How Far Back In American History Are Blacks Allowed To Go Back?

[IM2]

The Civil Rights Movement.

Before that...

So that means no white references to the founders, Lincoln or the constitution and It's intent.

Because that's now,

 

[IM2]

oppression from the past has had negative socio-economic impacts on blacks and minority communities.

That is incorrect.

 

[OldLady]

Do the families of men killed fighting in the Civil War to free slaves take part in those reparations? Do ALL the men fighting on the Union side qualify? Their descendants? If you're ancestors were abolitionists do you get a pass on paying for reparations? On the other side of the coin...what is your time line for which blacks qualify for your reparations? Before the Civil War? Fifty years ago? Does a black person in America NOW qualify simply because racism still exists?

Why would Civil War soliders get reparations? Their families received whachacallits--pensions? You know what I mean. My family lost a young soldier and they received $$.

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

 

[IM2]

Do the families of men killed fighting in the Civil War to free slaves take part in those reparations? Do ALL the men fighting on the Union side qualify? Their descendants? If you're ancestors were abolitionists do you get a pass on paying for reparations? On the other side of the coin...what is your time line for which blacks qualify for your reparations? Before the Civil War? Fifty years ago? Does a black person in America NOW qualify simply because racism still exists?

Why would Civil War soliders get reparations? Their families received whachacallits--pensions? You know what I mean. My family lost a young soldier and they received $$.

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Almost everybody white here seems to have some reason why blacks should not get reparations. All due respect Oldlady, this is mumbo. For example AA has helped whites the most. Gangs are not only a black problem as from 1980 - 2008 the majority of gangs were white. Desegregation did not make up for wealth lost. Poverty means lack of money but you propose to end poverty really without provuding those affected with money.

A check starts businesses and builds communities. It breaks the cycle of poverty by creating jobs, improving property and property values and increases funding for schools in the black community thereby improving education .

Whites seem to believe that reparations is going to be money taken directly out of their pockets instead if from the government and taxes already paid. And this getting money from this generation for the wrongs of past ones is malarkey. These generations living today have benefitted from what was built by prior generations and more specifically these generations have benefited using tax dollars paid by blacks who got nothing in return for the money they put in.

So can we stop making excuses and lying to ourselves?

 

[OldLady]

Why would Civil War soliders get reparations? Their families received whachacallits--pensions? You know what I mean. My family lost a young soldier and they received $$.

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Almost everybody white here seems to have some reason why blacks should not get reparations. All due respect Oldlady, this is mumbo. For example AA has helped whites the most. Gangs are not only a black problem as from 1980 - 2008 the majority of gangs were white. Desegregation did not make up for wealth lost. Poverty means lack of money but you propose to end poverty really without provuding those affected with money.

A check starts businesses and builds communities. It breaks the cycle of poverty by creating jobs, improving property and property values and increases funding for schools in the black community thereby improving education .

Whites seem to believe that reparations is going to be money taken directly out of their pockets instead if from the government and taxes already paid. And this getting money from this generation for the wrongs of past ones is malarkey. These generations living today have benefitted from what was built by prior generations and more specifically these generations have benefited using tax dollars paid by blacks who got nothing in return for the money they put in.

So can we stop making excuses and lying to ourselves?

Thanks for that perspective, IM2. I was not "making excuses" or "lying to myself," so I was glad to hear the other argument, which the OP had not gone into.

Would these reparations payments be annual payments or a one time payment? It would be paid to individuals, presumably. Would it be to all African Americans or only those who descend from slaves?

 

[Rocko]

Do the families of men killed fighting in the Civil War to free slaves take part in those reparations? Do ALL the men fighting on the Union side qualify? Their descendants? If you're ancestors were abolitionists do you get a pass on paying for reparations? On the other side of the coin...what is your time line for which blacks qualify for your reparations? Before the Civil War? Fifty years ago? Does a black person in America NOW qualify simply because racism still exists?

Why would Civil War soliders get reparations? Their families received whachacallits--pensions? You know what I mean. My family lost a young soldier and they received $$.

