40 acres and a mule.... It's time to give Reparations to Blacks

[Asclepias]

I get the opposite feeling from him.

Seems to me like he came from priveledged background, does pretty well in life, and is puzzled as to why all the poor black people can't just do as well as he has. To put it simply - he's a "why can't they just get jobs?" type, not a "they took our jobs!" type.

Think about though. Why would someone doing well in life have a reason to fret over someone else getting the wages their ancestors were due? Rototallias psychology is the spitting image of a trailer park dweller that is bitter over the fact that nothing in his life is going right. I never see contented people go so hard at putting Black people down.

That's fascinating.

Negroes still aren't going to get any reparations.

Who told you that or are you just hoping?

 

[Rotagilla]

Think about though. Why would someone doing well in life have a reason to fret over someone else getting the wages their ancestors were due? Rototallias psychology is the spitting image of a trailer park dweller that is bitter over the fact that nothing in his life is going right. I never see contented people go so hard at putting Black people down.

That's fascinating.

Negroes still aren't going to get any reparations.

Who told you that or are you just hoping?

Who told you otherwise?

 

[Rotagilla]

No. I'm telling you about yours....again.

Like I said. Projecting your own insecurities and inadequacies.

As you struggle through life angry and bitter, maybe during one of your fleeting moments of lucidity you'll remember that my life is as good as I can make it and I'm ok.

Your displays of contempt/petulance/insecurity/, however, are obvious reflections of the unhappiness that you have with the nature of your own character.

I know you just read that from your psychological profile. Now all you have to do is apply that to yourself instead of avoiding your diagnosis.

Projecting...again...

 

[Asclepias]

That's fascinating.

Negroes still aren't going to get any reparations.

Who told you that or are you just hoping?

Who told you otherwise?

The same person that told you answering a question with a question was not a method of deflecting? Do you have a link for your theory reparations will never be paid?

 

[Rotagilla]

Who told you that or are you just hoping?

Who told you otherwise?

The same person that told you answering a question with a question was not a method of deflecting? Do you have a link for your theory reparations will never be paid?

Do you have a link to your theories they will?

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you otherwise?

The same person that told you answering a question with a question was not a method of deflecting? Do you have a link for your theory reparations will never be paid?

Do you have a link to your theories they will?

You have a tendency to pretend links are invisible. i wont be wasting time with you on links anymore.

 

[Rotagilla]

The same person that told you answering a question with a question was not a method of deflecting? Do you have a link for your theory reparations will never be paid?

Do you have a link to your theories they will?

You have a tendency to pretend links are invisible. i wont be wasting time with you on links anymore.

That's nice.

there'll be no reparations for negroes.

 

[katsteve2012]

Here's what I came back for;

Negroes will never get reparations. That's the fact.

Here is another "fact" for you. The vast majority of the so called "negroes" that I know, find it to be exceedingly humorous that the mere mention of the word "reparations", by a very small percentage can make certain "white by accident" low achievers, froth at the mouth like rabid canines.

You should get out more "Stormie".

I'm not the least concerned with what the "vast majority of negroes you know" think or say.

It is completely irrelevant.

If it was "irrelevant", you would not have commented. So obviously it is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Neither the 13th (arguably) nor the 14th were ratified properly, (according to the rules and requirements for amending the constitution) and are therefore not legal by definition.

That is a myth common amongst bigots and Confederate sympathizers such as yourself, unfortunately, even given your facts - it isn't true.

The southern states wilfully abdicated the the rights and priveleges due a U.S. state when they wilfully and with complete intent declared the total dissolution of their union with the United States. That's a part of history you appear to completely ignore.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm commenting on it.
even wiki can't ignore or revise the facts.

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With no Southern states represented.... Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and state's rights.[30] Some argued that the proposed change so violated the spirit of the Constitution that it would not be a valid "amendment" but would instead constitute "revolution".

