Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Another chapter in the reparations saga.
Incoming Georgetown Student Struggles To Pay For School That Sold Her Family Into Slavery
Another chapter in the reparations saga.
Incoming Georgetown Student Struggles To Pay For School That Sold Her Family Into Slavery
I seriously doubt she is the first black, nor the first descendant of slavery, to attend Georgetown.
If she has trouble paying her way, get a job to raise money, drop out and get a job, or request donations online.
Others have done it, black, white, red, and yellow.
Playing the slavery card is getting weaker every day.
"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
\From a different article: Georgetown University Plans Steps to Atone for Slave Past
"Karran Harper Royal, a descendant of slaves sold in 1838, said that Georgetown, which has an endowment of $1.45 billion, should have offered scholarships to descendants."
'My great great great great granddaddy was a slave, so y'all need to pay for my education'
Several descendants were there, including this guy: "Mr. Stewart, a retired corporate executive and an organizer of a group of more than 300 descendants, expressed gratitude to the university’s working group on slavery and to Dr. DeGioia for their efforts."
(Wonder who paid for HIS education?)
Hilarious. One of the most leftist universities in America. How dare they.Another chapter in the reparations saga.
Incoming Georgetown Student Struggles To Pay For School That Sold Her Family Into Slavery
"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
Blacks should be like the Irish, Scotts and English that were enslaved and forced into servitude. Get the fuck over it and move on and the left needs to stop pushing this nonsense. Victim hood doesn't play well
I am more then willing to pay her way to Kenya so she can be free.
It's better that barbieYA. No reparations. To hell with all of them.I am more then willing to pay her way to Kenya so she can be free.
"Kenya"?
Why Kenya?
Why? You'll just smoke and spin more.It's better that barbieYA. No reparations. To hell with all of them.I am more then willing to pay her way to Kenya so she can be free.
"Kenya"?
Why Kenya?
Bwahaha, great joke for those who play with dolls I guess.
I want to know why the poster specifically chose Kenya.
"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
Blacks should be like the Irish, Scotts and English that were enslaved and forced into servitude. Get the fuck over it and move on and the left needs to stop pushing this nonsense. Victim hood doesn't play well
"Irish, Scotts [sic] and English"? Link?
We know only of the Irish, whose land was raped by Cromwell who then placed his brother as governor, who in turn sent tens of thousands of enslaved Irish to (primarily) the West Indies. But those were indentured, meaning they could work off their servitude to freedom. And, since they were Irish and white, they (a) had a linguistic, cultural and religious background in common with their masters, and (b) their race, if they do break free, didn't foment suspicion by itself. NONE of this was true for the Africans who were forcibly transported to a continent where they had nothing in common linguistically, culturally, spiritually or geographically with the new land, PLUS their skin color was an institutional enslavement of its own.
This distinction is not to be taken lightly; the history of slavery worldwide over eons was part of the spoils of war; the winning tribe took the losing tribe's land, cattle -- and people, all of which it used for its own purposes including agricultural work. But that losing tribe would have been a neighboring tribe who spoke a similar language, who had a cultural and spiritual background in common, with their captors. Other than the journey across the Atlantic, sending Irish to the West Indies retains all that. On the other hand the idea of transplanting an entire people from its own continent to one that may as well have been another planet, where they had no points of reference at all, was an entirely new paradigm very much purposely designed to break their spirit as a people.
So no, this is a false equivalence, and the expansion of "Irish" into Scotts [sic] and English" only exacerbates the dishonesty therein. And the fact that you can't even spell "Scots" tells me you didn't even bother to research this at all.
The experiences were incomparable.
"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
Blacks should be like the Irish, Scotts and English that were enslaved and forced into servitude. Get the fuck over it and move on and the left needs to stop pushing this nonsense. Victim hood doesn't play well
"Irish, Scotts [sic] and English"? Link?