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

 

[captkaos]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

Soooo.. Blacks in America should seek reparations from every Country that supported or engaged in the Slave trade. America was a Market for slaves not the genesis of slavery. They should start by seeking reparations from the African Countries that hunted captured and exported their brothers and sisters mothers fathers. I'm just saying slaves wouldn't have made it here except for their greedy African brothers. Slavery was alive and well on the African Continent long before The USA was even discovered the black warlords were notorious for taking slaves after victory over their enemies. They just found a way to enrich themselves by doing what they had been doing for free for a thousand years prior.

 

[captkaos]

Why would Civil War soliders get reparations? Their families received whachacallits--pensions? You know what I mean. My family lost a young soldier and they received $$.

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

The welfare system and social engineering related to it simply created another form of slavery, the under educated, inner city, hip hop, drug culture has made blacks the modern slave pool. They now rely on the Govt for everything instead of the Massa of the past. They have become slaves to their own culture and The left ( the former slave owners). Keep electing Socialists and their situation will only get worse..

 

[Olde Europe]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Generally speaking, the last wrongdoing by any black person on earth would be the very start of history. There never is anything before that, particular nothing by way of external "causes".

But then, the time frame may even be narrower, for instance when dealing with folks who, near the end of a phrase, no longer remember its beginning:

How Far Back In American History Are Blacks Allowed To Go Back?​

 

[Slade3200]

oppression from the past has had negative socio-economic impacts on blacks and minority communities.

That is incorrect.

No, that is correct

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN ----- Reading Comprehension.

Watch this.

What you claim I wrote:

You didn't specify that there were no political parties in the CSA...you said that there were no political parties when slaves were freed...

What I actually DID write:

Oh and when those slaves in the CSA were freed? No political parties even existed.

It's still on the page. Click it. Show us how what is there is not there.

I don't write X because I mean Y. I write X because I mean X. It's not your prerogative to change it.

Next in line please....

the Democratic Party had existed for some time at that point! Since slaves were still being smuggled into America as late as 1860 it's obvious that slavery existed AFTER the Democratic Party was formed. As a matter of fact it's estimated that around 50,000 slaves were smuggled into the country AFTER the law prohibiting the importation of slave was passed!

NO SHIT.

Again --- here's what I actually wrote.

Unfortunately ANYONE bringing anyone over as slaves ceased in 1807 ---- a quarter-century before Democrats even existed.

It's actually 1808 when the law went into effect but obviously this means LEGALLY. You can do anything you want ILleggaly, then or now or in the future ---- but you don't need a freaking political party to do it.

Ever see a criminal go, "tomorrow I'm going to rob the bank, so I have to go register to vote today" ? Of course not, it's the kind of absolute bullshit a partisan hack lackey makes up as mythology to push his bullshit fantasies because he has no idea how the world works. In actual fact NOBODY ANYWHERE ever needed a political party to own slaves, neither when it was legal NOR when it was illegal. EVER. In the same way that nobody anywhere has ever needed a political party to rob the bank. Simplistic-Dichotomy-Boi here seems to think all people are somehow either "Democrats" or "Republicans", which is completely off the Stupid scale.

The poster made a specious claim that he cannot prove, and he's stuck with it. And instead of admitting to his own fabrication he doubles down on Stupid. And here you come white-knighting for the idea of doubling down on Stupid for an absurd assertion that cannot be justified.

 

[Pogo]

No Twinkles, it's not my legacy. Slaveowners were rich fat fucks, not my forebears.

Yeah, fuckface, your legacy.

No, shit-for-brains, my family didn't own slaves. Half of them weren't even here yet. Ergo I have no "legacy".

So no, fuck you.

Of those who were, some of them were presumably Democrats.

They were ALL Democrats. Don't drag everyone else into your ugly world of slavery and racism.

I don't have such a world, numbnuts. YOU DO.

And NO, they were not all Democrats. Democrats didn't even EXIST until 1834, which is exactly three hundred years after the first slaves were brought here.

Just among POTUSes alone, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, W.H. Harrison and Taylor all owned slaves, and none of them were Democrats. Nobody in the entire history of the world has EVER needed a political party to own a slave, and nobody in this country has ever been forced to join a political party AT ALL.

So you're just fucking stupid.

Most of them would have been what most of us are right now ….. NOTHING.

Us? You got a mouse in your pocket? I guess I should give you credit for admitting you are NOTHING.

I am part of the most populous political affiliation in these United States, which is called "NONE".

Sorry if that flummoxes your simplistic dichotomy-infested mind. Tough titty. Learn to think.

