|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/26/2009 4:45:43 AM |
I hate to see liberals wet their pants over issues like this. We need to charge blacks for what they've cost and continue to cost society. Crime statstics for blacks goes thru the roof as well as all the illegitimate black babies born out of sheer stupidity. If society shells out for reparations and then charges for the drain we've all had to bear, then they will owe us. Yup, decades of blaming someone else for your problems sure does help your race. If you don't want to deal with the problems caused by descendants of slaves, then don't bring people to your country as slaves. If your ancestors brought people over as slaves, then your ancestors made it your problem. You're then left with only 2 options, continue to make it their problem, by treating them as badly as slaves, or man up, and deal with the problems that the people of your country created for themselves.
Be a man. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/27/2009 6:32:43 AM |
I hate to see liberals wet their pants over issues like this. We need to charge blacks for what they've cost and continue to cost society. Crime statstics for blacks goes thru the roof as well as all the illegitimate black babies born out of sheer stupidity. If society shells out for reparations and then charges for the drain we've all had to bear, then they will owe us. Yup, decades of blaming someone else for your problems sure does help your race. If you don't want to deal with the problems caused by descendants of slaves, then don't bring people to your country as slaves. ... deal with the problems that the people of your country created for themselves.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761595158
Portuguese traders brought the first African slaves for agricultural labor to the Caribbean in 1502. From then until 1860, it is estimated that more than 10 million people were transported from Africa to the Americas. The great majority were brought to the Caribbean, Brazil, or the Spanish colonies of Central and South America. Only about 6 percent were traded in British North America.
The Portuguese, Dutch, and British controlled most of the Atlantic slave trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law
... slavery in England was abolished by a general charter of emancipation in 1381. But I guess the English felt it was okay to go capture Africans and sell them in the Caribbean, Brazil, Spanish colonies of Central and South America, as well as North American colonies ... eh?
Just saying ...
OT ...
Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Maybe the ones who need to apologize are the ones who brought them here in the first place? | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/27/2009 4:07:47 PM | RE Msg: 103 by cotter:
The Portuguese, Dutch, and British controlled most of the Atlantic slave trade. "We" know this. By "we", I mean the rest of the world, excluding America.
But I guess the English felt it was okay to go capture Africans and sell them in the Caribbean, Brazil, Spanish colonies of Central and South America, as well as North American colonies ... eh?
Just saying ... No, we don't feel it was OK. We DID. Then we realised it was wrong. That's why us Brits abolished slavery decades before the Americans did. We realised it was wrong. We even tried to stamp it out using our own ships, while Americans were still trading in slaves.
Maybe the ones who need to apologize are the ones who brought them here in the first place? If you want the British government to apologise to Africans, I have no problem with that, as my family are nearly all from other countries. I'm only 4th generation English, and slavery was already abolished BEFORE my family came to England.
But the British people are in little doubt over what they've done. That's why we have heavy anti-racism laws, and quotas to ensure blacks do not get squeezed out of jobs due to continuing racism.
However, even if the British government apologised for selling Africans to Americans, Americans still bought them, still owned them, still sold them to each other. Such an apology would not absolve Americans of the way they treated African American slaves for the substantial majority of the time that they were slaves. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/27/2009 8:39:16 PM |
... then don't bring people to your country as slaves. Again ... for example ...
... slavery in England was abolished by a general charter of emancipation in 1381. Hmmmm ... apparently that didn't stop them from just trading in slavery elsewhere ... eh?
Let's just say that those who BOUGHT the slaves might not be the only ones who should eventually apologize? | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/28/2009 7:23:26 AM | RE Msg: 104 by cotter:
... slavery in England was abolished by a general charter of emancipation in 1381. That emancipation effectively outlawed rich Americans coming to England, buying huge plantations in England, and getting slaves to do their work for them. But it
Hmmmm ... apparently that didn't stop them from just trading in slavery elsewhere ... eh? Actually, it did, provided that Englishmen adjusted their beliefs, and accepted that the English way is the right way, and that English law should be forced on the rest of the world, whether they like it or not. But Englishmen believed that they should respect the customs of the land, and that is the basis of their law, which is why it is called "COMMON LAW". In England, it became common custom to not tolerate slavery in their land. But to demand that of others, was to also demand that Americans must drive on the left. It was not fair. So the rest of the world had to decide about slavery for themselves. Merchants in foreign countries were guided by international merchant law, which did not ban slavery, because Arabs and Moors were merchants, and they still believed in slavery. British colonies were locations that started off as foreign countries, and then over more and more settlement of British people, slowly became more and more British. It was only by the 1800s that they had become so ruled by Britain, that they started to be thought of as more of a part of Britain, and its natives started to be thought of part British, so they might be subject to a part of its laws. But because Britain never formally annexed the Colonies as British states like Hawaii, the issue was so unclear, and had to be ruled on by an act of Parliament. As a result of such laws, British colonists now enjoy special status in the world, because they have some British rights automatically, such as the right to come to the UK whenever they feel like it.