We know only of the Irish, whose land was raped by Cromwell who then placed his brother as governor, who in turn sent tens of thousands of enslaved Irish to (primarily) the West Indies. But those were indentured, meaning they could work off their servitude to freedom. And, since they were Irish and white, they (a) had a linguistic, cultural and religious background in common with their masters, and (b) their race, if they do break free, didn't foment suspicion by itself. NONE of this was true for the Africans who were forcibly transported to a continent where they had nothing in common linguistically, culturally, spiritually or geographically with the new land, PLUS their skin color was an institutional enslavement of its own.
This distinction is not to be taken lightly; the history of slavery worldwide over eons was part of the spoils of war; the winning tribe took the losing tribe's land, cattle -- and people, all of which it used for its own purposes including agricultural work. But that losing tribe would have been a neighboring tribe who spoke a similar language, who had a cultural and spiritual background in common, with their captors. Other than the journey across the Atlantic, sending Irish to the West Indies retains all that. On the other hand the idea of transplanting an entire people from its own continent to one that may as well have been another planet, where they had no points of reference at all, was an entirely new paradigm very much purposely designed to break their spirit as a people.
So no, this is a false equivalence, and the expansion of "Irish" into Scotts [sic] and English" only exacerbates the dishonesty therein. And the fact that you can't even spell "Scots" tells me you didn't even bother to research this at all.
The experiences were incomparable.
Read the book White Cargo and then shut up
What about times before 1600? Why is it when alot of people mention slavery, they ignore it has been a common occurrence for millennia?"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
Blacks should be like the Irish, Scotts and English that were enslaved and forced into servitude. Get the fuck over it and move on and the left needs to stop pushing this nonsense. Victim hood doesn't play well
"Irish, Scotts [sic] and English"? Link?
We know only of the Irish, whose land was raped by Cromwell who then placed his brother as governor, who in turn sent tens of thousands of enslaved Irish to (primarily) the West Indies. But those were indentured, meaning they could work off their servitude to freedom. And, since they were Irish and white, they (a) had a linguistic, cultural and religious background in common with their masters, and (b) their race, if they do break free, didn't foment suspicion by itself. NONE of this was true for the Africans who were forcibly transported to a continent where they had nothing in common linguistically, culturally, spiritually or geographically with the new land, PLUS their skin color was an institutional enslavement of its own.
This distinction is not to be taken lightly; the history of slavery worldwide over eons was part of the spoils of war; the winning tribe took the losing tribe's land, cattle -- and people, all of which it used for its own purposes including agricultural work. But that losing tribe would have been a neighboring tribe who spoke a similar language, who had a cultural and spiritual background in common, with their captors. Other than the journey across the Atlantic, sending Irish to the West Indies retains all that. On the other hand the idea of transplanting an entire people from its own continent to one that may as well have been another planet, where they had no points of reference at all, was an entirely new paradigm very much purposely designed to break their spirit as a people.
So no, this is a false equivalence, and the expansion of "Irish" into Scotts [sic] and English" only exacerbates the dishonesty therein. And the fact that you can't even spell "Scots" tells me you didn't even bother to research this at all.
The experiences were incomparable. "Indentured" Irish meant a finite term. African slavery meant "forever".
What about times before 1600? Why is it when alot of people mention slavery, they ignore it has been a common occurrence for millennia?"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
Blacks should be like the Irish, Scotts and English that were enslaved and forced into servitude. Get the fuck over it and move on and the left needs to stop pushing this nonsense. Victim hood doesn't play well
"Irish, Scotts [sic] and English"? Link?
We know only of the Irish, whose land was raped by Cromwell who then placed his brother as governor, who in turn sent tens of thousands of enslaved Irish to (primarily) the West Indies. But those were indentured, meaning they could work off their servitude to freedom. And, since they were Irish and white, they (a) had a linguistic, cultural and religious background in common with their masters, and (b) their race, if they do break free, didn't foment suspicion by itself. NONE of this was true for the Africans who were forcibly transported to a continent where they had nothing in common linguistically, culturally, spiritually or geographically with the new land, PLUS their skin color was an institutional enslavement of its own.
