NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[Ghost of a Rider]

The Democratic party of the 1800s? I didn't realize you needed to that spelt out for you since I had already called Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis shit people from a shit culture. They were Democrats weren't they?

You criticized a couple of individuals, not the party. By itself this doesn’t mean much but the fact that you’ve had plenty to say about the Republical Party in both time periods speaks volumes.

No one (save a handful of morons) is holding whites today morally responsible for slavery.

Oh no, that is not true at all. Not in my experience.

Seeking reparations is an attempt to hold the American government responsible for its role in slavery and segregation. It's just an unfortunate fact that citizens are ultimately financially responsible for their government.

Exactly.

But this isn't any different than reparations for Japanese Americans interned during WW 2.

It is nothing like that because there are far more blacks than there were Japanese Americans at that time.

Those reparations weren't paid until the 1980s. My parents immigrated to this country in 81. My family wasn't even in the country when the Japanese were interned and yet our taxes still went to pay for those reparations. This isn't a new or foreign concept.

Yes and no. The Japanese were interned for a much shorter time period and as I said, there were far fewer of them. And for the most part, it was only the government responsible.
Blacks in this country are many more in number and some want reparations not just for slavery but for the oppression and discrimination that came later.

I have three reasons for being against reparations:

1.) The country simply cannot afford it. We’re already trillions in debt and something like this would send us over the edge.

2.) I don’t feel my tax dollars should pay for something I had nothing to do with.

3.) Reparations won’t accomplish anything. The problems in the black community cannot be solved with money alone.

Other than calling Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis shit people from a shit culture you mean. You'd think someone would rationally conclude that included their political party of bigots and slavers as well.

As I said, you’ve had plenty to say about the Republican Party.

No, you're cherry picking your morals.

Actually, no, I’m not. I’m not excusing their owning slaves and I’m not downplaying it. In fact, I have actually said nothing about the statues one way or the other this entire discussion.

What other slavers and murders and rapists would you celebrate for their other accomplishments?

Are we talking about slavers or murderers and rapists? You keep saying slavers/murderers/rapists like it’s one word or they go hand in hand in every case.
Murdering a slave doesn’t make much financial sense considering how expensive they were so this was likely a relative rarity. As for the rape, it probably didn’t happen near as much as you seem to think.

As for “celebrating” them, I don’t much celebrate or venerate anyone. However, I am realistically aware of the accomplishments of some of the founders and other historical figures.

So, what are we to do in light of knowing that some of them owned slaves, ignore these accomplishments? Dismantle our form of government? Do away with the Constitution? Eschew all aspects of liberty, jurisprudence and every other principle this country was founded on? What?

If you're going to ask a question, maybe wait for the response before you condemn someone....

In my experience, most of those who religiously promote a moral cause in such strict black and white terms are hypocrites to one degree or another. I’ve seen nothing here to suggest you are any different.

That's another accurate way of describing the Republican party but mine certainly fits as well. Non white members of the Republican party are a tiny minority.

Why is this important?

So it's conservative values that has little appeal outside white evangelicals. Same difference.

Perhaps. So again, why is this important?

Which isn't racist, it's just racial. What's wrong with noting the lack of appeal your ideology holds for non white people?

You tell me, you’re the one who brought it up.

And I said they're still being venerated. It similarly wouldn't matter to me if you celebrated a brutal serial rapist for his comedic talent. I'd still think you were a deplorable mutant yourself. How about not celebrating any slavers, murderers or rapists? Is that really a lot to ask? If you told me the statue in your front yard of Hitler wasn't for his slaughtering of the jews but because you really liked what he did with an oil and canvas, would you really be surprised if people thought you yourself were a piece of shit?

Owning slaves and murder and rape are three different things. You’re lumping all slave owners into all three categories and it just wasn’t as simple as that.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The morons in charge in New Yok State, though successfully rebuilding it, renamed the Tappan Zee Bridge the Mario Cuomo Bridge, completely dismissing that the Tappan Zee moniker was an acknowledgement of the Native Americans from that area.
What's funny is that most all traffic reports on the radio still call it the Tappan Zee!
They kicked aside the heritage for a politician, all the while their mantra has been OMG the horrors of the treatment of the Indigenous people in history, yet they want to erase them.
The HYPOCRICY from the demented LEFT is insane!

 

[Curried Goats]

You criticized a couple of individuals, not the party. By itself this doesn’t mean much but the fact that you’ve had plenty to say about the Republical Party in both time periods speaks volumes.

I also said they belong to a shit culture. Culture encompasses everything. Their communities. Their families. Their way of life. And yes, their politics.

Oh no, that is not true at all. Not in my experience.

I don't care much about your personal, anecdotal, experiences.

Exactly.


It is nothing like that because there are far more blacks than there were Japanese Americans at that time.

I'm not referring to the number of people. I'm talking about a situation where this government violated the human rights of a group of citizens and then gave them reparations in compensation for the violation, even after quite some time had passed since the violation.

Yes and no. The Japanese were interned for a much shorter time period and as I said, there were far fewer of them. And for the most part, it was only the government responsible.
Blacks in this country are many more in number and some want reparations not just for slavery but for the oppression and discrimination that came later.

Why shouldn't they want compensation for the injustices against them? And you're right it's not just slavery. It's segregation, it's red lining, mandatory minimums, all of it that this government had a hand in.

I have three reasons for being against reparations:

1.) The country simply cannot afford it. We’re already trillions in debt and something like this would send us over the edge.

2.) I don’t feel my tax dollars should pay for something I had nothing to do with.

3.) Reparations won’t accomplish anything. The problems in the black community cannot be solved with money alone.

1. We do have the money. This is the wealthiest nation on earth. Raise taxes.

2. I'm sure the citizens who's taxes had to go to pay out the settlement for George Floyd and Breonna Taylor's family weren't too happy but tough tits. We're responsible for the debts our government incurs. I'm Black but not Black American. If Black Americans do get reparations my taxes and the taxes of my family members will be going to fund it even though my own family was a victim of European slavery itself in the Caribbean. That's just too bad though. That's my responsibility as a citizen of this country. What's the alternative? The government can violate people's rights without recourse?