When the Thirteenth Amendment was submitted to the states on February 1, 1865, it was quickly taken up by several legislatures. By the end of the month it had been ratified by eighteen states. Among them were the ex-confederate states of Virginia and Louisiana, where ratifications were submitted by Reconstruction governments. These, along with subsequent ratifications from Arkansas and Tennessee raised the issues of how many seceded states had legally valid legislatures, and if there were fewer legislatures than states, did Article V require ratification by three-fourths of the states or three-fourths of the legally valid state legislatures?[66]President Lincoln in his last speech, on April 11, 1865, called the question about whether the Southern states were in or out of the Union a “pernicious abstraction.” Obviously, he declared, they were not “in their proper practical relation with the Union”; whence everyone's object should be to restore that relation.[67] Lincoln was assassinated three days later.

The 13th and 14th amendments weren't presented legally nor ratified legally.

I'm specifically addressing the 13th here. We can go on to the 14th if you like.

You don't get it. In declaring secession, the Southern states waived ALL their rights and privileges under the Constitution - including the voting rights of their citizenry.

 

[katsteve2012]

Well about 90 percent of them will claim and rightfully so to be slaves of the Democratic party.

A substantial percentile of white voters in the deep south according to this article vote based on candidate "color". What "plantation" do you think they "rightfully" belong to since this is where you are located?

Of course, just like you, I am not "generalizing", because i did not write this article nor do I personally know 90% of the white voters in the south, .......It was just an interesting perspective that may have more merit than most realize.



The Washington Post
JAMELLE-BOUIE02. 26. 14
WHITES IN THE DEEP SOUTH: ARE THEY PARTISAN, OR JUST RACIST?
by Jamelle Bouie

Whites in the Deep South: Are They Partisan, or Just Racist? - The Daily Beast

If they vote strictly on skin color then they are either racist, bigoted or prejudiced. But since the article only reveals one person as not voting for black people that doesn't mean that all who vote for white candidates do so because of race.

On the other hand you have over 90 percent of blacks that voted for Obama in the Democrat primary while the white candidate (Hillary) received 10 percent of the black vote. It's clear they weren't voting on ideology but strictly on race.

This is an excerpt from the same article, and pertains to more than just one voter:

"Louisiana provides a good example. In the 2008 presidential election, 84 percent of whites voted for John McCain. Likewise, in the 2010 Senate election, 72 percent of whites voted for David Vitter. There were no exit polls for the 2012 race, but given the extent to which Romney matched McCain’s performance, you can assume a similar level of a racial polarization.

This story is also true for Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi—which saw 88 percent white support for McCain, and 89 percent white support for Romney—as well as Alabama, which had similar totals. And of course, in each of these states, African Americans voted for Democrats in similar or larger numbers".


Even if the black vote had been equally divided between Obama and his opponents in both elections, it did not represent a substantial enough percentage of the electorate to have made a difference in the elections outcome.

In the last election he captured more of the female vote, Hispanic vote, Asian vote, and also votes of first time young voters.

Those votes combined is what made the difference, so I am puzzled as to why a segment of the population that has such disdain for blacks in general cares one way or another what their choices are at the polls.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A substantial percentile of white voters in the deep south according to this article vote based on candidate "color". What "plantation" do you think they "rightfully" belong to since this is where you are located?

Of course, just like you, I am not "generalizing", because i did not write this article nor do I personally know 90% of the white voters in the south, .......It was just an interesting perspective that may have more merit than most realize.



The Washington Post
JAMELLE-BOUIE02. 26. 14
WHITES IN THE DEEP SOUTH: ARE THEY PARTISAN, OR JUST RACIST?
by Jamelle Bouie

Whites in the Deep South: Are They Partisan, or Just Racist? - The Daily Beast

If they vote strictly on skin color then they are either racist, bigoted or prejudiced. But since the article only reveals one person as not voting for black people that doesn't mean that all who vote for white candidates do so because of race.

On the other hand you have over 90 percent of blacks that voted for Obama in the Democrat primary while the white candidate (Hillary) received 10 percent of the black vote. It's clear they weren't voting on ideology but strictly on race.

