Aren't they all better off????

[IronMike 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/17/slave.reparations.ap/index.html

Im trying really hard not to be my redneck/republican self right now. Flame away, I don't care.

Mike

[freeflir29 0]

www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/17/slave.reparations.ap/index.html



When will you people learn???!!!! As a southerner I want to sue for reparations for the war crimes committed by Sherman's troops. I think we should also hunt down his relatives and try them in the Hague. What a bunch of crap.

[quade 4]

By "better off" you're assuming that if their ancestors hadn't been captured and enslaved they'd be leading worse lives than they are now. The fact is that's impossible to know because some of our country's forefathers never let that happen.

What is possible to know is that the vast majority of African-Americans today live in sub-standard conditions compared to the majority of other Americans. That's not to say there aren't exceptions.

The entire problem I have with the concept of reparations is that it assumes that some sort of debt like that can actually be repaid. I don't think it can.

Further, Farrakhan is a danger to society in general. If I were an African-American, I'd do everything in my power to make sure he wasn't my leader or speaking for me.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[seedy 0]

My problem with reparations is that it is assumed that every non-afro-american is guilty of slavery. My ancestors were never slave owners, did not support slavery and fought on the side of the Union to free the slaves. So, if there are reparations, shouldn't there be compensation for those who freed the slaves?

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[IronMike 0]

Who goes to jail longer, the drug seller or the drug buyer? Fellow Africans sold them into slavery, others bought them. Yes, there were atrocities on both sides, but the USA is the only one with money, so lets sue them. Slavery, black on black, is still practied in Africa, and even in New York at some African Embassys.
Get over it. It happened, it sucked, none of us was alive to see it, none of us deserve shit. It could all be made up fiction for all we know, like the Moon landing.

Mike

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

fought on the side of the Union to free the slaves.

Don't believe the hype...the Civil War didn't START over slavery. It started over state's rights. Lincoln made both a political and strategic move by introducing the slavery issue. The north didn't have anything to lose by abolishing slavery. In fact...due to the invention of the cotton gin slavery was declining when the war started. I'm not saying it would have totally been done away with but the plantations could no longer afford nor did they need such large sources of labor. The north wasn't doing so well and Lincoln hoped that slaves would cause internal trouble for the Confederacy as well as garner more popular support from the northern public. Please know the truth.......

[skycat 0]

Quote

Every other group has been compensated for the wrongs done against them.

This line bothers me. I came from North Dakota and have seen several of the indian reservations, if you ask me we (the "whites") have not compensated them for anything. The reservations are cast off land that the US doesn't want, and everyone on them lives in poverty. Yes, some tribes are doing better than others, but you can say the same about some African Americans. The US's past is filled with people being taken advantage of, we can't change that, but we can hope that we don't make the mistakes of our past and do them again.

Fly it like you stole it!

[AndyMan 7]

I think I'm going to sue because my great,great,great,great grandfather was killed by the Americans in the war of 1812.

Clearly, my life has been irreperably harmed by this.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[nathaniel 0]

After we pay reparations for slavery, let's pay reparations to the heirs of the millions of Asian indentured servants who built the transcontinental railroad and who were frequently worked to death. And the European indentured servants that toiled below a living wage in New England sweatshops and were jailed if they didn't. And the relatives of all the mentally ill that were mistreated / tortured before the advent of modern psychiatry. Then let's sue the Anglican church for persecuting the Pilgrims and making them flee to the colonies.

Farrakhan knows the idea of reparations is patently ludicrous, but he knows (some) people like it when you promise them free money. You can safely ignore him.

Nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[TomAiello 26]

My ancestors were both slave owners and slaves. Some of my other ancestors were living in North Africa and the Phillipines at the time.

Who do I pay reparations to? Myself? Who do I collect them from? Myself?

Ancestral, collective guilt is a concept for Catholics. I stopped being a Catholic about 15 years ago.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[KATO33 0]

What do you mean "Aren't they all better off????"

African Americans are better off because they were an enslaved poeple?? Please clarify before I comment.

Blue Skies Black Death

[indyz 1]

Quote

What do you mean "Aren't they all better off????"

African Americans are better off because they were an enslaved poeple?? Please clarify before I comment.

I would assume that he means that they are better because if their ancestors hadn't been enslaved they would be in Africa instead of the United States.

I don't think that it's a legitimate argument against reparations. I do think that reparations are a crock, if only because there is no legitimate way to calculate the economic impact to a person as a result of being a 5th generation descendant of a slave. 40 acres and a mule can't make up for centuries of racism and discrimination.

[KATO33 0]

Quote

I would assume that he means that they are better because if their ancestors hadn't been enslaved they would be in Africa instead of the United States.

Are you assuming that Africans were incapable of building boats and exploring the sea like the rest of the Human race?
If so that’s a real narrow minded way of looking at the continent where civilization began.

Blue Skies Black Death

[indyz 1]

Quote

Are you assuming that Africans were incapable of building boats and exploring the sea like the rest of the Human race?
If so that’s a real narrow minded way of looking at the continent where civilization began.

