Black Democrat Booed For Testifying Against Slave Reparations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8D5e-vIkqY

He made sense. Of course many people would like to get free money so they're going to disapprove, but getting free money for something that happened to someone else is just stupid.

The very concept of "reparations" for slaves being transported to the Americas, being payed out of the Public Purse is a flawed one, to even begin with.

If any of those slaves' descendents were to be compensated for what was done to their ancestors,  those monies should be obtained from those who benefitted --  in the main, that would chiefly be the tobacco companies, farming families, and shareholders, who profited from that slave trade..

Those peoples who should be compensated by the US government as reparations for past sins, should be the First Nations Native American "Indians" who had their homelands stolen, and hundreds of thousands murdered in cold blood.

As the American government has gained, and still continues to gain $$billions$$ in royalties from mining, oil, forestry and farming corporations, and some gov't departments, that were handed that land,  they can well afford to pay those way-overdue bills..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The very concept of "reparations" for slaves being transported to the Americas, being payed out of the Public Purse is a flawed one, to even begin with.

If any of those slaves' descendents were to be compensated for what was done to their ancestors,  those monies should be obtained from those who benefitted --  in the main, that would chiefly be the tobacco companies, farming families, and shareholders, who profited from that slave trade..

Those peoples who should be compensated by the US government as reparations for past sins, should be the First Nations Native American "Indians" who had their homelands stolen, and hundreds of thousands murdered in cold blood.

As the American government has gained, and still continues to gain $$billions$$ in royalties from mining, oil, forestry and farming corporations, and some gov't departments, that were handed that land,  they can well afford to pay those way-overdue bills..

American Indians have all sorts of "free" stuff given to them.

It's a policy formed on paternalism.

It hasn't served them well.

Perhaps the Democratic party should pay for reparations. Tjey supported slavery.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The very concept of "reparations" for slaves being transported to the Americas, being payed out of the Public Purse is a flawed one, to even begin with.

If any of those slaves' descendents were to be compensated for what was done to their ancestors,  those monies should be obtained from those who benefitted --  in the main, that would chiefly be the tobacco companies, farming families, and shareholders, who profited from that slave trade..

Those peoples who should be compensated by the US government as reparations for past sins, should be the First Nations Native American "Indians" who had their homelands stolen, and hundreds of thousands murdered in cold blood.

As the American government has gained, and still continues to gain $$billions$$ in royalties from mining, oil, forestry and farming corporations, and some gov't departments, that were handed that land,  they can well afford to pay those way-overdue bills..

American Indians have all sorts of "free" stuff given to them.

It's a policy formed on paternalism.  

It hasn't served them well.  

Perhaps the Democratic party should pay for reparations. Tjey supported slavery.  

Actually, the party of Virginia and the south was called the "Republican-Democrats".  They were opposed by the “Federalist” Party of the north.

The major issue back then was the relative power between the state governments and the Federal government (thus, one party even calling themselves Federalists).

This division primarily involved trade and the power of taxation, as you will see when you study the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.  The issue only involved slavery tangentially, because of the division among states as pro-slavery (south), and anti-slavery (north).

In other words, slavery was one of the many issues that were encompassed by the power struggle between local and federal authority, but it was not the defining issue between the major parties.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The very concept of "reparations" for slaves being transported to the Americas, being payed out of the Public Purse is a flawed one, to even begin with...……

Interesting phrase there, which caught my eye, Wolfie.   




Funfact: 
Did you know that when British slave owners were forced (by law) to release their slaves, the owners received huge compensation out of the Public Purse, right here in the UK, in the 19th century? 


Cos of course, the slaves were worth a fortune to their owners. The slave trade was the owners' sole means of making money. Forcing them to set their slaves free was a bit like seizing all a company's assets. It would have led to instant ruination of these middle class millionaires if they had received no gov't compensation.

I don't have time to watch the vid but the thing is …. whether or not the descendants of slaves should be compensated is academic really, cos no country can afford to do this. 

What's done is done, perhaps the best thing is to try & move forward.

