Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
In other words, as per usual, you misspoke and refused to admit it. Even now, rather than admit the mistake, you are trying to spin it so that your statement actually meant every group that has proven to have been wronged by the government.
Even there, it is clearly untrue. Every time a law has been found to be discriminatory it is an instance of the government having wronged some group or groups, just to give one example.
And while blacks as a whole have not been given reparations, there were the black men who were part of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. That group of blacks were given reparations; the men who were part of the study as well as their heirs. Reparations were also paid due to the Rosewood incident, to what I believe were 9 survivors at the time.
I doubt reparations will be given for slavery, although I don't completely dismiss the possibility.
Montrovant I said what I meant and did not misspeak or spin. There are several types of reparations. Not all reparations involve money, but you want to argue because as usual you don't seem to be able to understand how we can ask for monetary reparations. Your second mistake is you assume the reparations are only for slavery.
The argument about not paying for slavery has no merit unless you can produce a new one. And telling me about 50-60 blacks who got reparations for those two events shows how pathetic those like you are. I gets old arguing with you guys knowing my argument is legitimate and I get these excuse laden posts and people like you playing semantics because I said all of the groups who have done something got reparations so you chose to disagree with that instead of the validity of my argument for reparations based on historical treatment of blacks in this nation. Just like you wanted to argue over the accuracy of a cartoon and cartoon characters, you are petty.
You said what you meant, but had to correct yourself later?
Hey, if you think wanting statements to be accurate is petty, feel free to consider me petty.
My point in bringing up Tuskegee and Rosewood was merely that blacks have received reparations from the government; it is not that the government is opposed to blacks getting reparations that is the issue, but rather the reason for the reparations. You mentioned that "Jews got reparations" as though every Jew was granted reparations, when in fact it was a particular group of Jews.
I'm curious, do you think women deserve reparations from the government for the historical treatment they experienced in this nation? They were treated as second-class citizens for much of the country's history.
Trying to get reparations for all blacks in the US because of the historical treatment of blacks is just too broad and vague an attempt IMO.
I said what meant from he beginning. There was no correction. I know why you bought up[ Tuskegee and Rosewood. The problem with your argument is that others have gotten reparations. And what I also said is that if no one had ever got them I could understand the opposition.. These questions, arguments and statements I see in reference to reparations just make no sense given the fact hat reparations have been paid and still are being paid.
As to your question, black women would be eligible for reparations. White women participated in the oppression and human rights violations.
You've said two different things, so you might want to make up your mind. Either every group other than blacks that has been wronged by the US government has gotten reparations, or only some groups which have been wronged by the government have gotten reparations. The first thing you said was that all of them have, are you going back to that now?
Do you not think this country has a history of discriminating against and oppressing all women, regardless of race? And I notice you only mentioned black women and white women, why is that? Do you think women of other races haven't lived in this country since the founding?
While certain groups have received reparations, it has never been on anything close to the scale you propose. I don't know that reparations have been paid for as non-specific reasons as you talk about, either. Rosewood and Tuskegee show that blacks can be eligible for reparations, but on a smaller scale for more specific rights violations.
I've said the same thing, have meant the same thing and still mean the same thing. .
I have mentioned groups that have received reparations. And that means women in those groups got reparations.
The problem with having this kind of discussion with people like you is that you are too busy looking for reasons to discount this argument. The thing about reparations is they involves human rights violations that can be specifically stated. The size or number of those violated is irrelevant.
If you can't even realize that you've changed your statements, how can a conversation really be had with you?
You started with this:
But when every other group wronged by this government has received reparations all these comments mean nothing but a bunch of people jumping on a bandwagon in a obscure website..
That changed to this:
I stated that every group has been wronged by this government has received reparations but blacks. Not every group that has claimed, but every group where wrongdoing has been proven.
In the first statement you claimed that every group other than blacks that has been wronged by the government has received reparations. In the second statement you qualify that to mean every group where wrongdoing has been proven. Those are not the same.
Hey, wait, I thought that having some members of a group get reparations wasn't important? You dismissed the Rosewood and Tuskegee reparations, but now you've going to say that there were women in groups that have received reparations? What about all of the women the government mistreated that were not part of those groups?