Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That comes to approximately several 100 thousand dollars per household. Good luck trying to convince Americans to accept that proposal!
From the article:
Growing up in Germany, Craemer was moved to do this work because Germany agreed to pay reparations to Jewish victims of the Nazis and had since 2012, paid $89 billion in compensation.
That fails in a number of ways.
There's no comparison between what happened in Germany and what happened in the US.
For starters, what Germany did violated existing international laws, in addition to international laws that had been in place since the late 1800s, as well as violating customary laws relating to land warfare and the treatment of civilians.
The US did not violate any international treaties or laws, nor did the US violate customary laws.
If the US had violated customary laws, or had violated any international laws or treaties, then you might actually have an argument, instead of propaganda and disinformation.
This is ridiculous. What’s next? Women getting reparations based on the wages for thousands of years of unpaid household work and child rearing? Other than males of German, English, French, Dutch, and Russian descent, is there anyone not owed?
Um, actually, they were owned.
Russia did not ban slavery until 1905.
There were no Black slaves in Russia, they were all White.
Even though the Tsar issued his decree in 1905, it was only enforced in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Volgograd (Stalingrad). Slavery was still practiced in all other areas right up to the 1917 Revolution.
Brits, French and Germans were also slaves.
The Peasant's Rebellion (the one in German duchies and principalities since there was no Germany at them, not to be confused with the Peasant's Rebellion in England) was in part based on slavery. The peasants weren't slaves, they were peasants (there's a difference).
The Dutch practiced slavery under the Dukes of Burgundy, and the Hapsburg and Spanish. It was pretty much discontinued after the Dutch Republic in the 1500s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
If you feel justified in blaming me for the slavery and the Jim Crow and the racism that some of my forefathers inflicted on yours, why don't you give me credit for the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act and the tolerance that some of my other forefathers provided to yours?
Excellent point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
No....I did not say that the denial makes you racist....but that racist are the ones rationalizing their denial.
The racist is the one blaming White Americans.
The racist is the one who refuses to acknowledge that their ancestor was destined to be slave.
Your ancestor was destined to be a slave, the only question is where: the Americas? Africa? Southern Asia? Or the Middle East?
It's a roll of the dice.
Snake-eyes: Blacks trade you to Whites who take you to the Americas.
Box-cars: Blacks trade you to Muslims and you end up in the Middle East, Southern Asia or Eastern or Southern Africa.
7 or 11: You stay as a slave in Africa owned by Blacks.
Are you better off in the Americas?
Somehow, I just can't picture you in a mountain village with your wooden/grass shack sending your wife and kids off on a two hour round-trip to get water, while you and your other kids tend to your goats and tarot crop.
The racist is the one who refuses to hold African States equally responsible.
The racist is the one who refuses to hold Muslims responsible as well, since, after all, it was Muslims who started the Slave Trade in 800 CE and it continued to 1876 ending with the Tanzimat Reforms.
And, it was Muslims in Spain who introduced Catholic Christians to the Slave Trade in the late 1400s.
If we follow your logic, we should only punish drug users, and never punish drug dealers, since drug users are totally to blame
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
It was mostly blacks that captured and sold the slaves in the first place.
That's right. Slavery was widely practice by African tribal groups. They were all too happy to trade with the Muslims, and then 600 years later, were all too happy to trade with Europeans.
Why would I even be in those countries given that my ancestors did not come from that part of Africa?
The point is ALL our ancestors paid a price so we could be lucky enough to be Americans. Some paid more than others. And some of the descendants have made a sport out of whining and complaining.
Growing up in Germany, Craemer was moved to do this work because Germany agreed to pay reparations to Jewish victims of the Nazis and had since 2012, paid $89 billion in compensation.
That fails in a number of ways.
There's no comparison between what happened in Germany and what happened in the US.
For starters, what Germany did violated existing international laws, in addition to international laws that had been in place since the late 1800s, as well as violating customary laws relating to land warfare and the treatment of civilians.
The US did not violate any international treaties or laws, nor did the US violate customary laws.
If the US had violated customary laws, or had violated any international laws or treaties, then you might actually have an argument, instead of propaganda and disinformation.
Um, actually, they were owned.
Russia did not ban slavery until 1905.
There were no Black slaves in Russia, they were all White.
Even though the Tsar issued his decree in 1905, it was only enforced in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Volgograd (Stalingrad). Slavery was still practiced in all other areas right up to the 1917 Revolution.
