What are your thoughts about reparations for slavery in the US?

[TerranceL]

Is that relevant to any of the people who were slaves in America? The claim was that somehow it was current West African nations' fault for causing slavery. They somehow forced Americans to buy and own slaves, apparently.

THAT'S the victim blaming part, as I'm sure you well know. I'm not needlessly obtuse to you. The same respect would be appreciated.

Well now that I see it in that context it makes even less sense, as modern West African nations haven't sold any slaves to the US and thus can't be victims.

Not to say that there aren't still slaves in modern west african nations, but that's not the United States fault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa

 

[RDKirk]

True, I'm part Slavic from which the word "slave" was invented. According to history, Germanic tribes used to gather up native Slavic tribes and sell them to wealthy Arabs.

It also happened to the Irish.

An absolute requirement would be the involvement of West African nations who gave us their institution. White people had serfdom and indentured servitude, but the really evil stuff was invented by black people. We adopted post of black culture, and it literally broke our nation in two. We should be pushing those nations for funds. One is for the descendants of slaves, and also for descendants of white people who fought in the war to abolish that black institution. Some of them still practice it today.

One moment you claim "We wuz slaves too!" and then you claim "Africans invented slavery!"

I think y'all need to get y'all's act together.

But if you investigate the matter in the US, you find the intention of the slave-owning aristocracy in the American south--and they wrote of this--was to replicate the society of the Greek democracies right down to Greek slavery. That's why Greek-style architecture was so popular among plantation owners.

At the same time, Americans--this being <ahem> a "Christian nation"--already well knew slavery was a sin. Roger Williams (founder of the first Baptist congregation in America and also the first Abolitionist in America) was writing about the sin of slavery in the 1600s. Thomas Paine--an atheist--was riding American Christian slave owners about the hypocrisy of Christians owning slaves in the late 1700s. At the same time, even Thomas Jefferson--a slave owner himself--admitted that sooner or later God was going to get them for owning slaves.

They all knew slavery was a sin...but did it anyway, and these Christians held on to what they knew was a sin--these Christians fought for what they knew was a sin. And they fought for it long after the rest of the Christians in the world had abandoned it. This is a difference between slavery in America and slavery anywhere else at any other time: Pagans are going to sin--we expect them to sin. But American Christians fought to hold on to what they knew was a terrible sin.

Now, I've already stated that I don't think reparations for that sin are practicable today. Too late, we may as well all move on. The impracticability factor is for pagans. Even beyond the impracticability factor, Blacks who are Christian today are just as bound by Christ now to "let it go" as the whites who were Christian then had been bound to abandon slavery.

 

[Landon Caeli]

One moment you claim "We wuz slaves too!" and then you claim "Africans invented slavery!"

I think y'all need to get y'all's act together.

But if you investigate the matter in the US, you find the intention of the slave-owning aristocracy in the American south--and they wrote of this--was to replicate the society of the Greek democracies right down to Greek slavery. That's why Greek-style architecture was so popular among plantation owners.

At the same time, Americans--this being <ahem> a "Christian nation"--already well knew slavery was a sin. Roger Williams (founder of the first Baptist congregation in America and also the first Abolitionist in America) was writing about the sin of slavery in the 1600s. Thomas Paine--an atheist--was riding American Christian slave owners about the hypocrisy of Christians owning slaves in the late 1700s. At the same time, even Thomas Jefferson--a slave owner himself--admitted that sooner or later God was going to get them for owning slaves.

They all knew slavery was a sin...but did it anyway, and these Christians held on to what they knew was a sin--these Christians fought for what they knew was a sin. And they fought for it long after the rest of the Christians in the world had abandoned it. This is a difference between slavery in America and slavery anywhere else at any other time: Pagans are going to sin--we expect them to sin. But American Christians fought to hold on to what they knew was a terrible sin.