Unfortunately ANYONE bringing anyone over as slaves ceased in 1807

I know you probably wish it had continued for another hundred years.

a quarter-century b before Democrats even existed.

Who owned them when the Civil War started?

Mostly rich indolent capitalists. Which ---- ONCE AGAIN ---- required no political party.

That's why there was such division in the Confederacy over the prospect of war. Most people were not rich indolent fat fucks making money off human misery and they resented the indolent fat fucks bringing them into it.

And who created the KKK and passed Jim Crow laws after the Civil War ended?


Let me help you out, troll boy.....DEMOCRATS. The party of KKK leader Robert Byrd, and leader of the 1964 Civil Rights Act filibuster. Spin spin spin all you want, troll boy, but slavery and racism belong to the Democratic Party. It did then and it does now, and YOU defend them. Sorry, racist, but it IS your legacy (as much as you would like to make it somebody else's).

KKK was created by six ex-soldiers who had no political affiliations, in a land that had no political parties, and for no purpose having anything to do with either racism or politics. And you know that because you've been schooled on it, repeatedly, in fact for years. Yet here you are selling ever more bullshit. Ain't nobody buying it, jackwagon. I've presented you with names, dates, places, links, resources, for literally YEARS on this forum and you have never refuted any of it, because you CAN'T.

Wanna see it yet again?

WHO:

Alpha order:
(Maj) James Crowe
Calvin Jones
(Capt) John B. Kennedy
(Capt) John Lester
(Maj) Frank O. McCord
Richard Reed​

WHEN:

24 December 1865​

WHERE

205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee. Law office of Thomas Jones, father of Calvin​

WHY:

Boredom, emulating a popular college fraternity of the time called Kuklos Adelphon, which begat the name.
​

FOUNDERS' KNOWN POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS:

Crowe -- none.
Jones --- none.
Kennedy --- none.
Lester --- none.
McCord --- none.
Reed --- wait for it ---- none.​

NUMBER OF POLITICAL PARTIES EXTANT IN 1865 TENNESSEE:

Zero​

Don't sit here and try to bullshit me. I am your intellectual master. Which is not exactly a sweat. Clearly I don't need any "help".

Linear timeline:

1534: first African slaves arrive on Spanish merchant ships at what is now South Carolina

1534-1808: captive Africans continue to be brought to the Americas by Spanish, British, French, Dutch and Portuguese merchants. Not by political parties: by MERCHANTS. Same merchants also transport same human cargo to Caribbean islands, Central America and South America, especially Brazil, all places where "Democrats" do not exist and have in fact never existed. US outlaws such trade in March 1807.

1834: Martin van Buren organizes the "Democratic Party" out of Andrew Jackson's body of supporters, informally called "Jacksonians". Note that slave importation has been illegal for twenty-seven years.

Go ahead ------------ prove ANY PART OF THAT wrong, shit-for-brains.

That's right --- you can't. Now BITE MY ASS.

Better be careful there chief, you're gonna have a stroke if you're not careful. LOL
I guess I'd be upset too if I had to defend 150 years of racism, slavery, and oppression. The real kicker is how you defend the Democrat's past (as well as present), agree with and argue every egregious thing they say and do, then insist you have no political alliance with them. LOL

As I said --------------------- you CAN'T disprove a word of it. Because you're a fabricating bullshit HACK. And you got busted.

That's not the weird thing. The weird thing is you've been busted before on exactly the same mythology, and here you are begging to be busted all over again.

I never did understand masochism.

 

[2aguy]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

How about yesterday.....and go forward from there........using racism to end racism never makes any sense......which is what the left wing lives on, derives power from, and will use to keep minorities under their control....

 

[OldLady]

Why would Civil War soliders get reparations? Their families received whachacallits--pensions? You know what I mean. My family lost a young soldier and they received $$.

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

We have never had another "immigrant group" treated the way blacks were.

My mother always said, it takes money to make money. That's usually true. I certainly understand the concept IM2 is presenting. It is sound. I just think the implementation will be fraught with .... problems.

 

[2aguy]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Far as I know, 1534. Unless you want to count South America and the Caribbean which would date to slightly earlier.