Brits, French and Germans were also slaves.
The Peasant's Rebellion (the one in German duchies and principalities since there was no Germany at them, not to be confused with the Peasant's Rebellion in England) was in part based on slavery. The peasants weren't slaves, they were peasants (there's a difference).
The Dutch practiced slavery under the Dukes of Burgundy, and the Hapsburg and Spanish. It was pretty much discontinued after the Dutch Republic in the 1500s.
Excellent point.
The racist is the one blaming White Americans.
The racist is the one who refuses to acknowledge that their ancestor was destined to be slave.
Your ancestor was destined to be a slave, the only question is where: the Americas? Africa? Southern Asia? Or the Middle East?
It's a roll of the dice.
Snake-eyes: Blacks trade you to Whites who take you to the Americas.
Box-cars: Blacks trade you to Muslims and you end up in the Middle East, Southern Asia or Eastern or Southern Africa.
7 or 11: You stay as a slave in Africa owned by Blacks.
Are you better off in the Americas?
Somehow, I just can't picture you in a mountain village with your wooden/grass shack sending your wife and kids off on a two hour round-trip to get water, while you and your other kids tend to your goats and tarot crop.
The racist is the one who refuses to hold African States equally responsible.
The racist is the one who refuses to hold Muslims responsible as well, since, after all, it was Muslims who started the Slave Trade in 800 CE and it continued to 1876 ending with the Tanzimat Reforms.
And, it was Muslims in Spain who introduced Catholic Christians to the Slave Trade in the late 1400s.
If we follow your logic, we should only punish drug users, and never punish drug dealers, since drug users are totally to blame
That's right. Slavery was widely practice by African tribal groups. They were all too happy to trade with the Muslims, and then 600 years later, were all too happy to trade with Europeans.
Agreed- Blacks in America won the "slavery lottery". They could have been sent to the Caribbean, the Middle East, South America, Central America, or Asia.
The libs always say that those who are users and purchase illegal drugs in America should not be prosecuted or held responsible. It is the DEALERS who are responsible. However, the "reparations" crowd gives the "dealer" a pass, as the "users" (or the nation in which they used to reside) is a much easier mark for a grifter. Can you imagine what the Arabs and Africans would say if black Americans came begging for "reparations"?
If "reparations" were ever planned to be given, it would precipitate another civil war, so the chance of that happening is less than zero. The current whacky dem candidates kneel at the alter of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, but they will have different masters to serve (large donors) if every elected.
No....I did not say that the denial makes you racist....but that racist are the ones rationalizing their denial. If you did not know, being a citizen is akin to inheriting an estate or business. When you inherit an estate or business you inherit all the assets, liabilities and good will of the business or estate....regardless of whether or not you PERSONALLY played a role in the accruing of any asset or debt. As a citizen, you enjoy many freedoms born from the sacrifices of others in the distant past. You PERSONALLY, did not have a dam thing to do with creating those freedoms....but yet here you are enjoying them today. Freedoms are an asset of this country inherited from the past actions of people who fought for them. Now, you are claiming that you have no responsibility for past liabilities of the nation based upon the reason that you personally had nothing to do with them. Using that logic....you don't deserve or should want the freedoms that this country provides you with...simply as the result of being a citizen and not having to do a dam thing to earn them. However, we all know that your reasoning and logic is simply BS. You are just rationalizing a racist point of view and coming up with anything that does not sound overtly racist.
Yeah, I got your number, pal.
I can summarize your juvenile sophistry above quite succinctly, using the very words you would use if you were being straightforward about the matter:
Indentured Servant: "If you don't want to pay me and mine reparations, you're a racist."
None of your rambling blurb about inheritance is very persuasive, to be honest, mostly because your understanding of estate matters appears to be rather limited. Perhaps it suffices, however, to enable you to justify a philosophically repugnant position (punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty).
That wouldn't work for me, of course, but then again...I'm guessing our standards are quite different.
You will have to wait your turn, as England has to receive it's reparations in relation to the Roman occupation, the Vikings and Danes, the Anglo Saxons, the Norman Invasion, the Dutch, the Spanish Armada and two world wars including the many tens of thousands of bombs dropped on British cities during WW2.
A much better case could be made for reparations to women, who have been "oppressed" much longer - thousands of years - and still today in some cultures. Women gained suffrage long after blacks. Women have generally followed blacks in breaking glass ceilings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