3. Really? Tell me why you think that. What do you imagine are the problems of the black community?

As I said, you’ve had plenty to say about the Republican Party.

I do. The Republican party today has more relevance to me than the Democratic party of the 1800s.

Actually, no, I’m not. I’m not excusing their owning slaves and I’m not downplaying it. In fact, I have actually said nothing about the statues one way or the other this entire discussion.

Guy, it's been some pages and I don't remember what your original gripe was, but I did go back and look it up. You've been complaining this whole time that I haven't called out the Democratic party except the original post you quoted of mine says quite clearly, "democrats Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis were shit people from a shit culture". What the fuck is the point you're trying to debate me on other than your belief that the government should be allowed to violate the rights of citizens without recourse?

Are we talking about slavers or murderers and rapists? You keep saying slavers/murderers/rapists like it’s one word or they go hand in hand in every case.

They do go hand in hand. You don't keep slaves in line without brutalizing and making examples out of the occasional slave with thoughts of revolting or escaping.

Murdering a slave doesn’t make much financial sense considering how expensive they were so this was likely a relative rarity. As for the rape, it probably didn’t happen near as much as you seem to think.

It happened way more than you think. Or that you probably care to think about. That was the entire purpose of the one drop rule. It made sure that the products of their rapes would always be slaves no matter how much European was in them because of the raping. Sally Hemings, the young slave Thomas Jefferson use to rape, was his wife's half sister. Her father had been her mother's owner. And her mother's father was the captain of the slave ship that brought her grandmother to this country. You don't want to think about it. You don't want to think about the liberties European men took with women and girls who were their property but they did. The only people who can't cope with history are the whites who are ashamed of it. They rather this pageantry and propaganda of the Founders instead.

As for “celebrating” them, I don’t much celebrate or venerate anyone. However, I am realistically aware of the accomplishments of some of the founders and other historical figures.

Yea. They accomplished the creation of a deplorable mutant slave state. Is that worth celebrating any more than the Taliban forming their own government?

So, what are we to do in light of knowing that some of them owned slaves, ignore these accomplishments? Dismantle our form of government? Do away with the Constitution? Eschew all aspects of liberty, jurisprudence and every other principle this country was founded on? What?

Or instead of those hyperbolic suggestions we just not venerate slavers and stop teaching silly propaganda to school children.

In my experience, most of those who religiously promote a moral cause in such strict black and white terms are hypocrites to one degree or another. I’ve seen nothing here to suggest you are any different.

I actually believe in the subjectivity of morality. I believe we each develop our own moral values and that none are objectively better than any other just subjectively better. Like taste in music and art. I simply question the stated moral values of people who would venerate monsters.

Why is this important?

Important? I offer that information only as a counter to the claims that the Democratic party today is the same racist party it was in the 1800s or during segregation.

Owning slaves and murder and rape are three different things. You’re lumping all slave owners into all three categories and it just wasn’t as simple as that.

I lump them together because they go hand in hand. You seem to be under the impression that slavery was gentle and kind. It wasn't. Field work was brutal. Life expectancy was short. And brutality was constantly required to keep slaves in line.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I also said they belong to a shit culture. Culture encompasses everything. Their communities. Their families. Their way of life. And yes, their politics.

Okay. But that’s not what you said in the beginning. In the beginning you dismissed the Democrat Party as just being a tool.

I don't care much about your personal, anecdotal, experiences.

I’m sure you don’t. It would require too much thought otherwise.

I'm not referring to the number of people.

I know you’re not. But I am.

Why shouldn't they want compensation for the injustices against them?

I never suggested they shouldn’t want compensation. The problem is who they want it from.

And you're right it's not just slavery. It's segregation, it's red lining, mandatory minimums, all of it that this government had a hand in.

1. We do have the money.

That would bring this country to the brink of economic collapse.

This is the wealthiest nation on earth.

And? Do you think this somehow means that we have a bottomless pit of money?

Raise taxes.

Of course. It’s not like we’re not being overtaxed already…

3. Really? Tell me why you think that.

Because money never solved any problem that has it’s roots at the heart of a culture or society.

What do you imagine are the problems of the black community?

You tell me. I’m not the one begging the government for money.

If they don’t want the money to address problems then what is it for?

I do. The Republican party today has more relevance to me than the Democratic party of the 1800s.

Meaning, there’s more for you to criticize.

Guy, it's been some pages and I don't remember what your original gripe was, but I did go back and look it up. You've been complaining this whole time that I haven't called out the Democratic party except the original post you quoted of mine says quite clearly, "democrats Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis were shit people from a shit culture".

You didn’t say anything about their being Democrats.

What the fuck is the point you're trying to debate me on other than your belief that the government should be allowed to violate the rights of citizens without recourse?

I’ll answer your question with one of my own: When the fuck did I suggest the government should be allowed to violate the rights of citizens?

They do go hand in hand.

No, they don’t.

You don't keep slaves in line without brutalizing and making examples out of the occasional slave with thoughts of revolting or escaping.

You’re oversimplifying and generalizing. You have no way of knowing that every slave owner was a murderer and rapist.

It happened way more than you think. Or that you probably care to think about. That was the entire purpose of the one drop rule. It made sure that the products of their rapes would always be slaves no matter how much European was in them because of the raping. Sally Hemings, the young slave Thomas Jefferson use to rape, was his wife's half sister. Her father had been her mother's owner. And her mother's father was the captain of the slave ship that brought her grandmother to this country. You don't want to think about it. You don't want to think about the liberties European men took with women and girls who were their property but they did. The only people who can't cope with history are the whites who are ashamed of it. They rather this pageantry and propaganda of the Founders instead.

You’re citing ONE example.