I assume no such thing. I was merely explaining why I thought that IronMike chose to title his post the way that he did.

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

It could all be made up fiction for all we know, like the Moon landing.

Which one? There were several...

[Snowflake 0]

All he's doing is being a troll.......if I felt he was worth it I'd respond but he's not

[IronMike 0]

In a round-about way, yes. All of America is hyper-sensitive to African American issues. Women, Homosexuals, American Indians or whatever 'group' you want to identify as a 'group' have no-where near the stage, voice or impact for their plight in this country. It is because slavery was so horrible. (So I have heard, wasn't there to see it). The racism in the 60's and before should be more sensitive because there are people alive today that experienced it. I am far more ashamed of that because there are people alive today that promoted that kind of crap.

My big problem with this whole deal is everbody in America seems to want to get paid for shit they did not do or get paid because something horrible happened to them or their family. I saw some asshole complaining that he did not get enough money from 911 funds when his sister was killed. His SISTER! Gimme a break. Money will never solve the wrongs this country has done in the past, all it will do is piss everybody off.

[miked10270 0]

Hi There,

Firstly I don't think IronMike is Trolling, He's showing the Louis Farrakhan story and then posing a question for discussion - so discuss! Pool our collective beliefs and knowledge and we should ALL learn something.

My understanding of the history of slavery in the US is this.

in the late 18th century slavery was socially acceptable. The British and the Dutch sailed to Africa and bought natives which had been captured by other natives and traded by arabs. The slave traders bought slaves in Africa cheap, transported them to the Americas where there was a labour shortage and sold them expensive. It was a business and the "sub-humans" (as they were viewed at the time) were looked on like any other livestock to be traded. It sounds inhuman, in fact it was evil when viewed from our time, but it was the opinion of the day and even George Washington owned slaves.

As the labour shortage eased in some states, slavery did not come to be regarded as evil, it came to be regarded as unneccessary so started to be legislated against for economic reasons rather than for social reasons. This divided the union into slavery and abolitionist states and for a time there was agreement that the number of slavery and abolitionist states would be equal with equal representation in government.

I think that it was the louisiana land purchase that started to upset this balance. Anyway, it came to the point where the number of abolitionist states was greater than the number of slavery states, and business in the abolitionist states believed that they were at a disadvantage due to the businesses in the slavery states "free" labour. At that time there were political moves to make the entire US abolitionist, for economic (business) reasons, not out of any social conscience. This was in clear breach of the earlier agreement and the slavery states seceded forming the Confederacy.

The slave trading nations, Britain in particular supported the formation of the Confederacy thus protecting a very lucrative trade. The confederacy was encouraged to expand (to increase trade for the slave traders) and as an aside sow dissent in the "colonists" who had so recently kicked the rightful government out of America and gone all independent - some parts of this new country had even stopped buying slaves!!

As such, the American Civil War, like the War of Independence before it was fought over money, not ideals.

Anyway, the union won, America went completely abolitionist and a lot of profitable business went to the wall.

It wasn't until post 1945 that the modern "social conscience" was born and in the wake of this the concept of "A Homeland for American Negros " was proposed. I seem to remember that the US actually made another "land purchase" and, in the same way that Palestine (Israel) was given over as a "homeland" for Jews, then Liberia was "formed" as a "homeland" for the descendants of slaves. Not a few AMerican blacks did in fact emigrate there, but it was a backward, undeveloped country.

Now for the contentious bit:

Louis Farrakhan's arguments are false, land has already been offered (and wisely rejected). The offer was for a homeland where his ancestors had come from and as such was more just than seceding some 30% of the continental US to an "African" nation within the US. As such, I am going to accuse him of Racism by seeking to divide America according to race. Apartheid is Afrikaans for seperating and that is what he is doing. This makes a mockery of the work of Martin Luther King and all the others who have worked to make America truly multi-cultural where there is equality of opportunity. Remember that equality of opportunity is NOT equality. Everyone has the same chance but that doesn't mean that everyone will end up even.

I also accuse him of using past injustices against those Africans who were taken as slaves to further his own personal power and wealth. WHatever he gains will not affect the original slaves, it will benefit him, I suspect that he sees himself as president of the new Black American Nation. He is seeking power and wealth for himself.

The original question was along the lines of "Aren't Negros in America better off?" I believe that at present they are not as well off as European Americans on average, but I have been in several West African states and I believe that, on average, they ARE better off in America than they would have been had their ancestors not been removed from their homeland.

Incidentally, KATO33, I don't believe that Africans were incapable of building boats and making voyages of exploration and trade. History is that Europeans were in the right place at the right time with the right social conditions to take advantages of advances in technology and the Europeans DID make these voyages taking both their beliefs and the means of enforcing those beliefs with them.

Just my $0.02,

Mike D10270

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[KATO33 0]

Quote

in the late 18th century slavery was socially acceptable

Acceptable to those who were the oppresors not the Enslaved.
If it was so acceptable why didn't the British or the Dutch enslave each other?..... and leave the Africans out of this "acceptable" practice.

