There has been a lot said (good and bad) about the U.N. and the Human Rights Council in particular. Take a few minutes and read through this and especially the recommendations in the U.N. document, then share with us what you think.
Ishaan Tharoor wrote:U.S. owes black people reparations for a history of ‘racial terrorism,’ says U.N. panel
The history of slavery in the United States justifies reparations for African Americans, argues a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva.
This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history.
"In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent," the report stated. "Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching."
Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against "impunity for state violence," which has created, in its words, a "human rights crisis" that "must be addressed as a matter of urgency."
The panel drew its recommendations, which are nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January. At the time, it hailed the strides taken to make the American criminal justice system more equitable but pointed to the corrosive legacy of the past.
"Despite substantial changes since the end of the enforcement of Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights, ideology ensuring the domination of one group over another, continues to negatively impact the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African Americans today," it said in a statement. "The dangerous ideology of white supremacy inhibits social cohesion amongst the US population."
In its report, it specifically dwells on the extrajudicial murders that were a product of an era of white supremacy:
Lynching was a form of racial terrorism that has contributed to a legacy of racial inequality that the United States must address. Thousands of people of African descent were killed in violent public acts of racial control and domination and the perpetrators were never held accountable.
The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including "a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation."
To be sure, such initiatives are nowhere in the cards, even after the question of reparations arose again two years ago when surfaced by the groundbreaking work of American journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Separately, a coalition of Caribbean nations is calling for reparations from their former European imperial powers for the impact of slavery, colonial genocide and the toxic racial laws that shaped life for the past two centuries in these countries. Their efforts are fitful, and so far not so fruitful.
When asked by reporters to comment on the tone of the American presidential election campaign on Monday, the working group's chairman, Ricardo A. Sunga of the Philippines, expressed concern about "hate speech ... xenophobia [and] Afrophobia" that he felt was prevalent in the campaign, although he didn't specifically call out Republican candidate Donald Trump.
"We are very troubled that these are on the rise," said Sunga.
I wonder how many of the people disagreeing with the UN are not people of color and have never had to live under the systemic racism of the United States or have otherwise directly benefited from it, knowingly or otherwise.
Psienesis wrote: I wonder how many of the people disagreeing with the UN are not people of color and have never had to live under the systemic racism of the United States or have otherwise directly benefited from it, knowingly or otherwise.
Doesn't matter.
With respect to UN... I'm telling them to butt out.
There was another event recently that was interesting in this regard. It's been making the rounds through history departments in PA and VA.
In short; Georgetown University in 1838 was managed by the Maryland Jesuits and was in serious financial crisis. The school owed massive amounts of money and was in danger of closing. Two priests who were serving as the presidents of the school at the time made arrangements to sell 272 slaves owned by the school (men, women, and children). They sold for $115,000 (over $3 million today). This was discovered by a researcher outside the school as I understand it, but members of the faculty latched onto the idea and proposed that the school give preferential admissions to anyone descended from the 272 slaves whose sale likely saved the University (Basically, automatic legacy status). Georgetwown is today one of the most prestigious colleges in the US, and a major school for the field of American History.
This idea is unlikely to go through, as it has been proposed but no one at the University to my knowledge has proposed no means by which to fund the program. There's also of course the problem that very few people today would probably be able to prove descent from these individuals in a meaningful way. When the Civil War ended, many sales records were destroyed, and it's made it difficult for geneologists and historians today to track the domestic sales of slaves from the American Antebellum Period. Still. It's a much more realistic idea than cash payments (that will never happen and probably won't work anyway).
Many US universities have ties to slavery. Harvard, Princeton, and Brown just to name a few were founded and heavily funded by slaveholders (Brown being one of Colonial America's most prolific).
I think a formal apology but more importantly a statement confirming that racism is still a problem would generate some good will and be a step in the right direction. Its easy to say that there are no slaves left to pay but the reality is many blacks are still in poor conditions because of what happened back then. And these are people alive, here, now. Does that mean paying reparations is a good idea? I think not, because it disregards the part those people have had in keeping themselves down. Just making people aware that yes, this is a real problem and no, its not just something the young'uns are into these days, would help more than reparations ever could.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think a formal apology but more importantly a statement confirming that racism is still a problem would generate some good will and be a step in the right direction. Its easy to say that there are no slaves left to pay but the reality is many blacks are still in poor conditions because of what happened back then. And these are people alive, here, now. Does that mean paying reparations is a good idea? I think not, because it disregards the part those people have had in keeping themselves down. Just making people aware that yes, this is a real problem and no, its not just something the young'uns are into these days, would help more than reparations ever could.
That is an idea that I think many could get behind, and I for one agree with. An apology could earn good will, however when someone is down, and is given something for free, it is my experience it holds little value. there needs to be a balance, and some delicate treatment to make progress and a hand up, not a hand out.
Slavery isn't the reason for the predicament of african americans today, what happened after slavery is (anti/moderate reconstructionists, lost causers, jim crow, and segregation).
By most accounts, the african american diaspora in the post-civil war south actually did pretty well for itself, particularly during the Grant years, in large part thanks to the numerous laws, policies, and protections that were afforded to them which enabled them to very rapidly approach a near-equal footing to the southern white population. It was when Congress wholesale abandoned reconstruction policies and the federal government stopped paying attention to issues in the south that Jim Crow was able to rear its ugly head and the southern white-supremacist movement was able to reassert its dominance over southern (and to a lesser extent American as a whole) culture, at which point any gains made my the freedmen were entirely erased and the black population was knocked back down to a status only slightly better than that of enslavement.
I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.
It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.
Psienesis wrote: I wonder how many of the people disagreeing with the UN are not people of color and have never had to live under the systemic racism of the United States or have otherwise directly benefited from it, knowingly or otherwise.
Doesn't matter.
With respect to UN... I'm telling them to butt out.
Does tell reason for the answer though so yes it matters.
The UN conclusions were wrong anyway. Reparations HAVE been paid. We bought an entire country (Liberia) for the slaves, and gave away a lot of free stuff and free one-way tickets there. There was also the field order by Sherman in 1865 to hand out 40 acres and a mule to the head of every Black household (there was a concerted effort to do this, but it lost authority when the war ended). Also, Welfare was primarily targeted towards Blacks. Let's not also forget affirmative action.
Oh jesus fething christ I know expecting people to read the thread is a sucker's game, but my post is two above yours. This is not a UN conclusion. It's a single working paper with a whole bunch of other parties that would have to accept it and approve it before it became close to being a "UN conclusion".
Aren't there much bigger fish to focus on, you know stuff like systemic genocide that's currently occurring or has happened within living memory. Modern day slavery happening in places like China or human trafficking and sex slaves. Stuff that's all alive and well in today's time.
I don't really have a moral problem with reparations. My issues are practical - will throwing money at individual people as recompense fix any of the structural issues the US has because of the consequences of slavery and institutional racism? I'd have to say no, not really.
I think we have made, as a country, a more or less good faith effort to try and repair some of the damage we've done. I don't think it's been as effective as it could have been, but with the passage of time, certainly a lot of it has been alleviated. I don't really have any great new ideas for what we can do to make things better, but I don't think reparations would be helpful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote: Problem is Chinese and Mexican sex slaves aren't black. And only "black lives matter".
Well, at least the OP's intent got kicked off pretty fast. Hopefully we can degenerate into the usual gibberish and be locked by page 2.
I'm not sure how you'd even do "reparations"? If we're talking about cash or benefits or something, determining who's eligible and who's not would take just as many resources as the actual benefits. Who would you even give such reparations to? Anyone who's "Black"? Well, who decides that? In most cases it's an individual identification not a determined and catalogued trait. As we saw with Dolezal, such things can get awkward real fast.
I think Chappelle's show also covered almost exactly what would happen should such actually ever come to occur as well, if it were some sort of direct payment, it'd get sucked right out of the hands that need it most back into "the man's" hands just as soon as they got it, adding to some Wall Street dude's financial empire more than anything else.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure how you'd even do "reparations"? If we're talking about cash or benefits or something, determining who's eligible and who's not would take just as many resources as the actual benefits. Who would you even give such reparations to? Anyone who's "Black"? Well, who decides that? In most cases it's an individual identification not a determined and catalogued trait. As we saw with Dolezal, such things can get awkward real fast.
I think Chappelle's show also covered almost exactly what would happen should such actually ever come to occur as well, if it were some sort of direct payment, it'd get sucked right out of the hands that need it most back into "the man's" hands just as soon as they got it, adding to some Wall Street dude's financial empire more than anything else.
