A reason why reparations, while just, may not be owed to all alleged freedmen descendants

originally posted by: quintessentone
Whereas any other person taken from West Africa into slavery and not put into those plantations should not get reparations? Is that your point?

Didn't you read the part about the UFOs and the ancient scrolls?

a reply to: FlyersFan

the only slaves owners that received any reparations from the federal government for their slaves were in the swamp from the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act in 1862, which they revived 300 dollars each for 930 out of 2,989 freed people.

and section four of the 14th banned reparations for former enslavers,

the 14th amendment, section 4

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United State or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. ,

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: quintessentone
Whereas any other person taken from West Africa into slavery and not put into those plantations should not get reparations? Is that your point?

Didn't you read the part about the UFOs and the ancient scrolls?

Is this thread just a trip down history lane or did I get your point correct?

a reply to: BernnieJGato

ahhhh okay .. so the 14th Amendment isn't about no reparations TO SLAVES, but is about no reparations TO SLAVE OWNERS. Did I get that right? Okay. Thanks. So reparations to slaves - either for or against - isn't in the Constitution.

As I said, the only thing about legality and constitutionality of reparations was this -
There could be other things, I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar,
but this was all I could find on a search in the internet.

Reparations are Unconstitutional

A racial entitlement is only permissible to remedy the government’s own discrimination, not societal discrimination. It cannot provide race-based “remedies that are ageless in their reach into the past, and timeless in their ability to affect the future.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 497 (1995)). Reparations for slavery would be just such an improper “remedy.” On the other hand, the government need only show a “prima facie” case of such discrimination, not smoking-gun evidence of it, to adopt race-based affirmative action

[

a reply to: FlyersFan

it appears to read that way, but some people see it as all reparations including the supreme court. my understanding is that they are saying that a the part

but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

against the U.S. and that it wasn't the federal government, and anything over a time frame.

the way i see it is, the past is dead and gone, except anything over a reasonable time. especially for those that didn't even have anything to do with it or even know their ancestors should have to pay for the sins of their fathers.

Nor should those that didn't even have anything to do with it or even know their ancestors should revive monies for the misfortunes of their ancestors. hell some of their ancestor may have even helped cause those misfortunes.

a reply to: quintessentone
There is evidence the Ottoman empire was capturing people in Central Europe and selling them to their vassal the Barbary states. They may have sold the less obedient ones to the rest of Africa because it was further from escape, like an American slave being sold downriver.

I have heard Nigeria pronounced by Africans in Africa on TV. It sounds like the Lithuanian words for "not good" with the suffix for a nation or a people added on. The words for not good could also mean disobedient in the right context. Ne geri which is not good plural becomes Negerija or "ne" as in net, "ge" as in get, "REE" as in repeat, and "yah" as in yup or yuk. -ija is the suffix for a nation or people, like "Anglai" becoming "Anglija." The J is pronounced like a Y with no soft g sound at all.

The word for playing a musical instrument, "grot," sounds like the West African word for a traveling news-bearing minstrel, griot. So if some Central Europeans made it down there, they were minstrels, not colonial leaders.

Some African-Americans say Lithuanians must owe them because they look a bit like "y'all." (They occasionally do.) They may be wrong in assuming their ancestors' homes were at one point colonized even though Lithuania was not a naval power and there were several naval powers between them and West Africa. But it goes to show that they do think they look like some Lithuanians.

Anyway, the point. When 40 acres was briefly implemented before Johnson came to power and cancelled it, the freedmen were sent unprepared, underfed, not yet educated, and disorganized to the coast of Georgia and the Carolinas.

The slaves which were purchased for the transatlantic trade had historically been rounded up by African slave traders in Africa. These slave traders had been losing their gig all throughout the 19th Century as Europe and the Americas gradually banned slavery. They may have been viewed as outsiders because partially descended from Barbary slave traders. They may not have known farming and there may not have been any spare land for them in Africa.

Suppose the former African slave traders came to America and trafficked the freedmen out before they got organized, educated, and armed enough to resist? Perhaps during 40 acres?

Perhaps Lincoln was trying to help the South? He had grown up in the South. Recall they added a piece of Southern Wisconsin to the very top of Illinois to keep Illinois from seceding.

Perhaps the South didn't want their homeland full of disgruntled former slaves who might have something of a moral right to reparations, if only they learned to pray? Perhaps the South needed money to rebuild and the former African slave traders had to pay Southerners off to look the other way as they snuck in? Perhaps they were viewed as ancestral kin to white Southerners because they were partially descended from Babary slave traders? The white South still calls itself "Utman" which is not a part of Gaelic or Scots dialect English but is Arabic for Ottoman. Which suggests white Southerners are partially descended from a vassal of the Ottomans. Maybe those Barbary States used Arabic when talking to the rest of the empire?

Those African slave traders might have called themselves the people of the prison. They might have called the prison the "gulag." The word Gulag is said to be an acronym coined by the Soviets in 1919 but it could be a backronym for an old word for a slave prison. It could be a contraction of "gulimo lageris" or the prison in which you lie down. The prison in which you lie down could have been a hulk of a slave trading ship whose hold had no room to stand up. The Royal Navy had blown up permanent slave forts in 1833 so maybe they had to switch to hulk ships. The people or staff of the gulags may have called themselves the "Gulagiečiai" which sounds like "gulag" + IE (like yeah without the y) + "čiai" or -tchay.

