America - The Official Thread

[MatskiMonk]

My family came from Scotland to Canada but ending up in Detroit in the early 1900s. They weren't slave owners and didn't profit from slaves what-so-ever. Even if you think I should have to pay for the sins of my ancestors, which is a ridiculous notion to begin with, my ancestors didn't commit the sin of slavery.

Your Scottish ancestry probably has paid tax to the British government in order to repay the Rotshchilds for the loan taken in order to pay the slave owners for their slaves freedom.

 

[huskeR32]

The case against libertarians supporting the authoritarian Trump seems to me to be so clearly made on this forum that I'm always surprised to see libertarians elsewhere proudly announcing that they voted for him because "we're libertarians and we can vote for whoever we want".

GTP is the just about the only place I’ve ever encountered logically consistent libertarians. Honestly wasn’t sure they actually existed before I started spending time here. Most “libertarians” I encounter in meat space contradict themselves so often, I’m surprised they know their own names.

 

[Joey D]

Your Scottish ancestry probably has paid tax to the British government in order to repay the Rotshchilds for the loan taken in order to pay the slave owners for their slaves freedom.

I'm not sure I follow you here? Sure they probably paid tax that ultimately went to slave owners, but they still had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not sure I follow you here? Sure they probably paid tax that ultimately went to slave owners, but they still had nothing to do with slavery.

They helped to pay reparations to slave owners. Not that they had a say in the matter.

Evil enablers.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm not sure I follow you here? Sure they probably paid tax that ultimately went to slave owners

That's pretty much it.

In the context of this...

That people who never owned slaves, have property taken from them to pay people who weren't slaves?

... that appears to be exactly what happened in Britain under the abolishment act (property... money, same same), and in case you weren't aware, it was only 2015 when this loan taken to pay off the slave owners was fully repaid. The British tax payer, including myself for 15 years, went to service this arrangement. The Slave owners are dead, their families are in some cases still wealthy, the Rothschilds do alright too. The slaves got nothing, and I've personally paid towards that situation. The ridiculous scenario you paint is pretty much part of the British history with slavery.

Ironically, our PM of that year (2015), has slave ownership in his family tree (and his wife's), those branches of his family tree received large amounts of money under the abolishment act. Within a year, that PM had gone to Jamaica to say, pretty much, "Right, that's done, let's put it all behind us"

 

[TenEightyOne]

My family came from Scotland to Canada but ending up in Detroit in the early 1900s. They weren't slave owners and didn't profit from slaves what-so-ever. Even if you think I should have to pay for the sins of my ancestors, which is a ridiculous notion to begin with, my ancestors didn't commit the sin of slavery.

I take your belief at face value, of course, but it's tremendously unlikely. Slave trading wasn't an aside that a few of the empire enjoyed the benefits of, it was something that pervaded through all levels of society and which paid for much of the ongoing building of Britain and America. I'm not sure I'd like to be as sure about my own family as you seem to be about yours - they may not have directly owned companies that held slaves but it's unlikely that they never felt a sou of benefit.

 

[PeterJB]

Speaking of slavery...

 

[Joey D]

That's pretty much it.

In the context of this...



... that appears to be exactly what happened in Britain under the abolishment act (property... money, same same), and in case you weren't aware, it was only 2015 when this loan taken to pay off the slave owners was fully repaid. The British tax payer, including myself for 15 years, went to service this arrangement. The Slave owners are dead, their families are in some cases still wealthy, the Rothschilds do alright too. The slaves got nothing, and I've personally paid towards that situation. The ridiculous scenario you paint is pretty much part of the British history with slavery.

Ironically, our PM of that year (2015), has slave ownership in his family tree (and his wife's), those branches of his family tree received large amounts of money under the abolishment act. Within a year, that PM had gone to Jamaica to say, pretty much, "Right, that's done, let's put it all behind us"

You don't get a say in where your taxes go, you have to pay them or you end up in prison for tax evasion. If I was suddenly responsible for everything the US does because I pay taxes then I'm guilty of hundreds of injustices. That doesn't make any sense. I pay taxes because I have to, I don't pay taxes to support anything.

I take your belief at face value, of course, but it's tremendously unlikely. Slave trading wasn't an aside that a few of the empire enjoyed the benefits of, it was something that pervaded through all levels of society and which paid for much of the ongoing building of Britain and America. I'm not sure I'd like to be as sure about my own family as you seem to be about yours - they may not have directly owned companies that held slaves but it's unlikely that they never felt a sou of benefit.

I have pretty good information on my family going back to the 1700s. It's something I've worked on for 10 years and have a pretty good idea what sort of people they were. There's no record of them owning businesses and they were mostly poor. When they went to Canada they were still poor and didn't own businesses. When they finally made it to Detroit they worked in the beer industry. The only thing I've ever found that might constitute something illegal is that were probably bootleggers running alcohol from Canada to Detroit.

