Repirations for slavery

[Roger A. Shrubber]

where did i say America deserved credit for ending slavery? i was trying to imply that we hadn't done nearly enough to make this country fair for all its citizens, NOW, and that my fear was that some white people would use reparations as an excuse to say we had. that reparations would make the current situation acceptable. because that's what i feel we owe to minorities, the same life everyone else has. the same chances. the same education, the same access to health care...that would be real reparations

 

[Grandpapy]

Small steps.

On May 26, Australia observes National Sorry Day, an acknowledgement of the Stolen Generations of Black indigenous people who were kidnapped from their families in a policy of assimilationism. The title of the holiday itself screams out for more than an apology.
https://atlantablackstar.com/2016/05/26/australia-offers-national-sorry-day-to-black-aboriginal-people-for-brutal-eugenics-and-theft-of-their-children-what-of-reparations/

Aboriginals in Australia have won a ground-breaking case that paves the way for billions of dollars in compensation claims for colonial land loss, as well as loss of spiritual connection.
https://ibw21.org/news/australian-aboriginals-to-get-billions-in-compensation-for-land-spiritual-loss-in-landmark-case/

Casino's are out of the question.

 

[Rob Roy]

If a person was drafted into the military (forced servitude) and was sent to some foreign land to "fight for freedom" and got killed, should their ancestors get some form of reparations ?

Should the "foreign people" who the draftee killed (before they got killed themselves) also make some reparations claims against "Americans" ?

 

[Grandpapy]

You/They do, who made that shirt for you?

 

[TacoMac]

where did i say America deserved credit for ending slavery? i was trying to imply that we hadn't done nearly enough to make this country fair for all its citizens, NOW, and that my fear was that some white people would use reparations as an excuse to say we had. that reparations would make the current situation acceptable. because that's what i feel we owe to minorities, the same life everyone else has. the same chances. the same education, the same access to health care...that would be real reparations

The problem with reparations that about 99.99999% of people miss is this: The United States was not responsible for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of slaves brought to this country.

Again, the U.S. only took part in the slave trade for 24 years. ONLY the slaves brought in during that span would qualify for reparations, and unless you can verify your ancestry to that point with documentation, it's simply impossible to pull off.

Any slaves brought in before 1783, which is of course the VAST majority of them, would have to seek reparations from the European nations that brought them here. (England, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc.)

The whole idea is an exercise in futility. From a legal standpoint, it would be virtually impossible to prove who came from where and when.

It's all a pipe dream.

 

[Rob Roy]

where did i say America deserved credit for ending slavery? i was trying to imply that we hadn't done nearly enough to make this country fair for all its citizens, NOW, and that my fear was that some white people would use reparations as an excuse to say we had. that reparations would make the current situation acceptable. because that's what i feel we owe to minorities, the same life everyone else has. the same chances. the same education, the same access to health care...that would be real reparations

The smallest minority is the individual.

Are peaceful individuals who've had their lives disrupted by prohibition due some reparations ?

What if the peaceful individual was a white guy and some of his arresting piggies were another race or gender, should that race or gender pool some money and give the aggrieved individual some reparations?

 

[Rob Roy]

You/They do, who made that shirt for you?

Keebler elves. Locked in the basement until they hit their quotas.

 

[Rob Roy]

The problem with reparations that about 99.99999% of people miss is this: The United States was not responsible for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of slaves brought to this country.

Again, the U.S. only took part in the slave trade for 24 years. ONLY the slaves brought in during that span would qualify for reparations, and unless you can verify your ancestry to that point with documentation, it's simply impossible to pull off.

Any slaves brought in before 1783, which is of course the VAST majority of them, would have to seek reparations from the European nations that brought them here. (England, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc.)

The whole idea is an exercise in futility. From a legal standpoint, it would be virtually impossible to prove who came from where and when.

It's all a pipe dream.

The United States is taking part in slavery now.

People have been and still are imprisoned and compelled to work for the crime of acting as if they own their body and their property. From a reality standpoint it is virtually indistinguishable from other forms of more commonly recognized slavery.

 

[kelly4]

Nah

We stole wealth from these families. We should give back what was stolen with interest

Give them your house.

 

[squarepush3r]

We stole wealth from these families. We should give back what was stolen with interest

should we punish more severely the owners of the slave ships do you think, who were playing a very large role in facilitating and profiting off the slave trade?

 

[Fogdog]

The problem with reparations that about 99.99999% of people miss is this: The United States was not responsible for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of slaves brought to this country.

Again, the U.S. only took part in the slave trade for 24 years. ONLY the slaves brought in during that span would qualify for reparations, and unless you can verify your ancestry to that point with documentation, it's simply impossible to pull off.

Any slaves brought in before 1783, which is of course the VAST majority of them, would have to seek reparations from the European nations that brought them here. (England, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc.)

The whole idea is an exercise in futility. From a legal standpoint, it would be virtually impossible to prove who came from where and when.

It's all a pipe dream.

Did slavery end in 1783?

I missed that in my history classes. I guess I was distracted by women at the time.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Did slavery end in 1783?

I missed that in my history classes. I guess I was distracted by women at the time.

no, it officially ended in 1865.
1783 is when it was abolished in Mass....remember, the north did it earlier...while it's far from the only, or even major cause of the civil war, it was part of it...

guess you did fantasize through history class....

 

[knucklehead bob]

no, it officially ended in 1865.

OFFICIALY re-instated in 1913 .

 

[TacoMac]

no, it officially ended in 1865.
1783 is when it was abolished in Mass....remember, the north did it earlier...while it's far from the only, or even major cause of the civil war, it was part of it...

guess you did fantasize through history class....

1783 was when the United States was officially recognized as a sovereign nation.

1807 was when the slave trade was abolished. That was built into the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified in 1788.

Owning slaves was abolished on January 1st, 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War came to an end on April 9th, 1865. Other than that, the date has no relevance.

 

[Rob Roy]

1783 was when the United States was officially recognized as a sovereign nation.

1807 was when the slave trade was abolished. That was built into the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified in 1788.

Owning slaves was abolished on January 1st, 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War came to an end on April 9th, 1865. Other than that, the date has no relevance.

How can you say the slave trade was abolished in 1807, if "draft dodgers" who refused to be enslaved were imprisoned after that date, presumably at least some of them forced to work while in prison too ?

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

no, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865....
the emancipation proclamation was kind of like trumps "state of emergency"...Lincoln could only issue it because of the unprecedented war time powers congress had granted him to end the civil war. the amendment that made it an actual law was passed December 6th, 1865

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

lots of people apparently fantasized through history class....

 

[TacoMac]

no, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865....
the emancipation proclamation was kind of like trumps "state of emergency"..

It was an executive order and was perfectly legal. It immediately ended slavery and held power until the 13th amendment was ratified and the executive order was rescinded.

Had there never been a 13th amendment slavery would still have been illegal.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Other than that, the date has no relevance.

was more a reply to this than a question of legality...
the whole "instrument" was pretty extraordinary. the wording of it frees those who were in servitude at the time, but did not make owning slaves illegal.
"In 1863 President Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring “all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Nonetheless, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation. Lincoln recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery."

that's what the 13th amendment did.

"The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.""

so an executive order is certainly legal, but this executive order didn't make slavery illegal, it freed all those currently slaves.

 

[Fogdog]

1783 was when the United States was officially recognized as a sovereign nation.

1807 was when the slave trade was abolished. That was built into the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified in 1788.

Owning slaves was abolished on January 1st, 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War came to an end on April 9th, 1865. Other than that, the date has no relevance.

Isn't this about reparations for slavery?