Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guilt is a very difficult thing to force upon others. Pay personally if you wish, but keep the rest of us out of it.Thanks Sunni for the idea (sorta) re: 40 acres and a mule.
For.
We kidnapped them, enslaved them, should pay backwages. Fair's fair.
It wasnt just committed by some sick individuals. It was condoned and supported by the US. Even after admitting slavery was wrong they never reimbursed the victims. For that the US owes. I doesnt matter if your ancestors never owned slaves. You are living in a country that derives its wealth directly from the labor of those slaves hence your participation by paying your taxes. Of course the topic is over exaggerated to some. That just points to your lack of perspective to be honest.
You do understand that there were many politicians who stood against slavery right? Even in the 1700s there were many politicians who believed slavery was horrific, they just didn't have the means to oppose it. When slavery was prominent, slaves were mainly owned by the wealthy, and we all understand how hard it is to oppose the wealthy. John Adams is a perfect example of this, he was strongly opposed to the idea of slavery, but understood that if he wanted to get independence, he would have to compromise to some degree. There were many politicians and influential figures who strongly disagreed with slavery during this time period.
I understand there were many who stood against it. That doesnt change the fact that it happened does it? The US evidently had more people that were for it. Slavery existed right? Blaming it on the wealthy is fine but lets not forget that these are the founding fathers who made this happen. To excuse it as merely politics shows the absurd lengths whites will go to deny the US is the reason. You have got to be kidding me! Politics is part of the country and how policies such as slavery were decided.
You do understand that there were many politicians who stood against slavery right? Even in the 1700s there were many politicians who believed slavery was horrific, they just didn't have the means to oppose it. When slavery was prominent, slaves were mainly owned by the wealthy, and we all understand how hard it is to oppose the wealthy. John Adams is a perfect example of this, he was strongly opposed to the idea of slavery, but understood that if he wanted to get independence, he would have to compromise to some degree. There were many politicians and influential figures who strongly disagreed with slavery during this time period.
I understand there were many who stood against it. That doesnt change the fact that it happened does it? The US evidently had more people that were for it. Slavery existed right? Blaming it on the wealthy is fine but lets not forget that these are the founding fathers who made this happen. To excuse it as merely politics shows the absurd lengths whites will go to deny the US is the reason. You have got to be kidding me! Politics is part of the country and how policies such as slavery were decided.
Slavery did exist. It existed in America. It existed in Canada. It existed in Mexico. At some point it has existed pretty much everywhere in the world. But the fact that it existed does not extrapolate to 'most people' or even 'most politicians' being for it. Most were not. Pollution also exists. And all manner of sickness. And drunkeness and addictions. Etc. But that does not translate to a belief that most people are for those things.
Slavery would have ended in the USA, even without the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, just as it ended in Canada and Mexico and most other places in the world. It was just a matter of time before public pressure and conscience would have accomplished that.
And meanwhile, there is not a black person born in America today who is not a full citizen with ALL rights that American citizens have. And not a single one of them has ever been a slave and not a single person living in America today has ever owned a slave and it is pretty safe to say that 99.9% of Americans living today condemn slavery --even those who are condoning and/or promoting a different kind of slavery. And it is also pretty safe to say that 99.9% of those black people who descended from slaves are now better off than they would have been had their ancesters not been dragged over here on slave ships.
I understand there were many who stood against it. That doesnt change the fact that it happened does it? The US evidently had more people that were for it. Slavery existed right? Blaming it on the wealthy is fine but lets not forget that these are the founding fathers who made this happen. To excuse it as merely politics shows the absurd lengths whites will go to deny the US is the reason. You have got to be kidding me! Politics is part of the country and how policies such as slavery were decided.
Slavery did exist. It existed in America. It existed in Canada. It existed in Mexico. At some point it has existed pretty much everywhere in the world. But the fact that it existed does not extrapolate to 'most people' or even 'most politicians' being for it. Most were not. Pollution also exists. And all manner of sickness. And drunkeness and addictions. Etc. But that does not translate to a belief that most people are for those things.
Slavery would have ended in the USA, even without the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, just as it ended in Canada and Mexico and most other places in the world. It was just a matter of time before public pressure and conscience would have accomplished that.
