D'Souza: African Americans Are Better Off Thanks To Slavery

[Boss]

D'Souza is absolutely correct, he's just not politically correct. The left will twist and distort his comments to imply he is excusing or condoning slavery. He was addressing reparations. Now, if we looked at Africa today and saw vibrant democracy where capitalism enabled a quality of life better than we have here, THEN perhaps reparations would be in order. As it stands, every black person in America who is of slave ancestry, owes it to slavery that they are here and not there. I sincerely doubt their ancestors would have sold their spears and shrunken heads to purchase passage to America, and they would have likely been born into a culture so deplorable most of us can't even imagine it.

I will add to D'Souza's point and say something else that is politically incorrect here. The policies of LBJ's Great Society is the worst thing that has happened to black people since slavery. We need only examine the rate of growth in economic prosperity for black families as proof. From 1865-1964, black families steadily gained economic prosperity. They opened businesses, bought homes, developed communities, and each and every year, were a little better off than the year before in terms of economics. Now, they did suffer a decline through the Great Depression, as did everyone else. But their growth in economic prosperity peaked in 1965. Since then, each year has seen less and less economic prosperity for black families.

This has nothing to do with Civil Rights and everything to do with social welfare programs which have created a dependency class among poor black families. No longer are they motivated to go out there and make something happen for themselves, they are dependent on government hand outs and welfare, which keeps them shackled in poverty. The really bizarre thing is, uneducated blacks believe the Democratic Party has their best interests at heart, in spite of these dismal results for black families.

 

[NYcarbineer]

D'Souza is absolutely correct, he's just not politically correct. The left will twist and distort his comments to imply he is excusing or condoning slavery. He was addressing reparations. Now, if we looked at Africa today and saw vibrant democracy where capitalism enabled a quality of life better than we have here, THEN perhaps reparations would be in order. As it stands, every black person in America who is of slave ancestry, owes it to slavery that they are here and not there. I sincerely doubt their ancestors would have sold their spears and shrunken heads to purchase passage to America, and they would have likely been born into a culture so deplorable most of us can't even imagine it.

I will add to D'Souza's point and say something else that is politically incorrect here. The policies of LBJ's Great Society is the worst thing that has happened to black people since slavery. We need only examine the rate of growth in economic prosperity for black families as proof. From 1865-1964, black families steadily gained economic prosperity. They opened businesses, bought homes, developed communities, and each and every year, were a little better off than the year before in terms of economics. Now, they did suffer a decline through the Great Depression, as did everyone else. But their growth in economic prosperity peaked in 1965. Since then, each year has seen less and less economic prosperity for black families.

This has nothing to do with Civil Rights and everything to do with social welfare programs which have created a dependency class among poor black families. No longer are they motivated to go out there and make something happen for themselves, they are dependent on government hand outs and welfare, which keeps them shackled in poverty. The really bizarre thing is, uneducated blacks believe the Democratic Party has their best interests at heart, in spite of these dismal results for black families.

No, black 'prosperity' did not peak in the 60's:

 

[NYcarbineer]

From his book:

Does America owe blacks now living reparations on account of slavery? No more than it owes reparations to the descendants of whites who died in the Civil War. I don't mean this in the callous way of suggesting that what's done is done. Rather, I mean that there is an enormous debt owed to the Northern men who died in the Civil War. But those heroes are dead, and their descendants are scattered. What is owed is more than money can pay; we discharge our debt by honoring and remembering. Similarly there is a debt owed to slaves whose labor was wrongly taken from them. That debt too is best discharged through memory, because the slaves are dead and their descendants - this will be a hard pill for progressives to swallow -- are better off as a consequence of their ancestors being hauled from Africa to America.​

The man has Chronic Diarrhea of the Mouth.

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that these rightwing propaganda profiteers spit out because they know it's exactly the sort of opiate that soothes the rightwing masses.

He might as well be telling Jews they should be grateful for the Holocaust.

 

[Meathead]

There is no doubt that African-Americans are today much better off than the descendants of those who were never enslaved.

