Slavery Reparations??

[BrianH]

I had nothing to do with slavery, neither did my father, my grandfather, or any ancestors. So why in gods name should I have to pay for Other peoples errors, made 200 years ago?

Infact my family lost members fighting for the North in the Civil war, and as far as I know were always against Slavery.

I agree, but it doesn't matter if your ancestors owned them or not. My ancestors did, and my ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I have never owned slaves, nor has my family owned them since 1865. I have never kicked a black off of a bus, or discriminated against a black man, and I have never condoned the enslavement of African Americans. I was raise not to judge people by the color of their skin.

Using the logic used in this thread, everyone presently should be punished for a family ancestor that may have been a criminal. Or I should recieve repartions from Europeans for the enslavement of my ancestors during the Roman Emprical Era.

I see no reason why millions of Americans, who have never owned slaves, should pay millions of dollars to millions of other Americans who have never been slaves. The logic here is retarded. I sympathize with historical events, but that's exactly what they are, historic events--tragic at that. But if we want to start giving reparations, then the list of reparations could be endless. Billions of people have been given raw deals, black, white, hispanic, indian, asian, etc... we'll be passing around reparations for the rest of the world's existence. Eventually, we'll be back to paying reparations to those who were force to pay reparataions for something their ancestors did....

 

[jreeves]

Translation:

We white will tell people to move on and get over it when they discuss our dark past actions and wrongs, but when it comes to talking about things in the past that make us look like angels, gods and superior people lets prop that up. To all the people that whites have robbed, raped, stolen from, exploited ad exterminate, shut up stop whining and quit dwelling on the past, too bad that your people got oppressed, just suck it up.

Where are the reparations for this??

The Race War of Black against White
The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year's congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let's start suggesting, immediately.

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America.

And the problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster then the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.

Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:

According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.


Most victims of race crime – about 90 per cent – are white, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims," published in 1993.


Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.


Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent crimes of whites.


According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparison 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have commited at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic* double-standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard.

 

[jreeves]

Bass-

Nothing Wright said was wrong?

Do you really believe the government invented AIDS to kill black people?

I'm into conspiracy theories a good bit...but this is one I have never been able to find a shred of evidence to support.

But I'm all ears!

Well that seems like that's a good starting point.....

 

[Ame®icano]

Most Blacks are descended from Africans, not slaveowners, and the Bass' ancestry is both African and Native American, although he will never claim himself to eb Native American, but because his grandmother is Native Americans he stresses this point. Put down your crackpipe and accept the truth, the white man isn't and never was some angelic, superior earth being who brought the world civilization and the luxuries of a better life.

It's my first post here, after reading for some time.

Didnt wanted to be triggered by racial issue, but here we go. In other words, since white man was never and will never be angel-ic, it must be devil-ish. Is that how you see them?

But, I dont want big arguments here so lets say you are right. Just, if possible, can you list some of the achievements that black man brought to civilization and luxurious and better life.

 

[BrianH]

BS, whites died in the Civil war to preserve the Union, plain and simple. If it was about freeing slaves they would have don that a longtime ago and not almost 200 years later.

Umm...they outlawed slavery about 89 years later...of the nation's founding. Where do you get this 200 number? Independence was declared in 1776, slavery was outlawed in 1865 by the 13th Amendment.

But you are right about the war, it was fought to preserve the union. The entire war was fought by two sides in which slavery was LEGAL.

 

[BrianH]

Most Blacks are descended from Africans, not slaveowners, and the Bass' ancestry is both African and Native American, although he will never claim himself to eb Native American, but because his grandmother is Native Americans he stresses this point. Put down your crackpipe and accept the truth, the white man isn't and never was some angelic, superior earth being who brought the world civilization and the luxuries of a better life.

Um...while I'll agree that whites are not angelic, if you compare the U.S. to Africa, white's certainly did bring a world civilization full of luxuries and a better life--in comparison that is.... Consider it reparations that the slaves were brought over here to begin with...They could be plagued with aids, malaria, and tribal warfare equivalent to Africa. Slavery was a blessing in disguise if you ask me. Sure, I don't agree with it, but if you compare it to the life they would have had in Africa, it doesn't seem so bad now does it.

On reparations, that's retarded. Plain and simple.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Umm...they outlawed slavery about 89 years later...of the nation's founding. Where do you get this 200 number? Independence was declared in 1776, slavery was outlawed in 1865 by the 13th Amendment.

But you are right about the war, it was fought to preserve the union. The entire war was fought by two sides in which slavery was LEGAL.

The south tried to leave the Union over slavery. That was the " State Right" they were defending.

 

[Charles_Main]

All though Slavery was not made Illegal untill after the War. The Importation of New slaves was made illegal much sooner.

I stand by my point. Even in the south, only 1 and 5 people owned slaves, so why should we all have to pay? Make the Decendants of Slave owners pay, I should not have to.

Also it is not fair to say everyone fought to preserve the union. Some people did fight to end slavery, and some on the southern side fought to preserve it, though most of them were not fighting for slavery, as I said only 1 and 5 of them even owned them, Most fought because their states called them too.

 

[Charles_Main]

I agree, but it doesn't matter if your ancestors owned them or not. My ancestors did, and my ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I have never owned slaves, nor has my family owned them since 1865. I have never kicked a black off of a bus, or discriminated against a black man, and I have never condoned the enslavement of African Americans. I was raise not to judge people by the color of their skin.

