New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

I'm completely in favor of slavery reparations . . .

trapdoor

Governor
A) This would not be fair to either past or future generations.
It expect for the repair to be made by individuals of one generation by giving them a cash payment and then turning your backs on your fellow Americans. That would be a failure for everyone.
How fair is it to expect future generations of non-slaves to foot the bill for these reparations -- doesn't that impinge from one set of Americans to another? Remember, the people paying the reparations didn't cause the problem.

Reparation involve a sincere apology being giving. This kind of punishment and disenfranchisement you suggest is more an act of malice for having been wronged than it is an apology for wrong doing.
In a way, see above. Who am I apologizing to, and what am I apologizing for? I never owned a slave, I merely share some DNA with someone who did 160 years ago. I'm happy to apologize for wrongdoing when I've done wrong, but I'm not seeing how I've done wrong.
 

Spamature

President
How fair is it to expect future generations of non-slaves to foot the bill for these reparations -- doesn't that impinge from one set of Americans to another? Remember, the people paying the reparations didn't cause the problem.



In a way, see above. Who am I apologizing to, and what am I apologizing for? I never owned a slave, I merely share some DNA with someone who did 160 years ago. I'm happy to apologize for wrongdoing when I've done wrong, but I'm not seeing how I've done wrong.
Because they support their govt and their govt wronged its own. You seem to say reparation for slavery are somehow as unfair as slavery. As if righting a wrong is a wrong. Take any wrong doing. George Floyd, for instance. Why should the city's residents be having to pay for wrong do under the color of authority of that city ? After all, it wasn't a regular citizen who committed that murder on camera. IT's the same thing as the state accidentally tore down your house. Because the people also share a joint responsibility with the govt they elect. Yet, you act as if this concept is somehow foreign to you.

YOU aren't apologizing, because YOU did not do it. Your continuing government did it. It has to apologize and guarantee it will never happen again. The very idea that people will think of themselves as removed from the harm they have seen all their lives is not very reassuring when it comes to repetition and guarantees.
 

Spamature

President
The point is that while the former slaves were facing racism and Jim Crow, there were plenty of people who were just as bad off in most ways. My own family experienced 150 years of semi-literate poverty during the period from 1830 to WWII. My grandfather was a sharecropper, and my father born (in 1940) in a tar paper shack the size of a garden shed on a typical home lot today. But sure, my family needs to fork over the bucks because my grandfather's great-great-great-great grandfather owned nine slaves.

From 1863 on, the policy of the American government was not simply re-union, it was abolition. The American government lost 750,000 men and if not uncountable, certainly unbudgeted millions in the effort.

And what level of consanguinity will allow one to be the recipient of reparations? Are we going to turn "Jim Crow" in which "one drop of blood" led to discrimination and institute "Crow Jim" where one drop of blood leads to reparations?

Unfortunately, I'm unable to see you're YouTube video. The computer system here blocks access to YouTube.
I suppose those 9 slaves would have gladly traded places with your family. At least your intact family was allowed to exist, were theirs ? Were those 9 slaves a family, or were families torn apart to assemble that collection ? It seems that people ignore what the threat of having fathers or mothers or children sold from the family does to family dynamics and how those dynamics become ingrained in family culture. That is likely something most people today could not even fathom, yet they've seen the results from afar all their lives.

This is the site that video was taken from, the national archives.

It shows that reparations were paid at the end of the war.

Only the recipients were the slave owners, not the slaves.



The District of Columbia Emancipation Act

On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called "the national shame" of slavery in the nation's capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration.
 
Last edited:

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Because they support their govt and their govt wronged its own. You seem to say reparation for slavery are somehow as unfair as slavery. As if righting a wrong is a wrong. Take any wrong doing. George Floyd, for instance. Why should the city's residents be having to pay for wrong do under the color of authority of that city ? After all, it wasn't a regular citizen who committed that murder on camera. IT's the same thing as the state accidentally tore down your house. Because the people also share a joint responsibility with the govt they elect. Yet, you act as if this concept is somehow foreign to you.