Suppose those people bought their way in to the South just after the war because there was no longer anything to do for them in Africa?

a reply to: Solvedit

So with you deep diving into the history with this topic, is this what you might consider should be used as deciding factors in how dolling out reparations should be handled?

originally posted by: quintessentone
Is this thread just a trip down history lane or did I get your point correct?

If you didn't bother to read the OP, you're probably not going to wade through the explanation, even though I went into several paragraphs just so I could break everything down simply.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: quintessentone
Is this thread just a trip down history lane or did I get your point correct?

If you didn't bother to read the OP, you're probably not going to wade through the explanation, even though I went into several paragraphs just so I could break everything down simply.

It's a simple question I have. Do you think the deciding upon how reparations should be dolled out depends on where slaves ended up regionally?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Solvedit

So with you deep diving into the history with this topic, is this what you might consider should be used as deciding factors in how dolling out reparations should be handled?

How do I know what you're asking if you haven't bothered to read the OP or the explanation?

It's a simple question, yes. Unfortunately, it's not at all germane to anything I wrote. Go back and read the part about the UFOs and the Ancient Scrolls.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Solvedit

So with you deep diving into the history with this topic, is this what you might consider should be used as deciding factors in how dolling out reparations should be handled?

How do I know what you're asking if you haven't bothered to read the OP or the explanation?

It's a simple question, yes. Unfortunately, it's not at all germane to anything I wrote. Go back and read the part about the UFOs and the Ancient Scrolls.

It certainly is directly referencing your thread title. I am asking you is your deep diving in history looking for reasons why some descendants are not owed reparations?

originally posted by: BernnieJGato

the way i see it is, the past is dead and gone, except anything over a reasonable time. especially for those that didn't even have anything to do with it or even know their ancestors should have to pay for the sins of their fathers.

Nor should those that didn't even have anything to do with it or even know their ancestors should revive monies for the misfortunes of their ancestors. hell some of their ancestor may have even helped cause those misfortunes.

agreed.

Even if you are very very liberal on this, as of 1860 it was only at most 20% of Americans, who lived in seceding states, who owned slaves. The 80% in those states did not. 100% in the other states did not. Also many Americans in those other states died fighting against slavery. And there is the fact that many many people who live here are from immigrant families that weren't even here before the civil war. The biggie - any so called 'slave wealth' was destroyed when the South lost the war. The families who actually owned slaves aren't all sitting around on piles of money from it. It's gone.

USA Today

originally posted by: quintessentone
It certainly is directly referencing your thread title. I am asking you is your deep diving in history looking for reasons why some descendants are not owed reparations?

I'm afraid you're going to have to read about those UFOs and those scrolls if you want an answer.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Even if you are very very liberal on this, as of 1860 it was only at most 20% of Americans, who lived in seceding states, who owned slaves. The 80% in those states did not. 100% in the other states did not. Also many Americans in those other states died fighting against slavery. And there is the fact that many many people who live here are from immigrant families that weren't even here before the civil war. The biggie - any so called 'slave wealth' was destroyed when the South lost the war. The families who actually owned slaves aren't all sitting around on piles of money from it. It's gone.

The US earned its federal revenue from import and export tariffs. The South is said by some to have been the side of the country which gave the US a trade surplus. The wealth which went into fancy plantations is gone but the US may be partially built on slave profits.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: quintessentone
It certainly is directly referencing your thread title. I am asking you is your deep diving in history looking for reasons why some descendants are not owed reparations?

I'm afraid you're going to have to read about those UFOs and those scrolls if you want an answer.

Thanks you've just answered my question with evasion.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Solvedit

So with you deep diving into the history with this topic, is this what you might consider should be used as deciding factors in how dolling out reparations should be handled?

How do I know what you're asking if you haven't bothered to read the OP or the explanation?

It's a simple question, yes. Unfortunately, it's not at all germane to anything I wrote. Go back and read the part about the UFOs and the Ancient Scrolls.

It certainly is directly referencing your thread title. I am asking you is your deep diving in history looking for reasons why some descendants are not owed reparations?

In my opinion, no one is entitled to reparations for events that occurred 150 years ago.

None of the people that would receive reparations were alive and slaves then.

It's ludicrous.

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Solvedit

So with you deep diving into the history with this topic, is this what you might consider should be used as deciding factors in how dolling out reparations should be handled?

How do I know what you're asking if you haven't bothered to read the OP or the explanation?

It's a simple question, yes. Unfortunately, it's not at all germane to anything I wrote. Go back and read the part about the UFOs and the Ancient Scrolls.

It certainly is directly referencing your thread title. I am asking you is your deep diving in history looking for reasons why some descendants are not owed reparations?

In my opinion, no one is entitled to reparations for events that occurred 150 years ago.

None of the people that would receive reparations were alive and slaves then.

It's ludicrous.

That's what I am asking the OP. What determining factors are needed to decide whether or not to dole out reparations?

a reply to: quintessentone

My point is in the OP. I can't put the point in the thread title because they only allow 100 characters.

I explained it more carefully in the post which is 12 posts above this one.

I had to be a little long winded to make sure everything was put simply.

You wanted me to elaborate on my thread title, and that is the post on this page, 12 posts up. Please take it or leave it.

The Freedmen's Bureau
www.archives.gov...

Here’s a good read.