Jules wrote:Cos of course, the slaves were worth a fortune to their owners. The slave trade was the owners' sole means of making money. Forcing them to set their slaves free was a bit like seizing all a company's assets. It would have led to instant ruination of these middle class millionaires if they had received no gov't compensation.

Proving once again, that capitalism is evil. Profit once even superseded humanity.

But modern reparations are not for profit, but for the purposes of humanity. It's just that, I'm not sure the injury is made whole by money.

Raggamuffin wrote:He made sense. Of course many people would like to get free money so they're going to disapprove, but getting free money for something that happened to someone else is just stupid.

Completely agree Rags, why should be benefit from nothing they have suffered from
Only people who suffered under Jim crow should recive reperations and also that money is injected in projects to help the black community as he suggested.
What was disgusting was the idiots that booed him

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:Cos of course, the slaves were worth a fortune to their owners. The slave trade was the owners' sole means of making money. Forcing them to set their slaves free was a bit like seizing all a company's assets. It would have led to instant ruination of these middle class millionaires if they had received no gov't compensation.

Proving once again, that capitalism is evil.  Profit once even superseded humanity.

But modern reparations are not for profit, but for the purposes of humanity.  It's just that, I'm not sure the injury is made whole by money.

That scar will never heal but there is no question of compensation, the govt cannot afford it. 

One thing it could do is that out of all the buildings the slaves built with free labour, a few could be turned over to the community? And used as community centres, education centres, drop in clinics, shelters for the homeless etc. Something that will benefit the entire community ….. ie all the poverty-stricken people of all colours.

IF  American descendants of slaves were to be considered to be worthy of 'reparations' from the present-day American government...

Then equally so, the current descendants of British convicts transported to Australia should also be owed $$billions$$ by today's British government, the British Royal Family and the "aristocracy"  !

Where's my share of such "reparations",  then  ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

IF  American descendants of slaves were to be considered to be worthy of 'reparations' from the present-day American government...

Then equally so, the current descendants of British convicts transported to Australia should also be owed $$billions$$ by today's British government, the British Royal Family and the "aristocracy"  !



Where's my share of such "reparations",  then  ?

Your community should put in a formal request, Wofie. The Brits transported to Australia suffered monumental injustices.

Jules wrote:I don't have time to watch the vid but the thing is …. whether or not the descendants of slaves should be compensated is academic really, cos no country can afford to do this. 

What's done is done, perhaps the best thing is to try & move forward.

Exactly. Acknowledge the mistakes of the past, but don't create resentment by punishing those that had nothing to do with it.

A German child born next week shouldn't be punished for something the Nazis did in 1938.

Jules wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

IF  American descendants of slaves were to be considered to be worthy of 'reparations' from the present-day American government...

Then equally so, the current descendants of British convicts transported to Australia should also be owed $$billions$$ by today's British government, the British Royal Family and the "aristocracy"  !

Where's my share of such "reparations",  then  ?

Your community should put in a formal request, Wofie. The Brits transported to Australia suffered monumental injustices.

It would be a long, long list, if everyone wronged by the British government over the past 300 years or so joined the queue for 'reparations'...

Ahead of the descendants of those convicts sent out to Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean and the likes;  would be the indigenous folks displaced and disenfranchised by British invasions of their homelands --  native peoples in Ireland, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, a few Pacific islands, a few countries across Africa, the Indian sub-continent..

Head of the queue, and above everyone else so badly wronged, however,  I would place those 100,000+ British children who were stolen from their families and exported off to distant former colonies throughout most of the early-->mid 20th century  --  as many of those children are still alive today.  Not only lied to, often abused and exploited, many left to fend for themeslves..

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:I don't have time to watch the vid but the thing is …. whether or not the descendants of slaves should be compensated is academic really, cos no country can afford to do this.

What's done is done, perhaps the best thing is to try & move forward.

Exactly. Acknowledge the mistakes of the past, but don't create resentment by punishing those that had nothing to do with it.

But some remediation is owed. As I said above, money doesn't seem to make the damage whole. The long march of discrimination has continued through social institutions, from peonage to Jim Crow, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the modern day ghettos.

Far better, and more relevant than money, would be education, including university, health, food and housing, to make up for the lingering, present effects of past discrimination.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Exactly. Acknowledge the mistakes of the past, but don't create resentment by punishing those that had nothing to do with it.