The equivalent today would be that American forces would be required to stamp out all forms of sexual slavery, such as in the sex trade, but also including domestic violence and rape, in all countries in which at least ONE American citizen has visited in the last 30 years. I don't see American forces doing this even in their own country, let alone countries that would be the modern equivalent of a colony, like Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone countries that Americans have visited at least once.
Let's just say that those who BOUGHT the slaves might not be the only ones who should eventually apologize? If you force them to do it, then that's slavery. How can your country hope to apologise for slavery, if it's still trying to keep doing it? | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/28/2009 2:36:05 PM | theirland.Well no, it did not become "common custom" ... it was abolished. There IS a difference!!! And I have to wonder why if it was abolished in "their" land why they would promote it then in other parts of the world?
But to demand that of others, was to also demand that Americans must drive on the left. It was not fair I don't see how that correlates with them taking their slave ships and capturing the slaves and then "SELLING" them to the rest of the world. How is that morally okay if it's not morally okay in England?
So the rest of the world had to decide about slavery for themselves. Oh I see ... the people living here back then just suddenly thought one day ... "Hey ... we should get some slaves to do this work!" And then wham ... just out of nowhere, what to their wondering eyes should appear, but a ship with slaves pulling into the bay.
The equivalent today would be that .... I could care less about any kind of equivalent to today. We're talking about what happened back then. Stating such garbage about an "equivalent" is only done in order to draw attention away from the fact of what was done back then ... with the blessings of the countries who did the deeds.
Once again, my point is ...
... that maybe we (or those who BOUGHT the slaves) might not be the only ones who should eventually apologize. In order for there to be slaves to BUY, someone had to be SELLING them. It seems to me they owe some apologies as well. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:35:23 PM | Cotter
... that maybe we (or those who BOUGHT the slaves) might not be the only ones who should eventually apologize. In order for there to be slaves to BUY, someone had to be SELLING them. It seems to me they owe some apologies as well.
And money shelled out as well as reparation. Don't forget that many of the countries where the slaves actually came from were complicit in these crimes against humanity and, as such, need to make amends as well. To not do so and still demand the US take action is fairly hypocritical, even if one is saying 'I just got here so it's not my problem.' | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/29/2009 4:43:50 AM |
Well no, it did not become "common custom" ... it was abolished. There was no public fight against this, as there have been with other decrees. The king was just putting into law, what the majority already accepted. The law is just the embodiment of what most already do.
And I have to wonder why if it was abolished in "their" land why they would promote it then in other parts of the world? Other lands were not subject to the laws of England. English merchants who traded in other countries simply took advantage of that fact.
I don't see how that correlates with them taking their slave ships and capturing the slaves and then "SELLING" them to the rest of the world. How is that morally okay if it's not morally okay in England? English law is NOT American law. English law is not based on what you personally believe to be moral. It's based on "the law of the land", what most men and women in England already believe and do in England.
Oh I see ... the people living here back then just suddenly thought one day ... "Hey ... we should get some slaves to do this work!" And then wham ... just out of nowhere, what to their wondering eyes should appear, but a ship with slaves pulling into the bay. The law of supply and demand. No demand, no money in it. No money in it, no merchants do it. There had to be a demand for it first.
I could care less about any kind of equivalent to today. I already know you could care less about lateral thinking. Lateral thinking is the compliment to logical thinking, that stops it being tunnel-visioned. Not using lateral thinking just puts blinkers on people.
Stating such garbage about an "equivalent" is only done in order to draw attention away from the fact of what was done back then ... with the blessings of the countries who did the deeds. The subject was what Americans did. Not what the British did. Trying to switch the discussion to what the British did, is only done in order to draw attention away from the fact of what was done back then in America... with the blessings of the Americans who did the deeds.
... that maybe we (or those who BOUGHT the slaves) might not be the only ones who should eventually apologize. No-one suggested that it was not in order for British Africans to get an apology from the British government. But that should be their choice. Not to do things because Americans say so.
In order for there to be slaves to BUY, someone had to be SELLING them. Necessity is the mother of invention. If there was a demand for slaves in America, then someone would have sold them to Americans. If it wasn't the British, it would have been someone else.
It seems to me they owe some apologies as well. Again, no-one is disputing this. But it must be their choice. Anything else would be making the British the slaves of Americans, and that would be the height of hypocrisy.
And money shelled out as well as reparation. Don't forget that many of the countries where the slaves actually came from were complicit in these crimes against humanity and, as such, need to make amends as well. To not do so and still demand the US take action is fairly hypocritical, even if one is saying 'I just got here so it's not my problem.' Then African countries ought to be apologising as well. But I still maintain that it must be their choice to apologise. | |
|
| |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 6/30/2009 10:43:08 PM | Cotter
I personally don't care if anyone apologizes or not. I'd like to have an apology for my relative that was a slave and did not qualify to be set free in the same manner as the black slaves were emancipated. But then he wasn't captured in his own land and chained into a ship and sold at auction. Nonetheless, he was a slave.