This. We should try more meaningful ways to improve the lives of blacks other than an arbitrary paycheck.
Also, I'll echo what others have said. The UN (should it approve of these findings) can go feth itself.
cuda1179 wrote: We bought an entire country (Liberia) for the slaves
"We" did not. A group of pro-slavery slave owners started it as an attempt to get free black people out of their states and prevent them from doing anything to disrupt slavery.
Also, Welfare was primarily targeted towards Blacks.
{citation needed}
Given the existence of ugly racial stereotypes about welfare I hope you have some specific examples and evidence here, and aren't just repeating the racist stereotypes.
Let's not also forget affirmative action.
The strongest opposition to the idea of reparations (at least for moral reasons, not over practical difficulties in implementation) comes from people who also oppose affirmative action, so you can't really bring up affirmative action as a substitute.
I think there's a lot to be made of how badly affirmative action has worked out. It's a noble idea, but it assumes a lot of things that don't work in real life. Getting preferential treatment in hiring, school admissions, or other things, isn't very helpful if the rest of your background leaves you unprepared for those worlds. Something less passive is really needed. Right now, very few African Americans benefit from from the policy, and they're oddly the ones who least need the help.
And when it comes to Liberia, I really hope we don't presume that putting a bunch of black people back on a boat and sending them back where they didn't come from is incredibly problematic. African Americans largely didn't go to Liberia because they didn't want to. They were born in the United States. By and large, they are more heavily descended from white Europeans than they are from Africans (let that sink in). I dare say, saying "well sorry about all that, here's a boat back to where you came from and belong" is a load of racist bull and a complete cop out.
LordofHats wrote: I think there's a lot to be made of how badly affirmative action has worked out. It's a noble idea, but it assumes a lot of things that don't work in real life. Getting preferential treatment in hiring, school admissions, or other things, isn't very helpful if the rest of your background leaves you unprepared for those worlds. Something less passive is really needed. Right now, very few African Americans benefit from from the policy, and they're oddly the ones who least need the help.
And when it comes to Liberia, I really hope we don't presume that putting a bunch of black people back on a boat and sending them back where they didn't come from is incredibly problematic. African Americans largely didn't go to Liberia because they didn't want to. They were born in the United States. By and large, they are more heavily descended from white Europeans than they are from Africans (let that sink in). I dare say, saying "well sorry about all that, here's a boat back to where you came from and belong" is a load of racist bull and a complete cop out.
Although you may not be wrong, there is irony in that statement based on a culture of black Americans whom think calling Africa the mother land and talk about visiting where they "come from" is an appealing idea. Also the term African American rings with irony when weighed against your statement. Im not saying sending them to Africa was done with noble intentions, but there are some at the time that might have thought it was the right answer, however misguided. Personally dude who saved my life in Iraq and after we got home was black and Im glad we didn't send them all back. I might not be alive today, and I would be out one of my best friends ever.
redleger wrote: Although you may not be wrong, there is irony in that statement based on a culture of black Americans whom think calling Africa the mother land and talk about visiting where they "come from" is an appealing idea.
Key point: visiting. Not permanently returning. And it's not like they have a monopoly on the idea, white people (or people of any other race) are perfectly capable of saying "let's go visit where we 'came from' generations ago".
One thing that often gets overlooked on the subject of heritage, is that each generation you go back, the number of ancestors doubles. Like grains of wheat on a chess board, those numbers can get big very quickly. If we assume people have children at around 20 years old (not unreasonable in the olden days), then a person living today could have over 1000 direct ancestors walking around in 1800. Some of those might be the same person that you hit through multiple lines, but you would likely find slaves, slave owners, pilgrims, natives... all sorts if you go rummaging far enough back in someone's genealogy. Go back another generation and it's 2048... Who even among whites can say for certain that not one of their 2048 9th great grandparents were slaves?
I think what really matters is how racism affects people living today. In that regard, reparations is an important discussion to have, because our actions are an extension of our values. If we hand wave something that we aught to agree was wrong, then what does that really say about us?
yellowfever wrote: Problem is Chinese and Mexican sex slaves aren't black. And only "black lives matter".
Ergh, seriously?
It's funny you should say that, because lately I've been toying with the idea that the "black lives matter" versus "all lives matter" discussion, might be a sort of litmus test, for identifying people on facebook, who are either ignorant, racist, or both. Guess it works here too.
redleger wrote: Although you may not be wrong, there is irony in that statement based on a culture of black Americans whom think calling Africa the mother land and talk about visiting where they "come from" is an appealing idea.
Key point: visiting. Not permanently returning. And it's not like they have a monopoly on the idea, white people (or people of any other race) are perfectly capable of saying "let's go visit where we 'came from' generations ago".
Yes, I wasn't alluding to a desire to mass relocate. I'm pretty sure even with problems faced here, its better than worrying about lions eating you in your sleep, and starting over in the desert or some rain forest. I was referring to calling it the mother land. Like a Russian always longing to visit the country they left behind because for some reason they miss it, but have no desire to ever live there again. I mean my family links back to Whales but you won't see me using fond words for England calling it the mother land. Im an American.
redleger wrote: Im not saying sending them to Africa was done with noble intentions, but there are some at the time that might have thought it was the right answer, however misguided.
Misguided is probably the more accurate answer. There were selfish motivations to be sure, but also an honest belief among advocates for a return to Africa that it would work out for the best. The mistake was that many freedmen had no interest in going back. They were Americans, and this was their home as much as anyone's. Especially in the immediate wake of the Civil War, there was an enthusiasm for what could be. African Americans as far as I know quickly abandoned the idea at large, and it only revived briefly in the Progressive Era under the ideals of Garveyism.
Smacks wrote: One thing that often gets overlooked on the subject of heritage, is that each generation you go back, the number of ancestors doubles. Like grains of wheat on a chess board, those numbers can get big very quickly. If we assume people have children at around 20 years old (not unreasonable in the olden days), then a person living today could have over 1000 direct ancestors walking around in 1800. Some of those might be the same person that you hit through multiple lines, but you would likely find slaves, slave owners, pilgrims, natives... all sorts if you go rummaging far enough back in someone's genealogy. Go back another generation and it's 2048... Who even among whites can say for certain that not one of their 2048 9th great grandparents were slaves?
I think what really matters is how racism affects people living today. In that regard, reparations is an important discussion to have, because our actions are an extension of our values. If we hand wave something that we aught to agree was wrong, then what does that really say about us?
yellowfever wrote: Problem is Chinese and Mexican sex slaves aren't black. And only "black lives matter".
Ergh, seriously?
It's funny you should say that, because lately I've been toying with the idea that the "black lives matter" versus "all lives matter" discussion, might be a sort of litmus test, for identifying people on facebook, who are either ignorant, racist, or both. Guess it works here too.
I don't think anyone is saying slavery was good, but as discussed multiple times, there is literally nothing solved from a monetary reparation. We fix problems we have now, and then maybe a reparation will not be necessary, because we should be getting everyone on the same footing.
Now I understand the original meaning of the BLM movement, and I understand why the ALM movement started. No one person wants to be made to think that other groups lives mean more than theirs. BLM is a very misleading term, and one that is currently being abused, no matter how noble the start was. It created a divide when the ultimate goal should be to bridge that gap, not create one. So calling someone a racist because they simply seek to remove a divide and recognize that no one life is more important than the other is also a pretty gakky way of thinking and borderline slanderous.
redleger wrote: there is literally nothing solved from a monetary reparation.
I didn't say monetary, though I also wouldn't rule it out.
So calling someone a racist because they simply seek to remove a divide and recognize that no one life is more important than the other is also a pretty gakky way of thinking and borderline slanderous.
I said racist, or ignorant. If you really think the BLM movement is about black lives being "more important", then the latter clearly applies.
redleger wrote: No one person wants to be made to think that other groups lives mean more than theirs.
And that's not what BLM means. It means "black lives matter too", not "black lives matter more".
I understand that, as I said I know why it was created and what it meant. Although that is not what it necessarily has evolved into. But if you look at the name in a vacuum then how do you interpret it. I think that's why the All Lives matter movement started. There was no one saying we matter too, we are all equal. I think as a white male for some reason any time we have an opinion that doesn't fit in some liberal university book, we get looked at unfairly. What by and large the majority of us free thinkers want is balance. I mean like real Jedi balance. We are all equal parts of the environment and we want to live symbiotically. It is hard though when we are constantly being reminded how bad it is to be white, just because we don't know the struggle. Dude we want to help you, if you stop and have a dialogue with us, we can all get this gak solved. But when you ignore us, create a movement however well intentioned, with a very misleading name you are creating that divide. The majority of us want to friggin fix this so we can move on to the next important thing like curing AIDS, hunger and space exploration as a united people.
redleger wrote: there is literally nothing solved from a monetary reparation.