But some remediation is owed.  As I said above, money doesn't seem to make the damage whole.  The long march of discrimination has continued through social institutions, from peonage to Jim Crow, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the modern day ghettos.

Far better, and more relevant than money, would be education, including university, health, food and housing, to make up for the lingering, present effects of past discrimination.

So treat people differently based on race to make up for people having been treated differently based on race?

That won't cause any resentment.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Exactly. Acknowledge the mistakes of the past, but don't create resentment by punishing those that had nothing to do with it.

But some remediation is owed.  As I said above, money doesn't seem to make the damage whole.  The long march of discrimination has continued through social institutions, from peonage to Jim Crow, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the modern day ghettos.

Far better, and more relevant than money, would be education, including university, health, food and housing, to make up for the lingering, present effects of past discrimination.

So treat people differently based on race to make up for people having been treated differently based on race?  

That won't cause any resentment.

Justice should be devoid of emotion, no?

Surely a murderer's got family who despair to see him imprisoned or executed. Should we take their feelings into consideration during sentencing?

Not sure I agree with the points made in the actual OP, but yes, justice should be devoid of emotion.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So treat people differently based on race to make up for people having been treated differently based on race?  

That won't cause any resentment.

Justice should be devoid of emotion, no?

Surely a murderer's got family who despair to see him imprisoned or executed. Should we take their feelings into consideration during sentencing?

Who is up for being sentenced for slavery today? Is this some new sort of world record on age? So your point makes utterly no sense. As many generations have passed since slavery. What does matter, is those people who actually suffered under Jim Crow. They should received reparations. Also money should go into projects for the black community. Simple giving money to people, who have had no wrong done to them, is idiotic at best and even worse to blame people and make them pay for no wrong they have done.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But some remediation is owed.  As I said above, money doesn't seem to make the damage whole.  The long march of discrimination has continued through social institutions, from peonage to Jim Crow, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the modern day ghettos.

Far better, and more relevant than money, would be education, including university, health, food and housing, to make up for the lingering, present effects of past discrimination.

So treat people differently based on race to make up for people having been treated differently based on race?  

That won't cause any resentment.

Not as much as slavery did. The Civil War is still the war in which the most Americans died...660,000 comes to mind.

If we don't do something to find closure, Trump-willing and the creek don't rise, we'll damn sure do it again.

If such reparations are paid for via taxes, of course it would cause resentment. What about the "poor" white family who sees a relatively well off black person getting public money just for being black? That's just asking for trouble.

I am not responsible for what my Father did, and definitely not for what my Grandfather may have done !

When you look at the diversity of cultures, and talents and all the good that happens in the world, we are all pretty amazing. But so much focus is on negativity. When you really take a long hard look at the atrocities committed against humanity, the list is endless and perpetrated by many countries and many cultures.

Are we to make every German suffer for what Hitler did? Every Japanese for what was done to China in the second world war?

How about the African slave traders who sold their own to the Europeans? Who will make them pay?

Slavery was prevalent in many parts of Africa for many centuries before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade. Who will pay for that?

Traditional African rulers whose ancestors collaborated with European and Arab slave traders should follow Britain and the United States by publicly saying sorry, according to human rights organisations.

The Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria has written to tribal chiefs saying: "We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans, particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless."

So where does it end?

nicko wrote:I am not responsible for what my Father did, and definitely not for what my Grandfather may have done !

It's more about what you are doing right now, and the benefits you enjoy. Think of it as inertia...or, present effects of past discrimination.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I am not responsible for what my Father did, and definitely not for what my Grandfather may have done !

It's more about what you are doing right now, and the benefits you enjoy.  Think of it as inertia...or, present effects of past discrimination.

What benefits does he have over that of everyone else in this country is born to?

The answer

None, he has the exact same benefits as everyone else

+1

HoratioTarr wrote: When you look at the diversity of cultures, and talents and all the good that happens in the world, we are all pretty amazing.  But so much focus is on negativity.   When you really take a long hard look at the atrocities committed against humanity, the list is endless and perpetrated by many countries and many cultures.  