Now, I've already stated that I don't think reparations for that sin are practicable today. Too late, we may as well all move on. The impracticability factor is for pagans. Even beyond the impracticability factor, Blacks who are Christian today are just as bound by Christ now to "let it go" as the whites who were Christian then had been bound to abandon slavery.

Why is my quote in there?

 

[Desk trauma]

The way I understand it, the agreed upon tracts of land would be taken from citizens through eminent domain.

That's the mechanism used to take the land, I was asking about whose land would be taken.
Would it have to be established that their ancestors were involved in slavery?
Would the property of immigrants and their descendants who arrived post 1865 be safe from confiscation?
Would the land be centralized or would those now entitled to others property get to chose from whom they would take it?
Would they be subject to normal property taxes on their newly acquired holdings and if so what becomes of those who become delinquent?
Once the land is taken are they then allowed to sell/rent it out or are they chained to subsistence use of the land?

 

[Chesterton]

The way I understand it, the agreed upon tracts of land would be taken from citizens through eminent domain. Land owners would be compensated fair market value and relocate to their new desired location. Extremists would say not to even give fair market value but I think that is way out of the question even though it is how the land was acquired, it would be inhumane to just kick people off their land without compensation.

Aside from being evil your idea's funny because I remember way back during the L.A. riots I saw some head of a white supremacist group being interviewed on a news show and he was urging basically the same idea as you.

 

[Pwnerer]

Oh of course. *eye roll* Talk about blaming the victim.

Are you seriously denying that African chattel slavery has its origins in Africa, is a black cultural creation, and continues in Africa today?

Sent from my STUDIO ENERGY 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Pwnerer]

Not so. Slavery was rampant in both Greece and the Roman Empire. They didn't learn this from blacks. The reason there was little slavery in NW Europe (there was certainly some) was because the aristocracy owned virtually all the land. You don't need slavery if you own the means of production and people are forced to work for you anyhow. The reason slavery was common in Africa (and the Americas) is that there was not that much landownership. Africans practiced slash and burn agriculture which means land had to be left after a few years use. Therefore to have an elite required owning people directly. In any case slavery in Africa was bore no resemblance to the type of slavery practiced in America. A slave's master in Africa might offer the slave his daughter to marry, something that would have been unimaginable in the US. We made slavery into virtually a factory system, aimed at one thing profit. Slaves in Africa, however, were valued more for their loyalty than their labor and that meant they were not nearly as badly exploited.

.

That sentence makes no sense.



Sorry, it is not a black institution. It is mentioned in virtually every text in antiquity.

Well yes, "slavery" existed most places, having widely different definitions. And, it had died out in Europe for the most part. The jist of what I'm saying is that chattel slavery was at the time a black cultural practice that colonials adopted.

When I say it split our country in two, I'm pointing out that it was so evil and damaging that our nation split apart in civil war because of it. If we had not adopted this part of black culture, we never would have had that war



Sent from my STUDIO ENERGY 2 using Tapatalk

 

[smaneck]

Well yes, "slavery" existed most places, having widely different definitions. And, it had died out in Europe for the most part. The jist of what I'm saying is that chattel slavery was at the time a black cultural practice that colonials adopted.

Wrong. It disappeared only in northern Europe where other forms of unfree labor predominated. It was alive and well in those countries which surrounded the Mediterranean, Italy, Spain and Portugal. In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issues Dum Diversas, a bull authorizing the Portuguese to reduce any non-Christians to the status of slaves. America hadn't even been discovered yet! When the Spanish took over the Canary Islands and made it into sugar plantations they at first enslaved the white-skinned natives who were living a Neolithic lifestyle at the time. But because the natives had never been exposed to the Afroeurasian disease pool they quickly died and were then replaced by African slaves. The same thing happened in the Americas. Colonialists first tried to enslave the natives but replaced them with African slaves when they began to die off. It is nonsense and blatantly racist to say the colonialists adopted a "black cultural practice" when in fact it had existed among nearly all civilizations for thousands of years.