Yea. They accomplished the creation of a deplorable mutant slave state. Is that worth celebrating any more than the Taliban forming their own government?

Your family immigrated here from Jamaica, yes? They came here for a reason, reasons which, for them, superceded any concerns about - and in spite of - the issue of past slavery.
They came here because, presumably, they thought they had a chance at a better life with better opportunities for prosperity than they had in their home country.

Like it or not, the freedoms and prosperity you and your family enjoy are directly and indirectly attributable to some of those white slavers you despise so much.

That is the reality of America: a great and prosperous nation with a unique form of government, legal system and Constitution created and built by imperfect human beings.

You sit there and enjoy the economy, government and culture they helped build while condemning them at the same time.

Or instead of those hyperbolic suggestions we just not venerate slavers and stop teaching silly propaganda to school children.

And after all the statues are taken down, then what?

I actually believe in the subjectivity of morality. I believe we each develop our own moral values and that none are objectively better than any other just subjectively better. Like taste in music and art. I simply question the stated moral values of people who would venerate monsters.

And yet you objectively classify all slave owners as rapists and murderers.

Important? I offer that information only as a counter to the claims that the Democratic party today is the same racist party it was in the 1800s or during segregation.

Bullshit. You’re the one who made a point of highlighting the fact that the Republican Party has fewer minority members.

I lump them together because they go hand in hand.

No, they don’t.

You’re subscribing to hyperbole the same as you accused me of doing.

You seem to be under the impression that slavery was gentle and kind.

Bullshit. I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Slavery was not gentle and kind but neither was it brutal to the scale you claim.

It wasn't. Field work was brutal. Life expectancy was short. And brutality was constantly required to keep slaves in line.

Again, you’re making claims about the actions of all slave owners that you have no way of knowing.

 

[Curried Goats]

Okay. But that’s not what you said in the beginning. In the beginning you dismissed the Democrat Party as just being a tool.

It is a tool. As is the Republican party. As are all political parties. They reflect the will of voters and representatives just like a chisel as a tool of a sculptor reflects his will. Why is this still confusing to you? What do you think political parties are?

I never suggested they shouldn’t want compensation. The problem is who they want it from.

What's wrong with Black Americans seeking compensation from the government for the wrongs that were done to them?

That would bring this country to the brink of economic collapse.

It wouldn't and you've made no effort to prove that it would.

Of course. It’s not like we’re not being overtaxed already…

The rich and corporations pay some of the lowest taxes today then they ever have.

Because money never solved any problem that has it’s roots at the heart of a culture or society.

What's the problem at heart of Black culture? Please, enlighten me. See it seems pretty obvious to me that white families having ten times the wealth on average as Black families accounts for some pretty big socio-economic disparities.

You tell me. I’m not the one begging the government for money.

I'm not begging for anything. I'm not eligible for reparations in America since my family only came here in the 80s and was a victim to American slavery or segregation. I'm arguing and you're losing.

If they don’t want the money to address problems then what is it for?

To compensate for previous acts of injustice.

You didn’t say anything about their being Democrats.

I absolutely did. The first post you quoted of mine to start this little debate was this one.

Post #295

I’ll answer your question with one of my own: When the fuck did I suggest the government should be allowed to violate the rights of citizens?

When you suggested cost was a sufficient excuse for them to avoid answering for their acts of injustice.

You’re oversimplifying and generalizing. You have no way of knowing that every slave owner was a murderer and rapist.

Holding people in bondage and forcing them to do brutal field work for you until they die is still murder. It's just not a quick death. You trying defend slavers is adorable.

You’re citing ONE example.

I could cite more. That's just a very good example that also includes one of our nation's Founders.

Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia.

Harriet Jacobs on Rape and Slavery, 1860 | The American Yawp Reader

Your family immigrated here from Jamaica, yes? They came here for a reason, reasons which, for them, superceded any concerns about - and in spite of - the issue of past slavery.

Obviously.

They came here because, presumably, they thought they had a chance at a better life with better opportunities for prosperity than they had in their home country.

No shit.

Like it or not, the freedoms and prosperity you and your family enjoy are directly and indirectly attributable to some of those white slavers you despise so much.

No it isn't you dumb Simp. This is the problem of teaching little white children propaganda, they grow up to be dumb fucking adults with no critical thinking skills.

The country that the slaver Founders created was a Slave State. If left to them my family would still be property. The freedoms my people enjoy in this country are directly related to the impact of Black Civil rights heroes who turned this from a deplorable apartheid State into one where I could enjoy the same opportunities as white people.

That is the reality of America: a great and prosperous nation with a unique form of government, legal system and Constitution created and built by imperfect human beings.

No that's just your ignorant propaganda.

You sit there and enjoy the economy, government and culture they helped build while condemning them at the same time.

I condemn whoever educated your dumb ass.

And after all the statues are taken down, then what?

Another nail in the coffin for that deplorable mutant culture.

Bullshit. You’re the one who made a point of highlighting the fact that the Republican Party has fewer minority members.

I did, because you tried to suggest there was something wrong with me supporting the Democratic party today because of its 19th century history.

Slavery was not gentle and kind but neither was it brutal to the scale you claim.

Based on what boy? Your ignorant understand of slavery?

Again, you’re making claims about the actions of all slave owners that you have no way of knowing.

I do. It's called reading a boon you ignorant moron. Why don't you start with some slave narratives? Or anything written by Federick Douglass.

 

[Nobody911]

As New York City cripples under monumental budget cuts due to a migrant crisis straining public resources, the city council is planning to consider a series of measures that would, among other things, remove statues of major historical figures like George Washington and create a reparations task force.

The items are included in New York City’s council agenda for Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The council’s Cultural Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on a measure to remove works of art on city property that "depict a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity."

This criteria would include figures like America’s first president George Washington, Dutch governor and New York settler Peter Stuyvesant, as well as Christopher Columbus – all of whom have statues throughout the city.