YOU aren't apologizing, because YOU did not do it. Your continuing government did it. It has to apologize and guarantee it will never happen again. The very idea that people will think of themselves as removed from the harm they have seen all their lives is not very reassuring when it comes to repetition and guarantees.
Their government was Africa i/e. their KING
They were NOT American citizens
 

Spamature

President
Their government was Africa i/e. their KING
They were NOT American citizens
You don't have to be a citizen of this country to have rights in this country.

Where do you righties say rights originate from, is it man or are rights God given, and/or inalienable ?
I suppose you see your reasoning as higher than those of the Founding Fathers and all other religious reasoning.

Also, African kings were not selling their own people.
They were trading POWs for goods and weapons.
Again, they only became SLAVES when they landed upon these shores and were enslaved by their now fellow Americans.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
You don't have to be a citizen of this country to have rights in this country.

Where do you righties say rights originate from, is it man or are rights God given, and/or inalienable ?
I suppose you see your reasoning as higher than those of the Founding Fathers and all other religious reasoning.

Also, African kings were not selling their own people.
They were trading POWs for goods and weapons.
Again, they only became SLAVES when they landed upon these shores and were enslaved by their now fellow Americans.
They were African slaves long before sold and boat ride from Obama family in Libya to America
 

trapdoor

Governor
I suppose those 9 slaves would have gladly traded places with your family. At least your intact family was allowed to exist, were theirs ? Were those 9 slaves a family, or were families torn apart to assemble that collection ? It seems that people ignore what the threat of having fathers or mothers or children sold from the family does to family dynamics and how those dynamics become ingrained in family culture. That is likely something most people today could not even fathom, yet they've seen the results from afar all their lives.

This is the site that video was taken from, the national archives.

It shows that reparations were paid at the end of the war.

Only the recipients were the slave owners, not the slaves.



The District of Columbia Emancipation Act

On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called "the national shame" of slavery in the nation's capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration.
If those slaves (who as near as I can tell were never involuntarily removed from their families) would happily have switched roles with my ancestors, it's beyond my ability, your ability, or society's ability to make amends. They are all dead, as is my family, at least all the ancestors I ever had born between 1820 and 1926 (whether they had anything to do with slavery or not). My 96 year old aunt was once wealthy but she has dementia and doesn't recognize her own children now -- maybe she's owes them something, but 1926 was a long time after slavery ended in its own right.

I rather admire Lincoln who was, despite his frontier folksiness a subtle man. He compensated slave owners for the only slaves he ever freed over which he had actual control. The emancipation proclamation itself is as weasel-worded as the contract on the back of an airline ticket -- it frees slaves only in places Lincoln had no ability to free them. He had, he thought, fixed this problem via constitutional amendments at the time of his death, but he saw no constitutional authority for freeing the slaves (without compensating the owners) that existed prior to those amendments. There is a good explanation of his position in the movie with Daniel Day Lewis. Lincoln admits that he's not really authorized some of the war powers he's exercised while president, and says that he wants the amendments passed because some day the war will be over, and he won't be president, and there would (without the amendments) be nothing the government could do to prevent the states from reinstituting slavery. Whether Lincoln made the statement, as it appears in the movie, is doubtful, but it lays out the issues in a way the viewer can grasp.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Because they support their govt and their govt wronged its own. You seem to say reparation for slavery are somehow as unfair as slavery. As if righting a wrong is a wrong. Take any wrong doing. George Floyd, for instance. Why should the city's residents be having to pay for wrong do under the color of authority of that city ? After all, it wasn't a regular citizen who committed that murder on camera. IT's the same thing as the state accidentally tore down your house. Because the people also share a joint responsibility with the govt they elect. Yet, you act as if this concept is somehow foreign to you.

YOU aren't apologizing, because YOU did not do it. Your continuing government did it. It has to apologize and guarantee it will never happen again. The very idea that people will think of themselves as removed from the harm they have seen all their lives is not very reassuring when it comes to repetition and guarantees.
They government already paid for freeing the slaves as I detailed elsewhere. It paid in blood and gold and almost every other commodity.
I didn't do it, and NEITHER DID MY CONTINUING GOVERNMENT. The government of that time did it, and we made changes over time to the government -- the current embodiment of the U.S. government isn't liable for the slavery its predecessor fought and bled and paid to end.
 

