A precedent for those arguing against reparations

LOL he can not do basic math.

I offered to send her a check...all she had to do was figure out what she believed she was entitled to and divide it by 37 million for my part.......perhaps she hasn't had the time to get to Office Depot and get a calculator?

The US government is who will pay.
I want reparations for my poor ancestors who fought and died to free the slaves.

LOL! What human rights violations did they suffer for being free, white and choosing to fight in a war? Because they damn sure didn't.fight to free the slaves no matter how many times you repeat this lie. .
They died for your dumb ass. I can only imagine how that must make them feel....SICK.

Show me the MONEY!!!

Well that's not exactly what history tells us.

Soon thereafter, the Union finally agreed to arm and train Black soldiers. Large numbers of Black men poured into the Union Army, more than half of them former slaves. Their sacrifices were enormous. Blacks suffered a casualty rate 40 percent higher than white soldiers (of the 38,000 who died, only 2,870 were actually killed in combat, reflecting the horrific living conditions for these soldiers.)

Black troops fought in nearly every major campaign. As a result of one battle alone in Virginia, 14 African Americans received the Medal of Honor. Yet these soldiers faced discrimination at every turn--racist treatment at the hands of all-white officers, disparity in pay, the worst assignments, outdated equipment.

Some white officers fought for the dignity of their troops. Robert Gould Shaw, the commander of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, whose story was immortalized in the excellent film Glory, was one example. The entire 54th--including the white officers who weren't subject to unfair wages--refused their unequal pay for an entire year. Towards the end of the war, the government relented and granted full and equal back pay.

Not surprisingly, armed Black soldiers terrified the Confederacy, which vowed to return to slavery or put to death any so-called "slave insurrectionists" caught in uniform (as well as any white officers leading them).
Blacks also played a crucial role in the war effort from behind Southern lines--engaging in sabotage, strikes, individual acts of violence, conspiracy, rebellion and marronage (forming illegal communities.) These slave disturbances drained Confederate resources, with militia and army units forced to patrol at home rather than fight the Union Army.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis' own slaves eavesdropped on his meetings--and passed information to Union agents, who were often Black women.

One of the more brazen acts of resistance came on the morning of May 13, 1862. Robert Smalls and a crew of seven other slaves snuck aboard the Confederate ship Planter with their families and piloted it over to Union lines. Smalls joined the Union Navy--and later became a five-term member of Congress from South Carolina during the short-lived Reconstruction era.

African American resistance is important to note because conservative historians attempted to obliterate this record.


Who freed the slaves?

President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

The Civil War

Many Northerners shared Lincoln’s subordination of slavery to other priorities. Harvard professor Louis Menand wrote that, at the time of Lincoln’s inauguration, most people in the North considered ending slavery and preserving the Union to be “incompatible ideals.” He continued, “Northern business men believed that losing the South would mean economic catastrophe, and many of their employees believed that freeing the slaves would mean lower wages. They feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter.”

To Northerners, then, the Union was paramount. While they were not willing to fight to end slavery, many seemed willing to go to war to prevent secession. Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
observed that, “American nationalism proved to be the most compelling opponent of southern independence. Abolitionists had failed to win over the North because they had put their opposition to slavery ahead of the Union. Republicans had succeeded because they had put the Union ahead of their opposition to slavery.”

Did the North Really Fight to End Slavery?

Try again.
 
I offered to send her a check...all she had to do was figure out what she believed she was entitled to and divide it by 37 million for my part.......perhaps she hasn't had the time to get to Office Depot and get a calculator?

The US government is who will pay.
I want reparations for my poor ancestors who fought and died to free the slaves.

LOL! What human rights violations did they suffer for being free, white and choosing to fight in a war? Because they damn sure didn't.fight to free the slaves no matter how many times you repeat this lie. .
They died for your dumb ass. I can only imagine how that must make them feel....SICK.

Show me the MONEY!!!

Well that's not exactly what history tells us.

Soon thereafter, the Union finally agreed to arm and train Black soldiers. Large numbers of Black men poured into the Union Army, more than half of them former slaves. Their sacrifices were enormous. Blacks suffered a casualty rate 40 percent higher than white soldiers (of the 38,000 who died, only 2,870 were actually killed in combat, reflecting the horrific living conditions for these soldiers.)