NYC to consider removing statues of George Washington, create reparations task force amid budget cuts

New York City council on Tuesday will consider a range of proposals considering the legacy of slavery despite crippling budgets amid a migrant crisis.

www.foxnews.com

Comment:
This is just more Dumb Democrat hate and racism and it will not solve any problems.
The Democrats should put reparations on a ballot if they are serious.

Facts:
The debate over the removal of statues of historical figures, such as George Washington and Christopher Columbus, in New York City (NYC) is multifaceted. Here is a list of reasons why some individuals and groups are advocating for their removal:

1. Historical Context: Proponents argue that monuments symbolizing controversial figures should be reconsidered and reevaluated within the contextual understanding of history. While George Washington and Christopher Columbus are celebrated for their achievements, they were not without flaws and criticisms. Critics argue that the statues should reflect a more nuanced understanding of their legacies.

2. Native American Perspective: Some argue that Christopher Columbus, hailed as the explorer who discovered America, represents a history of colonization, violence, and the mistreatment of indigenous populations. There is a growing recognition of the genocide and displacement of Native Americans during European colonization, questioning the appropriateness of honoring Columbus through public statues.

3. Slavery and Racism: Although George Washington played a critical role in U.S. independence, he was also a prominent slave owner. Supporters of removing the statues argue that commemorating slave owners and those associated with the institution of slavery can cause distress and perpetuate systemic racism, particularly to Black communities.

4. Representation: Critics maintain that public spaces and monuments should represent the diverse population and highlight individuals who fought against oppression and discrimination. Some believe that these statues could be replaced by monuments honoring civil rights leaders, social justice activists, or even marginalized communities historically underrepresented in public spaces.

5. Symbol of White Supremacy: Opponents argue that the presence of statues honoring certain historical figures can be perceived as a manifestation of white supremacy, reinforcing power dynamics that perpetuate racial inequality. Removing such statues is seen as a step towards dismantling structures that uphold systemic racism.

6. Educational Opportunities: There is a belief that the removal of controversial statues opens up possibilities for reimagining public spaces as sites for education and understanding. Replacing these statues with educational exhibits or plaques can provide both historical context and critical analysis, fostering dialogue and reflection on the complexities of history.

7. Community Empowerment: For some, removing statues is a way to empower communities that have historically been oppressed or marginalized. This act acknowledges the pain and trauma associated with historical figures and serves as a gesture of respect to those affected.

My views :

Satan = chief spirit of evil and adversary of God

So, Do Americans think all statues of Satan in the world should be destroyed or removed? Why or why not?

Destroying or removing those statues can really make America or the world a better place?

Source:
Historian puts the push to remove Confederate statues in context – Harvard Gazette – Historian puts the push to remove Confederate statues in context

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Facts:
The debate over the removal of statues of historical figures, such as George Washington and Christopher Columbus, in New York City (NYC) is multifaceted. Here is a list of reasons why some individuals and groups are advocating for their removal:

1. Historical Context: Proponents argue that monuments symbolizing controversial figures should be reconsidered and reevaluated within the contextual understanding of history. While George Washington and Christopher Columbus are celebrated for their achievements, they were not without flaws and criticisms. Critics argue that the statues should reflect a more nuanced understanding of their legacies.

2. Native American Perspective: Some argue that Christopher Columbus, hailed as the explorer who discovered America, represents a history of colonization, violence, and the mistreatment of indigenous populations. There is a growing recognition of the genocide and displacement of Native Americans during European colonization, questioning the appropriateness of honoring Columbus through public statues.

3. Slavery and Racism: Although George Washington played a critical role in U.S. independence, he was also a prominent slave owner. Supporters of removing the statues argue that commemorating slave owners and those associated with the institution of slavery can cause distress and perpetuate systemic racism, particularly to Black communities.

4. Representation: Critics maintain that public spaces and monuments should represent the diverse population and highlight individuals who fought against oppression and discrimination. Some believe that these statues could be replaced by monuments honoring civil rights leaders, social justice activists, or even marginalized communities historically underrepresented in public spaces.

5. Symbol of White Supremacy: Opponents argue that the presence of statues honoring certain historical figures can be perceived as a manifestation of white supremacy, reinforcing power dynamics that perpetuate racial inequality. Removing such statues is seen as a step towards dismantling structures that uphold systemic racism.

6. Educational Opportunities: There is a belief that the removal of controversial statues opens up possibilities for reimagining public spaces as sites for education and understanding. Replacing these statues with educational exhibits or plaques can provide both historical context and critical analysis, fostering dialogue and reflection on the complexities of history.

7. Community Empowerment: For some, removing statues is a way to empower communities that have historically been oppressed or marginalized. This act acknowledges the pain and trauma associated with historical figures and serves as a gesture of respect to those affected.

My views :

Satan = chief spirit of evil and adversary of God

So, Do Americans think all statues of Satan in the world should be destroyed or removed? Why or why not?

Destroying or removing those statues can really make America or the world a better place?

Source:
Historian puts the push to remove Confederate statues in context – Harvard Gazette – Historian puts the push to remove Confederate statues in context

Number one reason, the Taliban Democrats are racist assholes.
It will not change anything.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It is a tool. As is the Republican party. As are all political parties. They reflect the will of voters and representatives just like a chisel as a tool of a sculptor reflects his will. Why is this still confusing to you? What do you think political parties are?

You have two positions here that essentially contradict each other in the main.

You criticize and vilify individual historical figures for owning slaves and say the political party they belonged to was just a tool.
On the other hand, you make a point of saying the Republican Party doesn’t attract minorities. The obvious implication here is that the Republican Party - the overall political entity - is racist.

What's wrong with Black Americans seeking compensation from the government for the wrongs that were done to them?

They want compensation from white people. The government is the only way it will happen of course but I think that’s what it really boils down to. That’s the impression I get and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

It wouldn't and you've made no effort to prove that it would.

You’ve made no effort to prove that we can afford it, other than to say we’re the most prosperous country in the world, as if that somehow magically settles the matter.