 

[smaneck]

Are you seriously denying that African chattel slavery has its origins in Africa, is a black cultural creation, and continues in Africa today?

Of course it is true but only because that is the way you worded your question. African chattel slavery has it origins in Africa, Greek chattel slavery has it origins in Greece and Roman chattel slavery has it origins in the Roman Empire and Chinese chattel slavery has it origins in China. But such an assertion is meaningless. But there is nothing peculiarly African about chattel slavery nor is it a "black cultural creation."

It was perhaps more common in Africa, because as I indicated earlier, there was no concept of land ownership which would have allowed for the exploitation of other people by other means. A similar situation existed in the Americas where land was either free or very cheap. Since a white man could always "go West, young man" the only way labor could easily be exploited was by enslaving people.

 

[Pwnerer]

Oh OK well I'll ignore the historical consensus that slavery had mostly died out in Europe since you point out that it had not completely disappeared, which is intrinsic to the statement "mostly" died out. Actually, no I won't ignore that

Also, you throw accusations of racism all you want. You can even add the magic word "blatantly", as if that somehow makes an unsubstantiated claim into something objectively true. None of that refutes the fact that African chattel slavery is from Africa, created by black people, adopted by white people, abandoned by white people, and still practiced today by black people


Sent from my STUDIO ENERGY 2 using Tapatalk

 

[rturner76]

That's the mechanism used to take the land, I was asking about whose land would be taken.
Would it have to be established that their ancestors were involved in slavery?
Would the property of immigrants and their descendants who arrived post 1865 be safe from confiscation?
Would the land be centralized or would those now entitled to others property get to chose from whom they would take it?
Would they be subject to normal property taxes on their newly acquired holdings and if so what becomes of those who become delinquent?
Once the land is taken are they then allowed to sell/rent it out or are they chained to subsistence use of the land?

I don't think it's a consideration who is on the land if it was an immigrant or a slave owning family. I think the system is similar to a reservation that the Natives have. A sovereign nation within the USA so no property taxes to the state. Likely their own court system but I think reservations are still subject to Federal law. I actually don't know. I don't know if it would be one central reservation or a few smaller locations. From my understanding it would be one central location. I never heard about how it would be decided who would get what parcel of land or home. I assume the government that would be set up would devise a system. I don't think they would be allowed to rent space out to non members of the reservation but I don't see why they couldn't rent it out to another member.

 

[rturner76]

Aside from being evil your idea's funny because I remember way back during the L.A. riots I saw some head of a white supremacist group being interviewed on a news show and he was urging basically the same idea as you.

I't is the one thing that white supremacist groups and the Nation of Islam agree on snd it'snot my idea.It has been put forward by many groups of people including the Nation

 

[smaneck]

That's the mechanism used to take the land, I was asking about whose land would be taken.

It wouldn't make any sense to give land as compensation to African-Americans today anyhow. Few of them know how to farm anymore. Here in Mississippi African-Americans probably own more land than in any place in the country. The land is usually owned jointly by extended families who sometimes put their homes there, but no one farms it anymore. One can in fact support a family of four with forty acres and a mule, especially if one concentrated on growing organic foods and didn't buy expensive machinery. But you got to know what you are doing. Land without the proper training as to how to use it would be a waste.
The idea behind giving them 40 acres and mule was to give them self-determination. Today that is to be gotten in most cases by grants for education or starting new businesses, not farming.

 

[Chesterton]

I't is the one thing that white supremacist groups and the Nation of Islam agree on snd it'snot my idea.It has been put forward by many groups of people including the Nation

Yes I know. You're in good company.

 

[Desk trauma]

I don't think it's a consideration who is on the land if it was an immigrant or a slave owning family.

Even having proof that ones ancestors were not involved in the wrong is no defense against having your property confiscated to make up for it?

