A CASE FOR REPARATIONS!

[Taichiliberal]

If we're specifically talking about slaves brought from Africa and not ones born in the U.S., these particular slaves were prisoners of war. The only way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was able to persist is through African tribes that were willing to venture further inland into Africa to conquer and enslave neighboring tribes, and then they subsequently would sell these people to the Europeans and, later, to Americans. They also sold these people to the Arabs before the Europeans got involved.

So while Arabs, Europeans, and Americans can be blamed for financing the slave trade, Africans themselves enabled the capture of these people through tribal warfare.

Cut the BS justification....the nano-second Europeans put black folk from Africa in the bowels of those ships for transport...they became kidnap victims for slavery in Europe and America. Period...because NO "declaration of War" against any part of Africa was done by the Dutch, Portugese, English, or the British colonies (later America). Black folk in America who were born and lived here BEFORE SLAVERY ENDED OFFICIALLY were NOT "prisoners of war".....period. My previous deconstruction of TD's nonsense stands valid, and like I told you before, my take is that ancestry of slaves owned by a present day company's former incarnation has to be proven for reparations from said company or the US government.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well let's see...

The Dutch had several wars with the Khoikhoi over cattle and disease that the Dutch thought the later was spreading. This is at a time when infectious disease vectors were unknown. Then they had one over land encroachment and what amounted to lynchings. They even had other Black tribes as allies in these.

Then there's the Portuguese. They put the slave trade in slave trade. They set up fortresses for this purpose all along the African coast and had any number of small wars, skirmishes and other actions against both the locals and other Europeans to ensure their continued trade in slaves.

If there was a nation that fought colonial wars in Africa it was the British. They fought everybody, other Europeans, the locals, you-name-it. But they also weren't particularly into the slave trade. That was the Portugese.

One of the more interesting aspects of the US slave trade was the 1807 law that ended importation of new slaves to America. Knowing that was coming, the slave traders in the US started importing female slaves in favor of male ones previously brought so they could ensure a steady supply into the future. The people that did that were particularly evil. Up to 1807, most imported slaves were male. There was no need for female slaves for the most part.

Use of US flagged vessels for slave trading ended in 1794 by the way. That didn't accomplish much either.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Well let's see...

The Dutch had several wars with the Khoikhoi over cattle and disease that the Dutch thought the later was spreading. This is at a time when infectious disease vectors were unknown. Then they had one over land encroachment and what amounted to lynchings. They even had other Black tribes as allies in these.

Then there's the Portuguese. They put the slave trade in slave trade. They set up fortresses for this purpose all along the African coast and had any number of small wars, skirmishes and other actions against both the locals and other Europeans to ensure their continued trade in slaves.

If there was a nation that fought colonial wars in Africa it was the British. They fought everybody, other Europeans, the locals, you-name-it. But they also weren't particularly into the slave trade. That was the Portugese.

One of the more interesting aspects of the US slave trade was the 1807 law that ended importation of new slaves to America. Knowing that was coming, the slave traders in the US started importing female slaves in favor of male ones previously brought so they could ensure a steady supply into the future. The people that did that were particularly evil. Up to 1807, most imported slaves were male. There was no need for female slaves for the most part.

Use of US flagged vessels for slave trading ended in 1794 by the way. That didn't accomplish much either.

Hey genius.....you're confusing imperialism and colonialism with a declaration of war between two nations. Put on your socks and shoes, toddle down to the library and get the number of a professor who'll school you on the difference. Oh, as to your revisionist screed, a primer FYI: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/former-dutch-colonies.html

I love it when jokers like you try 6 ways to Sunday to somehow justify European slavery of the African. You'd be a laugh riot if you weren't so pathetic. Carry on.

 

[Saudade]

Too much time has passed for this to be relevant. translation: Woko can no longer logically or factually sustain many of his/her assertions.

