Zone1 Why Whites make fun of reperations?

[DudleySmith]

No one went to war to save the Jews. Let's have some realism here.

So what? Jews as a group were never active in saving anybody else from anything. In fact they're 'famous' for their critical support of Muslim invasions and massacres of Christians for many centuries. Try to come up with something that doesn't make you look like the ignorant racist fool you are in real life.

 

[AZrailwhale]

This is lunacy. The other people mentioned were free. They chose to do the jobs. Slaves died from work, beatings, children were murdered, used as gator bait, I mean this post is just stupid.

White immigrants choice was to do those jobs or starve. Welfare and the social safety net didn’t exist in those days. A slave was a valuable piece of property and only a stupid owner failed to take care of his property. Free workers were disposable, if they couldn’t or wouldn’t work they didn’t get paid. if they died in an accident, it cost the business nothing. If one got too sick to work, there were more hungry immigrants waiting for the job. Slaves had to be fed and housed twenty four seven regardless of how much work was available, immigrants could be fired at a moment’s notice if there wasn’t work for them.

 

[Flash]

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)

You demand your fucking welfare, don't you? Grow up and take responsibility for your own well being and stop blaming others for your sorriness.

We don't owe you Negroes anything.

You owe us because of the crime and welfare you have stolen from Americans.

 

[IM2]

lol the world according to con artists trying to get free money for nothing. Eyewitness reports by abolitionists of course tell the real story, which sucks for hacks and fraudsters like IM2. And we all know how violent blacks are and how they treat each other, no need to keep reminding us. You're still beating and murdering children and pimping them off today; old habits die hard, eh? lol at 'gator bait'. Yeah that was real common ... if you're a tard who believes idiot dreaming up propoganda.

Eyewitnesses tell the story I just said. Only idiots say reparations is free money. You talk about violence, whites are the champions. Whites are beating and pimping children, as whites originated pimping kids to the point ofthe government having to creating child labor laws. And rrecently we have seen that whites are still pimping kids in slaughterhouses and on film. History ain't propaganda son, and the Irish had it better than slaves. Irish historians even say that.

‘Irish slaves’: the convenient myth

The conflation of indentured servitude with chattel slavery in the ‘Irish slaves’ narrative whitewashes history in the service of Irish nationalist and white supremacist causes. Its resurgence in the wake of Ferguson reflects many Americans’ denial of the entrenched racism still prevalent in...

www.opendemocracy.net

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Okay. So what does that have to do with me a hundred fifty years later?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So an imaginary situation is all you need to discount benefiting from the US economy at the expense of others. I expected nothing less.

Are you suggesting that, in spite of the massive foreign demand for America’s cotton and tobacco, America would not have prospered as it has simply due to the non-existence of slavery?

Cotton was a huge business because it was in great demand, plentiful and the price was good. It was not a huge business just because slaves picked it.

You can’t be that stupid.

Below is a link to an article from Politico Magazine from 2015 detailing cotton production before, during and after the Civil War:

How Cotton Remade the World

An excerpt:

“So successful was the transition of slave labor into sharecropping and tenant farming during and after the war that cotton production actually expanded dramatically. By 1870, American cotton farmers surpassed their previous harvest high, set in 1860. By 1877, they regained and surpassed their pre-war market share in Great Britain. By 1880 they exported more cotton than they had in 1860. And, by 1891, sharecroppers, family farmers and plantation owners in the United States were growing twice as much cotton as in 1861.”

So you see, slavery was not necessary to make cotton more profitable and in fact, became more profitable after slavery.

So no, I think I benefitted from a robust economy, not the exclusion of blacks from that economy, as wrong as that was.

I know what you’re thinking but let me say that I condemn the institution of slavery and I condemn the laws and policies that pushed blacks to the margins of American society. But I’m also a realist and when I look at the facts without the filter of moral conviction, I see a different history than you do.

I would even go as far as to say that our economy might have been even more robust if blacks had been included.

 

[Bleipriester]

There was no 'official' end of slavery before secession. Which alternative history have you read?

True but that doesn´t change the fact that the secession and war were solely about slavery.

End of slavery in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bleipriester]

In which case everyone should start from the same level. Right?

As far as practicable, yes.

 

[cnm]

But I’m also a realist and when I look at the facts without the filter of moral conviction, I see a different history than you do.

Yes, your filter persuades you that slavery never existed because there was no necessity for it.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Yeah, never pay that debt, be a bum.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah, never pay that debt, be a bum.

I don’t owe any debts.

I realize that many libtards believe that the descendants of slaves are entitled to be repaid for a wrong that wasn’t done to them (but done to their predecessors, instead). And I also see that those same libtards seem to believe that such repayment is somehow “owed” by the descendants of folks who never had any slaves.

But, those beliefs are absurd and unsupportable in logic or morality.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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?

Because blacks in America have the SAME PLUS SPECIAL RIGHTS because of their skin color.

There are no black slaves in America

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes, your filter persuades you that slavery never existed because there was no necessity for it.

Don’t be an idiot.

 

[LibertyKid]

We can debate all day long reparations and if they are morally right or wrong.
The bigger question is how?

• How do you determine first who get's paid: Slavery lineage
• Is it fair do delineate payments from those that have slavery in their past and those who do not?
• How do you determine who pays: all taxpayers, only southern states, doe African slave sellers have culpability and liability to contribute
• What is the sum of money to be payed
• Is the money paid to individuals or is the money used to help fund education, jobs, training, housing, investments, that African Americans can apply to use (this too would have restrictions like using funds to buy a home could only be done once. Education grants, only once, if you flunk out or drop out, no more funds for you).
• If funds are paid to individuals, should restrictions be placed on how those funds are spent:
  • No Booze
  • No Drugs
  • No Hookers
  • No Gold Chains, Jewelry, etc
  • No Firearms
  • No Vacations
  • No Cable TV(Yes to other housing expenses)
  • No Sporting Events
• If paid to individuals: Lump Sum or Monthly/quarterly/Yearly payments?
• Should financial responsibility classes be mandatory prior to any pay out?
• If Reparations are paid, can African Americans stop playing the race card? Meaning, strict laws on claiming something was racist when it evidence counters the racist claim.

We al know, reparations isn't going to fix anything. You can't just hand money over, blindly and think "It's all better now" nor will it fix the black community (specifically the poor, urban gang areas). I tend to think that reparations will cause even more issues in the black community, especially if reparations are not paid to ALL blacks.

 

[Hector12]

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?

It is funny because whites owe blacks nothing. They would be worse off without us. We would be better off without them.