And meanwhile, there is not a black person born in America today who is not a full citizen with ALL rights that American citizens have. And not a single one of them has ever been a slave and not a single person living in America today has ever owned a slave and it is pretty safe to say that 99.9% of Americans living today condemn slavery --even those who are condoning and/or promoting a different kind of slavery. And it is also pretty safe to say that 99.9% of those black people who descended from slaves are now better off than they would have been had their ancesters not been dragged over here on slave ships.
I was pretty much with you right until the end, Foxy.
It's just too difficult to say that people would be 'better off' had generations of their families had completely different lives. It's far too subjective. They are almost certainly financially better off, but otherwise it's too hard to say.
I understand there were many who stood against it. That doesnt change the fact that it happened does it? The US evidently had more people that were for it. Slavery existed right? Blaming it on the wealthy is fine but lets not forget that these are the founding fathers who made this happen. To excuse it as merely politics shows the absurd lengths whites will go to deny the US is the reason. You have got to be kidding me! Politics is part of the country and how policies such as slavery were decided.
Slavery did exist. It existed in America. It existed in Canada. It existed in Mexico. At some point it has existed pretty much everywhere in the world. But the fact that it existed does not extrapolate to 'most people' or even 'most politicians' being for it. Most were not. Pollution also exists. And all manner of sickness. And drunkeness and addictions. Etc. But that does not translate to a belief that most people are for those things.
Slavery would have ended in the USA, even without the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, just as it ended in Canada and Mexico and most other places in the world. It was just a matter of time before public pressure and conscience would have accomplished that.
And meanwhile, there is not a black person born in America today who is not a full citizen with ALL rights that American citizens have. And not a single one of them has ever been a slave and not a single person living in America today has ever owned a slave and it is pretty safe to say that 99.9% of Americans living today condemn slavery --even those who are condoning and/or promoting a different kind of slavery. And it is also pretty safe to say that 99.9% of those black people who descended from slaves are now better off than they would have been had their ancesters not been dragged over here on slave ships.
I was pretty much with you right until the end, Foxy.
It's just too difficult to say that people would be 'better off' had generations of their families had completely different lives. It's far too subjective. They are almost certainly financially better off, but otherwise it's too hard to say.
Slavery did exist. It existed in America. It existed in Canada. It existed in Mexico. At some point it has existed pretty much everywhere in the world. But the fact that it existed does not extrapolate to 'most people' or even 'most politicians' being for it. Most were not. Pollution also exists. And all manner of sickness. And drunkeness and addictions. Etc. But that does not translate to a belief that most people are for those things.
Slavery would have ended in the USA, even without the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, just as it ended in Canada and Mexico and most other places in the world. It was just a matter of time before public pressure and conscience would have accomplished that.
And meanwhile, there is not a black person born in America today who is not a full citizen with ALL rights that American citizens have. And not a single one of them has ever been a slave and not a single person living in America today has ever owned a slave and it is pretty safe to say that 99.9% of Americans living today condemn slavery --even those who are condoning and/or promoting a different kind of slavery. And it is also pretty safe to say that 99.9% of those black people who descended from slaves are now better off than they would have been had their ancesters not been dragged over here on slave ships.
I was pretty much with you right until the end, Foxy.
It's just too difficult to say that people would be 'better off' had generations of their families had completely different lives. It's far too subjective. They are almost certainly financially better off, but otherwise it's too hard to say.
One only needs to compare the median income of African countries and here to understand that they are better off here than there.
I was pretty much with you right until the end, Foxy.
It's just too difficult to say that people would be 'better off' had generations of their families had completely different lives. It's far too subjective. They are almost certainly financially better off, but otherwise it's too hard to say.
One only needs to compare the median income of African countries and here to understand that they are better off here than there.
Like I said, financially I can agree. However, from a quality and enjoyment of life standpoint, I couldn't say.
Unless we are saying that no one from the African countries that our slaves came from has a happy life and that no one descended from slaves in this country has a bad life, it's not an easy thing to quantify.
