Reparations, while just, may not be owed to all.

a reply to: mblahnikluver

There are most, around here and all over, who can't handle that truth.

originally posted by: mblahnikluver
NOBODY ALIVE today owes a damn thing to anyone else for what happened in the PAST! Give me a break.

The issue is our nation may have been partially built on the profits of slavery, unless it turned out the large Southern planters were angry about Fort Sumter because they had not been paying their export and import taxes and did not want to start.

I don't necessarily believe the planters were angry about Fort Sumter for that reason, but it is a possibility that needs vetting.

Besides the fact that the US may have been built on the profits of slavery, it is true that if you go back far enough, any group of victims might have previously victimized their oppressors at some previous point. For example, is it even a little likely that the Ottomans or the Sultans of Oman didn't sell a whole bunch of Europeans to pre-Colonial Africa?

originally posted by: Crowfoot
Reparations is a horrible concept...

Please consider reading the OP. You might find it interesting.

It sounds like a lot of respondents only read the keyword "reparations."

You may find it partially supports your point of view, though I think some reparations may be called for.

a reply to: Solvedit

Almost the entire world, give or take, was built by slaves.

At one point or another, somebody that was "owned" by another, was used to build, make, create, erect, move etc something to create what we know today.

There is nobody alive in the US today(correct me if I am wrong, and if you do please provide links and actual evidence instead of a "because I said"), that was or is owned by another person as a slave. Expecting reparation's in this country is outright ridiculous.

a reply to: Solvedit

Reparations should be paid by the tribes that captured, enslaved, and sold other tribes to the slave traders and by the descendants of the slave traders who sold them again.

If the US decides to pay reparations to anyone who could prove ancestors were enslaved, it should be in the form of educational vouchers and not cash. This will provide them with marketable skills to earn a living and get them off the dole.

a reply to: Solvedit

the problem for Americans or indeed the Anglosphere is the age old question, if an abuser hurts their own kids what'll they do to someone else's..

the English started shipping its street kids to American colonies well before the first transatlantic slave ship arrived, while the royal navy is at pains to say they stopped that they never blocked the ships deporting their own to be used/abused and killed in a practice that outlasted the Atlantic slave trade by more than a century.. but its fair to say the American revolution exchanged one unwilling human cargo for another.

the issue here is a brutal culture that hurts its own as much as any other.. where or how that gets picked apart i have no idea but its not new and is unending as its a national characteristic..

it tries to reshape its abuse as modern and progressive.. but we fight the exact same wars with a similar establishment over and over..

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ntech
The mess the 40 acres and a mule created at the end of the Civil War. Illegal seizure of land and incitement of the Southern Whites to restart the Civil War. At the very least it would have been the KKK on steroids if 40 acres and a mule had become permanent. A terrorist army in the south attacking the blacks and the federal armies sent to put them down.

The Southern leadership may have deliberately wanted to put the freedmen on the coast.

The slave traders in Africa were their allies.

The South was partially wrecked and had spent its money on war. They were very low on food.

The Africans who were in the business of trading slaves must have been concerned for their future. The loss of the Confederacy meant they could no longer illegally import slaves to the US. Brazilian planters voluntarily ended slavery in 1868 and it was a global trend.

The African slave traders must have seethed with envy for the people they had exported to America because those people were getting free in a nation with land to give away.

Maybe the Southerners took some of the African slave traders' money to let them secretly emigrate and replace some of the freedmen. The freedmen could have been sold abroad or scuttled while still disorganized and uneducated.

liberia west africa started in 1820 was a colony for freed slaves Between 1820 and 1864, only 11,000 African Americans emigrated to Liberia (4,000 free blacks and 7,000 former slaves who gained freedom by agreeing to emigrate to Liberia).
haiti's slave rebellion against the french in 1803.

and trump is the only living potus with no slave owners in his ancestry.

good luck to whoever tries to sort it all out.

