A CASE FOR REPARATIONS!

[Saudade]

Spoken like a true willfully ignorant conservative. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...es-and-a-mule/

Here's the thing: the current push for reparations boils down to an individual being able to provide valid documentation that (1) they are a descendant of a slave family (2) that said family were owned by a recognizable person(s) or business/corporation. Now if said business/corporation still exists in some form today, that would make the claim all the more solid with the aforementioned documentation.

This would GREATLY narrow the number of African Americans making claims for reparations. And of course, this would have to pass through Congress....and I highly doubt that will happen in my life time.

But hope springs eternal. Carry on.

Too much time has passed for this to be relevant.

Now, if you want to make the argument that blacks still alive today who faced discrimination from Jim Crow should be given reparations, then I might be ok with that. We can at least say that some of the black population today is old enough to have dealt with that.

[Saudade]

Your premise is extremely flawed, as you try to equate CRIMINALS with FREE INDIVIDUALS TAKEN AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is typical half-assed "logic" by reactionary right wing folk hell bent on 'stop the n***er'.

Your pointing to the Chinese is slightly off....for your education: https://www.pbs.org/becomingamerican/ce_timeline.html and the Chinese have a boat load of claims that require reparations, but NOT as slaves such as the Africans. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ans-in-the-u-s

And though the Irish did catch hell in America, they were NOT slaves like the Africans. You might be confusing the prisoners in the British colonies. For your education: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ir...early-america/

Yes, willfully or just honestly ignorance of what reparations is all about runs rampant in the Caucasian cabals of the GOP and "conservatives" in general. Faced with facts, they just cover their ears, parrot their mantras and become living examples of insipid stubbornness.

If we're specifically talking about slaves brought from Africa and not ones born in the U.S., these particular slaves were prisoners of war. The only way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was able to persist is through African tribes that were willing to venture further inland into Africa to conquer and enslave neighboring tribes, and then they subsequently would sell these people to the Europeans and, later, to Americans. They also sold these people to the Arabs before the Europeans got involved.

So while Arabs, Europeans, and Americans can be blamed for financing the slave trade, Africans themselves enabled the capture of these people through tribal warfare.

[TTQ64]

[QUOTE=Taichiliberal;3728551]Your premise is extremely flawed, as you try to equate CRIMINALS with FREE INDIVIDUALS TAKEN AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is typical half-assed "logic" by reactionary right wing folk hell bent on 'stop the n***er'.

Your pointing to the Chinese is slightly off....for your education: https://www.pbs.org/becomingamerican/ce_timeline.html and the Chinese have a boat load of claims that require reparations, but NOT as slaves such as the Africans. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ans-in-the-u-s

And though the Irish did catch hell in America, they were NOT slaves like the Africans. You might be confusing the prisoners in the British colonies. For your education: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ir...early-america/

Yes, willfully or just honestly ignorance of what reparations is all about runs rampant in the Caucasian cabals of the GOP and "conservatives" in general. Faced with facts, they just cover their ears, parrot their mantras and become living examples of insipid stubbornness.[/QUOTE]


Not just the GOP cables its' rampant in most white america. No one is asking for a check........which we rightfully deserve.......but for equality. Those things as I described can be accomplished relatively with little money.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Spoken like a true willfully ignorant conservative. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...es-and-a-mule/

Here's the thing: the current push for reparations boils down to an individual being able to provide valid documentation that (1) they are a descendant of a slave family (2) that said family were owned by a recognizable person(s) or business/corporation. Now if said business/corporation still exists in some form today, that would make the claim all the more solid with the aforementioned documentation.

This would GREATLY narrow the number of African Americans making claims for reparations. And of course, this would have to pass through Congress....and I highly doubt that will happen in my life time. But hope springs eternal. Carry on.

Too much time has passed for this to be relevant.

Now, if you want to make the argument that blacks still alive today who faced discrimination from Jim Crow should be given reparations, then I might be ok with that. We can at least say that some of the black population today is old enough to have dealt with that.