Could have the indirectly benefited from slavery? Sure in the same way any civilization has benefited from slavery. It still doesn't mean I should pay anything to anyone. I've never owned slaves, which is my point. Why should anyone be required to pay restitution to slaves when all the slave owners and former slaves are dead?

And I mean this one in the context of the US. I don't know all the ins and outs of what the UK does or did.

 

[TexRex]

Speaking of slavery...

Statue of British guy erected in Britain gets vandalized by [presumably] British people before being dumped into a British harbor (albeit spelled "harbour" as is customary in British English); 'America - The Official Thread' is the obvious place for it.

 

[PeterJB]

Statue of British guy erected in Britain gets vandalized by [presumably] British people before being dumped into a British harbor (albeit spelled "harbour" as is customary in British English); 'America - The Official Thread' is the obvious place for it.

I put it here because the discussion at hand is about slavery. If a splinter discussion on this started on Edward Colston specifically then yes I would move it to the Britain thread.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Statue of British guy erected in Britain gets vandalized by [presumably] British people before being dumped into a British harbor (albeit spelled "harbour" as is customary in British English); 'America - The Official Thread' is the obvious place for it.

It belongs in the protest thread more than the Britain thread, in my opinion.

Edit for Peter's post: Yea if you continue to discuss the particular person it should be in the Britain thread.

 

[UKMikey]

Statue of British guy erected in Britain gets vandalized by [presumably] British people before being dumped into a British harbor (albeit spelled "harbour" as is customary in British English); 'America - The Official Thread' is the obvious place for it.

51st State announcement incoming...

 

[Northstar]

51st State announcement incoming...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Could have the indirectly benefited from slavery? Sure in the same way any civilization has benefited from slavery. It still doesn't mean I should pay anything to anyone. I've never owned slaves, which is my point. Why should anyone be required to pay restitution to slaves when all the slave owners and former slaves are dead?

I'm not making the point that you should pay reparations, I was making the point that it's impossible to say for any historical UK family that they definitely received no benefit from the slave trade. Reparations are meaningless and by definition would be misdirected. I think the real payment that's required is a big rethink by white society.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not making the point that you should pay reparations, I was making the point that it's impossible to say for any historical UK family that they definitely received no benefit from the slave trade. Reparations are meaningless and by definition would be misdirected. I think the real payment that's required is a big rethink by white society.

If you want to apply that line of think then every person in the world received benefits from slavery. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I consider those who benefitted from slavery to be those that either made money selling slaves or bought slaves.

As for a rethink by the white community, whatever the white community is, what should be rethought exactly?

 

[Dennisch]

This man has the right message.

 

[Danoff]

I take your belief at face value, of course, but it's tremendously unlikely. Slave trading wasn't an aside that a few of the empire enjoyed the benefits of, it was something that pervaded through all levels of society and which paid for much of the ongoing building of Britain and America. I'm not sure I'd like to be as sure about my own family as you seem to be about yours - they may not have directly owned companies that held slaves but it's unlikely that they never felt a sou of benefit.

Slavery was a drain on the societies it existed in. You'd need to have been a slave owner to "benefit" from it.

I have no idea how biased this website might be, I just found it with a quick google search. But this reasoning seems pretty solid:

The only unassailable answer is “Not so far as we know.” But the parts of the early U.S. of A. that ended slavery or depended on it least had the most productive industrialization, trade, and population growth in the early republic. Many of those enterprises were economically intertwined with regions of the country that contained many slaves, of course. But they also developed other industries and trade routes. Even as the slave-labor plantation system spread west, it didn’t develop. That rigid economy lagged further and further behind what was happening in other portions of the U.S.

Every analysis I have seen that seems to take the question of whether the US benefited from slavery seriously seems to come to the conclusion that slavery held back the progress of the regions that it was present in, and that it ultimately hindered the south in the civil war, which the north won in part with inventions born out of a lack of slavery.

Slavery benefits the owners, but compared to capitalism it is a drain on society.

 

[Dotini]

As for a rethink by the white community, whatever the white community is, what should be rethought exactly?

The white community - "whatever the white community is" - would ideally end white privilege, police brutality, racial/economic inequality and injustice. And do it firmly, clearly, and instantly at a single stroke. I have a pretty active imagination, but this I cannot quite fully imagine. The closest I can come is reparations including money and ownership of property - a stake in the system.

 

[Joey D]

The white community - "whatever the white community is" - would ideally end white privilege, police brutality, racial/economic inequality and injustice. And do it firmly, clearly, and instantly at a single stroke. I have a pretty active imagination, but this I cannot quite fully imagine. The closest I can come is reparations including money and ownership of property - a stake in the system.

Whatever change should or can happen will not happen in a single stroke, that's just not realistic. Also, doing anything that major quickly will ultimate leave people behind and hurt the ones that probably need the most help.

And your plan for reparations is still racist, illegal, unjust, ripe for corruption, and will never work.

 

[Dotini]

Whatever change should or can happen will not happen in a single stroke, that's just not realistic. Also, doing anything that major quickly will ultimate leave people behind and hurt the ones that probably need the most help.