In 1534 a Spanish fleet arrived in what is now South Carolina with, I think about 150 captured Africans. Happily, those captives rose up and overthrew their captors and escaped to live with the indigenous tribes. Those that followed were not so successful, though they tried.

What about before that.....the Africans who held their own people as slaves....and who currently have a thriving slave trade in several parts of today's Africa? The Europeans didn't capture the slaves, Africans did.....when Black Americans finally turn on their African ancestors it will be the moment they will begin to finally be free of the democrat slave party.

 

[2aguy]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

I don't know but as a female I'm going back to day one and amazed how long it took to give us the right to vote, over 100 years. Then only the rich voted. Reading our history is not pretty.

The democrats stood in the way of women voting....remember it was the Republican party that pushed that through....the democrats have been racists and misogynists from day one...

 

[anynameyouwish]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Blacks and conservatives should be able to go back to the same time; the civil war.

 

[Rocko]

They did indeed. You should note that those pensions constituted about 40% of total Federal revenues back then forcing the Government to increase tariffs on goods to pay for them. You should also note that black soldiers who fought in the Civil War received pensions as well. Should THEY not be eligible for reparations because of that?

You still haven't answered my question. Why should they be eligible for reparations? They weren't slaves, they weren't discriminated against (if they lived), didn't have their human rights shit all over.

So they fought and risked their lives to free someone else...but you think their descendants should still be responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those that they freed? I'm sorry, Old Lady but I don't see the justice in that...just saying...

This is a good example of why I don't think "reparations" for slavery is a good approach to take. There are still serious problems in some black communities and it DOES affect us, whether you and I are personally faced with it every day or not. As concerned Americans, we should WANT to help our neighbors overcome those difficulties. Even if your only reason is that it costs a lot to arrest, convict and incarcerate them, you should want to see those problems addressed, too.

The root of many of those problems is way back in the inhumane way the system treated blacks in general, even after the Civil War. The slaves got freed without a pot to piss in. Some remained on the plantations where they had been enslaved because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most had been forbidden by law to learn to read and write. Many had had their families sold, many had not grown up with their parents, many black men saw their women raped by their white owners and couldn't do a damned thing about it. Everyone of them had been treated like an animal, the 3/5 of a human being that was defined by our government and that branded you if even a great grandparent had a drop of black blood. And then, overnight, they're "free," which means they can walk, unemployed and homeless, wherever they wish.

Great.

Imagine, if you can, what kind of personality you would develop going through all of that. If you ask me, it is a testament to humanity that so many blacks rose above all that as quickly as they did. But then the white guys reasserted their power and Jim Crow and legal segregation and voter suppression and groups like the KKK brought us all the way to the 1960's and, finally, someone said NO.

I know I'm focusing on the worst side of this--in the south there was a strong patriarchal feeling among many white owners toward their freed black slaves and their relations there were probably better in a lot of ways than what they were up north, where those who had fought to free the slaves did NOT want them moving to their neighborhoods. These freed slaves were illiterate, spoke with a thick accent, had holes in their shoes and had come from a culture where obeisance and servitude were demanded.

How do you think they would be viewed and treated?

I don't think we can make up for all that with a check. I think Affirmative Action, desegregation and a number of other programs to combat poverty and gangs in black communities are a partial payment. Personally, I think it would be better to expand those programs and flood the struggling African American communities with every possible opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and gang/thug violence. It's awful to hear of all the young people shooting each other over nothing. But I'm not black, so what do I know about it.

Breaking the cycles of poverty, violence, and fatherlessness starts and ends with the black community. It’s their responsibility. Government is not the answer. You liberals think government is the answer to everything. It’s not. When you look at other immigrant groups or minorities that have rags to riches stories, that didn’t happen because the government got involved.

We have never had another "immigrant group" treated the way blacks were.

My mother always said, it takes money to make money. That's usually true. I certainly understand the concept IM2 is presenting. It is sound. I just think the implementation will be fraught with .... problems.

What about other people that aren’t black that are poor? Should we then cut them a check because “it takes money to make money”? Yeah historically blacks have been treated badly, however that isn’t the case today. We need to stop with this identity politics. It’s a plague on our society and is getting worse and worse.

 

[miketx]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

I suppose to the first time you africans sold the first one into slavery.

 

[Flash]

From the Negroes standpoint as long as it takes to get whatever free stuff the filthy Democrats promise them as reparations.