I think the system is similar to a reservation that the Natives have. A sovereign nation within the USA so no property taxes to the state. Likely their own court system but I think reservations are still subject to Federal law. I actually don't know. I don't know if it would be one central reservation or a few smaller locations. From my understanding it would be one central location. I never heard about how it would be decided who would get what parcel of land or home. I assume the government that would be set up would devise a system. I don't think they would be allowed to rent space out to non members of the reservation but I don't see why they couldn't rent it out to another member.

How would this be an improvement for those the confiscated land was given to? Driving out the people who make an area run then tossing the keys to the uneducated and unsuccessful (not a matter of race but of those who are well established not leaving their businesses and homes) is a recipe for disaster. While it's a controversial example the agricultural land of Zimbabwe is a living example of this plan.

 

[smaneck]

Oh OK well I'll ignore the historical consensus that slavery had mostly died out in Europe since you point out that it had not completely disappeared, which is intrinsic to the statement "mostly" died out. Actually, no I won't ignore that

You do realize that the European countries that surround the Mediterranean were the most populous countries and that is where chattel slavery continued.

None of that refutes the fact that African chattel slavery is from Africa

Again, a meaningless statement given that Africans come from Africa.

created by black people

Only because you are restricting your definition to African chattel slavery thereby making it true by definition.

adopted by white people, abandoned by white people

That is what is totally false. Slavery as practiced by whites bore no resemblance to African chattel slavery whatsoever. Nor did whites borrow the idea from blacks. And by the way, whites haven't abandoned it. We now call it human trafficking and it is alive and well.

,

and still practiced today by black people

Only two countries in Africa, Nigeria and Ethiopia, have as many slaves a Russia does. And don't tell me blacks gave Russia the idea.

 

[Pwnerer]

You do realize that the European countries that surround the Mediterranean were the most populous countries and that is where chattel slavery continued.



Again, a meaningless statement given that Africans come from Africa.



Only because you are restricting your definition to African chattel slavery thereby making it true by definition.



That is what is totally false. Slavery as practiced by whites bore no resemblance to African chattel slavery whatsoever. Nor did whites borrow the idea from blacks. And by the way, whites haven't abandoned it. We now call it human trafficking and it is alive and well.

,

Only two countries in Africa, Nigeria and Ethiopia, have as many slaves a Russia does. And don't tell me blacks gave Russia the idea.

OK dude the incoherence is coming across pretty strong. I mean, "Slavery as practiced by whites bore no resemblance to African chattel slavery whatsoever"."No resemblence whatsoever". Except they were both slavery. And they were both chattel slavery. And they were both dehumanizing. And they both had their origins in the African slave market.

I don't see what you're getting at with the specifics of slavery mostly dying out in Europe. Are the details of it dying out relevant to the American import of African slavery?

Anyway, little has been done to rectify the injustice of the African slave market and how it both caused and fueled problems in the USA. We should definitely be going after these countries that profited off our national defilement. Being the origin of slavery in the Americas, they should definitely be paying up in reparations.

 

[rturner76]

Even having proof that ones ancestors were not involved in the wrong is no defense against having your property confiscated to make up for it?



How would this be an improvement for those the confiscated land was given to? Driving out the people who make an area run then tossing the keys to the uneducated and unsuccessful (not a matter of race but of those who are well established not leaving their businesses and homes) is a recipe for disaster. While it's a controversial example the agricultural land of Zimbabwe is a living example of this plan.

Yeah I don't think it's a very feasible plan still it's a dream for some. I'm more for an education plan especially focused on first generation college students.

 

[rturner76]

Yes I know. You're in good company.

I never said I think there should be land grants for people. I'm more for education funding.

 

[Dave-W]

I't is the one thing that white supremacist groups and the Nation of Islam agree on snd it'snot my idea.It has been put forward by many groups of people including the Nation

And back in the 1960s the leaders of the KKK and Black Panthers conversed on how to coordinate their efforts as their goals were the same: physical separation of blacks and whites.