Too much time has passed for this to be relevant. translation: Woko can no longer logically or factually sustain many of his/her assertions.

Once again, Woko displays insipid stubbornness...had he/she read my previous response carefully and comprehensively, he/she would have seen how reparations for the descendants of slaves could be verified and validated. Bottom line: if a present day corporation benefitted from it's former incarnation owning slaves, then why shouldn't the ancestors of those slaves? Fair is fair. But fairness is not at the basis of the knee jerk anti-reparations mentality. And the band played on.

[Taichiliberal]

[QUOTE=TTQ64;3730598]

Your premise is extremely flawed, as you try to equate CRIMINALS with FREE INDIVIDUALS TAKEN AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is typical half-assed "logic" by reactionary right wing folk hell bent on 'stop the n***er'.

Your pointing to the Chinese is slightly off....for your education: https://www.pbs.org/becomingamerican/ce_timeline.html and the Chinese have a boat load of claims that require reparations, but NOT as slaves such as the Africans. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ans-in-the-u-s

And though the Irish did catch hell in America, they were NOT slaves like the Africans. You might be confusing the prisoners in the British colonies. For your education: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ir...early-america/

Yes, willfully or just honestly ignorance of what reparations is all about runs rampant in the Caucasian cabals of the GOP and "conservatives" in general. Faced with facts, they just cover their ears, parrot their mantras and become living examples of insipid stubbornness.[/QUOTE]


Not just the GOP cables its' rampant in most white america. No one is asking for a check........which we rightfully deserve.......but for equality. Those things as I described can be accomplished relatively with little money.

Some want that check, because if they can prove their ancestry to slaves owned by a company that currently exists in some form today, then they should benefit from the company's largess just like the company. Fair is fair (if it can get through Congress, which I doubt).

this throws no shade on your proposals or ideas. Just making a point.

[Taichiliberal]

If we're specifically talking about slaves brought from Africa and not ones born in the U.S., these particular slaves were prisoners of war. The only way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was able to persist is through African tribes that were willing to venture further inland into Africa to conquer and enslave neighboring tribes, and then they subsequently would sell these people to the Europeans and, later, to Americans. They also sold these people to the Arabs before the Europeans got involved.

So while Arabs, Europeans, and Americans can be blamed for financing the slave trade, Africans themselves enabled the capture of these people through tribal warfare.

Cut the BS justification....the nano-second Europeans put black folk from Africa in the bowels of those ships for transport...they became kidnap victims for slavery in Europe and America. Period...because NO "declaration of War" against any part of Africa was done by the Dutch, Portugese, English, or the British colonies (later America). Black folk in America who were born and lived here BEFORE SLAVERY ENDED OFFICIALLY were NOT "prisoners of war".....period. My previous deconstruction of TD's nonsense stands valid, and like I told you before, my take is that ancestry of slaves owned by a present day company's former incarnation has to be proven for reparations from said company or the US government.

[T. A. Gardner]

Well let's see...

The Dutch had several wars with the Khoikhoi over cattle and disease that the Dutch thought the later was spreading. This is at a time when infectious disease vectors were unknown. Then they had one over land encroachment and what amounted to lynchings. They even had other Black tribes as allies in these.

Then there's the Portuguese. They put the slave trade in slave trade. They set up fortresses for this purpose all along the African coast and had any number of small wars, skirmishes and other actions against both the locals and other Europeans to ensure their continued trade in slaves.

If there was a nation that fought colonial wars in Africa it was the British. They fought everybody, other Europeans, the locals, you-name-it. But they also weren't particularly into the slave trade. That was the Portugese.

One of the more interesting aspects of the US slave trade was the 1807 law that ended importation of new slaves to America. Knowing that was coming, the slave traders in the US started importing female slaves in favor of male ones previously brought so they could ensure a steady supply into the future. The people that did that were particularly evil. Up to 1807, most imported slaves were male. There was no need for female slaves for the most part.