Spamature

President
They government already paid for freeing the slaves as I detailed elsewhere. It paid in blood and gold and almost every other commodity.
I didn't do it, and NEITHER DID MY CONTINUING GOVERNMENT. The government of that time did it, and we made changes over time to the government -- the current embodiment of the U.S. government isn't liable for the slavery its predecessor fought and bled and paid to end.
If the govt believed the war itself was payment, then why would it pay the slave owners ?
When it comes to that claim, I rely on the words of Lincoln posted previous in this very thread. He flat out stated the purpose of the war was to preserve the union.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.





That is not true. Every US govt inherits the incomes and debts of its predecessors. Otherwise, the govt could back down on all the liabilities created by previous administrations and congresses. You know, on the face of it, that is a completely ridiculous idea.
 

Spamature

President
If those slaves (who as near as I can tell were never involuntarily removed from their families) would happily have switched roles with my ancestors, it's beyond my ability, your ability, or society's ability to make amends. They are all dead, as is my family, at least all the ancestors I ever had born between 1820 and 1926 (whether they had anything to do with slavery or not). My 96 year old aunt was once wealthy but she has dementia and doesn't recognize her own children now -- maybe she's owes them something, but 1926 was a long time after slavery ended in its own right.

I rather admire Lincoln who was, despite his frontier folksiness a subtle man. He compensated slave owners for the only slaves he ever freed over which he had actual control. The emancipation proclamation itself is as weasel-worded as the contract on the back of an airline ticket -- it frees slaves only in places Lincoln had no ability to free them. He had, he thought, fixed this problem via constitutional amendments at the time of his death, but he saw no constitutional authority for freeing the slaves (without compensating the owners) that existed prior to those amendments. There is a good explanation of his position in the movie with Daniel Day Lewis. Lincoln admits that he's not really authorized some of the war powers he's exercised while president, and says that he wants the amendments passed because some day the war will be over, and he won't be president, and there would (without the amendments) be nothing the government could do to prevent the states from reinstituting slavery. Whether Lincoln made the statement, as it appears in the movie, is doubtful, but it lays out the issues in a way the viewer can grasp.
By that, I meant you can't compare the hardships of a free person to that of a slave. In the end, a free person, if all else fails, they were free to pick up and leave in search of a better life. Even an attempt to do so could mean torture, dismemberment, or even death for a slave.

And it is completely untrue to say that you can't repair the damage leftover from slavery. You can only pretend there was no damage done. Which is also completely untrue.

Freeing your kidnap victim is not payment for having kidnapped them in the first place. As Malcolm X said, If you stab me with a 9" knife, pulling it out 3" does not help me. If you pull it out 6", you still have not helped me. If you pull the knife all the way out. You still have not helped me. Until you aid me in healing the wound, you are in fact refusing to help me.
 

Spamature

President
They government already paid for freeing the slaves as I detailed elsewhere. It paid in blood and gold and almost every other commodity.
I didn't do it, and NEITHER DID MY CONTINUING GOVERNMENT. The government of that time did it, and we made changes over time to the government -- the current embodiment of the U.S. government isn't liable for the slavery its predecessor fought and bled and paid to end.
As if these Americans were offered up as a sacrifice for the sins of its leaders. Americans both black and white gave their lives, the govt did not have the right to pay for slavery with other human lives. Also, those human lives repaid none of that debt because humans are not a currency. Your entire premise is immoral as slavery itself.

If what you say is true, then we shouldn't have a debt made of deficits compiled by previous administrations. According to you, every new gets a fresh start on its debts.

Now tell me, do you believe that ?
 

Spamature

President
What's Next on the Degenerate Agenda?

It is consistent that those who started with championing civil rights for the uncivilized are into animal "rights" now.
Will you please [Unwelcome language removed] OFF !
I don't even know why the mods would let your racist remarks or you for that matter remain on this forum.
 

protectionist

Governor
Try googling this and tell me what it says.

What it says it a bunch of ignorant/stupid nonsense and a talking point line that has been solidly REFUTED 1,000,000 times on conservative media, which leftists never watch or listen to, which is why they continue to bask in their ignorance about it.

For every one white women helped by AA, there are thousands who are victimized by it, and in TWO WAYS.

1. They are excluded from AA programs that cater only to blacks.
2. Being daughters and wives dependents of white men being discriminated against.
 
Top