Black troops fought in nearly every major campaign. As a result of one battle alone in Virginia, 14 African Americans received the Medal of Honor. Yet these soldiers faced discrimination at every turn--racist treatment at the hands of all-white officers, disparity in pay, the worst assignments, outdated equipment.

Some white officers fought for the dignity of their troops. Robert Gould Shaw, the commander of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, whose story was immortalized in the excellent film Glory, was one example. The entire 54th--including the white officers who weren't subject to unfair wages--refused their unequal pay for an entire year. Towards the end of the war, the government relented and granted full and equal back pay.

Not surprisingly, armed Black soldiers terrified the Confederacy, which vowed to return to slavery or put to death any so-called "slave insurrectionists" caught in uniform (as well as any white officers leading them).
Blacks also played a crucial role in the war effort from behind Southern lines--engaging in sabotage, strikes, individual acts of violence, conspiracy, rebellion and marronage (forming illegal communities.) These slave disturbances drained Confederate resources, with militia and army units forced to patrol at home rather than fight the Union Army.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis' own slaves eavesdropped on his meetings--and passed information to Union agents, who were often Black women.

One of the more brazen acts of resistance came on the morning of May 13, 1862. Robert Smalls and a crew of seven other slaves snuck aboard the Confederate ship Planter with their families and piloted it over to Union lines. Smalls joined the Union Navy--and later became a five-term member of Congress from South Carolina during the short-lived Reconstruction era.

African American resistance is important to note because conservative historians attempted to obliterate this record.


Who freed the slaves?

President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

The Civil War

Many Northerners shared Lincoln’s subordination of slavery to other priorities. Harvard professor Louis Menand wrote that, at the time of Lincoln’s inauguration, most people in the North considered ending slavery and preserving the Union to be “incompatible ideals.” He continued, “Northern business men believed that losing the South would mean economic catastrophe, and many of their employees believed that freeing the slaves would mean lower wages. They feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter.”

To Northerners, then, the Union was paramount. While they were not willing to fight to end slavery, many seemed willing to go to war to prevent secession. Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
observed that, “American nationalism proved to be the most compelling opponent of southern independence. Abolitionists had failed to win over the North because they had put their opposition to slavery ahead of the Union. Republicans had succeeded because they had put the Union ahead of their opposition to slavery.”

Did the North Really Fight to End Slavery?

Try again.
Yeah...ALL white people are EVIL!!!
 
So the Op wants a lawsuit to give out funds to all blacks in this country because once upon a time their was slavery and a War.............LOL

The Indian case was about the Federal Gov't taking lands that under TREATY were allocated to the Indian Tribes.........Apples to Oranges OP.

Nope. we demand reparation for human rights violations for which slavery is just one count.

Maybe you go look at what treaty means. Yo seem unable to understand that a treaty is a agreement with terms and reparations are usually part of those terms of agreement. Boy trying to debate dumb people......

Definition of treaty
plural treaties
1 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:
(1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state
(2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
2 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating

To hear you whites here tell it, you are supposed to all have so much higher IQ's than everybody and yet you are too stupid to understand what a treaty is.
 
The US government is who will pay.
I want reparations for my poor ancestors who fought and died to free the slaves.

LOL! What human rights violations did they suffer for being free, white and choosing to fight in a war? Because they damn sure didn't.fight to free the slaves no matter how many times you repeat this lie. .
They died for your dumb ass. I can only imagine how that must make them feel....SICK.

Show me the MONEY!!!

Well that's not exactly what history tells us.

Soon thereafter, the Union finally agreed to arm and train Black soldiers. Large numbers of Black men poured into the Union Army, more than half of them former slaves. Their sacrifices were enormous. Blacks suffered a casualty rate 40 percent higher than white soldiers (of the 38,000 who died, only 2,870 were actually killed in combat, reflecting the horrific living conditions for these soldiers.)

Black troops fought in nearly every major campaign. As a result of one battle alone in Virginia, 14 African Americans received the Medal of Honor. Yet these soldiers faced discrimination at every turn--racist treatment at the hands of all-white officers, disparity in pay, the worst assignments, outdated equipment.