I didn't say monetary, though I also wouldn't rule it out.
This is probably one of the largest misconceptions about reparations.
The word does not mean "give someone money as an apology." It means compensatory repayment, and that could be done in many many ways. Hillary Clinton for example proposed in the debate just the other day that we focus on community building. Schools, hospitals, and such. Reparations will of course cost money, but monetary reparations are not the only kind there is.
redleger wrote: there is literally nothing solved from a monetary reparation.
I didn't say monetary, though I also wouldn't rule it out.
So calling someone a racist because they simply seek to remove a divide and recognize that no one life is more important than the other is also a pretty gakky way of thinking and borderline slanderous.
I said racist, or ignorant. If you really think the BLM movement is about black lives being "more important", then the latter clearly applies.
and if you read you will see I said I know that's not what it means. But saying someone believes all live matter and they are a racist or ignorant fits into my statement.
redleger wrote: there is literally nothing solved from a monetary reparation.
I didn't say monetary, though I also wouldn't rule it out.
This is probably one of the largest misconceptions about reparations.
The word does not mean "give someone money as an apology." It means compensatory repayment, and that could be done in many many ways. Hillary Clinton for example proposed in the debate just the other day that we focus on community building. Schools, hospitals, and such. Reparations will of course cost money, but monetary reparations are not the only kind there is.
I wouldn't call that reparations, we should be doing that any damn way.
redleger wrote: But if you look at the name in a vacuum then how do you interpret it.
You don't need to look at in a vacuum, there's only about a million pages online explaining it, that everyone has access to. If someone is dumb enough to go broadcasting opinions on social media without a fething clue what they're talking about, then the vacuum is probably between their ears, and they have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
redleger wrote: But if you look at the name in a vacuum then how do you interpret it.
You don't need to look at in a vacuum, there's only about a million pages online explaining it, that everyone has access too. If you're dumb enough to go broadcasting opinions on social media without a fething clue what you're talking about, then the vacuum is probably between your ears, and you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Smacks, actually being someone who lives in America and has dealt with the racial tensions being discussed here I actually do have something to add to the discussion. You are repeating stuff you read, and spurting it out here in DD. Im talking about how it is here on the ground, and offering a reasoning as to why someone would think it is important to say the words all lives matter. wouldn't saying all live matter also incorporate by default black lives also. Its not a separatist statement, but an inclusive one.
redleger wrote: But if you look at the name in a vacuum then how do you interpret it.
Why would we want to do that when we know the context in which it exists?
I think that's why the All Lives matter movement started.
No, it started because racists are uncomfortable with the idea of acknowledging that there are bad things that disproportionately hurt black people. You can tell this from the fact that the "all lives matter" crowd aren't outraged over people saying "blue lives matter", and many of them are saying both.
I think as a white male for some reason any time we have an opinion that doesn't fit in some liberal university book, we get looked at unfairly.
And I think that most of the time when white men complain about this kind of "unfairness" it's because they're uncomfortable with admitting that their opinion is wrong, not that people are actually treating them unfairly because of their race or gender.
It is hard though when we are constantly being reminded how bad it is to be white, just because we don't know the struggle.
Nobody (outside of random bloggers with single-digit readers) is saying that it is bad to be white. People are, however, quite accurately saying that a white person doesn't have the same knowledge and experience of life as a black person.
Dude we want to help you, if you stop and have a dialogue with us, we can all get this gak solved. But when you ignore us, create a movement however well intentioned, with a very misleading name you are creating that divide. The majority of us want to friggin fix this so we can move on to the next important thing like curing AIDS, hunger and space exploration as a united people.
And this is just completely wrong. You're ignoring the fact that racism is a very real thing, and saying "just have a dialogue with us" isn't going to stop racists from being awful. If you're so outraged over people saying "black lives matter" that you have to treat it as a divide then, honestly, you are part of the problem.
redleger wrote: But if you look at the name in a vacuum then how do you interpret it.
Why would we want to do that when we know the context in which it exists?
I think that's why the All Lives matter movement started.
No, it started because racists are uncomfortable with the idea of acknowledging that there are bad things that disproportionately hurt black people. You can tell this from the fact that the "all lives matter" crowd aren't outraged over people saying "blue lives matter", and many of them are saying both.
I think as a white male for some reason any time we have an opinion that doesn't fit in some liberal university book, we get looked at unfairly.
And I think that most of the time when white men complain about this kind of "unfairness" it's because they're uncomfortable with admitting that their opinion is wrong, not that people are actually treating them unfairly because of their race or gender.
It is hard though when we are constantly being reminded how bad it is to be white, just because we don't know the struggle.
Nobody (outside of random bloggers with single-digit readers) is saying that it is bad to be white. People are, however, quite accurately saying that a white person doesn't have the same knowledge and experience of life as a black person.
Dude we want to help you, if you stop and have a dialogue with us, we can all get this gak solved. But when you ignore us, create a movement however well intentioned, with a very misleading name you are creating that divide. The majority of us want to friggin fix this so we can move on to the next important thing like curing AIDS, hunger and space exploration as a united people.
And this is just completely wrong. You're ignoring the fact that racism is a very real thing, and saying "just have a dialogue with us" isn't going to stop racists from being awful. If you're so outraged over people saying "black lives matter" that you have to treat it as a divide then, honestly, you are part of the problem.
As much as I have to say about this dissection, Im going to concentrate one one thing. Can the BLM movement, in the shape it is in right now, fix everything or even anything without all of the people working together? Politicians, local leaders, Police and communities? I would say no they can not, it will require a concerted effort. It will require everyone talking, getting on one sheet of music with a plan in place to fix whatever problems there are. If that dialogue can not happen, if we can not be allowed to work together and listen to each other in a 2 way conversation, then literally nothing will happen. When you are constantly telling someone they have no input because they don't know what its like, then you have never grown up in South Texas of one of the border states. I was the minority, I got my ass kicked every day because I was white, and we had to form groups to protect ourselves from the Mexicans. So it is ignorant of you to say I am white and therefore I couldn't possibly know. Now we formed these groups to protect each other, and guess what we got labeled, because we were white, you guessed it racists. So the divide is there, and only deepening. That feeling is wide spread, and simply paying attention to BLM and not creating a common ground, dialogue and getting as many people involved in a common goal will result in substandard results.
redleger wrote: wouldn't saying all live matter also incorporate by default black lives also. Its not a separatist statement, but an inclusive one.
It deliberately and callously attempts to draw attention away from black lives matter, in a system which evidently undervalues them. It is not inclusive at all.
redleger wrote: wouldn't saying all live matter also incorporate by default black lives also. Its not a separatist statement, but an inclusive one.
It deliberately and callously attempts to draw attention away from black lives matter, in a system which evidently undervalues them. It is not inclusive at all.
Im pretty sure ALL is as inclusive as you can get. Why would we not want to all band together to be stronger, not separate it into groups of color.
redleger wrote: Im pretty sure ALL is as inclusive as you can get. Why would we not want to all band together to be stronger, not separate it into groups of color.
Because we understand the context in which words are said, not merely the literal meaning of those words? It's very clear from the context that most people saying "all lives matter" are doing it as a flimsy pretense of politeness over racist beliefs that black lives don't really matter, black people are criminals and they must have done something to deserve to be shot, etc. There is no noble effort to be stronger together, only an attempt to dismiss a cause that racists are uncomfortable with.
As I said before, note the overlap between "all lives matter" and "blue lives matter". If it is truly about including everyone and equality and all that then you shouldn't have people saying "{group} lives matter" about a different group. But many of the people who say "all lives matter" have no problem at all with singling out a specific group as needing protection and extra concern, as long as that group is one that they support.
redleger wrote: wouldn't saying all live matter also incorporate by default black lives also. Its not a separatist statement, but an inclusive one.
It deliberately and callously attempts to draw attention away from black lives matter, in a system which evidently undervalues them. It is not inclusive at all.
Im pretty sure ALL is as inclusive as you can get. Why would we not want to all band together to be stronger, not separate it into groups of color.