It can’t be done without consequences or without raising taxes (as you so blithely put it) taxes which will put even more of a burden on the taxpayers than they’re already bearing due to out of control inflation.

The government has a limited budget to work with every year. As it happens there is wrangling over the current budget because some want to include more aid to Ukraine that we can ill afford.

The rich and corporations pay some of the lowest taxes today then they ever have.

Another acolyte from the “Tax the Rich” tribe

What's the problem at heart of Black culture? Please, enlighten me. See it seems pretty obvious to me that white families having ten times the wealth on average as Black families accounts for some pretty big socio-economic disparities.

You ask me what I think the problems are in the black community and then tell me one of the problems in the black community.

I'm not begging for anything.

Didn’t say you were.

I'm not eligible for reparations in America since my family only came here in the 80s and was a victim to American slavery or segregation. I'm arguing and you're losing.

Losing what?

To compensate for previous acts of injustice.

Money can’t do that.

I absolutely did. The first post you quoted of mine to start this little debate was this one.

Post #295

When you suggested cost was a sufficient excuse for them to avoid answering for their acts of injustice.

This is a disagreement over the form of compensation. It in no way suggests that I think the government should be allowed to violate rights, which is what you accused me of.

Holding people in bondage and forcing them to do brutal field work for you until they die is still murder. It's just not a quick death.

No. This is nothing more than moving the goalpost. When you said “murderers” the meaning was clear: slavers killing their slaves through acts of muder.

You trying defend slavers is adorable.

Your conflating my position is adorable.

I could cite more. That's just a very good example that also includes one of our nation's Founders.

Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia.

Harriet Jacobs on Rape and Slavery, 1860 | The American Yawp Reader

This only proves these things happened. As bad as these things were, I still say it didn’t happen on the scale you seem to believe it did.

If history has taught us anything it’s that the truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle between two stated extremes.

Obviously.

No shit.

No it isn't you dumb Simp.

And there it is, the inevitable insult to intelligence.

This is your M.O. in every discussion where your opponent disagrees with you.

This is the problem of teaching little white children propaganda, they grow up to be dumb fucking adults with no critical thinking skills.

What, exactly, is this “propaganda” you refer to?

The country that the slaver Founders created was a Slave State. If left to them my family would still be property.

It WAS left to them: they were the ones who ended it.

The freedoms my people enjoy in this country are directly related to the impact of Black Civil rights heroes who turned this from a deplorable apartheid State into one where I could enjoy the same opportunities as white people.

The Civil Rights movement fought for equality for blacks to take advantage of the prosperity. It did not create the prosperity. That was done by mostly whites.

No that's just your ignorant propaganda.

And yet, here you are instead of Jamaica or somewhere else.

I condemn whoever educated your dumb ass.

Probably the same people who educated your bitter ass.

Another nail in the coffin for that deplorable mutant culture.

And then what? What are we to teach our children about white historical figures and their part in building this country, even the slave owners?

I did, because you tried to suggest there was something wrong with me supporting the Democratic party today because of its 19th century history.

I did not you idiot. I pointed out your hypocrisy in refusing to condemn the Democrat Party of that time.

Based on what boy?

Watch out, your white supremacy is showing.

Your ignorant understand of slavery?

My “ignorant understand”? What does that mean?

I do. It's called reading a boon you ignorant moron.

What’s a “boon” and how do you read it?

Why don't you start with some slave narratives? Or anything written by Federick Douglass.

Why don’t you start with an objective look at history?

 

[Votar Roja]

As New York City cripples under monumental budget cuts due to a migrant crisis straining public resources, the city council is planning to consider a series of measures that would, among other things, remove statues of major historical figures like George Washington and create a reparations task force.

The items are included in New York City’s council agenda for Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The council’s Cultural Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on a measure to remove works of art on city property that "depict a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity."

This criteria would include figures like America’s first president George Washington, Dutch governor and New York settler Peter Stuyvesant, as well as Christopher Columbus – all of whom have statues throughout the city.

NYC to consider removing statues of George Washington, create reparations task force amid budget cuts

New York City council on Tuesday will consider a range of proposals considering the legacy of slavery despite crippling budgets amid a migrant crisis.

www.foxnews.com

Comment:
This is just more Dumb Democrat hate and racism and it will not solve any problems.
The Democrats should put reparations on a ballot if they are serious.

Trump was right. He warned this would happen

 

[Curried Goats]

You have two positions here that essentially contradict each other in the main.

You criticize and vilify individual historical figures for owning slaves and say the political party they belonged to was just a tool.
On the other hand, you make a point of saying the Republican Party doesn’t attract minorities. The obvious implication here is that the Republican Party - the overall political entity - is racist.

How can a tool be racist you moron? When I say the Republican party can't attract minorities that is a metaphor for Republican politicians and their political ideology.

Why would you choose, as a debate tactic, to pretend that you don't understand the difference between venerating a slaver and supporting a political party who's ideals and goals are going to change as the goals and ideals of its voters and it's representatives change? And I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your purposefully being this stupid but honestly its hard to tell with your lot these days.

They want compensation from white people. The government is the only way it will happen of course but I think that’s what it really boils down to. That’s the impression I get and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

How would they go about collecting taxes from only white people? That’s not a thing. Your taxes are determined by your income, not your race. This is just hilarious white victimhood on display.

You’ve made no effort to prove that we can afford it, other than to say we’re the most prosperous country in the world, as if that somehow magically settles the matter.

And I'm not going to. You don't understand the difference between political parties that change over time and slavers who lived and died as slavers. I'm not going to attempt to explain taxes and government spending to you as well. That's an effort in futility. I don't even know if you even accept the premise that the American government is responsible for violating the rights of Black Americans. Do you?

It can’t be done without consequences or without raising taxes (as you so blithely put it) taxes which will put even more of a burden on the taxpayers than they’re already bearing due to out of control inflation.