Are we to make every German suffer for what Hitler did?    Every Japanese for what was done to China in the second world war?  

How about the African slave traders who sold their own to the Europeans?  Who will make them pay?

Slavery was prevalent in many parts of Africa for many centuries before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade.   Who will pay for that?

Traditional African rulers whose ancestors collaborated with European and Arab slave traders should follow Britain and the United States by publicly saying sorry, according to human rights organisations.

The Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria has written to tribal chiefs saying: "We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans, particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless."

So where does it end?

Bloody good post.

I can certainly understand why some might want reparations, and it's not just because they're greedy. But I don't think it's a good idea.

The biggest problem I see with reparations is that you can't simply put a price tag on something like slavery; it's akin to saying, "how much money could I pay my rape victim to negate the fact that I raped her?" The answer is that no amount of money can make a serious crime simply go away.

The effort should be put into reforming American society so that everyone has equal rights and opportunities, which is still not the case.

Ben Reilly wrote:I can certainly understand why some might want reparations, and it's not just because they're greedy. But I don't think it's a good idea.

The biggest problem I see with reparations is that you can't simply put a price tag on something like slavery; it's akin to saying, "how much money could I pay my rape victim to negate the fact that I raped her?" The answer is that no amount of money can make a serious crime simply go away.

The effort should be put into reforming American society so that everyone has equal rights and opportunities, which is still not the case.

It's not even like that, it's more like someone saying - how much money could I pay to the great grandaughter of someone I raped?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's more about what you are doing right now, and the benefits you enjoy.  Think of it as inertia...or, present effects of past discrimination.

What benefits does he have over that of everyone else in this country is born to?

The answer

None, he has the exact same benefits as everyone else

You forgot about all that coin his daddy put in his pockets before he left.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What benefits does he have over that of everyone else in this country is born to?

The answer

None, he has the exact same benefits as everyone else

You forgot about all that coin his daddy put in his pockets before he left.

What coin, when Nicko came from a working class back ground like my family?

So do you think I should receive reperations for the centuries of abuse to the Irish by the British? Or how about at the end of the Roman Empire, when the Irish were raiding the English? How about to the Italians, for the roman occupation of Britain? Or the celts from Germany or the saxons? How about the French with the Normans? How about the Danes with the Vikings?

Do you see how stupid such a view point can get?

People today are not resonsible for what people did in the past. Like i said those alive today who did suffer, like under Jim crow, should  be compensated. Plus money should also be injected into projects in the black community. You dont give money to people who have not suffered any hardship, based off what some of their ancestors suffered, as then basically everyone could claim

Ben Reilly wrote:I can certainly understand why some might want reparations, and it's not just because they're greedy. But I don't think it's a good idea.

The biggest problem I see with reparations is that you can't simply put a price tag on something like slavery; it's akin to saying, "how much money could I pay my rape victim to negate the fact that I raped her?" The answer is that no amount of money can make a serious crime simply go away.

The effort should be put into reforming American society so that everyone has equal rights and opportunities, which is still not the case.

And what of women? They couldn't own land or vote either for awhile. Some might say that they still suffer from that period.

And Warren brought up gay people. Because they were denied the right to marry, they had to file taxes as single, which often made them pay more.

Now she want's to pay them too. It will never end.

phil wrote:What coin, when Nicko came from a working class back ground like my family?

He's white, isn't he? That's a hell of a lot more coin then blacks have ever gotten.

I just read "all that coin he put in my Pocket" what a stupid statement . My Father was disabled from birth with Polio,he always worked in low paid jobs. when he died, aged 61, he left 10 shillings [50p] and a packet of Woodbines with 6 left. !

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:What coin, when Nicko came from a working class back ground like my family?

He's white, isn't he?  That's a hell of a lot more coin then blacks have ever gotten.  

Wow, what a racist statement. What has his skin colour have to do with anything here? You are making racist assumptions, not backed by any evidence.

Quill, are you Black ?

Over the past 7-years, how many times have I answered that question from you?

I am a third generation Scot, from the Isle of Mull. Here is my castle:

Perhaps you should sell your castle and give the money to the poor.