Some white officers fought for the dignity of their troops. Robert Gould Shaw, the commander of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, whose story was immortalized in the excellent film Glory, was one example. The entire 54th--including the white officers who weren't subject to unfair wages--refused their unequal pay for an entire year. Towards the end of the war, the government relented and granted full and equal back pay.

Not surprisingly, armed Black soldiers terrified the Confederacy, which vowed to return to slavery or put to death any so-called "slave insurrectionists" caught in uniform (as well as any white officers leading them).
Blacks also played a crucial role in the war effort from behind Southern lines--engaging in sabotage, strikes, individual acts of violence, conspiracy, rebellion and marronage (forming illegal communities.) These slave disturbances drained Confederate resources, with militia and army units forced to patrol at home rather than fight the Union Army.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis' own slaves eavesdropped on his meetings--and passed information to Union agents, who were often Black women.

One of the more brazen acts of resistance came on the morning of May 13, 1862. Robert Smalls and a crew of seven other slaves snuck aboard the Confederate ship Planter with their families and piloted it over to Union lines. Smalls joined the Union Navy--and later became a five-term member of Congress from South Carolina during the short-lived Reconstruction era.

African American resistance is important to note because conservative historians attempted to obliterate this record.


Who freed the slaves?

President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

The Civil War

Many Northerners shared Lincoln’s subordination of slavery to other priorities. Harvard professor Louis Menand wrote that, at the time of Lincoln’s inauguration, most people in the North considered ending slavery and preserving the Union to be “incompatible ideals.” He continued, “Northern business men believed that losing the South would mean economic catastrophe, and many of their employees believed that freeing the slaves would mean lower wages. They feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter.”

To Northerners, then, the Union was paramount. While they were not willing to fight to end slavery, many seemed willing to go to war to prevent secession. Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
observed that, “American nationalism proved to be the most compelling opponent of southern independence. Abolitionists had failed to win over the North because they had put their opposition to slavery ahead of the Union. Republicans had succeeded because they had put the Union ahead of their opposition to slavery.”

Did the North Really Fight to End Slavery?

Try again.
Yeah...ALL white people are EVIL!!!

Are they? You're the one saying that. I'm just showing the facts.
 
So the Op wants a lawsuit to give out funds to all blacks in this country because once upon a time their was slavery and a War.............LOL

The Indian case was about the Federal Gov't taking lands that under TREATY were allocated to the Indian Tribes.........Apples to Oranges OP.

Nope. we demand reparation for human rights violations for which slavery is just one count.

Maybe you go look at what treaty means. Yo seem unable to understand that a treaty is a agreement with terms and reparations are usually part of those terms of agreement. Boy trying to debate dumb people......

Definition of treaty
plural treaties
1 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:
(1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state
(2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
2 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating

To hear you whites here tell it, you are supposed to all have so much higher IQ's than everybody and yet you are too stupid to understand what a treaty is.
Cut to the chase..............Your after MONEY.................and that is your primary purpose...........

By any means available.................The Indian cases were based on Treaties and Tribal Land .............and spare me the lecture on who knows the meaning of a Treaty

Your looking for money.........Plain and simple.
 
I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Personally I feel the awarded amount was not enough. But I'm using YOUR rhetoric so that you understand.

Cobell v. Salazar - Wikipedia
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website.
How the Cobell Case Impacted Indian Land Policies
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website
Cobell v. Salazar
cobell v. salazar - Yahoo Search Results
From your first link: "The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners)."

So it had nothing to do with reparations. Please try again.

You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.

No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.
I'M FUCKING RIGHT!!!! Nya, nya nya, nya, nya. :5_1_12024:
 
From your first link: "The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners)."

So it had nothing to do with reparations. Please try again.

You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.

No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.

Can't help people who dont read and understand their own links. Maybe it's not YOUR fault. Maybe someone "in authority" SOLD you bum information. That court case was not a "discrimination or reparation" case. It was a BOOKKEEPING and govt fraud case. Show us where we're wrong. Don't try to just bellow and cast ad homs back..