A good analogy is that a group of people sit down for a meal in a restaurant. Everyone gets food apart from John. Some people notice this, and they start saying "Hey, wait! John deserves food", then other people look up from their meals and reply: "Everyone deserves food", then they go back to eating. Sure, John might be included in "everyone", but it glosses over the fact that John is currently not included in the meal. Therefore it is not inclusive.
redleger wrote: Im pretty sure ALL is as inclusive as you can get. Why would we not want to all band together to be stronger, not separate it into groups of color.
Because we understand the context in which words are said, not merely the literal meaning of those words? It's very clear from the context that most people saying "all lives matter" are doing it as a flimsy pretense of politeness over racist beliefs that black lives don't really matter, black people are criminals and they must have done something to deserve to be shot, etc. There is no noble effort to be stronger together, only an attempt to dismiss a cause that racists are uncomfortable with.
As I said before, note the overlap between "all lives matter" and "blue lives matter". If it is truly about including everyone and equality and all that then you shouldn't have people saying "{group} lives matter" about a different group. But many of the people who say "all lives matter" have no problem at all with singling out a specific group as needing protection and extra concern, as long as that group is one that they support.
I can see where you are coming from, I just don't agree with you that all lives matter means you are an uncomfortable racist who thinks black lives really don't matter. In fact its conjecture. Blue live matter was created in response to the shootings in Dallas and the new trend amongst black criminals to purposely target police officers. if you think the blue live matter movement is wrong, then what would you do to help bring attention to the wrongful killing of LEOs. I would say, remove the words black and blue, and bring an inclusive philosophy of hey lets quit killing each other because we are all equal and this is stupid to keep perpetuating violence in the name of race.
redleger wrote: wouldn't saying all live matter also incorporate by default black lives also. Its not a separatist statement, but an inclusive one.
It deliberately and callously attempts to draw attention away from black lives matter, in a system which evidently undervalues them. It is not inclusive at all.
Im pretty sure ALL is as inclusive as you can get. Why would we not want to all band together to be stronger, not separate it into groups of color.
A good analogy is that a group of people sit down for a meal in a restaurant. Everyone gets food apart from John. Some people notice this, and they start saying "Hey, wait! John deserves food", then other people look up from their meals and reply: "Everyone deserves food", then they go back to eating. Sure, John might be included in "everyone", but it glosses over the fact that John is currently not included in the meal. Therefore it is not inclusive.
that's actually a bad analogy because john simply has to order food. we both know the situation we are talking about is not that simple. However if someone said hey John, do you want food? Oh you can't afford it. Ok man, I got this one, you get me back on pay day. Next payday John gets his lunch. Now they are literally equals and have communicated to solve a problem.
redleger wrote: I can see where you are coming from, I just don't agree with you that all lives matter means you are an uncomfortable racist who thinks black lives really don't matter.
It doesn't mean that you're a racist. But it means that you've embraced a slogan/movement/whatever created by racists for racist reasons, however good your intentions may be.
In fact its conjecture. Blue live matter was created in response to the shootings in Dallas and the new trend amongst black criminals to purposely target police officers. if you think the blue live matter movement is wrong, then what would you do to help bring attention to the wrongful killing of LEOs.
This just proves my point! Instead of leaving it "all lives matter" you're talking about the need to bring attention to the wrongful killing of one specific group of people. You're using the exact same kind of reasoning that supports the idea of "black lives matter", just with a different group.
I would say, remove the words black and blue, and bring an inclusive philosophy of hey lets quit killing each other because we are all equal and this is stupid to keep perpetuating violence in the name of race.
Except, as pointed out, this ignores the fact that some people are being disproportionately hurt by violence and others aren't. Talking about how we should all stop killing each other may be making a true statement, but it doesn't address the problem of, say, a person being killed because of racist beliefs that "black male = suspect = threat = SHOOT NOW BEFORE THEY KILL YOU". And, in fact, emphasizing the general "no killing" statement often means dismissing the more specific problem and minimizing the attention given to it. This is, of course, why racists love the idea of "all lives matter". It takes away attention from the problem of racism and police violence, but in a way that is superficially about equality and avoids the usual impolite ideas of open racism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: that's actually a bad analogy because john simply has to order food.
Pretend that in this example John has not merely forgotten to order food, and the restaurant is ignoring his requests to order food, refusing to bring out his order, etc.
redleger wrote: that's actually a bad analogy because john simply has to order food. we both know the situation we are talking about is not that simple. However if someone said hey John, do you want food? Oh you can't afford it. Ok man, I got this one, you get me back on pay day. Next payday John gets his lunch. Now they are literally equals and have communicated to solve a problem.
To solve a problem you have to identify the problem. If a light bulb blows in your house, you don't go around saying "all the lights should be working", you point to the specific one that is broken.
In the analogy, it is not that John cannot afford food, the problem is the restaurant is ignoring him, and it will continue to ignore him unless we all make a fuss about John. If we just start idly spouting non-specific stuff about how "everyone deserves food", and "I deserve food just as much as John" then all we're doing is drawing attention away from the problem at hand.
I fully agree that the US government should provide $10mm in reparations for any former slaves freed as a result of the ACW or appropriate legislation thereafter. Any 160 year old slaves running about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: I wonder how many of the people disagreeing with the UN are not people of color and have never had to live under the systemic racism of the United States or have otherwise directly benefited from it, knowingly or otherwise.
You are free to sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the NAACP.
Lets face facts here
1: people feel abused true or not.
2: people are telling them nothing is ever their fault it is the other people.
3: with things such as black history month, black museum, ect ect. With no other race given credit for anything, they are seperating the races not making things better.
4: people screaming death to whites, death to black ect....
This is going to get a hell of alot worse. Also other countries trying to tell them they are being treated bad with no actual knowledge.... The black community is cutting itself off from the other more modern immagrent such as asains and mexicans. They will end up alone soon enough doing things such as riots and burning down buisnesses.
Here is the real question I would love to see a poll over. Are people more scared of musilm immagrents or blacks burning down their town? Because one of them, people actually feel like they are at war with. but if the black community keeps rioting it is only a matter of time before they are seen as more dangerious to the community then the muslims.
But I have no dog in this fight just scared to think how many will die in a race war.
Ustrello wrote: Surprised it wasn't them getting angry at the Israelis for the umpteenth time this year while leaving everything else alone
That is because Israel is a modern western democracy and is yet holding a large population in captivity on land they have title to, and deny them most forms of human rights, based on their race, while doing so.
The UN is right to critique Israel.
The flat fact that Israel must keep its guard up or be forced into the sea by fanatics is a seperate matter, however true.
OgreChubbs wrote: Also other countries trying to tell them they are being treated bad with no actual knowledge....
Out of interest, how many news stories have you witnessed first hand? Or do you just see them on TV like everyone else. Being in another country doesn't preclude you from having knowledge, especially with global news, and that whole world wide internet thing. I have access to all the same news articles and opinion pages that Americans have. I would argue that someone's knowledge of an issue, has more to do with how much they care to read on the subject, and very little to do with their geographical location.
yellowfever wrote: Problem is Chinese and Mexican sex slaves aren't black. And only "black lives matter".
This also needs to be taken into consideration, as with Native American rights, which are still being violated because reservation land is considered government land for the purposes of appropriation.
yellowfever wrote: Problem is Chinese and Mexican sex slaves aren't black. And only "black lives matter".
Ergh, seriously?
It's funny you should say that, because lately I've been toying with the idea that the "black lives matter" versus "all lives matter" discussion, might be a sort of litmus test, for identifying people on facebook, who are either ignorant, racist, or both. Guess it works here too.
Er no. You are rubber stamping an ideology onto a social declaration. BLM could mean 'all lives matter', 'look how bad the police are' or 'I only care about blacks'. However the social zeitgeist condemns accusation of the latter, even though there is evidence of such happening, and rightly so, as it is unfair to assume that BLM is based on selfishness.
Likewise those who say Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter might be doing so on a basis of trying to dilute BLM, but this shouldn't be flatly assumed. There is a justified concern that rights become selective, with plenty of historical precedent to back that up.
I am not surprised that I am correcting a UK based poster here, this sort of brainwashing was very prevalent in the Blair years, rights, particularly the empowerment to complain were increasingly selective dependent on protected status, and in the years since it has been hard to balance this as the indoctrination runs too deep. Of course the first point of defence is to accuse anyone who critiques the new direction as 'racist', an accusation that requires very little to back it up, does not allow for a platform for defence against the accusation and makes out the accuser to be a righteous protector of society.
An apology would be a great idea.