Once again, Woko displays insipid stubbornness...had he/she read my previous response carefully and comprehensively, he/she would have seen how reparations for the descendants of slaves could be verified and validated. Bottom line: if a present day corporation benefitted from it's former incarnation owning slaves, then why shouldn't the ancestors of those slaves? Fair is fair. But fairness is not at the basis of the knee jerk anti-reparations mentality. And the band played on.

Call it whatever you like, but I call your proposal nothing more than pandering. No one alive today was a slave of that variety. Just because some people might be descended from slaves is irrelevant. I don't owe them anything, and they don't owe me anything.

 

[Saudade]

Cut the BS justification....the nano-second Europeans put black folk from Africa in the bowels of those ships for transport...they became kidnap victims for slavery in Europe and America. Period...because NO "declaration of War" against any part of Africa was done by the Dutch, Portugese, English, or the British colonies (later America). Black folk in America who were born and lived here BEFORE SLAVERY ENDED OFFICIALLY were NOT "prisoners of war".....period. My previous deconstruction of TD's nonsense stands valid, and like I told you before, my take is that ancestry of slaves owned by a present day company's former incarnation has to be proven for reparations from said company or the US government.

And why exactly should I pay taxes to fund these efforts? I didn't own any slaves. Most white people in America today descended from people who came to America after slavery was over. Once again, it's not even relevant historically for most of us.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your premise is extremely flawed, as you try to equate CRIMINALS with FREE INDIVIDUALS TAKEN AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is typical half-assed "logic" by reactionary right wing folk hell bent on 'stop the n***er'.

Your pointing to the Chinese is slightly off....for your education: https://www.pbs.org/becomingamerican/ce_timeline.html and the Chinese have a boat load of claims that require reparations, but NOT as slaves such as the Africans. For your education: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ans-in-the-u-s

And though the Irish did catch hell in America, they were NOT slaves like the Africans. You might be confusing the prisoners in the British colonies. For your education: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ir...early-america/

Yes, willfully or just honestly ignorance of what reparations is all about runs rampant in the Caucasian cabals of the GOP and "conservatives" in general. Faced with facts, they just cover their ears, parrot their mantras and become living examples of insipid stubbornness.

If we're specifically talking about slaves brought from Africa and not ones born in the U.S., these particular slaves were prisoners of war. The only way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was able to persist is through African tribes that were willing to venture further inland into Africa to conquer and enslave neighboring tribes, and then they subsequently would sell these people to the Europeans and, later, to Americans. They also sold these people to the Arabs before the Europeans got involved.

So while Arabs, Europeans, and Americans can be blamed for financing the slave trade, Africans themselves enabled the capture of these people through tribal warfare.

No shyte Sherlock, tell us all something we don't know.....doesn't change the FACTS regarding reparations, or how what I laid out is a logical approach to the topic (if it ever passes Congress). doesn't change the FACTS that Europeans and Americans help extend an evil to other lands...just as guilty as the "savages" they thought themselves superior to.

 

[Saudade]

Hey genius.....you're confusing imperialism and colonialism with a declaration of war between two nations.

How exactly is imperialism/colonialism not a matter of war? Imperialism is almost always a matter of war, and colonialism usually involves war with the natives, if they aren't willing to part with land and resources.

I can't speak for Gardner, but the point I'm making here isn't that what the Europeans did was right, but it does fit the criteria of war through much of history. War has only been more formal in recent centuries. Granted, even much of America's interventionism hasn't involved a formal declaration of war. The last formal declaration of war we've made was WW2. All conflicts since then have sometimes involved Congressional authorization, but that's not even always the case.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Cut the BS justification....the nano-second Europeans put black folk from Africa in the bowels of those ships for transport...they became kidnap victims for slavery in Europe and America. Period...because NO "declaration of War" against any part of Africa was done by the Dutch, Portugese, English, or the British colonies (later America). Black folk in America who were born and lived here BEFORE SLAVERY ENDED OFFICIALLY were NOT "prisoners of war".....period. My previous deconstruction of TD's nonsense stands valid, and like I told you before, my take is that ancestry of slaves owned by a present day company's former incarnation has to be proven for reparations from said company or the US government.