Use of US flagged vessels for slave trading ended in 1794 by the way. That didn't accomplish much either.

[Taichiliberal]

Well let's see...

The Dutch had several wars with the Khoikhoi over cattle and disease that the Dutch thought the later was spreading. This is at a time when infectious disease vectors were unknown. Then they had one over land encroachment and what amounted to lynchings. They even had other Black tribes as allies in these.

Then there's the Portuguese. They put the slave trade in slave trade. They set up fortresses for this purpose all along the African coast and had any number of small wars, skirmishes and other actions against both the locals and other Europeans to ensure their continued trade in slaves.

If there was a nation that fought colonial wars in Africa it was the British. They fought everybody, other Europeans, the locals, you-name-it. But they also weren't particularly into the slave trade. That was the Portugese.

One of the more interesting aspects of the US slave trade was the 1807 law that ended importation of new slaves to America. Knowing that was coming, the slave traders in the US started importing female slaves in favor of male ones previously brought so they could ensure a steady supply into the future. The people that did that were particularly evil. Up to 1807, most imported slaves were male. There was no need for female slaves for the most part.

Use of US flagged vessels for slave trading ended in 1794 by the way. That didn't accomplish much either.

Hey genius.....you're confusing imperialism and colonialism with a declaration of war between two nations. Put on your socks and shoes, toddle down to the library and get the number of a professor who'll school you on the difference. Oh, as to your revisionist screed, a primer FYI: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...-colonies.html

I love it when jokers like you try 6 ways to Sunday to somehow justify European slavery of the African. You'd be a laugh riot if you weren't so pathetic. Carry on.

[Saudade]

Too much time has passed for this to be relevant. translation: Woko can no longer logically or factually sustain many of his/her assertions.

Once again, Woko displays insipid stubbornness...had he/she read my previous response carefully and comprehensively, he/she would have seen how reparations for the descendants of slaves could be verified and validated. Bottom line: if a present day corporation benefitted from it's former incarnation owning slaves, then why shouldn't the ancestors of those slaves? Fair is fair. But fairness is not at the basis of the knee jerk anti-reparations mentality. And the band played on.

Call it whatever you like, but I call your proposal nothing more than pandering. No one alive today was a slave of that variety. Just because some people might be descended from slaves is irrelevant. I don't owe them anything, and they don't owe me anything.

[Saudade]

Cut the BS justification....the nano-second Europeans put black folk from Africa in the bowels of those ships for transport...they became kidnap victims for slavery in Europe and America. Period...because NO "declaration of War" against any part of Africa was done by the Dutch, Portugese, English, or the British colonies (later America). Black folk in America who were born and lived here BEFORE SLAVERY ENDED OFFICIALLY were NOT "prisoners of war".....period. My previous deconstruction of TD's nonsense stands valid, and like I told you before, my take is that ancestry of slaves owned by a present day company's former incarnation has to be proven for reparations from said company or the US government.

And why exactly should I pay taxes to fund these efforts? I didn't own any slaves. Most white people in America today descended from people who came to America after slavery was over. Once again, it's not even relevant historically for most of us.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your premise is extremely flawed, as you try to equate CRIMINALS with FREE INDIVIDUALS TAKEN AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is typical half-assed "logic" by reactionary right wing folk hell bent on 'stop the n***er'.

Your pointing to the Chinese is slightly off....for your education: https://www.pbs.org/becomingamerican/ce_timeline.html and the Chinese have a boat load of claims that require reparations, but NOT as slaves such as the Africans. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ans-in-the-u-s

And though the Irish did catch hell in America, they were NOT slaves like the Africans. You might be confusing the prisoners in the British colonies. For your education: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ir...early-america/

Yes, willfully or just honestly ignorance of what reparations is all about runs rampant in the Caucasian cabals of the GOP and "conservatives" in general. Faced with facts, they just cover their ears, parrot their mantras and become living examples of insipid stubbornness.