Financial payments or other reparations is an incredibly stupid idea however for a multitude of reasons, most importantly three:
1. The generation of african-americans who really was subjected to slavery and government-enforced racism and therefore deserves compensation is already gone. It would be wrong to pay people for crimes that were committed not against themselves but against their ancestors, which brings me to 2. It would set a really bad precedent if a government would pay the descendants of a group that it has wronged in the past. Considering the nasty things every nation in the world has been involved in at some point or another, that'd be really bad.
3. It would accomplish nothing. It would do nothing to erase the crimes committed against past generations of african-americans, and it would do nothing to resolve the problems facing present-day african-americans. If only, it would only worsen the division in American society while the US government needs to focus on mending it.
Iron_Captain wrote: An apology would be a great idea.
Financial payments or other reparations is an incredibly stupid idea however for a multitude of reasons, most importantly three:
1. The generation of african-americans who really was subjected to slavery and government-enforced racism and therefore deserves compensation is already gone. It would be wrong to pay people for crimes that were committed not against themselves but against their ancestors, which brings me to 2. It would set a really bad precedent if a government would pay the descendants of a group that it has wronged in the past. Considering the nasty things every nation in the world has been involved in at some point or another, that'd be really bad.
3. It would accomplish nothing. It would do nothing to erase the crimes committed against past generations of african-americans, and it would do nothing to resolve the problems facing present-day african-americans. If only, it would only worsen the division in American society while the US government needs to focus on mending it.
Hey, what is this, I'm agreeing with you. I don't think this has happened before.
I do think we should try and combat the bias and unbalanced cultural structure we have here in the US, but reparations are not the way to go.
So..
When are the african "nations" who captured and sold the slaves going to apologise for their actions? And why is nobody blaming them for their part in the slave trade?
There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.
But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.
A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.
Bubbalicious wrote: So..
When are the african "nations" who captured and sold the slaves going to apologise for their actions? And why is nobody blaming them for their part in the slave trade?
Just wondering...
Probably never, because none of them exist. That map of Africa in your world Geography Text Book describes political borders that only came into existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The United States on the other hand still exists, and has apologized for slavery, not that an apology does much good to people suffering the long term consequences.
Bubbalicious wrote: So..
When are the african "nations" who captured and sold the slaves going to apologise for their actions? And why is nobody blaming them for their part in the slave trade?
Just wondering...
Probably never, because none of them exist. That map of Africa in your world Geography Text Book describes political borders that only came into existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The United States on the other hand still exists, and has apologized for slavery, not that an apology does much good to people suffering the long term consequences.
A lot of slavery in the USA pre-dates the USA, because it was done by British North America. It's a legal minefield!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.
But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.
A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.
a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.
UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.
But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.
A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.
a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.
UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else
Half of Glasgow was built on the slave trade, and we've had a few SJWs, albeit a tiny minority, calling for buildings and statues to be ripped down.
Examples of street names include: Jamaica street, Virginia street, Tobacco street, and streets named after various individuals who owned most of Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean at one time or another.
Thaere's a very good argument that says that one of the principal causes of the American revolution was Britain's abolition of slavery, which panicked the Southern slave owners...
My grandparents had their farm burned down twice and had their live stock stolen and crops stolen for nearly 20+ years. My grandmother was yugoslavin and got beaten ect.
The locals of nova scotia at the time where not to friendly to those who worked hard. We are told not to talk about it but it was by native americans who hated us. Even tho my grandfather worked in the mines from 15 til 17 then was sent to ww2. Only to have them attack his wife while he was away.
So, is the UN going to pay reparations for what the Brits and all other Europeans have done to promote/extend the slave trade? What about what they did to the Incans and Aztecs? What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
I'm not saying that slavery isn't wrong, it was a terrible vile thing that was done. But seeking justice for 200 year old crimes is not the way to unite people as human beings. Rather it's just going to alienate people further.
Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.
Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”
It's hard to fix a problem when so many are still denying the problem.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.
The issue is that these were state and local level laws, not official policy of the United States government, and would be up to those states and localities to apologize for. The US government has already apologized and acknowledged its role in the slave trade before that, but the Jim Crow laws were not something it had a direct hand in.
A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.
If we tore down every city built on wealth or direct labor of slaves and serfs, most major cities on earth would have to be torn down
sirlynchmob wrote: also going a long way to help correct the problem is to acknowledge it happened and not pull nonsense like texas did with it's school books:
Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.
Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”
It's hard to fix a problem when so many are still denying the problem.
Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.
Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.
that sounds good on paper, but we both know texas distributes those books to many other states.
Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.
that sounds good on paper, but we both know texas distributes those books to many other states.
Sorry, you are incorrect Canadian. Texas doesn't write or publish textbooks. Its doesn't "distribute" textbooks out of state. Those are private publishers and its up to the state or local school boards of each state to decide what it wants to do.
Orlanth wrote: I am not surprised that I am correcting a UK based poster here, this sort of brainwashing was very prevalent in the Blair years, rights, particularly the empowerment to complain were increasingly selective dependent on protected status, and in the years since it has been hard to balance this as the indoctrination runs too deep. Of course the first point of defence is to accuse anyone who critiques the new direction as 'racist', an accusation that requires very little to back it up, does not allow for a platform for defence against the accusation and makes out the accuser to be a righteous protector of society.
Please don't flatter yourself by thinking you are "correcting" me. I'm not calling it racist as a point of defence, or because I'm brainwashed (by Blair politics of all things?). I'm calling it racist because its what racist people say. If you're really so incensed by the thought that someone might care about black people getting shot, that you need to hijack the movement and make it about "not black people" then there is really no better word for it. There are, of course, some people who just misinterpreted it, and decided to voice an opinion without finding out what they were talking about, and those people are known as "stupid". While I agree that being stupid doesn't necessarily make them racist, they still have nothing of value to contribute. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who can't be bothered to inform themselves, about things they consequently don't understand.
Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.
that sounds good on paper, but we both know texas distributes those books to many other states.
Sorry, you are incorrect Canadian. Texas doesn't write or publish textbooks. Its doesn't "distribute" textbooks out of state. Those are private publishers and its up to the state or local school boards of each state to decide what it wants to do.
my bad, so who are you voting for to be placed on the school board?
it's not like they approve the text books being that private publishers make, no wait, they do
gotta love this board member:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/ “The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
sure the schools might not be "required" to use those books, but I'd bet money all of them do. Which also lead to the nonsense about the slave trade & the civil war making it into the text books as the texas school board wanted.
The Texas board of education is the most influential group of educators in the USA and they hold enormous political and financial sway over textbook publishers. They are using their influence to inject a more Christian perspective into the curriculum and the nation's textbooks. Texas is one of the nation's largest textbook markets because it is one of the few where the state decides what books schools can buy rather than leaving it up to local districts, which means publishers that get their books approved can count on millions of dollars in sales. Further, publishers craft their standard textbooks based on the requirements of the biggest buyers. As a result, the Texas board has the power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come. Varying estimates claim that between 45% and 85% of American classrooms use Texas state textbooks (Univ. of Texas Study, Keith A. Erekson).
which basically counters everything you've just said
My bad, so who are you voting for to be placed on the school board?
***My local school board? That’s my business boyo.
it's not like they approve the text books being that private publishers make, no wait, they do
***Again, that’s the state board. By law school districts can choose the materials they desire. The state board is circumvented without issue.
gotta love this board member:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/ “The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
***My kids to college history as a replacement in high school. I have no idea what the school version looks like. I know the JR. High one (which dealt with Texas history) was not the state version. It didn’t once mention the War of Northern Aggression nor the EVILS OF YANKEEs. Sad, truly sad.
Historically however this state board (pretyy much comprised of two people) has been a big bone of contention by those who care ad don’t like Texas looking like Hicksville (most don’t), hence why the law was passed.
sure the schools might not be "required" to use those books, but I'd bet money all of them do.
You would lose that bet. Protip, you’re literally talking about issues related to individual independent school districts, without a reference base (being Canadian). You would have to re-search in some detail to have a better understanding of how that works. I would not presume to discuss Canadian local school district policies without similar knowledge.
who's canadian? look at the flag bro. the term you want is american living abroad. canada also took in all those fleeing the states during your war to keep slaves. yes as being a british colony to start they also had slavery, they stopped with the brits when it was finally outlawed, and they never went to war to keep slaves.
surely any reparations should include an admission the travesty happened, the appology for it, and to not erase it from history.
You want to apologize you can to do. The government already did and hundreds of thousands lost their lives freeing a people.