And your plan for reparations is still racist, illegal, unjust, ripe for corruption, and will never work.

Above all, my plan for reparations is liberal, just and intended to do good. Nothing else matters. The time has come for action, not empty words.

David Brooks, regular columnist for the New York Times, has published "How to to do reparations right".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opinion/united-states-reparations.html

The Case for Reparations

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/case-for-reparations.html

 

[TexRex]

Above all, my plan for reparations is liberal, just and intended to do good. Nothing else matters. The time has come for action, not empty words.

Then save the empty words and take action. If you think black people should be given money and land for the injustices they've endured, nobody is going to stop you giving black people money and land but yourself. Nothing else matters.

I realize you probably didn't own slaves, but you're saying people who also probably didn't own slaves should be forced to give money and land to black people who probably weren't slaves.

At least giving the money and land to them yourself decreases the opportunity for corruption.

 

[Famine]

Above all, my plan for reparations is liberal, just and intended to do good. Nothing else matters.

Except for the parts where you're punishing the innocent for the sins of their great-great-grandfathers.

 

[Joey D]

Above all, my plan for reparations is liberal, just and intended to do good. Nothing else matters. The time has come for action, not empty words.

What good would come from your plan? By taking property from someone who had nothing to do with slavery and giving it to someone else who was never a slave will cause a ton of problems. Nevermind that it is theft. Seriously if I owned property and the government tried to forcibly take it from me and give it to someone else just because of the color their skin, I'd fight tooth and nail to stop it. I probably wouldn't go Killdozer levels of mad, but I'd certainly find all legal means to stop it.

Also, suddenly giving $300k+ to millions of people will absolutely tank the economy with inflation. Not to mention you still haven't explained who would oversee the distribution other than the "black community". Without proper oversight, the trillions of dollars will certainly be misappropriated on some level. Corruption doesn't know skin color, it happens everywhere to every race of people.

 

[Dotini]

What good would come from your plan? By taking property from someone who had nothing to do with slavery and giving it to someone else who was never a slave will cause a ton of problems. Nevermind that it is theft. Seriously if I owned property and the government tried to forcibly take it from me and give it to someone else just because of the color their skin, I'd fight tooth and nail to stop it. I probably wouldn't go Killdozer levels of mad, but I'd certainly find all legal means to stop it.

Also, suddenly giving $300k+ to millions of people will absolutely tank the economy with inflation. Not to mention you still haven't explained who would oversee the distribution other than the "black community". Without proper oversight, the trillions of dollars will certainly be misappropriated on some level. Corruption doesn't know skin color, it happens everywhere to every race of people.

Let's keep this so simple even a caveman could grok it.

If given a choice between civil war and reparations, which would you choose?

You'd better decide soon, because you may not have a choice for much longer.

 

[TexRex]

Let's keep this so simple even a caveman could grok it.

If given a choice between civil war and reparations, which would you choose?

You'd better decide soon, because you may not have a choice for much longer.

Deflection and obfuscation.

 

[Famine]

If given a choice between civil war and reparations, which would you choose?

Oh yay, an absurd either/or hypothetical. I'd shag Christina Hendricks, marry Jewel Staite, and kill Morena Baccarin.


Which one of your options does not involve the state obliterating rights by force? I choose that one.

 

[Joey D]

Let's keep this so simple even a caveman could grok it.

If given a choice between civil war and reparations, which would you choose?

You'd better decide soon, because you may not have a choice for much longer.

I feel like there are probably more steps in between illegally seizing property from non-slave owners to give to non-slaves and all-out war. We're also not even close to civil war. People from all over the country are mad at the system and it's quickly becoming something that's not even political.

The best thing we can do for all minorities right now is to fight to ensure their rights are being respected, both human and Constitutional.

 

[Dotini]

...illegally seizing property from non-slave owners...

Reparations do not necessarily involve obliterating rights by force. Oh, a bit of imminent domain may be required. But current owners (say of apartment buildings) will always be compensated should their property need to be seized by the federal government. The situation at the moment is untenable.

 

[Joey D]

Reparations do not necessarily involve obliterating rights by force. Oh, a bit of imminent domain may be required. But current owners (say of apartment buildings) will always be compensated should their property need to be seized by the federal government. The situation at the moment is untenable.

That would be illegal under eminent domain laws. The government can only seize property for a public purpose, taking property and redistributing it to someone else is not for a public purpose, it's essentially for a private purpose since the property being seized won't be a public space.

Also, you know what happens if you ultimately refuse to give up your property? You're met with force to remove you from the property.

 

[Dotini]

That would be illegal under eminent domain laws. The government can only seize property for a public purpose, taking property and redistributing it to someone else is not for a public purpose, it's essentially for a private purpose since the property being seized won't be a public space.

Also, you know what happens if you ultimately refuse to give up your property? You're met with force to remove you from the property.

Do you think you would like to open a new thread on reparation? You may have to do painful research.