And why exactly should I pay taxes to fund these efforts? I didn't own any slaves. Most white people in America today descended from people who came to America after slavery was over. Once again, it's not even relevant historically for most of us.

Ummm, what part of "corporations" did you not understand? Let THEM pick up the tab! Hell, I don't here complaining from anti-reparation folk about reaganomic tax breaks for the wealthy, or how you and I pick up the tab for corporate off shore business set up. But I digress … I'm not advocating cutting a check for every black American that can prove they and their grandparents were born here. I laid out several times the process IMHO was the best solution. It may not sit well with everyone, but it's fair.

 

[Saudade]

No shyte Sherlock, tell us all something we don't know.....doesn't change the FACTS regarding reparations, or how what I laid out is a logical approach to the topic (if it ever passes Congress). doesn't change the FACTS that Europeans and Americans help extend an evil to other lands...just as guilty as the "savages" they thought themselves superior to.

You already responded to the applicable post before this, but ok. I agree that this sort of thing is evil. Where I disagree with much of the standard narrative is that it was uniquely evil. There seems to be this idea that Europeans and Americans are worse about this sort of thing than others. That's not the case. We're just better at it. It's no different from how, a long time ago, the Mongols were the best in the world at conquest.

History is largely a story of which cultures successfully dominate others. Europe succeeded at this for a long time, but clearly, they will eventually be dominated by other powers. America is on the decline as well. I seriously doubt whoever the next world superpower is will be spending much time paying reparations to those they conquer.

 

[Saudade]

Ummm, what part of "corporations" did you not understand? Let THEM pick up the tab! Hell, I don't here complaining from anti-reparation folk about reaganomic tax breaks for the wealthy, or how you and I pick up the tab for corporate off shore business set up. But I digress … I'm not advocating cutting a check for every black American that can prove they and their grandparents were born here. I laid out several times the process IMHO was the best solution. It may not sit well with everyone, but it's fair.

You do realize any costs put on corporations get passed onto consumers, right?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal

Too much time has passed for this to be relevant. translation: Woko can no longer logically or factually sustain many of his/her assertions.

Once again, Woko displays insipid stubbornness...had he/she read my previous response carefully and comprehensively, he/she would have seen how reparations for the descendants of slaves could be verified and validated. Bottom line: if a present day corporation benefitted from it's former incarnation owning slaves, then why shouldn't the ancestors of those slaves? Fair is fair. But fairness is not at the basis of the knee jerk anti-reparations mentality. And the band played on.

Call it whatever you like, but I call your proposal nothing more than pandering. No one alive today was a slave of that variety. Just because some people might be descended from slaves is irrelevant. I don't owe them anything, and they don't owe me anything.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you have a reading problem? WTF have I said several times now? I've highlighted it in the previous response....hopefully, you'll comprehend it. What YOU are doing is pandering to the willfully ignorant bigotry in America by those who see any attempt by black people to get the compensation once promised to them and their ancestors as "getting something for nothing". Hell, you got white folk STILL bitching about losing the Civil War, even to the point of arming themselves to defend a freak'in statue.

Like it or not, the government created and run by people who look just like you made promises to blacks and Native Americans that they reneged on or just screwed the people over. The Japanese finally got some reparations for unjust internment....the relatively few black Americans are just asking for what their recent ancestors should have gotten for making this country possible through a century or two of free labor under the guise of non-humans. They may not get it in my lifetime, but folk like you won't get away with glossing over the reasons why this is an issue.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ummm, what part of "corporations" did you not understand? Let THEM pick up the tab! Hell, I don't here complaining from anti-reparation folk about reaganomic tax breaks for the wealthy, or how you and I pick up the tab for corporate off shore business set up. But I digress … I'm not advocating cutting a check for every black American that can prove they and their grandparents were born here. I laid out several times the process IMHO was the best solution. It may not sit well with everyone, but it's fair.