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Solvedit

the problem for Americans or indeed the Anglosphere is the age old question, if an abuser hurts their own kids what'll they do to someone else's..

the English started shipping its street kids to American colonies well before the first transatlantic slave ship arrived, while the royal navy is at pains to say they stopped that they never blocked the ships deporting their own to be used/abused and killed in a practice that outlasted the Atlantic slave trade by more than a century.. but its fair to say the American revolution exchanged one unwilling human cargo for another.

the issue here is a brutal culture that hurts its own as much as any other.. where or how that gets picked apart i have no idea but its not new and is unending as its a national characteristic..

it tries to reshape its abuse as modern and progressive.. but we fight the exact same wars with a similar establishment over and over..

Europe was overcrowded. Many colonists probably wanted to go.

They may have wanted to ensure the New World didn't become a haven for pirates and human traffickers.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ntech
The mess the 40 acres and a mule created at the end of the Civil War. Illegal seizure of land and incitement of the Southern Whites to restart the Civil War. At the very least it would have been the KKK on steroids if 40 acres and a mule had become permanent. A terrorist army in the south attacking the blacks and the federal armies sent to put them down.

The Southern leadership may have deliberately wanted to put the freedmen on the coast.

The slave traders in Africa were their allies.

The South was partially wrecked and had spent its money on war. They were very low on food.

The Africans who were in the business of trading slaves must have been concerned for their future. The loss of the Confederacy meant they could no longer illegally import slaves to the US. Brazilian planters voluntarily ended slavery in 1868 and it was a global trend.

The African slave traders must have seethed with envy for the people they had exported to America because those people were getting free in a nation with land to give away.

Maybe the Southerners took some of the African slave traders' money to let them secretly emigrate and replace some of the freedmen. The freedmen could have been sold abroad or scuttled while still disorganized and uneducated.

liberia west africa started in 1820 was a colony for freed slaves Between 1820 and 1864, only 11,000 African Americans emigrated to Liberia (4,000 free blacks and 7,000 former slaves who gained freedom by agreeing to emigrate to Liberia).
haiti's slave rebellion against the french in 1803.

and trump is the only living potus with no slave owners in his ancestry.

good luck to whoever tries to sort it all out.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Reparations should be paid by the actual slave owners to the actual slaves. PROBLEM FIXED!!!!

The US Government was not in the business of importing slaves, it was PRIVATE COMPANIES.

a reply to: ATSAlex

And there are no more of those alive, so it is a moot point.

Not sure why people just want handouts for things they never had to deal with, bunch of lazy, no good, detriment to society imo

originally posted by: ATSAlex
Reparations should be paid by the actual slave owners to the actual slaves. PROBLEM FIXED!!!!

The US Government was not in the business of importing slaves, it was PRIVATE COMPANIES.

The nation profited from the export of slave-made goods.

a reply to: Solvedit

So does/has every almost every other country in the world....

a reply to: Solvedit

In no way, shape, or form are reparations just or owed.

Slavery is a world wide machination that has been happening longer than recorded history. It is still happening today in some countries. The idea that white people owe money to black people for slavery is ridiculous.

The truth of this matter drops the hammer on reparations.
First, if descendants of slaves are owed reparations, then its going to be white people getting most of the money. There were far more white slaves in Europe than there ever were black slaves in the US.
Second, there were white slaves in the US too, as well as black slave owners. Uh oh...
Third, most descendants of slaves today in the US are also descendants of slave owners. Slave owners had sex with slaves. It increased the number of slaves they had which equated to more wealth. So who pays whom?
Fourth, all those free things that minorities get in this country: free cable tv, free cell phone, subsidized rent, hiring quotas, admissions priority, yadda yadda yadda, the list goes on and on. Those are all reparations. You have already been paid.

The worst part of this, at least to me, is that no one alive today in the US has been a slave and no one alive today in the US has been a slave owner. We are talking about generations past, and holding their descendants responsible. If that is the proper way to address past transgressions, then I want to get paid too. I am Italian. My people were slaves in Europe for centuries. They used to dip us in oil, impale us on pikes, and set fire to us to light outdoor dinner parties. The guests would dance to the sound of our screams. Or what about the worst lynching that ever happened in the entire history of the USA? It happened in Louisiana and it was locals, mostly black people, who lynched 11 Italian men. They were beaten, shot, hanged, burned, and dismembered so people could keep trophies of the event. Where is my damn check???