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps you should sell your castle and give the money to the poor.

It's not my castle. It belongs to a trust, the beneficiary of which is the family. It's run by the Clan Chief, a laird who is a Tory. He's a nice guy, but hardly likely to feed any charity.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps you should sell your castle and give the money to the poor.

It's not my castle.  It belongs to a trust, the beneficiary of which is the family.  It's run by the Clan Chief, a laird who is a Tory.  He's a nice guy, but hardly likely to feed any charity.

Then you should stop saying it's your castle.

It's not even in your family.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps you should sell your castle and give the money to the poor.

It's not my castle.  It belongs to a trust, the beneficiary of which is the family.  It's run by the Clan Chief, a laird who is a Tory.  He's a nice guy, but hardly likely to feed any charity.

Och, cousin. Ye're  frae' that Clan Maclean on the Isle o' Mull, are ye? Caisteal Dhubairt is a fair bonnie  caisteal, I'll grant ye, but as Laird o' Dunans I reckon I can match ye....ee'n though the owd caisteal has nae been the same sin' the great fire.

Misel', mon, I'm frae the Clan Masischal though we're callin' ourselves by the sasanach name the noo.

Veritas Vincit

I am the Laird of Glencoe, and as such I would like to buy that Castle , with the premise that I can knock it down and build affordable houses for poor illegal immigrants !

nicko wrote:I am the Laird of Glencoe, and as such I would like to buy that Castle , with the premise that I can knock it down and build affordable houses for poor illegal immigrants !

Why necko, how sweet and charitable you are.  As you get closer to the maker, you want to undo some things back over yer shoulder, eh?

The chief's name is Lachlan.  And, "[t]hough today he is known as being kind, humble, soft-spoken, and genuinely warm, Sir Lachlan was a special operations officer, corporate executive, and is today the embasador of his ancient clan."  https://macleanhistory.org/chiefs/sir-lachlan-hector-charles-maclean-28th-chief/

Don't let such sweet words fool you.  He taught jungle warfare to the Americans before they got into Vietnam...heard many stories from 'im.  He knows salt water peat whiskey like only an island Scot can.  Many nights, on the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry to Oban, he taught me to love it too.

If you want to purchase me 'umble lil abode, you should talk to 'im.

BTW...lov the accent Fred.    Thought I was back in Inveraray.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not my castle.  It belongs to a trust, the beneficiary of which is the family.  It's run by the Clan Chief, a laird who is a Tory.  He's a nice guy, but hardly likely to feed any charity.

Then you should stop saying it's your castle.

It's not even in your family.

It's the Royal 'MY'...Like you Ainglish would say, 'Our England':

Kipling wrote:Our England is a Garden,
And such Gardens are not made,
by singing "Oh, how beautiful!"
and sitting in the shade.

— Rudyard Kipling.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then you should stop saying it's your castle.

It's not even in your family.

It's the Royal 'MY'...Like you Ainglish would say, 'Our England':

Kipling wrote:Our England is a Garden,
And such Gardens are not made,
by singing "Oh, how beautiful!"
and sitting in the shade.

— Rudyard Kipling.

You mean like I might say "my Palace" when speaking of Buckingham Palace?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's the Royal 'MY'...Like you Ainglish would say, 'Our England':

You mean like I might say "my Palace" when speaking of Buckingham Palace?

No, Buckingham Palace was bought by George III in 1761, for his bride, Charlotte. It has acquired the nom of Queen's House...so, a nom has already been taken.

It usually goes with bigger things. It's like the Royal 'we'; you use the first person, possessive to denote something you're fond of. My castle, my Scotland, my family...things like that.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean like I might say "my Palace" when speaking of Buckingham Palace?

No, Buckingham Palace was bought by George III in 1761, for his bride, Charlotte.  It has acquired the nom of Queen's House...so, a nom has already been taken.

It usually goes with bigger things.  It's like the Royal 'we'; you use the first person, possessive to denote something you're fond of.  My castle, my Scotland, my family...things like that.

The castle was bought - I forget by whom. Therefore, it's the same thing, and you calling it "my castle" is silly just because you had some ancestor who was Scottish.