In general the people in the US may have better lives than those countries, I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's when one basically says that all people in the US have better lives than all people in those African countries I take issue.
I was pretty much with you right until the end, Foxy.
It's just too difficult to say that people would be 'better off' had generations of their families had completely different lives. It's far too subjective. They are almost certainly financially better off, but otherwise it's too hard to say.
One only needs to compare the median income of African countries and here to understand that they are better off here than there.
Like I said, financially I can agree. However, from a quality and enjoyment of life standpoint, I couldn't say.
Unless we are saying that no one from the African countries that our slaves came from has a happy life and that no one descended from slaves in this country has a bad life, it's not an easy thing to quantify. If you are using happiness as a quantifier, there were happy slaves. Doesn't mean they were well off but, if we trust their own words, they were happy.
In general the people in the US may have better lives than those countries, I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's when one basically says that all people in the US have better lives than all people in those African countries I take issue.
One only needs to compare the median income of African countries and here to understand that they are better off here than there.
Like I said, financially I can agree. However, from a quality and enjoyment of life standpoint, I couldn't say.
Unless we are saying that no one from the African countries that our slaves came from has a happy life and that no one descended from slaves in this country has a bad life, it's not an easy thing to quantify.
In general the people in the US may have better lives than those countries, I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's when one basically says that all people in the US have better lives than all people in those African countries I take issue.
You should visit an African country. But be careful of which one. Some are not friendly toward Americans.
BTW you were trying to say otherwise.
When it was commented that blacks were better off in this country you disagreed. That my friend is suggesting otherwise.
He didn't say "all people", he said african Americans.
One only needs to compare the median income of African countries and here to understand that they are better off here than there.
Like I said, financially I can agree. However, from a quality and enjoyment of life standpoint, I couldn't say.
Unless we are saying that no one from the African countries that our slaves came from has a happy life and that no one descended from slaves in this country has a bad life, it's not an easy thing to quantify. If you are using happiness as a quantifier, there were happy slaves. Doesn't mean they were well off but, if we trust their own words, they were happy.
In general the people in the US may have better lives than those countries, I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's when one basically says that all people in the US have better lives than all people in those African countries I take issue.
Happiness and well off are two different things. Happiness is up to the individual no matter where he/she lives. But those things that quantify well off--shelter, food, clothing, liberty, choices, options, opportunity--can be quantified.
Like I said, financially I can agree. However, from a quality and enjoyment of life standpoint, I couldn't say.
Unless we are saying that no one from the African countries that our slaves came from has a happy life and that no one descended from slaves in this country has a bad life, it's not an easy thing to quantify.
In general the people in the US may have better lives than those countries, I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's when one basically says that all people in the US have better lives than all people in those African countries I take issue.
You should visit an African country. But be careful of which one. Some are not friendly toward Americans.
BTW you were trying to say otherwise.
When it was commented that blacks were better off in this country you disagreed. That my friend is suggesting otherwise.
He didn't say "all people", he said african Americans.
No, I did not disagree that the people are better off, I disagreed that anyone can make that claim with any accuracy. They may be better off, they may not, we can't really know.
Yes, I realize she didn't say all people, I was speaking in the context of the conversation. And to be clear, she didn't say all African Americans either, but those descended from slaves.
You should visit an African country. But be careful of which one. Some are not friendly toward Americans.
BTW you were trying to say otherwise.
When it was commented that blacks were better off in this country you disagreed. That my friend is suggesting otherwise.
He didn't say "all people", he said african Americans.
No, I did not disagree that the people are better off, I disagreed that anyone can make that claim with any accuracy. They may be better off, they may not, we can't really know.
Yes, I realize she didn't say all people, I was speaking in the context of the conversation. And to be clear, she didn't say all African Americans either, but those descended from slaves.
But we can really know.
It's not hard to find out how living and economic conditions are in Botswana or any other African country without ever going there. So given that we can now see how average people live in other countries it's relatively easy to compare to them to us in America.
Per capita income in Botswana is $7,238.00, in the US it's $51,729.00. Income is primarily used to determine standard of living so it's safe to say our standard of living is much better than the country of Botswana and very possibly any other country in Africa.