The govt took it upon themselves to vet and administer all the "leases" that corporations and private entities MADE with the Indian tribes. Because the Fed govt HAS that power when dealing with a "foreign and sovereign entity". So all the payments and proceeds from those leases went thru the "trust fund". And the FEDS resolved the disputes between tribal leaders and the land holders and distributed payments out of those funds.

Who TOLD YOU this was "reparations" for past discrimination and abuse? We should all know who's lying about this..

I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Definition of reparation
1 a : a repairing or keeping in repair
b reparations plural : repairs
2 a : the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury
b : something done or given as amends or satisfaction
3 : the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural

You really need to learn to read what is posted. I'm talking about reparations. For example:

Agent Orange Lawsuits and Reparations

Some lawsuits have accused chemical companies of war crimes for selling Agent Orange to the military. These lawsuits generally claim that companies such as Dow, Monsanto, Hercules and Diamond Shamrock knew more than they revealed at the time about the dangers of the herbicide. In 1984, a massive class-action lawsuit was settled in U.S. court. Seven U.S. companies agreed to pay a total of $180 million to 291,000 people, mostly Vietnam War veterans [source: Glaberson]. The final settlement, including interest, was around $240 million [source: AP].

How Agent Orange Worked

You racists want so badly to talk your stupid shit that you miss facts. You guys don't know how much your asses are paying in reparations but you damn sure don't want blacks to get any. That's because you are racsts.
So bring a class-action suit against those who you think wrong you on slavery. AWWWW, are they all dead? Poor you, better luck next time. :206:
 
Treaty obligations. Not the same thing. Where's your black treaty?

It is the same thing.
No it's not, you must be having another psychotic episode.

Actually it s. But you are dumb. And because you are, you think reparations are only when you think blacks are asking whites for money.
No, reparations are also food stamps and welfare, as well as AA...

If that is the case, why do white people receive food stamps and welfare, and why has white women benefited more from AA than blacks?

Oops....I guess there goes your WN talking point....
Has nothing to do with what other people get (they can be considered to be getting reparations for being screwed by the man), it's what blacks get for free that count when you talk about reparations.
 
It is the same thing.
No it's not, you must be having another psychotic episode.

Actually it s. But you are dumb. And because you are, you think reparations are only when you think blacks are asking whites for money.
No, reparations are also food stamps and welfare, as well as AA...

If that is the case, why do white people receive food stamps and welfare, and why has white women benefited more from AA than blacks?

Oops....I guess there goes your WN talking point....
Has nothing to do with what other people get (they can be considered to be getting reparations for being screwed by the man), it's what blacks get for free that count when you talk about reparations.

Wrong. Now take the list and go to the supermarket.
 
You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.

No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.

Can't help people who dont read and understand their own links. Maybe it's not YOUR fault. Maybe someone "in authority" SOLD you bum information. That court case was not a "discrimination or reparation" case. It was a BOOKKEEPING and govt fraud case. Show us where we're wrong. Don't try to just bellow and cast ad homs back..

The govt took it upon themselves to vet and administer all the "leases" that corporations and private entities MADE with the Indian tribes. Because the Fed govt HAS that power when dealing with a "foreign and sovereign entity". So all the payments and proceeds from those leases went thru the "trust fund". And the FEDS resolved the disputes between tribal leaders and the land holders and distributed payments out of those funds.

Who TOLD YOU this was "reparations" for past discrimination and abuse? We should all know who's lying about this..

I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Definition of reparation
1 a : a repairing or keeping in repair
b reparations plural : repairs
2 a : the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury
b : something done or given as amends or satisfaction
3 : the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural

You really need to learn to read what is posted. I'm talking about reparations. For example:

Agent Orange Lawsuits and Reparations

Some lawsuits have accused chemical companies of war crimes for selling Agent Orange to the military. These lawsuits generally claim that companies such as Dow, Monsanto, Hercules and Diamond Shamrock knew more than they revealed at the time about the dangers of the herbicide. In 1984, a massive class-action lawsuit was settled in U.S. court. Seven U.S. companies agreed to pay a total of $180 million to 291,000 people, mostly Vietnam War veterans [source: Glaberson]. The final settlement, including interest, was around $240 million [source: AP].

