Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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:
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".

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

EDIT: adjusted pronouns to avoid ambiguity.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Money invested in the worst communities, education and other programmes.

If your gonna help, a flat payment do nothing. Just mean most people buy a new tv and such...

 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:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Any one else counting down til a race war?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

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?

Just wondering...

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.