If we're specifically talking about slaves brought from Africa and not ones born in the U.S., these particular slaves were prisoners of war. The only way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was able to persist is through African tribes that were willing to venture further inland into Africa to conquer and enslave neighboring tribes, and then they subsequently would sell these people to the Europeans and, later, to Americans. They also sold these people to the Arabs before the Europeans got involved.

So while Arabs, Europeans, and Americans can be blamed for financing the slave trade, Africans themselves enabled the capture of these people through tribal warfare.

No shyte Sherlock, tell us all something we don't know.....doesn't change the FACTS regarding reparations, or how what I laid out is a logical approach to the topic (if it ever passes Congress). doesn't change the FACTS that Europeans and Americans help extend an evil to other lands...just as guilty as the "savages" they thought themselves superior to.

[Saudade]

Hey genius.....you're confusing imperialism and colonialism with a declaration of war between two nations.

How exactly is imperialism/colonialism not a matter of war? Imperialism is almost always a matter of war, and colonialism usually involves war with the natives, if they aren't willing to part with land and resources.

I can't speak for Gardner, but the point I'm making here isn't that what the Europeans did was right, but it does fit the criteria of war through much of history. War has only been more formal in recent centuries. Granted, even much of America's interventionism hasn't involved a formal declaration of war. The last formal declaration of war we've made was WW2. All conflicts since then have sometimes involved Congressional authorization, but that's not even always the case.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Cut the BS justification....the nano-second Europeans put black folk from Africa in the bowels of those ships for transport...they became kidnap victims for slavery in Europe and America. Period...because NO "declaration of War" against any part of Africa was done by the Dutch, Portugese, English, or the British colonies (later America). Black folk in America who were born and lived here BEFORE SLAVERY ENDED OFFICIALLY were NOT "prisoners of war".....period. My previous deconstruction of TD's nonsense stands valid, and like I told you before, my take is that ancestry of slaves owned by a present day company's former incarnation has to be proven for reparations from said company or the US government.

And why exactly should I pay taxes to fund these efforts? I didn't own any slaves. Most white people in America today descended from people who came to America after slavery was over. Once again, it's not even relevant historically for most of us.

Ummm, what part of "corporations" did you not understand? Let THEM pick up the tab! Hell, I don't here complaining from anti-reparation folk about reaganomic tax breaks for the wealthy, or how you and I pick up the tab for corporate off shore business set up. But I digress … I'm not advocating cutting a check for every black American that can prove they and their grandparents were born here. I laid out several times the process IMHO was the best solution. It may not sit well with everyone, but it's fair.

[Saudade]

No shyte Sherlock, tell us all something we don't know.....doesn't change the FACTS regarding reparations, or how what I laid out is a logical approach to the topic (if it ever passes Congress). doesn't change the FACTS that Europeans and Americans help extend an evil to other lands...just as guilty as the "savages" they thought themselves superior to.

You already responded to the applicable post before this, but ok. I agree that this sort of thing is evil. Where I disagree with much of the standard narrative is that it was uniquely evil. There seems to be this idea that Europeans and Americans are worse about this sort of thing than others. That's not the case. We're just better at it. It's no different from how, a long time ago, the Mongols were the best in the world at conquest.

History is largely a story of which cultures successfully dominate others. Europe succeeded at this for a long time, but clearly, they will eventually be dominated by other powers. America is on the decline as well. I seriously doubt whoever the next world superpower is will be spending much time paying reparations to those they conquer.

[Saudade]

Ummm, what part of "corporations" did you not understand? Let THEM pick up the tab! Hell, I don't here complaining from anti-reparation folk about reaganomic tax breaks for the wealthy, or how you and I pick up the tab for corporate off shore business set up. But I digress … I'm not advocating cutting a check for every black American that can prove they and their grandparents were born here. I laid out several times the process IMHO was the best solution. It may not sit well with everyone, but it's fair.

You do realize any costs put on corporations get passed onto consumers, right?