Arguing that is pointless. He's just saying the fucking obvious.

 

[Boss]

D'Souza is absolutely correct, he's just not politically correct. The left will twist and distort his comments to imply he is excusing or condoning slavery. He was addressing reparations. Now, if we looked at Africa today and saw vibrant democracy where capitalism enabled a quality of life better than we have here, THEN perhaps reparations would be in order. As it stands, every black person in America who is of slave ancestry, owes it to slavery that they are here and not there. I sincerely doubt their ancestors would have sold their spears and shrunken heads to purchase passage to America, and they would have likely been born into a culture so deplorable most of us can't even imagine it.

I will add to D'Souza's point and say something else that is politically incorrect here. The policies of LBJ's Great Society is the worst thing that has happened to black people since slavery. We need only examine the rate of growth in economic prosperity for black families as proof. From 1865-1964, black families steadily gained economic prosperity. They opened businesses, bought homes, developed communities, and each and every year, were a little better off than the year before in terms of economics. Now, they did suffer a decline through the Great Depression, as did everyone else. But their growth in economic prosperity peaked in 1965. Since then, each year has seen less and less economic prosperity for black families.

This has nothing to do with Civil Rights and everything to do with social welfare programs which have created a dependency class among poor black families. No longer are they motivated to go out there and make something happen for themselves, they are dependent on government hand outs and welfare, which keeps them shackled in poverty. The really bizarre thing is, uneducated blacks believe the Democratic Party has their best interests at heart, in spite of these dismal results for black families.

No, black 'prosperity' did not peak in the 60's:

I did not say prosperity peaked in the 60s. I said growth in prosperity peaked in 1965.

 

[Boss]

From his book:

Does America owe blacks now living reparations on account of slavery? No more than it owes reparations to the descendants of whites who died in the Civil War. I don't mean this in the callous way of suggesting that what's done is done. Rather, I mean that there is an enormous debt owed to the Northern men who died in the Civil War. But those heroes are dead, and their descendants are scattered. What is owed is more than money can pay; we discharge our debt by honoring and remembering. Similarly there is a debt owed to slaves whose labor was wrongly taken from them. That debt too is best discharged through memory, because the slaves are dead and their descendants - this will be a hard pill for progressives to swallow -- are better off as a consequence of their ancestors being hauled from Africa to America.​

The man has Chronic Diarrhea of the Mouth.

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that these rightwing propaganda profiteers spit out because they know it's exactly the sort of opiate that soothes the rightwing masses.

He might as well be telling Jews they should be grateful for the Holocaust.

Well, no... he made it very clear what he meant and explained it in detail. You've not explained how the Jews are better off because of the Holocaust. This amounts to nothing more than an emotive bleat from a liberal sheep.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The facts actually support him though. Sad as that is to say. Sub Saharan Africa is a shithole. Blacks here have a standard of living far in excess of the majority in Africa.

That is slowly changing though. Botswana is stable, Kenya is relatively stable. Tanzania etc. They are starting to get a handle on things and good for them for doing so.

Why do you think that is?

Because I have spent a great deal of time there. There are of course exceptions but if you were to take the bulk of that geographic area fully 90% qualifies.

You misunderstood her question. Why do you think the standard if living isn't very high in Sub Saharan Africa?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The idiot's comments assume that the black experience in America has been one that has turned out to be more positive than the black experience in Sub Saharan Africa because of the influence of white men. This gives idiot nutters the ego massage they need. And it is a huge pile of shit.

Fact is....Black Americans overcame slavery and oppression here. They did so IN SPITE OF WHITE MEN. There experience isn't better because of slavery. It is better because of their own great desire to be free and their unwillingness to fail.

 

[S.J.]

Blacks in America are better off than blacks in any other country. That says it all.

 

[Meathead]

Why do you think that is?

Because I have spent a great deal of time there. There are of course exceptions but if you were to take the bulk of that geographic area fully 90% qualifies.