How Agent Orange Worked

You racists want so badly to talk your stupid shit that you miss facts. You guys don't know how much your asses are paying in reparations but you damn sure don't want blacks to get any. That's because you are racsts.
So bring a class-action suit against those who you think wrong you on slavery. AWWWW, are they all dead? Poor you, better luck next time. :206:

Nah, I think we look a the charges as suggested by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
 
I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Personally I feel the awarded amount was not enough. But I'm using YOUR rhetoric so that you understand.

Cobell v. Salazar - Wikipedia
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website.
How the Cobell Case Impacted Indian Land Policies
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website
Cobell v. Salazar
cobell v. salazar - Yahoo Search Results
From your first link: "The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners)."

So it had nothing to do with reparations. Please try again.

You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.

No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.
I'M FUCKING RIGHT!!!! Nya, nya nya, nya, nya. :5_1_12024:

According to who?
 
No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.

Can't help people who dont read and understand their own links. Maybe it's not YOUR fault. Maybe someone "in authority" SOLD you bum information. That court case was not a "discrimination or reparation" case. It was a BOOKKEEPING and govt fraud case. Show us where we're wrong. Don't try to just bellow and cast ad homs back..

The govt took it upon themselves to vet and administer all the "leases" that corporations and private entities MADE with the Indian tribes. Because the Fed govt HAS that power when dealing with a "foreign and sovereign entity". So all the payments and proceeds from those leases went thru the "trust fund". And the FEDS resolved the disputes between tribal leaders and the land holders and distributed payments out of those funds.

Who TOLD YOU this was "reparations" for past discrimination and abuse? We should all know who's lying about this..

I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Definition of reparation
1 a : a repairing or keeping in repair
b reparations plural : repairs
2 a : the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury
b : something done or given as amends or satisfaction
3 : the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural

You really need to learn to read what is posted. I'm talking about reparations. For example:

Agent Orange Lawsuits and Reparations

Some lawsuits have accused chemical companies of war crimes for selling Agent Orange to the military. These lawsuits generally claim that companies such as Dow, Monsanto, Hercules and Diamond Shamrock knew more than they revealed at the time about the dangers of the herbicide. In 1984, a massive class-action lawsuit was settled in U.S. court. Seven U.S. companies agreed to pay a total of $180 million to 291,000 people, mostly Vietnam War veterans [source: Glaberson]. The final settlement, including interest, was around $240 million [source: AP].

How Agent Orange Worked

You racists want so badly to talk your stupid shit that you miss facts. You guys don't know how much your asses are paying in reparations but you damn sure don't want blacks to get any. That's because you are racsts.
So bring a class-action suit against those who you think wrong you on slavery. AWWWW, are they all dead? Poor you, better luck next time. :206:

Nah, I think we look a the charges as suggested by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Ya, like anyone listens to them, lol. Please try again soon.
 
From your first link: "The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners)."

So it had nothing to do with reparations. Please try again.

You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.

No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.
I'M FUCKING RIGHT!!!! Nya, nya nya, nya, nya. :5_1_12024:

According to who?
According to someone who knows WWWAAAAYYYYY more than you do. :lol:
 
So the Op wants a lawsuit to give out funds to all blacks in this country because once upon a time their was slavery and a War.............LOL

The Indian case was about the Federal Gov't taking lands that under TREATY were allocated to the Indian Tribes.........Apples to Oranges OP.

Nope. we demand reparation for human rights violations for which slavery is just one count.

Maybe you go look at what treaty means. Yo seem unable to understand that a treaty is a agreement with terms and reparations are usually part of those terms of agreement. Boy trying to debate dumb people......

Definition of treaty
plural treaties
1 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:
(1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state
(2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
2 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating

To hear you whites here tell it, you are supposed to all have so much higher IQ's than everybody and yet you are too stupid to understand what a treaty is.
Cut to the chase..............Your after MONEY.................and that is your primary purpose...........

By any means available.................The Indian cases were based on Treaties and Tribal Land .............and spare me the lecture on who knows the meaning of a Treaty

Your looking for money.........Plain and simple.

Whites decided they had the right to make allotments of their lands to force them to assimilate into white society.