The government has a limited budget to work with every year. As it happens there is wrangling over the current budget because some want to include more aid to Ukraine that we can ill afford.


Another acolyte from the “Tax the Rich” tribe

The poor and middle class might be struggling but the wealthy have still been making their money. And yes, I believe in taxing the rich, even if for no other reason than the government ensuring a handful of people don't gain control over a majority of our natural resources, but especially for investing in the underclass and less fortunate.

You ask me what I think the problems are in the black community and then tell me one of the problems in the black community.

What are you confused about you Bingo? I asked you what you think the problems in the black community are and I offered my opinion on what one of the bigger problems is in return.

This is a disagreement over the form of compensation. It in no way suggests that I think the government should be allowed to violate rights, which is what you accused me of.

The injustice was in part financial so any compensation must include financial compensation.

No. This is nothing more than moving the goalpost. When you said “murderers” the meaning was clear: slavers killing their slaves through acts of muder.

I'm not moving any goal posts. The slaved and murdered and raped. You have an ignorant understanding of history and slavery.

This only proves these things happened. As bad as these things were, I still say it didn’t happen on the scale you seem to believe it did.

Sure. Continue to plead ignorance. They beat and whipped men, women and children and sold them away from their families but rape is where they drew the line. That sounds like men. It's not like it took American men until the 90s before they made it illegal to rape their own wives......

If history has taught us anything it’s that the truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle between two stated extremes.

History hasn't taught you shit. All you've swallowed is propaganda.

The Civil Rights movement fought for equality for blacks to take advantage of the prosperity. It did not create the prosperity. That was done by mostly whites.

No.... there's your ignorance again. That was done mostly by slaves. Slaves built this countries wealth From the sugar and cotton in the south to the textile factories in the North, slavery was the fuel for the American economy.

And then what? What are we to teach our children about white historical figures and their part in building this country, even the slave owners?

What they built was a Slave State that allowed them to prosper off the misery of others.

I did not you idiot. I pointed out your hypocrisy in refusing to condemn the Democrat Party of that time.

What hypocrisy? The first post of mine you quoted called out Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis as deplorable Democrats from a shit culture.

Why don’t you start with an objective look at history?

Please, enlighten me what an objective look at history looks like.

 

[MinTrut]

Today, slavery is the arbitrary dividing line between keeping and hiding or destroying precious public art.

Tomorrow...?

Talibanic.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How can a tool be racist you moron?

You tell me. I’m not the one who said political parties are tools and I’m not the one who pointed out the dearth of minorities in the Republican Party, you did.

When I say the Republican party can't attract minorities that is a metaphor for Republican politicians and their political ideology.

That they are racist. Don’t pussyfoot around, say it: the Republican party is racist.

Why would you choose, as a debate tactic, to pretend that you don't understand the difference between venerating a slaver and supporting a political party who's ideals and goals are going to change as the goals and ideals of its voters and it's representatives change?

You’re just not getting it. I understand perfectly what you are saying, that the Democrat party of today is not the same as that of the 1800s. I’m trying to point out to you that what you really think is in what you are not saying: that the Republican Party today is racist.

You have two distinctly different perspectives on the two parties. One perspective glosses over the racism and slavery in the Democrat party of that time and dismisses the party as a tool in that regard.
The other perspective specifically points out the Republican Party is comprised of mostly “white evangelicals”, as you put it, and that there are fewer minorities. One can only assume that you’re implying the Republican Party is racist.

And I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your purposefully being this stupid but honestly its hard to tell with your lot these days.

And who is “your lot”?

How would they go about collecting taxes from only white people?

Who said that?

That’s not a thing. Your taxes are determined by your income, not your race. This is just hilarious white victimhood on display.

You’re the one who pointed out the income gap between whites and blacks. So guess who gets burdened more by reparations.

And I'm not going to.

Then you can’t very well expect me to prove anything if you’re not going to prove your case, can you?

You don't understand the difference between political parties that change over time and slavers who lived and died as slavers.

Political parties changing over time is not at issue and never was.

I'm not going to attempt to explain taxes and government spending to you as well.

I should hope not, considering that you seem to think America has money trees.

That's an effort in futility. I don't even know if you even accept the premise that the American government is responsible for violating the rights of Black Americans. Do you?

The government, yes. Me? No.

The poor and middle class might be struggling but the wealthy have still been making their money.

If the poor and middle class consumers are not purchasing like they used to then the corporations are making less money.

And yes, I believe in taxing the rich,

So does everyone else. I just personally don’t feel the rich should be punished for being rich.

even if for no other reason than the government ensuring a handful of people don't gain control over a majority of our natural resources, but especially for investing in the underclass and less fortunate.

The underclass and “less fortunate” are the underclass and less fortunate largely due to their own life choices.

What are you confused about you Bingo? I asked you what you think the problems in the black community are and I offered my opinion on what one of the bigger problems is in return.

If you were going to tell me one of the problems anyway, why did you ask?

The injustice was in part financial so any compensation must include financial compensation.

Perhaps. But you still conflated my position of having reservations about reparations to mean I think the government should be allowed to violate rights.

I'm not moving any goal posts. The slaved and murdered and raped. You have an ignorant understanding of history and slavery.

No. You implied that slavers raped and murdered their slaves on a wider scale than you have any way of knowing. I pointed out that you have no way of knowing that all slavers raped and murdered their slaves. You then changed tactics by claiming enslavement itself was murder.

Sure. Continue to plead ignorance.

To plead ignorance is to profess that I don’t know when I likely actually do know. That is not the case here.

You’re claiming you know whereas I’m saying the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

They beat and whipped men, women and children and sold them away from their families but rape is where they drew the line. That sounds like men. It's not like it took American men until the 90s before they made it illegal to rape their own wives......

You’re conflating again. I never suggested rape and murder didn’t happen, it did. I’m saying it likely didn’t happen on the scale you seem to think it did.

History hasn't taught you shit. All you've swallowed is propaganda.