You misunderstood her question. Why do you think the standard if living isn't very high in Sub Saharan Africa?

Because it is no secret?

Introduction: The Global Poverty Agenda and the Africa
Despite significant progress made in reducing poverty since 2000, there is general consensus that
poverty remains a major policy challenge especially in sub-Saharan Africa. On current evidence
the global target for MDG1 (halving poverty by 2015) is likely to be achieved thanks mostly to
rapid gains in China and India. It should however be remembered that there will still be another
half of the ‘original 1990 benchmark poor’ living in poverty. Recent revisions suggest that the
figure may be as many as 1.4 billion people, many of who will be Africans2
. Probably a third of
the people who will remain in poverty will have lived in poverty for most if not all their lives.
These are often called the chronically poor. Estimates suggest that between 30 and 40 per cent of
up to 443 million people living in chronic poverty are in sub-Saharan Africa



http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/meetings/egm10/documents/Chimhowu Paper.pdf

Ignorance is neither an argument nor an excuse.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Because I have spent a great deal of time there. There are of course exceptions but if you were to take the bulk of that geographic area fully 90% qualifies.

You misunderstood her question. Why do you think the standard if living isn't very high in Sub Saharan Africa?

Because it is no secret?

Introduction: The Global Poverty Agenda and the Africa
Despite significant progress made in reducing poverty since 2000, there is general consensus that
poverty remains a major policy challenge especially in sub-Saharan Africa. On current evidence
the global target for MDG1 (halving poverty by 2015) is likely to be achieved thanks mostly to
rapid gains in China and India. It should however be remembered that there will still be another
half of the ‘original 1990 benchmark poor’ living in poverty. Recent revisions suggest that the
figure may be as many as 1.4 billion people, many of who will be Africans2
. Probably a third of
the people who will remain in poverty will have lived in poverty for most if not all their lives.
These are often called the chronically poor. Estimates suggest that between 30 and 40 per cent of
up to 443 million people living in chronic poverty are in sub-Saharan Africa



http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/meetings/egm10/documents/Chimhowu Paper.pdf

Ignorance is neither an argument nor an excuse.

You are both idiots or intentionally avoiding the question. What is the cause of the situation? Nobody is arguing that sub Saharan Africa has a poor standard of living..asshole. We want to know what your education tells you is the reason for the poor standard of living.

 

[Meathead]

You misunderstood her question. Why do you think the standard if living isn't very high in Sub Saharan Africa?

Because it is no secret?

Introduction: The Global Poverty Agenda and the Africa
Despite significant progress made in reducing poverty since 2000, there is general consensus that
poverty remains a major policy challenge especially in sub-Saharan Africa. On current evidence
the global target for MDG1 (halving poverty by 2015) is likely to be achieved thanks mostly to
rapid gains in China and India. It should however be remembered that there will still be another
half of the ‘original 1990 benchmark poor’ living in poverty. Recent revisions suggest that the
figure may be as many as 1.4 billion people, many of who will be Africans2
. Probably a third of
the people who will remain in poverty will have lived in poverty for most if not all their lives.
These are often called the chronically poor. Estimates suggest that between 30 and 40 per cent of
up to 443 million people living in chronic poverty are in sub-Saharan Africa



http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/meetings/egm10/documents/Chimhowu Paper.pdf

Ignorance is neither an argument nor an excuse.

You are both idiots or intentionally avoiding the question. What is the cause of the situation? Nobody is arguing that sub Saharan Africa has a poor standard of living..asshole. We want to know what your education tells you is the reason for the poor standard of living.

Doubtless there are many causes. That does not change the fact that American blacks live far better than their African counterparts. That was the objection to the original link.

If you can't ask an honest and clear question, then you certainly should not label others as assholes.

Between stupid or deliberately obtuse, I have to go with the former here.