Its discussed pretty heavily where I am at. Don't know about you.
Where can I sign up for my money from Canada and England for being forced out of Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and Europe. Plus the Bolsheviks for having to bail. Additionally I want bucks from Russia, Austria, and Prussia for that whole opposing Europe's rightful ruler thing...;-)
and to be technical, canada never had slaves as it became it's own nation in 1867. Unless you want to admit that it was canada and not the brits who torched your white house 1814
LOL forced out of canada? LOL how does that go?
Canada "if it's no trouble to you, would you mind leaving please?"
I can imagine how it is discussed in texas, I've seen how the south describes the war during flag gate.
sirlynchmob wrote: and to be technical, canada never had slaves as it became it's own nation in 1867. Unless you want to admit that it was canada and not the brits who torched your white house 1814
Canada owes my family money for forcing us out to go live in swamps and eat mediocre American food until we improved the cuisine. I want my reparations in Poutain and beignets.
Also the US owes Mexico for its evilz imperialism. As a native Tejan, I should be entitled. Gimme bank!
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.
Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.
Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.
Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.
And England. These types of deals get sticky when it comes down to "victims of war" vs. "victims of persecution". Do the English deserve reparations for being bombed, or is that chalked up to casualties of war?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.
But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.
A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.
a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.
UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else
Half of Glasgow was built on the slave trade, and we've had a few SJWs, albeit a tiny minority, calling for buildings and statues to be ripped down.
Examples of street names include: Jamaica street, Virginia street, Tobacco street, and streets named after various individuals who owned most of Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean at one time or another.
Thaere's a very good argument that says that one of the principal causes of the American revolution was Britain's abolition of slavery, which panicked the Southern slave owners...
oh yes, recently the Rhodes issue at Oxford or Cainbridge,.
calling for statue gone etc.
the past is the past... theres gak all we can do to change it.
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.
Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.
Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.
jreilly89 wrote: What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?
Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.
This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.
Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.
Other countries who were not recipients of Reparations: Czechoslovakia
Denmark
UK or Commonwealth countries
Norway
Austria
Luxembourg
Belgium
The Parisian Reparation Treaty - which, for some reason, has no English wikipedia article, but a long German one, shows that the UK and Denmark - among a few others - were recipients of reparations indeed. I honestly can't find out about how much of this was done in which way, because the article states that Germany wasn't a part of this treaty so it wasn't considered binding - but since Germany was, in fact, a very much beaten nation at that point, perhaps its absence is not of importance. There is a table, so maybe the fact that it's in German isn't so bad:
The UK planned to get about 28% of all reparation claims from Germany according to this. I can't find any immediate source telling me how much of this was actually executed.
Witzkatz wrote: I honestly can't find out about how much of this was done in which way, because the article states that Germany wasn't a part of this treaty so it wasn't considered binding - but since Germany was, in fact, a very much beaten nation at that point, perhaps its absence is not of importance. There is a table, so maybe the fact that it's in German isn't so bad:
The UK planned to get about 28% of all reparation claims from Germany according to this. I can't find any immediate source telling me how much of this was actually executed.
The part I highlighted is important, and explains why even if the UN blesses off on this recommendation the US response should be to tell them to feth off. It is easy for the winning side to coerce reparations from a losing nation, especially one wracked with societal guilt over the VERY recent past. I don't think you will find the US in a similar position.
sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.
It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.
Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper
I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.
sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.
It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.
Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper
I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.
Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.
sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.
It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.
Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper
I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.
Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.
The issue with the title isn't surprising given the OP, but actually reading the story would probably help a lot of people too.
However, it's easier for people to come here and bitch about the UN and Black Lives Matter, so whatever.
sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.
It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.
Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper
I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.
Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.
The issue with the title isn't surprising given the OP, but actually reading the story would probably help a lot of people too.
However, it's easier for people to come here and bitch about the UN and Black Lives Matter, so whatever.
It's the internet, people have always bitched about *insert anything*. Also, it's the Off Topic forum. Are you surprised?
But seriously, a less inflammatory title probably would have changed the direction of this thread.
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.
Yeah, the first post is wildly incorrect.
I think part of the deal is the unique position of American slavery in US history; its pervasive. The country wasn't just building cities on money from slaves, but the entire nation was built on slaves. Slaves were given political power in the US Constitution via the 3/5ths compromise (actually kind of weird to think about*). The Revolution was influenced by the fear that if the British government could simply quarter itself in your house and take your money (property) without representation, then what would stop them from taking your slaves if it suited them? It was a major motivator for slave holders across the US in the Revolution and the Constitutional conventions. Nearly 4 million slaves were owned in the US in 1860. It's the largest slave population in the Western world since the Roman Empire by a massive margin. Compare to the largest slave holding state after the end of American slavery, the Sokoto Caliphate in Africa, which hosted 1/4 of that number (and they didn't practice Chattel slavery, which is a particularly nasty form of slaveholding)
*Basically meant slaveholders had political power granted to and derived from their property rights in slaves.
I'm actually curious how much slavery features in the history education of other countries. Not just in high school, but as a topic of significance.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.
Yeah, the first post is wildly incorrect.
I think part of the deal is the unique position of American slavery in US history; its pervasive. The country wasn't just building cities on money from slaves, but the entire nation was built on slaves. Slaves were given political power in the US Constitution via the 3/5ths compromise (actually kind of weird to think about*). The Revolution was influenced by the fear that if the British government could simply quarter itself in your house and take your money (property) without representation, then what would stop them from taking your slaves if it suited them? It was a major motivator for slave holders across the US in the Revolution and the Constitutional conventions.
*Basically meant slaveholders had political power granted to and derived from their property rights in slaves.
I'm actually curious how much slavery features in the history education of other countries. Not just in high school, but as a topic of significance.
Except slavery was all ready on it's way out in many states. By 1787 slavery was illegal in 6 states, and the territories that would eventually become 6 other states.
Also, slavery wasn't exactly "economically viable" for most operations. In fact the only operations in which it made economic sense were tobacco and cotton. Slaves were used for other tasks, but it was either a frivolous waste (like having a Ferrari today) or they would be used to raise other crops in between the planting and harvesting of tobacco and cotton.
cuda1179 wrote: Except slavery was all ready on it's way out in many states. By 1787 slavery was illegal in 6 states, and the territories that would eventually become 6 other states.
Yeah, but that doesn't end slavery.
Historians have been paying a lot more attention in recent years to the question of economic viability (especially James Huston). Question; What about the brutal conditions of the American Guilded Age is incompatible with slavery? Slaves can't go on strike. They aren't allowed to complain. People have horribly overstated the economic viability of slavery in an effort at apologism. The reality is that industrialization was ripe for a slave work force, so we can't really take it as a granted that slavery was just naturally on the way out.
An extensive literature claims that industrialists could not have employed slave labor profitably in industrial enterprises, that free labor was both cheaper and more productive. Slaves were too expensive a capital investment for manufacturing, slaves had no incentive to be industrious as did free labor, slaves were incapable of learning the necessary skills for tending machines, and slaves... Some of these claims may have validity in the early stages of industrialization, but they have less potency in a matured industrial economy. These analyses do not look carefully at the economic trends that unfolded in the United States after 1880. The obvious trends were mass production in large hierarchical business units; machinery to replace skilled labor; unskilled, virtually brute, labor to tend the machines; a bureaucracy to oversee the system; and an internal police to keep laborers from organizing. What in this scenario offers an argument against the use of slave labor? Does not it instead look like the manufacturing processes in the United States moved exactly in the direction in which slave labor could be employed in manufacturing? Had it not been for emancipation, the use of slave labor in southern manufacturing would have become a very real possibility after the 1870s and 1880s.
Huston, James L.. Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War (Civil War America) (pp. 99-100). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.
I really should have started using ebooks years ago. This stuff is useful XD
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
Well, if you find it something to be worth looking into you can always go to the UN and see if a handful of people want to form a committee to write a small paper on it to pass up the chain for consideration.
cuda1179 wrote: Except slavery was all ready on it's way out in many states. By 1787 slavery was illegal in 6 states, and the territories that would eventually become 6 other states.
Yeah, but that doesn't end slavery.
Historians have been paying a lot more attention in recent years to the question of economic viability (especially James Huston). Question; What about the brutal conditions of the American Guilded Age is incompatible with slavery? Slaves can't go on strike. They aren't allowed to complain. People have horribly overstated the economic viability of slavery in an effort at apologism. The reality is that industrialization was ripe for a slave work force, so we can't really take it as a granted that slavery was just naturally on the way out.
