Zone1 Why Whites make fun of reperations?

[Mortimer]

That is the most normal thing, didnt Germany pay reperations to Jews and the Allies as well? If they commited genocide, slavery etc. they should pay reperations no? Why is that funny?

 

[BackAgain]

That is the most normal thing, didnt Germany pay reperations to Jews and the Allies as well? If they commited genocide, slavery etc. they should pay reperations no? Why is that funny?

Did you personally ever hold a person in slavery, Morty? I’m gonna guess you didn’t.

So why the fuck would you owe any descendant of any slave any “reparations?

The clue is in the word. Repay. I can’t repay you for something I never took from you.

 

[Mortimer]

Did you personally ever hold a person in slavery, Morty? I’m gonna guess you didn’t.

So why the fuck would you owe any descendant of any slave any “reparations?

The clue is in the word. Repay. I can’t repay you for something I never too from you.

Ok that is a valid point, I understand.

 

[IM2]

Ok that is a valid point, I understand.

No Mortimer it is not a valid point. It's a sad racist excuse that denies the continuing racism they practice. And here is more proof. I've posted this umpteen times.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government made the Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating the treaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars..

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians :: 448 U.S. 371 (1980) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center, United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

 

[DudleySmith]

That is the most normal thing, didnt Germany pay reperations to Jews and the Allies as well? If they commited genocide, slavery etc. they should pay reperations no? Why is that funny?

Most Americans never owned slaves, not to mention most Americans are descended from people who immigrated after the Civil War. 'Reparations' is just another con job. Blacks have already received reparations out the wazoo; they just pissed them away and now want more. They want 'reparations' offer them free voyages back to Africa on container ships.


As for Germany, they loved to extract reparations from countries they defeated in wars; just ask France.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No Mortimer it is not a valid point. It's a sad racist excuse that denies the continuing racism they practice. And here is more proof. I've posted this umpteen times.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government made the Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating the treaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars..

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians :: 448 U.S. 371 (1980) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center, United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

IM2 Just curious. Who were your slave ancestors and when were they brought here?

 

[Bleipriester]

Many white people had to sacrifice their lives to end slavery in America. Who doesn´t remember?

 

[Mortimer]

I think blacks were mistreated well into the 1960s i mean jim crow, and all that, it didnt end with slavery though. Just my two cents, even today we see that blacks disadvantaged, no one thinks that might be a inheritance from how they were marginalised and disfrenchised, do you think it is only because they are "dumb" (I read many whites who think that though).

 

[Bleipriester]

No Mortimer it is not a valid point. It's a sad racist excuse that denies the continuing racism they practice. And here is more proof. I've posted this umpteen times.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government made the Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating the treaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars..

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians :: 448 U.S. 371 (1980) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center, United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

Indian tribes fought and slaughtered Indian tribes for centuries. Why don´t they pay reparations to each other?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That is the most normal thing, didnt Germany pay reperations to Jews and the Allies as well? If they commited genocide, slavery etc. they should pay reperations no? Why is that funny?

Both sides of my family came to this country just before slavery ended (1860) or just after. They both arrived here through New York City (no slavery) and continued to live and work there and later generations migrated upstate.

Neither of the familes owned slaves nor even hired black servants. Both families lived and worked as farmers and cabinet makers and such and made their own way without one drop of African American sweat being shed on their behalf.

Even given these uncomfortable truths, people like IM2 would then just say: You’re white so you are part of the problem and enjoy white privilege.

No. No. A thousand times: No. IM2 has no clue about my personal history or that of my family. What’s more, ascribing negative characteristics to an entire race is precisely why we have the racial division we have today in our country.

It is ignorant, lazy and a gross oversimplification that makes racists of unborn whites and monsters of the innocents who are just trying to provide for their families just like everyone else.

So no, I am definitely not in favor of reparations.

 

[Bleipriester]

I think blacks were mistreated well into the 1960s i mean jim crow, and all that, it didnt end with slavery though. Just my two cents, even today we see that blacks disadvantaged, no one thinks that might be a inheritance from how they were marginalised and disfrenchised, do you think it is only because they are "dumb" (I read many whites who think that though).

You cannot hold future generations accountable for mistakes of the past. If there is unequal treatment, that can be fixed without unloading guilt on random people.