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Solvedit

In no way, shape, or form are reparations just or owed.

Slavery is a world wide machination that has been happening longer than recorded history. It is still happening today in some countries. The idea that white people owe money to black people for slavery is ridiculous.

Please consider reading the OP. It is a hypothetical speculation that some of the freedmen were replaced after the war.

Plus, I can't believe any bill granting reparations would have a race-based test

a reply to: Solvedit

Yes, I saw the OP. When you state very directly that reparations are just you have invited differing opinions. "Reparations, while just, may not be owed," due to a hypothetical condition involving hand-selected freedmen, is still a claim that reparations, in and of themselves, are just and deserved. They simply are not, at least not without including every other race that suffered slavery, which is all of them.

You can disbelieve that if you like, but, have you ever heard anyone discussing reparations that did not involve white people, or government, giving money to black people? It is a decidedly unidirectional equation that includes white shame, crt, and revenge, and nothing more or less.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Solvedit

Yes, I saw the OP. When you state very directly that reparations are just you have invited differing opinions. "Reparations, while just, may not be owed," due to a hypothetical condition involving hand-selected freedmen, is still a claim that reparations, in and of themselves, are just and deserved. They simply are not, at least not without including every other race that suffered slavery, which is all of them.

*It's not a claim but a speculative hypothesis

*The US which you are living in now is partially built on slave profits. You don't cancel your own debt by saying someone else has a debt too. The only way that might work is if you could prove enslaved individuals themselves came from societies which owned your people as slaves, and that's probably almost impossible because who kept such records in Africa? It certainly wouldn't make slavery justified but if they owe you while you owe them, then who pays who?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel...hand-selected freedmen...

It's a rather large group.

I want to add that with modern genetic testing, there probably already are no secrets about what happened so I don't think I am giving away a secret.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Solvedit

the problem for Americans or indeed the Anglosphere is the age old question, if an abuser hurts their own kids what'll they do to someone else's..

the English started shipping its street kids to American colonies well before the first transatlantic slave ship arrived, while the royal navy is at pains to say they stopped that they never blocked the ships deporting their own to be used/abused and killed in a practice that outlasted the Atlantic slave trade by more than a century.. but its fair to say the American revolution exchanged one unwilling human cargo for another.

the issue here is a brutal culture that hurts its own as much as any other.. where or how that gets picked apart i have no idea but its not new and is unending as its a national characteristic..

it tries to reshape its abuse as modern and progressive.. but we fight the exact same wars with a similar establishment over and over..

Europe was overcrowded. Many colonists probably wanted to go.

They may have wanted to ensure the New World didn't become a haven for pirates and human traffickers.

have a go at unpicking it... here is a link to a good starting point.. the Chesapeake colony was mostly made up of those forcibly deported.. rather than emigrated.

History of Child Custody in Virginia

it goes into details of the origins of colonist attitudes to children that evolved into the attitudes to slaves..

the privy council authorised the Virginia company to use force in the deportation of English children..

“And if any of them shall be found obstinate to resist or otherwise to disobey such directions as shall be given in this behalf, we do likewise hereby authorize such as shall have the charge of this service to imprison, punish, and disposeany of those children . . . and so to ship themout for Virginia with as much expedition as may stand with conveniency.”

the process of deporting the orphans from British streets carried on until the 1960s, as I said it impacts the anglosphere, the children's charities like Barnardo's manage mass child graves for that reason, in the last couple of decades a movie was made of the Aussie deportees and the lies they where told and abuse they endured.. tis is replicated in Canada and south Africa

there are adults alive the British gov deported, impact wise roughly 10% of Canadians are descended from British home children, most don't know because its a deep shamed to come from such undesirable stock..

and we see that process replicated in how Americans treated their own, notably the orphan trains and in a modern context the way some are ok with grooming gangs or indeed the more modern affirmation process that fixing gay/autistic youth..

none of this is new its embedded in Norman culture.. kids are commodities and tools for the express aim of maintaining loyalty and compliance they are also key points of dissent when the state over reaches..