You do realize any costs put on corporations get passed onto consumers, right?

You do realize that unfair practice has to stop, right? You do realize that you and I have been picking up the tab for reaganomics for 30 years, right? Also, for corporations to set up shop off shore, right? Or for "too big to fail banks, right? I don't here you complaining about those little tidbits, but reparations are just beyond the pale for you. I wonder why?

 

[Saudade]

You do realize that unfair practice has to stop, right? You do realize that you and I have been picking up the tab for reaganomics for 30 years, right? Also, for corporations to set up shop off shore, right? Or for "too big to fail banks, right? I don't here you complaining about those little tidbits, but reparations are just beyond the pale for you. I wonder why?

I do complain about bailouts actually. I'm against them in every case.

 

[Saudade]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you have a reading problem? WTF have I said several times now? I've highlighted it in the previous response....hopefully, you'll comprehend it. What YOU are doing is pandering to the willfully ignorant bigotry in America by those who see any attempt by black people to get the compensation once promised to them and their ancestors as "getting something for nothing". Hell, you got white folk STILL bitching about losing the Civil War, even to the point of arming themselves to defend a freak'in statue.

Like it or not, the government created and run by people who look just like you made promises to blacks and Native Americans that they reneged on or just screwed the people over. The Japanese finally got some reparations for unjust internment....the relatively few black Americans are just asking for what their recent ancestors should have gotten for making this country possible through a century or two of free labor under the guise of non-humans. They may not get it in my lifetime, but folk like you won't get away with glossing over the reasons why this is an issue.

Ok. Well, have fun tilting at this windmill then.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You already responded to the applicable post before this, but ok. I agree that this sort of thing is evil. Where I disagree with much of the standard narrative is that it was uniquely evil. There seems to be this idea that Europeans and Americans are worse about this sort of thing than others. That's not the case. We're just better at it. It's no different from how, a long time ago, the Mongols were the best in the world at conquest.

History is largely a story of which cultures successfully dominate others. Europe succeeded at this for a long time, but clearly, they will eventually be dominated by other powers. America is on the decline as well. I seriously doubt whoever the next world superpower is will be spending much time paying reparations to those they conquer.

Oh this is a classic display of a racially motivated attempt at justification. Your screed doesn't due a whole hell of a lot for black folk regarding American slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the weaker versions that permeate current America. Newsflash for ya … neither you or I are Mongols, do spare me the "they did it too" grade school crap...and your saying that "we're just better at it" displays an indifference born of prejudice and complacency.


Give it up, Woko…..you're just cementing yourself as a bigot with a delusion of intellectual fairness and rationalization.....pretty sad, that....but not unexpected.

 

[Saudade]

Oh this is a classic display of a racially motivated attempt at justification. Your screed doesn't due a whole hell of a lot for black folk regarding American slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the weaker versions that permeate current America. Newsflash for ya … neither you or I are Mongols, do spare me the "they did it too" grade school crap...and your saying that "we're just better at it" displays an indifference born of prejudice and complacency.


Give it up, Woko…..you're just cementing yourself as a bigot with a delusion of intellectual fairness and rationalization.....pretty sad, that....but not unexpected.

You keep saying "justification." I don't see it as that. I'm just explaining how it doesn't matter in the long run. There are far more important things to attend to right now than to dig up events that happened before any of us were alive.

My indifference is due to the fact that you can't change the past. All you can do is try to set up society so that economic mobility is optimal. If you want to help all people with that rather than targeting specific identity groups, then we can talk, but this pandering to black people specifically is something I have no interest in.

If that makes me "bigoted", so be it, but that word has been so overused at this point that it means very little to me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Hey genius.....you're confusing imperialism and colonialism with a declaration of war between two nations.

How exactly is imperialism/colonialism not a matter of war? Imperialism is almost always a matter of war, and colonialism usually involves war with the natives, if they aren't willing to part with land and resources.