Definition of treaty
plural treaties
1 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation:
(1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state
(2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
2 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating

The one agreement we got to make with the fucking government was denied ad shut down by Andrew Johnson dumb ass. So yes, we are looking for money we are owed. Try doing some research instead of ignorantly arguing the standard white race baited argument in opposition to reparations.
 
You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.

No -- he's completely right. The US govt PLUNDERED the Indian Trust Fund just the way they PLUNDERED the excess FICA taxes that were supposed to be in the "Soc Sec" Trust fund.. THAT'S the CLAIM...

From your 2nd link..

4. What is this lawsuit about?
The Settlement resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. The claims fall into three areas:

  • Historical Accounting Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing a proper historical accounting relating to IIM accounts and other trust assets.
  • Trust Administration Claims include:
    • Fund Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust duties and mismanaged individual Indian trust funds.
    • Land Administration Claims state that the federal government violated its trust responsibilities for management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources.
The federal government denies all these claims. It says it has no legal responsibility for these claims and owes nothing to the Class Members.


The Fed govt put revenue from govt use of Indian Lands into a trust fund. This included Oil gas, forestry, mining, grazing operations. And they STOLE the actual money and put in IOUs. Indians making claims on those funds were routinely denied..

This IS NOT reparations for CONQUERING and stealing their lands.. If that's what you think -- you'll have to dive a LOT deeper for that connection..

Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.
I'M FUCKING RIGHT!!!! Nya, nya nya, nya, nya. :5_1_12024:

According to who?
According to someone who knows WWWAAAAYYYYY more than you do. :lol:

Wrong.
 
Actually I don't have to dive very deep at all. And if you are saying Taz s right, you are a lost soul. But that's to be expected from you in these matters.

Can't help people who dont read and understand their own links. Maybe it's not YOUR fault. Maybe someone "in authority" SOLD you bum information. That court case was not a "discrimination or reparation" case. It was a BOOKKEEPING and govt fraud case. Show us where we're wrong. Don't try to just bellow and cast ad homs back..

The govt took it upon themselves to vet and administer all the "leases" that corporations and private entities MADE with the Indian tribes. Because the Fed govt HAS that power when dealing with a "foreign and sovereign entity". So all the payments and proceeds from those leases went thru the "trust fund". And the FEDS resolved the disputes between tribal leaders and the land holders and distributed payments out of those funds.

Who TOLD YOU this was "reparations" for past discrimination and abuse? We should all know who's lying about this..

I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Definition of reparation
1 a : a repairing or keeping in repair
b reparations plural : repairs
2 a : the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury
b : something done or given as amends or satisfaction
3 : the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural

You really need to learn to read what is posted. I'm talking about reparations. For example:

Agent Orange Lawsuits and Reparations

Some lawsuits have accused chemical companies of war crimes for selling Agent Orange to the military. These lawsuits generally claim that companies such as Dow, Monsanto, Hercules and Diamond Shamrock knew more than they revealed at the time about the dangers of the herbicide. In 1984, a massive class-action lawsuit was settled in U.S. court. Seven U.S. companies agreed to pay a total of $180 million to 291,000 people, mostly Vietnam War veterans [source: Glaberson]. The final settlement, including interest, was around $240 million [source: AP].

How Agent Orange Worked

You racists want so badly to talk your stupid shit that you miss facts. You guys don't know how much your asses are paying in reparations but you damn sure don't want blacks to get any. That's because you are racsts.
So bring a class-action suit against those who you think wrong you on slavery. AWWWW, are they all dead? Poor you, better luck next time. :206:

Nah, I think we look a the charges as suggested by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Ya, like anyone listens to them, lol. Please try again soon.

One thing I do know is more people listen to them than to you.
 
Can't help people who dont read and understand their own links. Maybe it's not YOUR fault. Maybe someone "in authority" SOLD you bum information. That court case was not a "discrimination or reparation" case. It was a BOOKKEEPING and govt fraud case. Show us where we're wrong. Don't try to just bellow and cast ad homs back..