Again, what propaganda?

You’re the one making the claim here and you seem to think you know what the propaganda says. So you tell me what beliefs I have about slavery that I supposedly derived from this vague notion of “propaganda”.

No.... there's your ignorance again. That was done mostly by slaves. Slaves built this countries wealth From the sugar and cotton in the south to the textile factories in the North, slavery was the fuel for the American economy.

No it wasn’t.

The fact of the matter is that white men created the businesses and the industries that were the advent of the future prosperity of this country.

Slave labor was used for much of it in the beginning and everyone agrees that was wrong. However, the use of slave labor did not add to the value or demand of the product. Britain and Europe had a voracious appetite for cotton and they would have scarfed it up in any case, slave labor or no.

In fact, after slavery was abolished, within less than ten years, cotton growers had nearly doubled their output and income from the sale of cotton.

Slave owners thought they needed the slaves to make real money but the truth is, they did not.

Slave labor was wrong and unjust any way you look at it. But slave owners would have prospered just the same or better without it.

What they built was a Slave State that allowed them to prosper off the misery of others.

So that’s it? Do you want to teach our children history or do you just want to tell them how evil the white man is?

Does history - complete history - figure into your calculations at all?

What hypocrisy?

How about the hypocrisy of constantly conflating my arguments?

It is dishonest, disingenuous and presumptive.

The first post of mine you quoted called out Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis as deplorable Democrats from a shit culture.

Right, and by itself it doesn’t imply anything else. However, couple that with your specific criticisms of the Republican party and one can’t help but detect a note of bias.

Please, enlighten me what an objective look at history looks like.

One that doesn’t view history through a prism of mutant/slavers/rapist/murders and nothing else.

That would be a reasoned start.

 

[skye]

The feral savages can physically remove all the statues of American past heroes they want!

It doesn't matter!

GOD knows that history can not be removed that easily!

 

[Curried Goats]

You tell me. I’m not the one who said political parties are tools and I’m not the one who pointed out the dearth of minorities in the Republican Party, you did.


That they are racist. Don’t pussyfoot around, say it: the Republican party is racist.


You’re just not getting it. I understand perfectly what you are saying, that the Democrat party of today is not the same as that of the 1800s. I’m trying to point out to you that what you really think is in what you are not saying: that the Republican Party today is racist.

You have two distinctly different perspectives on the two parties. One perspective glosses over the racism and slavery in the Democrat party of that time and dismisses the party as a tool in that regard.
The other perspective specifically points out the Republican Party is comprised of mostly “white evangelicals”, as you put it, and that there are fewer minorities. One can only assume that you’re implying the Republican Party is racist.


And who is “your lot”?


Who said that?


You’re the one who pointed out the income gap between whites and blacks. So guess who gets burdened more by reparations.


Then you can’t very well expect me to prove anything if you’re not going to prove your case, can you?


Political parties changing over time is not at issue and never was.


I should hope not, considering that you seem to think America has money trees.


The government, yes. Me? No.


If the poor and middle class consumers are not purchasing like they used to then the corporations are making less money.


So does everyone else. I just personally don’t feel the rich should be punished for being rich.


The underclass and “less fortunate” are the underclass and less fortunate largely due to their own life choices.


If you were going to tell me one of the problems anyway, why did you ask?


Perhaps. But you still conflated my position of having reservations about reparations to mean I think the government should be allowed to violate rights.


No. You implied that slavers raped and murdered their slaves on a wider scale than you have any way of knowing. I pointed out that you have no way of knowing that all slavers raped and murdered their slaves. You then changed tactics by claiming enslavement itself was murder.


To plead ignorance is to profess that I don’t know when I likely actually do know. That is not the case here.

You’re claiming you know whereas I’m saying the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.


You’re conflating again. I never suggested rape and murder didn’t happen, it did. I’m saying it likely didn’t happen on the scale you seem to think it did.

Again, what propaganda?

You’re the one making the claim here and you seem to think you know what the propaganda says. So you tell me what beliefs I have about slavery that I supposedly derived from this vague notion of “propaganda”.


No it wasn’t.

The fact of the matter is that white men created the businesses and the industries that were the advent of the future prosperity of this country.

Slave labor was used for much of it in the beginning and everyone agrees that was wrong. However, the use of slave labor did not add to the value or demand of the product. Britain and Europe had a voracious appetite for cotton and they would have scarfed it up in any case, slave labor or no.

In fact, after slavery was abolished, within less than ten years, cotton growers had nearly doubled their output and income from the sale of cotton.

Slave owners thought they needed the slaves to make real money but the truth is, they did not.

Slave labor was wrong and unjust any way you look at it. But slave owners would have prospered just the same or better without it.


So that’s it? Do you want to teach our children history or do you just want to tell them how evil the white man is?

Does history - complete history - figure into your calculations at all?


How about the hypocrisy of constantly conflating my arguments?

It is dishonest, disingenuous and presumptive.


Right, and by itself it doesn’t imply anything else. However, couple that with your specific criticisms of the Republican party and one can’t help but detect a note of bias.


One that doesn’t view history through a prism of mutant/slavers/rapist/murders and nothing else.

That would be a reasoned start.

You went an awful long way to give a sad defense of mutant slavers. Jesus Christ.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You went an awful long way to give a sad defense of mutant slavers. Jesus Christ.

You went a long way in avoiding the realities of history.

 

[Curried Goats]

You went a long way in avoiding the realities of history.

What realities? By your own admission you don't know shit. Your best argument is they didn't murder and rape as much I think. How much did they rape and murder? Well you don't know. I do know though that one of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, was raping a young teenage slave who's father and grandfather were white men. That was at the start of this country and we already had a third generation victim of white rape.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What realities? By your own admission you don't know shit.

When did I admit this?

Your best argument is they didn't murder and rape as much I think.

It wasn’t my “best” argument, it was the only argument I ever had.