Using the logic used in this thread, everyone presently should be punished for a family ancestor that may have been a criminal. Or I should recieve repartions from Europeans for the enslavement of my ancestors during the Roman Emprical Era.

I see no reason why millions of Americans, who have never owned slaves, should pay millions of dollars to millions of other Americans who have never been slaves. The logic here is retarded. I sympathize with historical events, but that's exactly what they are, historic events--tragic at that. But if we want to start giving reparations, then the list of reparations could be endless. Billions of people have been given raw deals, black, white, hispanic, indian, asian, etc... we'll be passing around reparations for the rest of the world's existence. Eventually, we'll be back to paying reparations to those who were force to pay reparataions for something their ancestors did....

Yep and by the same logic, since one side of my family came from Germany after WWII I should have to pay the families of Jews killed in WWII, even though I am also part Jew

 

[jreeves]

Yep and by the same logic, since one side of my family came from Germany after WWII I should have to pay the families of Jews killed in WWII, even though I am also part Jew

BTW under the 'Obama' plan do we get a reparations credit for ancestors that served in foreign wars?

 

[editec]

The south tried to leave the Union over slavery. That was the " State Right" they were defending.

Absolutely correct.

This whole " The south was fighting for States Rights" argument is so much apologist blather.

The leadership of the South at the time never made a grand issue about states rights, and they were candid about what they were defending, too...their right to own SLAVES.

The historical revisionists, of course, would like us to think their motives were less venal than that, but the people who lead that rebellion were honest enough about it at the time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absolutely correct.

This whole " The south was fighting for States Rights" argument is so much apologist blather.

The leadership of the South at the time never made a grand issue about states rights, and they were candid about what they were defending, too...their right to own SLAVES.

The historical revisionists, of course, would like us to think their motives were less venal than that, but the people who lead that rebellion were honest enough about it at the time.

Yup the States even include as the CAUSE of the split in their resolutions SLAVERY. I beieve in 3 or 4 States that was the "State Right" that they listed as being abused. Which of course was an outright lie. Lincoln had no intention and NO POWER to do anything about Slavery anyway. And the Supreme Court upheld the Souths right to slaves every time it came before the Court. Ordering Northern States to send escaped slaves back to their "masters" when caught.

There were even those in th South demanding the right to kidnap Northern free blacks and sell them as slaves. Not to mention Free blacks in the North could not travel to the South for fear of being turned into a slave. The South had it all their way.

 

[editec]

Well, RTS, I'm pleased to see that we can agree on this issue.

Can we also agree that the original intention of the Founding Fathers was that the Republic was always meant to be indivisible, too?

My limited reading of the Federalist papers leads me to think that is also true.

Another point of contention that I find myself having with the Southern Rebellion apologists who seek to justify the treason of the Southern leadership.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, RTS, I'm pleased to see that we can agree on this issue.

Can we also agree that the original intention of the Founding Fathers was that the Republic was always meant to be indivisible, too?

My limited reading of the Federalist papers leads me to think that is also true.

Another point of contention that I find myself having with the Southern Rebellion apologists who seek to justify the treason of the Southern leadership.

The only way one can leave the Union is with the consent of the rest of the Union. Just as it took their consent to join. The Supreme Court actually ruled that way in 1869.

 

[Reality]

It wasn't illegal at the time, genius. You can't hold people accountable for things that didn't become illegal until AFTER THEIR DEATHS.

Killing Jews was legal in Germany. Must be ay-ok.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, it wasn't legal. They did it under false pretenses to make it look like they were doing something else because they knew it was wrong.

Nor do I think individual Jews seek reparations from the descendants of Nazis who worked in the camps.

 

[Reality]

Actually, it wasn't legal. They did it under false pretenses to make it look like they were doing something else because they knew it was wrong.

Nor do I think individual Jews seek reparations from the descendants of Nazis who worked in the camps.

You really do just type things without knowing what the hell you are talking about, don't you?

The Enabling Act gave the Nazi party dictator powers in 1933. From there, Jews were systematically legislated out of German life. No intermarriage and property rights were two of the most notable. The govt organized boycotts of Jewish owned businesses. And then, of course, the Nuremburg Laws. After that was ID cards for Jews and forcing Jews to identify themselves. Failure to prosecute those who attacked the Jews that the regime forced to be identified at all times is in fact a policy of ethnic cleansing. Do read more and post less.

And they didn't seek reparations from the descendants of Nazis, Israel sought it from the German govt. The German govt paid.

Oh yea, and...

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[AllieBaba]

Really? So where is the law that made it legal to kill them?

Good luck.

And they paid within a reasonable time of the actual occurrence.

 

[Reality]

Really? So where is the law that made it legal to kill them?

Good luck.

And they paid within a reasonable time of the actual occurrence.

Firstly, learn the quote button. It's there for a reason.

Secondly, when a govt encourages violence against a group and doesn't prosecute those who carry out that violence, thats good enough.

Thirdly, there is no statute of limitations on slavery, stolen labor, wrongful detainment or anything else of the sort.

 

[AllieBaba]

In other words, it WAS illegal for them to kill the Jews.

THank you for clearing that up.