The govt took it upon themselves to vet and administer all the "leases" that corporations and private entities MADE with the Indian tribes. Because the Fed govt HAS that power when dealing with a "foreign and sovereign entity". So all the payments and proceeds from those leases went thru the "trust fund". And the FEDS resolved the disputes between tribal leaders and the land holders and distributed payments out of those funds.

Who TOLD YOU this was "reparations" for past discrimination and abuse? We should all know who's lying about this..

I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Definition of reparation
1 a : a repairing or keeping in repair
b reparations plural : repairs
2 a : the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury
b : something done or given as amends or satisfaction
3 : the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural

You really need to learn to read what is posted. I'm talking about reparations. For example:

Agent Orange Lawsuits and Reparations

Some lawsuits have accused chemical companies of war crimes for selling Agent Orange to the military. These lawsuits generally claim that companies such as Dow, Monsanto, Hercules and Diamond Shamrock knew more than they revealed at the time about the dangers of the herbicide. In 1984, a massive class-action lawsuit was settled in U.S. court. Seven U.S. companies agreed to pay a total of $180 million to 291,000 people, mostly Vietnam War veterans [source: Glaberson]. The final settlement, including interest, was around $240 million [source: AP].

How Agent Orange Worked

You racists want so badly to talk your stupid shit that you miss facts. You guys don't know how much your asses are paying in reparations but you damn sure don't want blacks to get any. That's because you are racsts.
So bring a class-action suit against those who you think wrong you on slavery. AWWWW, are they all dead? Poor you, better luck next time. :206:

Nah, I think we look a the charges as suggested by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Ya, like anyone listens to them, lol. Please try again soon.

One thing I do know is more people listen to them than to you.
The US doesn't. Too bad for you. :206:
 
I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paying for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Personally I feel the awarded amount was not enough. But I'm using YOUR rhetoric so that you understand.

Cobell v. Salazar - Wikipedia
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website.
How the Cobell Case Impacted Indian Land Policies
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website
Cobell v. Salazar
cobell v. salazar - Yahoo Search Results

That's right all you morons. Ignore post #55.
 
I think we need to become better informed as citizens of this country. There are things people here argue against with no knowledge of what they are, or even if they have ever happened before. When blacks talk about reparations it is because a precedent has been set by this government whereby they have attempted to redress wrongs their policies have created. In this case we will look at will pertain to the General Allotment Act, better known as the Dawes Act of 1887. So as we will read the many sad responses detailing why blacks should not get reparations for things when we were not alive for and how whites today should not be paid for things they did not do, realize that in 2009 the government of this country decided you would be paying Native Americans for something that happened 122 years after the fact and that none of you were alive when the Dawes Act was passed. But you are paying for it.

Personally I feel the awarded amount was not enough. But I'm using YOUR rhetoric so that you understand.

Cobell v. Salazar - Wikipedia
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website.
How the Cobell Case Impacted Indian Land Policies
Cobell v. Salazar Class Action Website
Cobell v. Salazar
cobell v. salazar - Yahoo Search Results

So? Send me your address, your name and a amount that you believe that I owe you...please divide it by a factor 37 million since that is how many black folks live in the USA.

My suggestion to you is to stop pissing and moaning about how you believe that those that suffered the yoke of slavery (that ended 155 years ago) entitles you and those of your ilk to even more welfare and entitlements. My great grandfather was a full blooded Natchez native American on my father's side from Alabama and I haven't received diddly squat in reparations nor have I asked for any. Get off of your fat ass and make your own way instead of wallowing in victimhood. The LBJ "War on Poverty" has only created generations of welfare seekers. The world does not owe you a "giving".

My suggestion to you is: shut up and know that whites are where they are only because of legislation.

Because you are not full blooded Natchez therefore you can't ask for reparations. So get better informed before you try arguing with me. You see, I did make my own way. It started with my degrees and continues now with 36 years of research on these matters.
All blacks aren't full blooded African, try again.,
 
From your first link: "The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners)."

So it had nothing to do with reparations. Please try again.

You don't know what reparations are if this is what you think.
Treaty obligations. Not the same thing. Where's your black treaty?

It is the same thing.
No it's not, you must be having another psychotic episode.

Actually it s. But you are dumb. And because you are, you think reparations are only when you think blacks are asking whites for money.
But that is what you are doing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top