This is an excerpt from the same article, and pertains to more than just one voter:

"Louisiana provides a good example. In the 2008 presidential election, 84 percent of whites voted for John McCain. Likewise, in the 2010 Senate election, 72 percent of whites voted for David Vitter. There were no exit polls for the 2012 race, but given the extent to which Romney matched McCain’s performance, you can assume a similar level of a racial polarization.

This story is also true for Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi—which saw 88 percent white support for McCain, and 89 percent white support for Romney—as well as Alabama, which had similar totals. And of course, in each of these states, African Americans voted for Democrats in similar or larger numbers".


Even if the black vote had been equally divided between Obama and his opponents in both elections, it did not represent a substantial enough percentage of the electorate to have made a difference in the elections outcome.

In the last election he captured more of the female vote, Hispanic vote, Asian vote, and also votes of first time young voters.

Those votes combined is what made the difference, so I am puzzled as to why a segment of the population that has such disdain for blacks in general cares one way or another what their choices are at the polls.

You're assuming whites voted for McCain because he was white. Yet you have no real evidence of it. Blacks did vote for Obama because of his skin color and many have went on record as said as much.

 

[Asclepias]

If they vote strictly on skin color then they are either racist, bigoted or prejudiced. But since the article only reveals one person as not voting for black people that doesn't mean that all who vote for white candidates do so because of race.

On the other hand you have over 90 percent of blacks that voted for Obama in the Democrat primary while the white candidate (Hillary) received 10 percent of the black vote. It's clear they weren't voting on ideology but strictly on race.

This is an excerpt from the same article, and pertains to more than just one voter:

"Louisiana provides a good example. In the 2008 presidential election, 84 percent of whites voted for John McCain. Likewise, in the 2010 Senate election, 72 percent of whites voted for David Vitter. There were no exit polls for the 2012 race, but given the extent to which Romney matched McCain’s performance, you can assume a similar level of a racial polarization.

This story is also true for Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi—which saw 88 percent white support for McCain, and 89 percent white support for Romney—as well as Alabama, which had similar totals. And of course, in each of these states, African Americans voted for Democrats in similar or larger numbers".


Even if the black vote had been equally divided between Obama and his opponents in both elections, it did not represent a substantial enough percentage of the electorate to have made a difference in the elections outcome.

In the last election he captured more of the female vote, Hispanic vote, Asian vote, and also votes of first time young voters.

Those votes combined is what made the difference, so I am puzzled as to why a segment of the population that has such disdain for blacks in general cares one way or another what their choices are at the polls.

You're assuming whites voted for McCain because he was white. Yet you have no real evidence of it. Blacks did vote for Obama because of his skin color and many have went on record as said as much.

There is no real evidence Black voted for Obama due to skin color other than anecdotal confessions. If you are claiming it was skin color for Obama the logic follows that it was skin color for McCain.

 

[katsteve2012]

If they vote strictly on skin color then they are either racist, bigoted or prejudiced. But since the article only reveals one person as not voting for black people that doesn't mean that all who vote for white candidates do so because of race.

On the other hand you have over 90 percent of blacks that voted for Obama in the Democrat primary while the white candidate (Hillary) received 10 percent of the black vote. It's clear they weren't voting on ideology but strictly on race.

This is an excerpt from the same article, and pertains to more than just one voter:

"Louisiana provides a good example. In the 2008 presidential election, 84 percent of whites voted for John McCain. Likewise, in the 2010 Senate election, 72 percent of whites voted for David Vitter. There were no exit polls for the 2012 race, but given the extent to which Romney matched McCain’s performance, you can assume a similar level of a racial polarization.

This story is also true for Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi—which saw 88 percent white support for McCain, and 89 percent white support for Romney—as well as Alabama, which had similar totals. And of course, in each of these states, African Americans voted for Democrats in similar or larger numbers".


Even if the black vote had been equally divided between Obama and his opponents in both elections, it did not represent a substantial enough percentage of the electorate to have made a difference in the elections outcome.

In the last election he captured more of the female vote, Hispanic vote, Asian vote, and also votes of first time young voters.

Those votes combined is what made the difference, so I am puzzled as to why a segment of the population that has such disdain for blacks in general cares one way or another what their choices are at the polls.