In this age of technology there's no excuse for ignorance.
Thanks Sunni for the idea (sorta) re: 40 acres and a mule.
For.
We kidnapped them, enslaved them, should pay backwages. Fair's fair.
Like I said, financially I can agree. However, from a quality and enjoyment of life standpoint, I couldn't say.
Unless we are saying that no one from the African countries that our slaves came from has a happy life and that no one descended from slaves in this country has a bad life, it's not an easy thing to quantify. If you are using happiness as a quantifier, there were happy slaves. Doesn't mean they were well off but, if we trust their own words, they were happy.
In general the people in the US may have better lives than those countries, I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's when one basically says that all people in the US have better lives than all people in those African countries I take issue.
Happiness and well off are two different things. Happiness is up to the individual no matter where he/she lives. But those things that quantify well off--shelter, food, clothing, liberty, choices, options, opportunity--can be quantified.
And if you had said well off, a phrase I've certainly heard used a lot, I might never have commented. Unfortunately you said the descendants of slaves are pretty much all better off than they would have been had their ancestors not been taken. I was unaware that when saying one you meant the other.
So, as I said, from a financial standpoint I can certainly agree, which encompasses at least half of your points. I'll go with liberty, too. As far as choices, options (aren't those synonymous?) and opportunity, in at least some ways I also agree.
So the descendants of slaves are better off in terms of what they have and can get materially.
They've never had it better.Happiness and well off are two different things. Happiness is up to the individual no matter where he/she lives. But those things that quantify well off--shelter, food, clothing, liberty, choices, options, opportunity--can be quantified.
And if you had said well off, a phrase I've certainly heard used a lot, I might never have commented. Unfortunately you said the descendants of slaves are pretty much all better off than they would have been had their ancestors not been taken. I was unaware that when saying one you meant the other.
So, as I said, from a financial standpoint I can certainly agree, which encompasses at least half of your points. I'll go with liberty, too. As far as choices, options (aren't those synonymous?) and opportunity, in at least some ways I also agree.
So the descendants of slaves are better off in terms of what they have and can get materially.
They are also most likely considerably better off in terms of liberty, human rights, options, choices, opportunity, and ability to determine their own destiny. In other words they are almost certainly all better off re those things for which they might otherwise claim loss or damages.
Happiness and well off are two different things. Happiness is up to the individual no matter where he/she lives. But those things that quantify well off--shelter, food, clothing, liberty, choices, options, opportunity--can be quantified.
And if you had said well off, a phrase I've certainly heard used a lot, I might never have commented. Unfortunately you said the descendants of slaves are pretty much all better off than they would have been had their ancestors not been taken. I was unaware that when saying one you meant the other.
So, as I said, from a financial standpoint I can certainly agree, which encompasses at least half of your points. I'll go with liberty, too. As far as choices, options (aren't those synonymous?) and opportunity, in at least some ways I also agree.
So the descendants of slaves are better off in terms of what they have and can get materially.
They are also most likely considerably better off in terms of liberty, human rights, options, choices, opportunity, and ability to determine their own destiny. In other words they are almost certainly all better off re those things for which they might otherwise claim loss or damages.
Thanks Sunni for the idea (sorta) re: 40 acres and a mule.
For.
We kidnapped them, enslaved them, should pay backwages. Fair's fair.
No, I did not disagree that the people are better off, I disagreed that anyone can make that claim with any accuracy. They may be better off, they may not, we can't really know.
Yes, I realize she didn't say all people, I was speaking in the context of the conversation. And to be clear, she didn't say all African Americans either, but those descended from slaves.
But we can really know.
It's not hard to find out how living and economic conditions are in Botswana or any other African country without ever going there. So given that we can now see how average people live in other countries it's relatively easy to compare to them to us in America.
Per capita income in Botswana is $7,238.00, in the US it's $51,729.00. Income is primarily used to determine standard of living so it's safe to say our standard of living is much better than the country of Botswana and very possibly any other country in Africa.
In this age of technology there's no excuse for ignorance.
Let me try one more time.
I do not consider the phrase better off to mean financially. I've heard it used in many different contexts, certainly not all financial in nature.