I'd like for the Moors to apologize to me. A bit of back pay as well. Not to mention the hell my ancestors went through when the Danes and Norwegians raveged my people's land. And don't even get me started on those **stard Romans. God, Italy owes the entire human race quadriullons. Then again, Alexander and his army conquered half the world so, I suppose the Greeks can start.
In all, the white European race has endured more conquests, more misery, more slavery and serfdom than any other so, political correctness, suck it. When they pay me, you'll get yours. Until then, just try to be normal and wait for the cheque. | |
|
| |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 7/1/2009 9:49:43 AM | Yes. There is a growing global movement asking for money as well as an apology. The apology, while proper, is a step that will be used by reparation groups to fight for money. Were you unaware of this?
http://www.manilasites.com/naacpncgreensboro/discuss/msgReader$251?mode=topic&y=2005&m=7&d=13
"Absolutely, we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table," Dennis C. Hayes, interim president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said yesterday at the group's 96th annual convention here.
"Many of the problems we have now including poverty, disparities in health care and incarcerations can be directly tied to slavery."
And it's not just for slavery either;
http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/theadvocate/rat_sped/july_07/reparations/index.htm
The Globalization of Reparations Movements
As Germany and other interests that profited owed reparations to Jews following the holocaust of Nazi persecution, America and other interests that profited owe reparations to blacks following the holocaust of African slavery which has carried forward from slavery's inception for 350-odd years to the end of U.S. government-embraced racial discrimination. | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 7/1/2009 6:29:54 PM |
And it's not just for slavery either;
The Globalization of Reparations Movements
As Germany and other interests that profited owed reparations to Jews following the holocaust of Nazi persecution ...
Soooo ... then maybe if there are groups of people currently committing holocausts on other neighboring peoples ... they might eventually be forced to not only stop the killings ...
... but might also actually be held responsible and might have to not only offer an apology but also reparations? | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:23:18 PM | Cotter
Soooo ... then maybe if there are groups of people currently committing holocausts on other neighboring peoples ... they might eventually be forced to not only stop the killings ...
... but might also actually be held responsible and might have to not only offer an apology but also reparations?
That would be affirmative Cotter. So, if this was to become policy for the world, where should we start? Chronologically would be best which places us around the first century at least with the Roman conquests and, possibly well before which would place slavery and the Holocaust near the end of the list. I, as part Spanish/ English/ Scottish/ Swedish/ Finnish would like an apology and some moolah from the descendants of the Moors/ Roman/ Germans/ Russians/ Norwegians/ Danes and, the Aboriginal side of me would accept the same from pretty much all of the above as well as many others.
This I believe would send the proper message. | |
|
Kaos86
|
Joined: 3/7/2007
Msg: 115 | |
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:16:25 PM | Great idea by the NAZI...
One of my ancestors was a lay missionary in 1648 at Sainte-Marie Among the Hurons in Ontario.
He was slain by the Iroquois and to this day my family feels the pain of this horrible loss.
Also living near Michigan my Great Great Great Grandfather rode with Custer at Little Big Horn in 1876. It is very hard to speak of it but we all know of the Holocaust at Little Big Horn.
(sniff)....All we have left is his bugle. (sniff)
Where do I line up to receive my reparations err ...I mean apology? | |
|
| Senate plans to apologize to blacks. Do you know there is STILL no federal anti-lynching law?
Posted: 7/2/2009 2:08:05 PM |
So, if this was to become policy for the world, where should we start? Chronologically would be best which places us around the first century at least with the Roman conquests and, possibly well before which would place slavery and the Holocaust near the end of the list. Yes, I can see what you mean. I have to agree.
Soooo ... my ancestors who lived on this continent prior to the so-called "White Man" (or is "Caucasian" the appropriate word?) showed up ... would also qualify for an apology as well as reparations? You know what ... skip the friggin' apology (probably wouldn't be sincere anyways) ... and give us back our land.
Then, to take it a step further, the other ancestor who basically started my father's family here with the Native American lady ... all I'd need is an apology and I'd be satisfied. He was the "slave" part of the relationship. Well that is if we could have her land back, then the apology for my "White Man" ancestor would suffice. Okay, that takes care of my father's side of the family.
As for my mother's side of the family ... I'm pretty sure they simply immigrated here, so they'd probably owe my father's side of the family. Soooo (sigh) ... I'd get nothing? One side of the family cancels out the other when it comes to the time spent here in the Americas. Now in Europe, that's a different story if we're going back to the first century.
| |
|
|
| Page 5 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