I never tried excusing or downplaying these actions if and when they actually occurred. My argument is, and always has been, that it wasn’t as widespread as you think.

It is lazy assumption to just paint all slave owners as rapists and murderers because you have no way of knowing this.

How much did they rape and murder? Well you don't know. I do know though that one of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, was raping a young teenage slave who's father and grandfather were white men. That was at the start of this country and we already had a third generation victim of white rape.

And? This still doesn’t prove that the brutality was as widespread as you say. It also does not negate Jefferson’s historical contributions.

You are obviously emotionally invested in the issue of slavery. This is not a bad thing in itself but you have allowed it to cloud your objectivity in your views of history.

 

[Curried Goats]

When did I admit this?


It wasn’t my “best” argument, it was the only argument I ever had.

I never tried excusing or downplaying these actions if and when they actually occurred. My argument is, and always has been, that it wasn’t as widespread as you think.

It is lazy assumption to just paint all slave owners as rapists and murderers because you have no way of knowing this.


And? This still doesn’t prove that the brutality was as widespread as you say. It also does not negate Jefferson’s historical contributions.

You are obviously emotionally invested in the issue of slavery. This is not a bad thing in itself but you have allowed it to cloud your objectivity in your views of history.

My argument was never that every American was a slaver, murderer or rapist. Or that every slaver was a rapist. Murderer? Well I guess that depends on whether you count working a person to their death to be murder. I do, but we can agree to disagree. Being even a slaver is enough to clearly establish someone as a deplorable human being. What I know is that American society elevated slavers, murderers and rapists, and respected them as distinguished men. I know any society that does that is a deplorable one. And my point wasn’t to say that Jefferson didn't contribute to the Founding of this country. My purpose was to put those contributions in perspective. What Americans created and what Jefferson contributed to was the creation of a Slave State. A State that engaged in conquest and genocide against its neighbors (native tribes) and who built its economy on the backs of slaves. If this state existed in the 1940s it would of been indistinguishable from Nazi Germany in temperament and intent. The only reason you don't see it as such is because of propaganda.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My argument was never that every American was a slaver, murderer or rapist.

I know that.

Or that every slaver was a rapist. Murderer? Well I guess that depends on whether you count working a person to their death to be murder. I do, but we can agree to disagree.

I can see why one might think that way but “murder” implies that one’s life is ended prematurely. Did the average slave die at a relatively young age? I don’t know. If they did, it doesn’t much matter what we choose to call it; slavery was bad enough by itself without ascribing all manner of other atrocities to it.

Being even a slaver is enough to clearly establish someone as a deplorable human being.

Perhaps. By today’s standards of morality that might be true.

Some blacks hate it when whites say “It was a different time” but it is true. While there was a growing movement to abolish slavery and societal mores were leaning more towards condemning the practice, even then, the ones who opposed slavery at the time did not generally view slave owners in such harsh terms as rapists and murderers. In other words, they viewed the practice of slavery as wrong but did not necessarily view slave owners as monsters.

Once it was abolished, the overall attitude was: Let’s move on. They simply allowed former slave owners to make the adjustment in whatever way they thought was best for them and picked up where they left off to conduct their business or do their work. Which they did.

What I know is that American society elevated slavers, murderers and rapists, and respected them as distinguished men. I know any society that does that is a deplorable one. And my point wasn’t to say that Jefferson didn't contribute to the Founding of this country. My purpose was to put those contributions in perspective. What Americans created and what Jefferson contributed to was the creation of a Slave State. A State that engaged in conquest and genocide against its neighbors (native tribes) and who built its economy on the backs of slaves. If this state existed in the 1940s it would of been indistinguishable from Nazi Germany in temperament and intent. The only reason you don't see it as such is because of propaganda.

After all that I have to wonder why you’re still here.

As for everything else, America didn’t do anything that thousands of cultures and societies didn’t do before them. America is not unique in that sense.

 

[Curried Goats]

I can see why one might think that way but “murder” implies that one’s life is ended prematurely. Did the average slave die at a relatively young age? I don’t know. If they did, it doesn’t much matter what we choose to call it; slavery was bad enough by itself without ascribing all manner of other atrocities to it.

I'm more curious why you're trying to minimize the atrocities associated with it when you admit to not knowing much.

Perhaps. By today’s standards of morality that might be true.

Thats a silly argument. What does the term "today's standards" really even mean? Are you suggesting time has standards?

Some blacks hate it when whites say “It was a different time” but it is true.

It was a different time back then, I dont think any black person is going to disagree with that. Hell its a different time right now than it was 5 minutes ago. Thats sort of how time works. The question is whether thats how morality works. If I go back far enough in time are you arguing rape becomes okay, morally? Maybe to you but certainly not to me. And that says something doesn't it. It says that morality is relative to people, not time. In any given point in time you'll find people with differing view points on what is morally right or wrong. In that point in time slavers, murderers and rapists were the dominate social and political power. That's all it means when you say it was a different time back then.

While there was a growing movement to abolish slavery and societal mores were leaning more towards condemning the practice, even then, the ones who opposed slavery at the time did not generally view slave owners in such harsh terms as rapists and murderers. In other words, they viewed the practice of slavery as wrong but did not necessarily view slave owners as monsters.

That's my point. Not only did they not see slavers, murderers and rapists as deplorable human beings, they elevated them in society. That's the mark of deplorable society. You fail to see that because of all the propaganda you've swallowed.

Once it was abolished, the overall attitude was: Let’s move on. They simply allowed former slave owners to make the adjustment in whatever way they thought was best for them and picked up where they left off to conduct their business or do their work. Which they did.

Once it was abolished came another 100 years of terror, of lynchings, of Jim Crow and segregation.

After all that I have to wonder why you’re still here.

Because Civil Rights activists broke this country's back and set the stage for its political and economic power to be appropriated.

As for everything else, America didn’t do anything that thousands of cultures and societies didn’t do before them. America is not unique in that sense.

Who's arguing that it was unique in that regard?