 

[Mortimer]

You cannot hold future generations accountable for mistakes of the past. If there is unequal treatment, that can be fixed without unloading guilt on random people.

I agree with that though.

 

[cnm]

Many white people had to sacrifice their lives to end slavery in America. Who doesn´t remember?

That war was to maintain the Union. Ending slavery is a bit of propaganda the US feeds itself to excuse its long enablement of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln's chief goals in the American Civil War ​

Abraham Lincoln's chief goal in the American Civil War was to preserve the Union. At the outset of the war, he would have done so at any cost, including by allowing slavery to continue.​

 

[cnm]

Both sides of my family came to this country just before slavery ended (1860) or just after. They both arrived here through New York City (no slavery) and continued to live and work there and later generations migrated upstate.

Neither of the familes owned slaves nor even hired black servants. Both families lived and worked as farmers and cabinet makers and such and made their own way without one drop of African American sweat being shed on their behalf.

But benefited from the economic base built on the unpaid labour of slaves. Lol, from which benefits the freed slaves were to a large part excluded.

 

[cnm]

You cannot hold future generations accountable for mistakes of the past. If there is unequal treatment, that can be fixed without unloading guilt on random people.

Yet you seem to think fixing the mistakes of the past is unloading guilt on random people.

 

[Bleipriester]

That war was to maintain the Union. Ending slavery is a bit of propaganda the US feeds itself to excuse its long enablement of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln's chief goals in the American Civil War ...​

Abraham Lincoln's chief goal in the American Civil War was to preserve the Union. At the outset of the war, he would have done so at any cost, including by allowing slavery to continue.​

The southern states broke away from the Union only because of the official end of slavery. Slavery was the mode of economy in the south. 80 % of their population were black slaves.

 

[Bleipriester]

Yet you seem to think fixing the mistakes of the past is unloading guilt on random people.

No. Unloading guilt on random people is just another mistake of that kind. Fixing the mistakes means total equal treatment. It must be understood that maintaining such topics leads to division and racism. The government has to apply equal treatment as taken for grantedness.

 

[The Irish Ram]

That war was to maintain the Union. Ending slavery is a bit of propaganda the US feeds itself to excuse its long enablement of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln's chief goals in the American Civil War ​

Abraham Lincoln's chief goal in the American Civil War was to preserve the Union. At the outset of the war, he would have done so at any cost, including by allowing slavery to continue.​

The reason Lincoln needed to maintain a Union was because southern states seceded to hold on to the institution of slavery. They went to war against the north. They lost and slavery was defeated.

If anyone should receive reparations, it should be women. They were the property of their husbands. They owned nothing. They could be beaten, whipped and killed. Blacks were allow to vote in 1870. Woman weren't allowed to vote until 1920. We still aren't paid the same as men, regardless of the man's color. It is a man's world, and women should be compensated for continuing the human race, considering the way we have been treated historically...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

But benefited from the economic base built on the unpaid labour of slaves. Lol, from which benefits the freed slaves were to a large part excluded.

Prove it. Prove that I, in particular, benefitted from this.

Before you respond you should know that where I grew up in upstate New York, there were no blacks. Literally.

I never saw any blacks in any real numbers until we moved to Miami briefly when I was in 4th grade.

So don’t hand me that shit about benefitting from a black-excluded economic system when there were no blacks to lord over or deprive in our area in the first place.

 

[Man of Ethics]

If anyone should receive reparations, it should be women.
1) They were the property of their husbands. They owned nothing. They could be beaten, whipped and killed.
2) Blacks were allow to vote in 1870. Woman weren't allowed to vote until 1920. We still aren't paid the same as men, regardless of the man's color.
3) It is a man's world, and women should be compensated for continuing the human race, considering the way we have been treated historically...

1) Laws against wife beating existed in America since Colonial Times. Here.

Women could and did own property. Including slaves in America and serfs in Russia. Here.

2) Men were drafted up to 1973. They were sent to Korea and Vietnam by politicians elected by both genders.

3) In a men's world, no male victim of Domestic Violence would have been arrested. In Modern USA, most men who are victims of Domestic Violence are arrested rather then helped. Here. In a men's world, men would not lose their university enrollment or careers on unsubstantiated accusations. In Modern USA, that is common.

4) Nevertheless, Racism against African Americans may still be worse then gender discrimination against either gender.