You're assuming whites voted for McCain because he was white. Yet you have no real evidence of it. Blacks did vote for Obama because of his skin color and many have went on record as said as much.

No, I'm not "assuming" anything, nor do I personally care how they vote. I was just presenting another possibility and something to think about.

There are of course some blacks who voted for Obama based on race, considering that historically, black citizens were denied the right to vote just a little more than 50 years ago, what would any rationale person expect? To people who were living then, (myself included) it was unthinkable that a black candidate could win, let alone run for office.

There are also black citizens who voted based on self interest and not race.

I think it is a stretch for you to insist that the majority of black voters who voted for Obama, did so due to him being black.

If that is the case, they could have just as easily supported Herman Cain.

Anyway, this is all just speculation, because the outcome has already happened.

 

[Asclepias]

Interesting opinion article from a Chinese guy.

Opinion: Why we need to talk about reparations - CNN.com

To be sure, every ethnic group that's not called white has experienced suffering in American life. But the experience of African-Americans is exceptional in its systematic, multigenerational, reverberating effects. And it's exceptional in its centrality to the founding and building of our nation. No experience reveals more than the African-American experience both the hypocrisy and the possibility of our national creed.

 

[JQPublic1]

40 acres and a mule was promised to the freed slaves by Field order #15, issued by General Sherman and approved by President Lincoln. Under the provisions of that order, 400,000 acres of land was given to former Black slaves. The land, of course, was confiscated from former plantation owners. After Lincoln was assassinated, Field order #15 was overturned by President Johnson, a confederate sympathizer. The land was returned to the very traitors who declared war against the Union.

Now the question is: Even though no survivors now live who were chattel under a system sanctioned by the US government, is there a statute of limitations on reparations for slavery? If not, the descendants of slaves should still be eligible for compensation. We will never see the day reparations come to pass for Blacks but consider this: Reparations were paid to Japanese survivors who were interned in camps during WW2. Blacks had no part in that sorry state of affairs but their tax dollars went to that cause as well as for the reparations. The difference is that the Japanese recipients were still living when compensated ;but, two Wongs don't make a Wright!

(Yeah I know WONG is Chinese, not Japanese...but I just couldn't resist)

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Reparations should be paid (in the form of tax breaks, free tuition, etc.) to every slave descendent. Fair's fair. Until we make amends for the sins of our forefathers it'll remain a blight on our souls.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is an excerpt from the same article, and pertains to more than just one voter:

"Louisiana provides a good example. In the 2008 presidential election, 84 percent of whites voted for John McCain. Likewise, in the 2010 Senate election, 72 percent of whites voted for David Vitter. There were no exit polls for the 2012 race, but given the extent to which Romney matched McCain’s performance, you can assume a similar level of a racial polarization.

This story is also true for Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi—which saw 88 percent white support for McCain, and 89 percent white support for Romney—as well as Alabama, which had similar totals. And of course, in each of these states, African Americans voted for Democrats in similar or larger numbers".


Even if the black vote had been equally divided between Obama and his opponents in both elections, it did not represent a substantial enough percentage of the electorate to have made a difference in the elections outcome.

In the last election he captured more of the female vote, Hispanic vote, Asian vote, and also votes of first time young voters.

Those votes combined is what made the difference, so I am puzzled as to why a segment of the population that has such disdain for blacks in general cares one way or another what their choices are at the polls.

You're assuming whites voted for McCain because he was white. Yet you have no real evidence of it. Blacks did vote for Obama because of his skin color and many have went on record as said as much.

There is no real evidence Black voted for Obama due to skin color other than anecdotal confessions. If you are claiming it was skin color for Obama the logic follows that it was skin color for McCain.

No real evidence?