An extensive literature claims that industrialists could not have employed slave labor profitably in industrial enterprises, that free labor was both cheaper and more productive. Slaves were too expensive a capital investment for manufacturing, slaves had no incentive to be industrious as did free labor, slaves were incapable of learning the necessary skills for tending machines, and slaves... Some of these claims may have validity in the early stages of industrialization, but they have less potency in a matured industrial economy. These analyses do not look carefully at the economic trends that unfolded in the United States after 1880. The obvious trends were mass production in large hierarchical business units; machinery to replace skilled labor; unskilled, virtually brute, labor to tend the machines; a bureaucracy to oversee the system; and an internal police to keep laborers from organizing. What in this scenario offers an argument against the use of slave labor? Does not it instead look like the manufacturing processes in the United States moved exactly in the direction in which slave labor could be employed in manufacturing? Had it not been for emancipation, the use of slave labor in southern manufacturing would have become a very real possibility after the 1870s and 1880s.
Huston, James L.. Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War (Civil War America) (pp. 99-100). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.
I really should have started using ebooks years ago. This stuff is useful XD
The largest argument against using slaves in industry was the cost of acquiring and training them versus the death rate. Buying a male slave in a good-working condition and age cost thousands of dollars (1800's dollars). Getting an Irishman to do the job set you back a few bucks. It didn't really matter when Irish died either. In fact, the death rate among Irish workers was several times higher than that of slaves in the South.
Huston's point is that by 1880 you needed a lot less skilled labor to manage a contemporary modern factory. You needed muscle.
It's not an absolute affirmation that slavery would have endured, but an examination of the Gilded Age and the King Cotton South, and noting that the structures of the two models were similar and that there's no reason for us to just presume slaves couldn't be used in the Industrial Revolution. Northern Industrialists treated labor as expendable because for them it was, but that wasn't really core to their business model.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
WHAT!
Hey man. The numbers might be wrong, but there's something to be said for pissing off the United States by enslaving white people.
Barbary States War. You're welcome Europe (and give Sweden some credit they helped!)
There was more to ending slavery. A lot of our trading partners were heavily influencing us towards ending slavery anyway. Our chief recipients of cotton and tobacco for instance really didn't like us using slaves, and were considering tariffs because of it. In fact it has been speculated that (hypothetically here) that if the South had either won the Civil War, or some kind of slavery was tolerated after repatriation, that slavery itself would have collapsed before the 1900's anyway.
It probably would have, slavery was on the way out and the North was largely prepared to let it die out slowly. Economic, Demographic, and Cultural forces were eroding it. But once the South attempted to secede, abolition organically and naturally became a wartime tool and aim.
No one alive today was a slave, no none alive today owned a slave. There is no US systemic racism, there is a lot of local racism for whatever reasons, but there is no federal law allowing any kind of oppression to anyone. Reparations were paid in full by 646,392 men who most of which never owned a slave as they were Union Soldiers.
thekingofkings wrote: No one alive today was a slave, no none alive today owned a slave. There is no US systemic racism, there is a lot of local racism for whatever reasons, but there is no federal law allowing any kind of oppression to anyone. Reparations were paid in full by 646,392 men who most of which never owned a slave as they were Union Soldiers.
It ain't that simple. If it were the world would be a better place.
jreilly89 wrote: Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.
The title is fine because the document is being issued by the Human Rights Council not the working group. If people can't figure out on your own that the HRC is a subordinate component of the UN General Assembly, then I can't help them. Still, if you really need to split hairs, you can read it as "United Nations Human Rights Council published a working group report that includes a recommendation for "reparatory justice" for African Americans."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: ...actually reading the story would probably help a lot of people too.
However, it's easier for people to come here and bitch about the UN and Black Lives Matter, so whatever.
I'm concerned I may have posted a bad link to the U.N. document in the OP so I made an edit with a new one. Hopefully people can get that easier. Still, the link in the Washington Post article should have worked for everyone.
While on the subject of reading the document, there were fourteen (I think) recommendations and I was hoping that while the topic of reparations would drive the thread (as it did the Washington Post news article) some of the other items would be brought up as well. That's why I (tried) to link to the PDF and ask people to "Take a few minutes and read through this and especially the recommendations in the U.N. document,"
Reparations does appear to be the driving force behind the report but there are other recommendations made besides that. I've paraphrased a handful of the other recommendations simplified in my own words for brevity.
1. Establish a national human rights commission in accordance with the Paris Principles and include a specific division to monitor the human rights of African Americans.
2. Ratify various international and regional human rights treaties to which the United States is still not a party and review any reservations from human rights treaties that the USA has ratified.
3. Codify into law the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as other international and regional human rights treaties. Give the force of law to those decisions, resolutions, recommendations, etc. that the Human Rights Council and other related institutions propose.
4. Monuments, memorials and markers should be erected to facilitate public dialogue.
5. Federal and state legislation should be passed recognizing the negative impact of enslavement and racial injustice.
6. Issue a formal apology for slavery, give money to and cancel debts of Caribbean nations for various health and education programs.
7. Fund unnamed local human rights organizations.
8. Adopt and enforce the U.N.'s rules on the use of force by LEOs.
There are other recommendations in the report as well. I left out those I thought redundant, match programs already in place, or are too broadly worded to be meaningful. The report also has investigations and conclusions to cover if anyone cares to.
I wish I could link to a video of Penn and Teller's BullSh*t episode where they deal with reparations, but it no longer seems to be available on YouTube.
jreilly89 wrote: But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
You can take that up with the 1953 West German government if you want.
How is that your answer, anyway? You said reparations to black americans weren't needed, and one reason you gave was Germany not giving to the Jews. I pointed out actually the gave billions, and then you ask why they didn't give to more people. There's not a lot of consistency there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The title is fine because the document is being issued by the Human Rights Council not the working group. If people can't figure out on your own that the HRC is a subordinate component of the UN General Assembly, then I can't help them. Still, if you really need to split hairs, you can read it as "United Nations Human Rights Council published a working group report that includes a recommendation for "reparatory justice" for African Americans."
You've still got it wrong. This report isn't being issued by the HRC, it is being submitted to the HRC by a working group.
You can take that up with the 1953 West German government if you want.
How is that your answer, anyway? You said reparations to black americans weren't needed, and one reason you gave was Germany not giving to the Jews. I pointed out actually the gave billions, and then you ask why they didn't give to more people. There's not a lot of consistency there.
Most of those billions went to Israel, who in turn used the majority of those reparations to buy more weapons for the IDF. In fact, it was a common means of getting new hardware when the Arabs upped the game, back before they could tap into the U.S. foreign aid spigot. Tel Aviv would guilt West Germany into more money, which ended up in the coffers of American and French aerospace firms and arms makers for the latest Western hardware.
You've still got it wrong. This report isn't being issued by the HRC, it is being submitted to the HRC by a working group.
This. In other words, it's just more hot air from an organization, and groups associated with said organization, that struggles to remain relevant, and continue rolling in the money from the wealthiest member-states. If the U.N. won't take hard action against Security Council members for ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES (i.e. Red China and the U.S.S.R.), then they won't do anything about a media and grievance industry spun "problem" in the United States.
This recommendation for this "working group" is nothing more than a joke.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
cuda1179 wrote: Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.
Citation required.
Random googling found....
Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, England, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, and as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries. It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves in Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli during this time period. The slave trade in Europeans in other parts of the Mediterranean is not included in this estimation.[8]
Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.
In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.
So if you limit it to the US only, it's true. If you include the Caribbean and South America there were more African slaves.
I'd not seen those numbers before, it does make US slavery seem like a drop in the ocean compared to a lot of other atrocities.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So if you limit it to the US only, it's true. If you include the Caribbean and South America there were more African slaves.
I'd not seen those numbers before, it does make US slavery seem like a drop in the ocean compared to a lot of other atrocities.
The US Census of 1860 recorded 4,000,000+ slaves in the United States (12% of the total US population at the time).
We banned the international slave trade in 1807 as part of a larger political compromise between Northern and Southern politicans. Basically we stopped participating in the Atlantic Slave trade before it even kicked into high gear. Instead, the Upper South became "breeding" states, that operated a lot more like puppy mills than any of us probably want to think about.
I'm not really sure that's any better, but either way it's not a drop in the bucket and debating who did slavery more is beside the point.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Most of those billions went to Israel, who in turn used the majority of those reparations to buy more weapons for the IDF.