 

[warwulf]

Thank the fucking jews for bringing us those sub-humans on their slave ships:
Abigail
Crown
Nassau
Four Sisters
Anne & Eliza
Prudent Betty
Hester
Elizabeth
Antigua
Betsy
Polly
White Horse
Expedition
Charlotte
Source: Elizabeth Donnan, 4 Volumes, 'Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America' Washington, D.C. 1930, 1935 Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pa.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

From his book:

Does America owe blacks now living reparations on account of slavery? No more than it owes reparations to the descendants of whites who died in the Civil War. I don't mean this in the callous way of suggesting that what's done is done. Rather, I mean that there is an enormous debt owed to the Northern men who died in the Civil War. But those heroes are dead, and their descendants are scattered. What is owed is more than money can pay; we discharge our debt by honoring and remembering. Similarly there is a debt owed to slaves whose labor was wrongly taken from them. That debt too is best discharged through memory, because the slaves are dead and their descendants - this will be a hard pill for progressives to swallow -- are better off as a consequence of their ancestors being hauled from Africa to America.​

The man has Chronic Diarrhea of the Mouth.

Are we suppose to be outraged? We're all better off because our ancestors came here in some manner or other. Blacks too because they'd be food for wild animals had their ancestors remained in Africa.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yeah those stupid *******. Thank God we brought them here, in chains. They should thank us or at least fuck our women? Oh wait, they do! Now who's stupid Whitey...

It amazes me they allow such openly racist bigotry on USMB. Tone it down PMH.

 

[Theowl32]

The fact that they were brought to America has been an advantage to their great-grandchildren. Think of all those Blacks still suffering in African Third World. No reparations and no bitching. You live in freedom because your ancestors came in chains. Seems like a good trade.

My family owned those stupid ******* Whitey I wonder why their descendants haven't sent me flowers yet? What a great thing we did for them, by bringing them here in chains and treating them like animals. And hey, they were 3/5ths people right? Damn, we are like the best people ever eh???

Misrepresenting what is being said is trolling buckwheat. You're lousy at it.

He is violating the rules and is way too stupid to understand that, therefore perma-banned is warranted.

He offers nothing other than lame troll attempts.

Of course I have him on ignore. I mean of course. He needs to be done away with. He offers absolutely nothing.

 

[Theowl32]

 

[Esmeralda]

The facts actually support him though. Sad as that is to say. Sub Saharan Africa is a shithole. Blacks here have a standard of living far in excess of the majority in Africa.

That is slowly changing though. Botswana is stable, Kenya is relatively stable. Tanzania etc. They are starting to get a handle on things and good for them for doing so.

Africa is a mess because their cultures were destroyed and decimated by European imperialism. Seriously, how can anyone with half a brain ignore what the Europeans did to Africa. At least they are doing better than the Native American, whose cultures were also destroyed by Europeans. There is hardly anything left of Native Americans. It's as bad as what Hitler did to the Jews in Europe.

Ignoring history much?

 

[Theowl32]

It is funny, I am wondering where these people would be today if it was not for slavery. Oh, slavery started by the Portuguese and Western muslim tribes of Africa who enslaved other tribes who would not convert to islam. In order to expand territories, they desired guns etc and thus began the transatlantic slave trade in 15th century.

LOL at moron liberals thinking whites "kidnapped" blacks with nets. Holy shit liberals are dumb.

Now, back to the blacks.....who live today, that well........are not better off?

Or, they could be here.........avoiding malaria, gaboon vipers and all kinds of creepy critters that infiltrate the mud huts.

---------------------------------------------

Yeah, D'Souza was way way way off with his observations. I am sure Oprah would love being enslaved by the black war lords.

Oh wait wait......

Sorry. Blacks could not possibly be really guilty of anything. We all know the only reason blacks started the slave trade was because of white Europeans, and the only reason those black war lords murder on mass scales is because of rich white Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you think that is?

Because I have spent a great deal of time there. There are of course exceptions but if you were to take the bulk of that geographic area fully 90% qualifies.

You misunderstood her question. Why do you think the standard if living isn't very high in Sub Saharan Africa?

The standard of living is low because it's populated by a bunch of primitive savages.