Samuel L. Jackson admits he voted for Obama based on skin color

Clinton got 83 percent of the black vote in 1992 and 84 percent in 1996. Al Gore got 90 percent in 2000; John Kerry got 88 percent in 2004. Obama captured 95 percent in 2008, and 2 million more black people voted than in the previous election.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is an excerpt from the same article, and pertains to more than just one voter:

"Louisiana provides a good example. In the 2008 presidential election, 84 percent of whites voted for John McCain. Likewise, in the 2010 Senate election, 72 percent of whites voted for David Vitter. There were no exit polls for the 2012 race, but given the extent to which Romney matched McCain’s performance, you can assume a similar level of a racial polarization.

This story is also true for Louisiana’s neighbor, Mississippi—which saw 88 percent white support for McCain, and 89 percent white support for Romney—as well as Alabama, which had similar totals. And of course, in each of these states, African Americans voted for Democrats in similar or larger numbers".


Even if the black vote had been equally divided between Obama and his opponents in both elections, it did not represent a substantial enough percentage of the electorate to have made a difference in the elections outcome.

In the last election he captured more of the female vote, Hispanic vote, Asian vote, and also votes of first time young voters.

Those votes combined is what made the difference, so I am puzzled as to why a segment of the population that has such disdain for blacks in general cares one way or another what their choices are at the polls.

You're assuming whites voted for McCain because he was white. Yet you have no real evidence of it. Blacks did vote for Obama because of his skin color and many have went on record as said as much.

No, I'm not "assuming" anything, nor do I personally care how they vote. I was just presenting another possibility and something to think about.

There are of course some blacks who voted for Obama based on race, considering that historically, black citizens were denied the right to vote just a little more than 50 years ago, what would any rationale person expect? To people who were living then, (myself included) it was unthinkable that a black candidate could win, let alone run for office.

There are also black citizens who voted based on self interest and not race.

I think it is a stretch for you to insist that the majority of black voters who voted for Obama, did so due to him being black.

If that is the case, they could have just as easily supported Herman Cain.

Anyway, this is all just speculation, because the outcome has already happened.

Well any thing is possible but the picture you painted is pure BS.

Blacks do not vote for their interest or they wouldn't be voting for the party that is keeping them down.

I don't believe I used the term "majority", that's a typical ploy by you retards trying to put words in other peoples mouths.

I think you and your ilk are naïve and basically clueless.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The present value of 40 acres of, say, pinewood forest on the Louisiana north shore is $1500 /acre. (This of course depends on the age and size of the trees on the land). 1500x40=$60,000. A mule is ~ 5k - again, depending.

Let's say the present value of 40 acres and a mule is ~65k. About 4,000,000 slaves, but maybe only 1.5 million adult male slaves (I'm sure it would have gone per household - not per slave) - so that comes out to 1.5 million X 65,000 = 97.5 billion.

Round up to 100 billion.


On the other hand - if you consider the value of the LABOR provided = there were about 2,000,000 slaves on average between 1790ish and 1865ish. Say 1,500,000 are actual able to work (not to young, not too old), on average, for 80 hrs a week, 50 weeks a year ( that makes 4000 hours a year), for the 75 years or so between 1790ish and 1865ish.

80 hrs a week = 100 when you include overtime, so that's 5000 hours a year.

75 years X 2,000,000 slaves X 5000 hour a year = 750 billion unpaid hours.
Paying that at minimum wage with overtime you get about $4 trillion. You could argue that their room&board was paid - of course. However, current law stipulates employers may deduct room and board if the use of the room and board by the employer is voluntary. So that clearly doesn't apply.

4T vs. 100B

So the 40 acres and a mule would be a MUCH better deal for white people.

 

[Asclepias]

You're assuming whites voted for McCain because he was white. Yet you have no real evidence of it. Blacks did vote for Obama because of his skin color and many have went on record as said as much.

There is no real evidence Black voted for Obama due to skin color other than anecdotal confessions. If you are claiming it was skin color for Obama the logic follows that it was skin color for McCain.

No real evidence?

Samuel L. Jackson admits he voted for Obama based on skin color

Clinton got 83 percent of the black vote in 1992 and 84 percent in 1996. Al Gore got 90 percent in 2000; John Kerry got 88 percent in 2004. Obama captured 95 percent in 2008, and 2 million more black people voted than in the previous election.

When did Samuel Jackson become all Black people?