can we all agree that this country only begrudgingly set them free in 1865?

Can we all agree that Jim Crow was just as 'freedom-inhibiting' as actual enslavement?

Can we all agree that black Americans were just officially granted the rights and privileges of other American citizens in 1965?

Can we all agree that this new arrangement is still in the process of 'trickling down' to the rest of the population?

So what's the problem? Really?

No deflection, ie, bringing up Irish indentured servants, or the perceived failings of contemporary black Americans.

That would be off-topic.



OK .. yall where enslaved.

You want a cookie now?

I bet you would rather the money from my wallet.
What is the point of this thread?

EDIT:

Ohhhh.... it IS about money.. for "services rendered" ..

I warn you .. this issue is an issue above all issues for whites. I can guarantee that I will die before I give my money to blacks for slavery. I have never had a slave. I was not alive in 1964 and back. I was alive in the mid 1980's and I don't recall any slaves then. You will NEVER get my money you greedy self absorbed imbecile. If you want a race war fine.. demand your money.. but if legislation was to be passed taking money out of my hard earned check, it won't go lightly. You deserve nothing, you shall get nothing, you want which is not yours, the sins of the father should never be paid for by son.

[edit on 2/25/2007 by Rockpuck]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Dock6, this link that you have posted is a sad but very powerful statement of the truth of the history of Africa:

www.amren.com...

For that, you have earned this WATS:


You have voted Dock6 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


I hope that it helps to keep this topic in context.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I've asked this question before, and I don't recall getting an answer then either, so my expectations of getting one here are rather low; but I'm going to try anyway. What good will reparations do? Everyone, save raving racists, acknowledges that slavery happened, is still happening, and was, and is, a horrific crime against humanity.

My other question is why should I, who have never owned a slave, I don't even by products from China, because of the slavery like conditions of many of its workers; have to pay reparations to people who themselves have never been slaves. If there were living former slaves, I would be all for it.

Reparations would solve nothing, and would in MHO create several more due to resentment on the part of those forced to pay. Speaking of which, who gets to pay? Whites who's families weren't even here? Orientals whose ancestors during the 19th century were little better than slaves themselves? Who?

[edit on 25-2-2007 by seagull]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
It doesn't matter seagull.. these people only want your money, they care little about anything else. It is the "you hurt my great great great great great granddad and it has now inflicted so much emotional, economic, cultural pain on me ohh booooo hooo someone please help me or at least give me loads of money!" Racism shall be kept alive and strong with people like HH around. not only will she inspire racism, but her attempts to make the entire white race guilty of crimes not committed will lead to a new generation of whites that grow up feeling resentment and frustration with the black race. Racism is a perpetual cycle that is kept alive and strong from both sides.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join