Actually most of it went as loans and grants to companies to buy new manufacturing plant, and to build water, electricity and rail networks across the new state.
Tel Aviv would guilt West Germany into more money
No, there was a single agreed upon schedule of payments. This wasn't increased or altered by any kind of guilt process.
This. In other words, it's just more hot air from an organization, and groups associated with said organization, that struggles to remain relevant, and continue rolling in the money from the wealthiest member-states.
Well, in crazy words maybe.
Organisations produce opinion pieces, suggestions of future policy, commonly called white papers. This is part of the democratic process, they are generally down by junior levels of government, to suggest a future direction and invite commentary on the matter. It's just a basic process of any kind of government.
You can layer on lots of UN hate on to your understanding of that process if you want. I mean, that is not only your right, it appears to be your obligation as a citizen of the United States. But it is very silly.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not really sure that's any better, but either way it's not a drop in the bucket and debating who did slavery more is beside the point.
No, it's not relevant to reparations. But it does put things in to perspective a bit more. There's still 20-30 million slaves now, and I wasn't aware that less than 5% of African slaves shipped to the new world ended up in the US.
It makes sense when you think that the US was a small part of the New World compared to the rest of the Americas, only began to exist in 1776, and the transatlantic slave trade began to be put down by the RN in 1807.
We can blame the Haiti Revolution for that Everyone decided this whole bringing slaves out of Africa thing was best finished, and everyone attend to their market needs "in house"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.
But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.
A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.
a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.
UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else
The UK led the world on abolition in the 19th century also, but while that was a lie, as most forms of colonialism included forms of slavery. nevertheless the royal Navy was instrumental in breaking the back of the north atlantic slave trade long before the nations involved formally abolished it.
jreilly89 wrote: But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
You can take that up with the 1953 West German government if you want.
How is that your answer, anyway? You said reparations to black americans weren't needed, and one reason you gave was Germany not giving to the Jews. I pointed out actually the gave billions, and then you ask why they didn't give to more people. There's not a lot of consistency there.
Sorry, should have been more detailed with my response. My point was more that where do reparations stop? Poland was invaded by Germany at basically the kick off of WW2. So yes while reparations were given to the Jews, should some have also been given to countries that suffered at the hands of war, like Poland, France, England?
Other countries who were not recipients of Reparations: Czechoslovakia Denmark UK or Commonwealth countries Norway Austria Luxembourg Belgium
Someone also found a German link to the Parisian Reparation Treat, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariser_Reparationsabkommen, that said the UK, Denmark, and a handful of others were to get reparations as well, but how much went through I'm not sure.
jreilly89 wrote: But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel
You can take that up with the 1953 West German government if you want.
How is that your answer, anyway? You said reparations to black americans weren't needed, and one reason you gave was Germany not giving to the Jews. I pointed out actually the gave billions, and then you ask why they didn't give to more people. There's not a lot of consistency there.
Sorry, should have been more detailed with my response. My point was more that where do reparations stop? Poland was invaded by Germany at basically the kick off of WW2. So yes while reparations were given to the Jews, should some have also been given to countries that suffered at the hands of war, like Poland, France, England?
Other countries who were not recipients of Reparations: Czechoslovakia
Denmark
UK or Commonwealth countries
Norway
Austria
Luxembourg
Belgium
Someone also found a German link to the Parisian Reparation Treat, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariser_Reparationsabkommen, that said the UK, Denmark, and a handful of others were to get reparations as well, but how much went through I'm not sure.
I don't like the idea of reparations to countries because they are invaded. Use of the military is a legitimate diplomatic option. Forcing reparations to the loser leads to what happened to Germany after WW I.
Reparations should be due to crimes against humanity by nations. (Like slavery or genocide).
d-usa wrote: I wonder if ceding the large portions of pre-WW2 Germany to Poland could be counted as reparations?
That was basically a land swap deal at the Yalta Conference which also saw part of Poland ceded to the Soviets, so it doesn't really qualify as reparations.
Jihadin wrote: Next on the UN agenda.....Native American Reparation
This. In other words, it's just more hot air from an organization, and groups associated with said organization, that struggles to remain relevant, and continue rolling in the money from the wealthiest member-states. If the U.N. won't take hard action against Security Council members for ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES (i.e. Red China and the U.S.S.R.), then they won't do anything about a media and grievance industry spun "problem" in the United States.
It cant take hard action because they have veto power, and there is more than enough to tar and feather the US with as well. We have more people languishing in prisons than both China and Russia (the USSR no longer exists and hasnt for 25 years) combined and foreign military excursions into places like Iraq havent exactly been rosy friend fests.
The UN does a lot of great work that most people never see or care about because its not exciting and doesnt involve things going Boom, and is super useful diplomatically for back end behind the scenes stuff, and mostly making the US look good even with weirdness like this. Its far from perfect, but it does have its uses, and at 14B a year, is hardly the most expensive thing out there, especially since the US doesnt foot the whole bill.
This. In other words, it's just more hot air from an organization, and groups associated with said organization, that struggles to remain relevant, and continue rolling in the money from the wealthiest member-states. If the U.N. won't take hard action against Security Council members for ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES (i.e. Red China and the U.S.S.R.), then they won't do anything about a media and grievance industry spun "problem" in the United States.
It cant take hard action because they have veto power, and there is more than enough to tar and feather the US with as well. We have more people languishing in prisons than both China and Russia (the USSR no longer exists and hasnt for 25 years) combined and foreign military excursions into places like Iraq havent exactly been rosy friend fests.
The UN does a lot of great work that most people never see or care about because its not exciting and doesnt involve things going Boom, and is super useful diplomatically for back end behind the scenes stuff, and mostly making the US look good even with weirdness like this. Its far from perfect, but it does have its uses, and at 14B a year, is hardly the most expensive thing out there, especially since the US doesnt foot the whole bill.
True, the UN provides the framework and infrastructure to create coalitions and campaigns to do good work in a lot of places around the world that sorely need some help. It's also susceptible to the same kind of political shenanigans that you get when you give politicians the ability to cast stones at other nations to score political points. Overall the UN only has the power that member nations choose to give it so it's difficult for the UN to do any truly bad things and it does make it easier for nations to come together to do good things so it's existence is probably a net positive by a fairly wide margin.
jreilly89 wrote: Sorry, should have been more detailed with my response. My point was more that where do reparations stop? Poland was invaded by Germany at basically the kick off of WW2. So yes while reparations were given to the Jews, should some have also been given to countries that suffered at the hands of war, like Poland, France, England?
Fair enough, it's a tough question with no good answer. Exactly what point a nation crosses a line from 'oh well history isn't nice to everyone' and in to 'that's abhorrent and demands reparations' is extremely difficult to judge.
I just want to repeat what I said earlier - the reparations paid to Israel helped them build a viable nation state that is prosperous to this day. But I don't consider this an argument for reparations, I consider it an argument for capacity building, investing infrastructure, education and the rest in order to turn impoverished areas in to prosperous ones. In the case of Israel this was easier than most cases because the population was already educated and skilled.
Don't fixate on justice, look at growth, is basically what I'm saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: I don't like the idea of reparations to countries because they are invaded. Use of the military is a legitimate diplomatic option. Forcing reparations to the loser leads to what happened to Germany after WW I.
Use of the military can be a legitimate diplomatic option. Wars of expansion are expressly illegal.
And reparations are as old as war, and there's no pattern where reparations automatically lead to more fighting later on. What made the reparations in the Versailles Treaty such a bad idea was the economic devastation in Germany and the rest of Europe after the war. After Franco-Prussian war France was actually forced to pay more in reparations than Germany after WWI, but the difference is that the Franco-Prussian war was much shorter, and at the end of the war France actually had that kind of money to repay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: True, the UN provides the framework and infrastructure to create coalitions and campaigns to do good work in a lot of places around the world that sorely need some help. It's also susceptible to the same kind of political shenanigans that you get when you give politicians the ability to cast stones at other nations to score political points. Overall the UN only has the power that member nations choose to give it so it's difficult for the UN to do any truly bad things and it does make it easier for nations to come together to do good things so it's existence is probably a net positive by a fairly wide margin.
Yep, and remember the UN isn't just the General Assembly. There's also the International Court of Justice, WHO, the IMF, International Civil Aviation and so on. There's like 20 different agencies, all doing stuff you would never even think of, but which are clearly needed once you hear about them.
The UN has plenty of issues, as you'd expect of something as strange as a multi-national representative agency. But it also does a lot of good and necessary work that goes completely ignored by the greater population.