I can't speak for Gardner, but the point I'm making here isn't that what the Europeans did was right, but it does fit the criteria of war through much of history. War has only been more formal in recent centuries. Granted, even much of America's interventionism hasn't involved a formal declaration of war. The last formal declaration of war we've made was WW2. All conflicts since then have sometimes involved Congressional authorization, but that's not even always the case.

To put an end to your insipid stubbornness:

colonialism
[kəˈlōnēəˌlizəm]

NOUN
the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

imperialism
[imˈpirēəˌlizəm]

NOUN
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

war
[wôr]

NOUN
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.


Africa is a continent, NOT a unified "nation". Imperialism usually goes hand in hand with colonialism, but to date there is no historical records where any of those European nations officially declared "war" on a African nation......not even Leopold. No good, vicious sob's to be sure, but they didn't go in with guns blazing....that came later. The slave trade, as you pointed out earlier, happened with Europeans taking advantage of a bad system that existed between warring factions in Central and Western Africa (or maybe a wider geography, I get those wrong sometimes).

Look Woko, you can jump from one subject to another, but you cannot justify or diminish the evil of black slavery in America. Period. All you are doing is just complaining that black people are bothering your mental comfort zone as to what you think things should be. TFB....since slavery didn't affect you and yours, your vision is of little consequence.

 

[Saudade]

since slavery didn't affect you and yours, your vision is of little consequence.

Oh, it's of much consequence. Most white people are not onboard with reparations. We vote accordingly.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Oh this is a classic display of a racially motivated attempt at justification. Your screed doesn't due a whole hell of a lot for black folk regarding American slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the weaker versions that permeate current America. Newsflash for ya … neither you or I are Mongols, do spare me the "they did it too" grade school crap...and your saying that "we're just better at it" displays an indifference born of prejudice and complacency.


Give it up, Woko…..you're just cementing yourself as a bigot with a delusion of intellectual fairness and rationalization.....pretty sad, that....but not unexpected.

You keep saying "justification." I don't see it as that. I'm just explaining how it doesn't matter in the long run. There are far more important things to attend to right now than to dig up events that happened before any of us were alive.

My indifference is due to the fact that you can't change the past. All you can do is try to set up society so that economic mobility is optimal. If you want to help all people with that rather than targeting specific identity groups, then we can talk, but this pandering to black people specifically is something I have no interest in.

If that makes me "bigoted", so be it, but that word has been so overused at this point that it means very little to me.

you don't "see" a lot of things due to the willful ignorance born of a prejudice that "those people are whining again, always wanting something for nothing". You've tried six ways to Sunday to totally dismiss the very premise of reparations....I've just taken you to task to logically show you can't do it. Now, I've laid out a rational way to approach this and acknowledged that it probably won't happen in my lifetime (Congress and all)….but that's no green light for your white wash (no pun intended) of the situation.

And spare us all this BS about changing the past....no one is trying to do that....folk are just trying to get jokers like you to ACKNOWLEDGE how the past affects the future. Like I said, jokers like you are still fighting the Civil War on some level or other....and that's over 150 years old. The law that reaffirmed my rights as an American born citizen to go to any school my parents could afford (if I had the grades) is only 4 years older than I. The last vestiges of Jim Crow ended in the mid to late 1960's. Had reparations not been rescinded, the aforementioned may and probably wouldn't have occurred.

And since I deconstructed your "not my wallet" baloney, you've got nothing but stubborn parroting left....of which I won't waste time on. Let me know if you've got a new angle and I'll respond.

Oh, and if you talk the talk, you get the label....when guys like quit with this lame and re-hashed David Duke-ish "intellectual" approach, you won't get the label. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
since slavery didn't affect you and yours, your vision is of little consequence.

Oh, it's of much consequence. Most white people are not onboard with reparations. We vote accordingly.

Yeah, and at one time most white people were not on board with the Emancipation Proclamation, or Civil Rights, or believed in fatal police brutality against blacks. Things change, and the "we" you are so proud of is shrinking. Carry on.