Blue Skies Black Death

[KATO33 0]

Quote

Louis Farrakhan's arguments are false, land has already been offered (and wisely rejected). The offer was for a homeland where his ancestors had come from

After 400 years of BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS we should go quietly away.
Fuck that...we contributed a tremendous amount to help making this country what it is today and we also should reap the benefits of that contribution.

Blue Skies Black Death

[riggerrob 643]

Two points:
First of all, reparations have never solved anyone's problems. Sometimes reparations make things worse. We fought TWO, I say again TWO World Wars in the past century because narrow-minded Europeans insisted on extracting reparations from a bankrupted Germany after the First World War. Reparations finished off the economic damage done to the German economy by the war. This resulted in rampant inflation and massive unemployment in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. Bereft of employment, bored German men were willing to back any political idiot - even Hilter - if he promised them jobs or a purpose in life. And we all know what a disaster National Socialism became!
By the same token, it does not matter how many million dollars the Canadian Catholic Church gives to buggered altar boys. Dollars can never undo the psychological damage done to those boys. At best the dollars can help pay for psychological counselling.
The real reason these boys are demanding reparations from the Catholic Church is to publicly embarrass the Church into abolishing abusive practices. Frankly, I believe that the only honorable outcome would be for a generation of Catholic Bishops to resign in disgrace.

The other question raised was about Brits enslaving Dutch, or any other Europeans. That is a gray area. Europeans held other Europeans as slaves for centuries. Under feudalism, the difference between serfdom and slavery was insignificant. Serfs were tied to the land, unable to move, own money, vote, etc. They lived and died on the same estate. Sometimes they died at the whim of their lord, sometimes merely because he decided to renew an old feud with the neighboring lord.

The bottom line is that slavery became economically obsolete centuries ago and reparations will not right past wrongs. If you insist on paying reparations, then only pay them to victims, so they can enjoy comfortable retirements. Paying reparations to later generations is silly because it promotes a "victim" mindset.

[miked10270 0]

Hi Kato,

My point is that after 400years of BLOOD SEWAT AND TEARS you should NOT go quietly away. Yet isn't this what Farrkhan wants? He says he wants reparations and land? A fair and equitable reparation in terms of land would be some 30% of the continental US. WHich 30% should be made into a Negro Homeland? Surely not the poorest 30%, and surely not scattered, so let's say, hypothetically, Florida, Georgis, South and North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennesee... What about the people, particularly the white people, who have also given 400years of blood, sweat and tears, who live htere at the moment. What happens to them during the partition?

Let's look at other partitions in the recent past. Look at when india was partitioned and granted independence. It's now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh which have since then been at a permanent state of near war or actual war. Look at Israel and the consequences of removing non-jewish Palestinians from land which was also their home! Look at what happened when the french partitioned Vietnam.

My point is that NO artificially created country formed for political ends has fared well or lived in peace.

Mike D10270.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[KATO33 0]

Quote

My point is that after 400years of BLOOD SEWAT AND TEARS you should NOT go quietly away. Yet isn't this what Farrakhan wants? He says he wants reparations and land? A fair and equitable reparation in terms of land would be some 30% of the continental US. Which 30% should be made into a Negro Homeland? Surely not the poorest 30%, and surely not scattered, so let's say, hypothetically, Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee... What about the people, particularly the white people, who have also given 400years of blood, sweat and tears, who live here at the moment. What happens to them during the partition?

I never said that reparations should be awarded (well they should but IMHO it is logistically impossible).... I have a problem with the notion that African Americans are better off because our ancestors were slaves.
The consequences of slavery on the present day African American psyche are extremely painful.
I would rather be the ancestor of Africans who came to this land as a free people..not in bondage.

Blue Skies Black Death

[KATO33 0]

Quote

My big problem with this whole deal is everybody in America seems to want to get paid for shit they did not do or get paid because something horrible happened to them or their family.

The problem is this African Americans in this country are still catching hell from the Institution of Slavery.
It's not something that happened a long time ago and everything is all warm and fuzzy now.
White people in this country have had a 400-year head start in just about all facets of this society (economics, education, politics, etc.). So asking for reparations is African Americans way of saying we need to catch up.
Keep in mind I don't think reparations are possible but I understand the motivation to pursue them.

Blue Skies Black Death

[moodyskydiver 0]

Quote

I came from North Dakota and have seen several of the indian reservations, if you ask me we (the "whites") have not compensated them for anything. The reservations are cast off land that the US doesn't want, and everyone on them lives in poverty. Yes, some tribes are doing better than others, but you can say the same about some African Americans. The US's past is filled with people being taken advantage of, we can't change that, but we can hope that we don't make the mistakes of our past and do them again.

I totally agree with you skycat. I have a good deal of Native American blood in my family(Comanche nation) and I am sadened by the way Native Americans are treated.But you dont see them throwing a fit and demanding compensation.Its all so ridiculous.

OK,I'll get off my soapbox now.Sorry,just my .02 worth.

"...just an earthbound misfit, I."