This distinction is not to be taken lightly; the history of slavery worldwide over eons was part of the spoils of war; the winning tribe took the losing tribe's land, cattle -- and people, all of which it used for its own purposes including agricultural work. But that losing tribe would have been a neighboring tribe who spoke a similar language, who had a cultural and spiritual background in common, with their captors. Other than the journey across the Atlantic, sending Irish to the West Indies retains all that. On the other hand the idea of transplanting an entire people from its own continent to one that may as well have been another planet, where they had no points of reference at all, was an entirely new paradigm very much purposely designed to break their spirit as a people.
So no, this is a false equivalence, and the expansion of "Irish" into Scotts [sic] and English" only exacerbates the dishonesty therein. And the fact that you can't even spell "Scots" tells me you didn't even bother to research this at all.
The experiences were incomparable. "Indentured" Irish meant a finite term. African slavery meant "forever".
Shit man, white people were enslaved at the SAME TIME in africa when slavery was going on here.
That shit wasnt no different. It was just more recent and black people are still whining about it. Thats it.
Shit man, white people were enslaved at the SAME TIME in africa when slavery was going on here.
say that to the irish and other european colonies that got enslaved by the norsemen. That was a two month journey back then. Or the muslims that enslaved everyone they could. Also, dont forget the barbury slave trade that i mentioned. They sold slaves all over the world. And their tribal leaders didnt sell them for a bucket of orangesWhat about times before 1600? Why is it when alot of people mention slavery, they ignore it has been a common occurrence for millennia?"i dont think its enough"
oh give me a break! That was over a century ago. Grow up!
You just want some free shit
Blacks should be like the Irish, Scotts and English that were enslaved and forced into servitude. Get the fuck over it and move on and the left needs to stop pushing this nonsense. Victim hood doesn't play well
"Irish, Scotts [sic] and English"? Link?
We know only of the Irish, whose land was raped by Cromwell who then placed his brother as governor, who in turn sent tens of thousands of enslaved Irish to (primarily) the West Indies. But those were indentured, meaning they could work off their servitude to freedom. And, since they were Irish and white, they (a) had a linguistic, cultural and religious background in common with their masters, and (b) their race, if they do break free, didn't foment suspicion by itself. NONE of this was true for the Africans who were forcibly transported to a continent where they had nothing in common linguistically, culturally, spiritually or geographically with the new land, PLUS their skin color was an institutional enslavement of its own.
This distinction is not to be taken lightly; the history of slavery worldwide over eons was part of the spoils of war; the winning tribe took the losing tribe's land, cattle -- and people, all of which it used for its own purposes including agricultural work. But that losing tribe would have been a neighboring tribe who spoke a similar language, who had a cultural and spiritual background in common, with their captors. Other than the journey across the Atlantic, sending Irish to the West Indies retains all that. On the other hand the idea of transplanting an entire people from its own continent to one that may as well have been another planet, where they had no points of reference at all, was an entirely new paradigm very much purposely designed to break their spirit as a people.
So no, this is a false equivalence, and the expansion of "Irish" into Scotts [sic] and English" only exacerbates the dishonesty therein. And the fact that you can't even spell "Scots" tells me you didn't even bother to research this at all.
The experiences were incomparable. "Indentured" Irish meant a finite term. African slavery meant "forever".
Shit man, white people were enslaved at the SAME TIME in africa when slavery was going on here.
That shit wasnt no different. It was just more recent and black people are still whining about it. Thats it.
Already mentioned that.
Again, slaves would have been raided from a neighboring tribe upon which war was waged. That neighboring group would have shared a similar legacy and history. They'd have the land in common, probably a culture and language. Transporting Africans was a completely different thing, the innovation being the transplantation (no pun intended) of an ethnic group to a land where it had NOTHING as a point of reference. And to facilitate and justify this the concept of white superiority was invented, hence the birth of racism. And both the transplantation -- which means the extermination of cultural background --- and the racism, were used to perpetuate the practice. Neither of these dynamics existed where Native Americans enslaved other Native Americans, Africans enslaved other Africans, Europeans enslave other Europeans, etc.
And in the event of the Irish mentioned, that's still in the latter category.
So yes, it was essentially different.
