The push for reparations grows....
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
At what point will Africans take responsibility for Africa?
manimal said:
The reason you didn't get any doesen't mean that you or they don't diserve it. Start asking for it.
Do you know how big that genocide was (in numbers)?
A lot of people are still stinkin' rich from what their families profited from the slaves. Why do they deserve something they haven't earned and not the slave ancestors? Their wealth should only be seen as something they was fortunate to have during all those years, but not to keep.
Why? They earned it legally and passed it on to their families. If anyone is to blame, its the government, and they ARE giving back to blacks every day. Not saying the situation is getting any better, but handout checks wont help a damn thing.rockwool said:
They could do a lot to help themselves but time and time again they fall foul of corruption and inter-ethnic conflict.Changleen said:
Sure the West has created some problems, they have also tried many times to help but the African nations seem intend on hamstringing themselves.
Agree about handout checks. Money shoulod go to somthing like scollarships, funds etc.
These people have been used as animals, punished mentaly so bad that they still today can't rise up. Indians and aborigines maybe even worse..
This money will give them hope, make sure that anybody an not just top scollars can get a degree, or even get out of high school.
Slavery was just as moraly wicked evil then as it is now. Just because it took some time for the law to come to its senses don't mean their wealts were made morally correct.
These people have been used as animals, punished mentaly so bad that they still today can't rise up. Indians and aborigines maybe even worse..
This money will give them hope, make sure that anybody an not just top scollars can get a degree, or even get out of high school.
Slavery was just as moraly wicked evil then as it is now. Just because it took some time for the law to come to its senses don't mean their wealts were made morally correct.
Problems with that:rockwool said:
Many debts have been written off
Much aid has been squandered
They seem to have sufficient money for arms and luxuries for the Elite
If they make nothing then they will have nothing (hence the situation with struggling to pay debts)
Too many African states do not help themselves and simply blame history for their problems. Unless they change their philosophy they will remain poor. Many nations on other continents have managed growth, why do so few African states manage it?
Actually none has managed that to my knowledge. Egypt who gets more aid than any country, exept Israel, can't do it. Why? Dunno.fluff said:
It is in the western worlds interest to keep them divided and fighting both for its arms sales and so that they can use the chaos and opportunistic groups to get the diamonds, oil and other whealth out to a minimal cost.
Corruption can be kept at a minimal by giving them aid trough knowledge. Help them help them selves, not with money, but trough education, design certain factories etc so they can get self sufficient to a greater extent.
But the west don't want to do that also because they will then loose even more money because they won't export as much. The new competition will also have cheaper labour costs...and they might even loose their own home market...
The elite is no different than ours. They don't mind where they step to get their wealth.
You mean, European asshats colonizing everything (eg, Britain), and then saying "Awww, **** you guys, have fun!"?fluff said:
Europe (Namely the Belgians, English, French, and Germans) IS the reason Africa is, has, and probably forever will be a ****hole.
Viva Leopold, eh Fluff?
I say everyone who has been a slave should get $5,000,000
I blame the jewish puerto ricans
I know one of those, and he's the most ****ed up individual Ive ever come in contact with...MMike said:
seriously.
This hold's true in the US also........................in many ways............fluff said:
Out of interest does anyone here disagree with the following:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Furthermore does it strike anyone that the above statement is wholly incompatible with the concept of slavery?
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Furthermore does it strike anyone that the above statement is wholly incompatible with the concept of slavery?
Colonialism was a big ****up, no argument but it is over. For the sake of argument why don't you list the African nations that are well governed since independence?blue said:
but a lot of white people arn't. a lot of people never onwed slaves because they cost a lot of money. example: my grandfather came from a poverty stricken family. they had a hard time keeping food on the table and shelter over there heads. when wwII came along my grandfather went and singed up to fight. once he got out of the army he got paid quite a bit of money and he used that money to buy a store. once that store became successful he invested that money in stock and real estate. he was a multi-millionaire, until he passed away in january 2004, now my family inherits all of his money, stock holds, and real estate. his family NEVER onwed slaves.rockwool said:
Of course its wholly incompatible with the concept of slavery but the realities at the time that it was written were such that if slavery had been addressed the document that followed would have never been signed and the country would have never been founded. Political realities existed even then.fluff said:
And in less than 75 years that incompatibility forced a Civil War that produced close to a million casualties (650,000 dead) which at the time was approximately 3% of the population.
You idgit. It's pursuit of "property". :mumble: Fricken revisionist history nonsense. As for your question, it all depends on how you define "men". If by "men" you mean white, penis toting, land owner, then it's entirely compatible. If you mean "men", as in "man", as in "human" ... then no, it's incompatible.fluff said:
[... and all those were finger quotes. Good for those mouthing the words as they read along with the rest of us.]
That was Jefferson's first edit, but the revision wasn't by history but by the delegation that finally drafted the document.BuddhaRoadkill said:
Fair point but we still have a legal activity (slavery) that was acknowledged by some to be morally wrong. Doesn't make for a strong legal foundation.DRB said:
As OMGF said the final draft read as I quoted. Imagine how many goons would have jumped on it had I used anything else. There were other differences in the original draft also.BuddhaRoadkill said:
Anyway, exchanging happiness for property makes no difference to the relevant part. As for the definition of "men", well, in the absence of any riders defining men as exclusive to any particular group I guess we should assume an inclusive meaning.
Strong legal foundation? A strong legal foundation is one that allows for modifications and updates and improvements as time goes on. The Constitution was amended to specifically address the inconsistency.fluff said:
So what should they have done? Risk having the whole thing fall apart?
Perhaps they should have had the war then? May have been less destructive in the long term.DRB said:
But that's off the subject, the point being that slavery was not universally seen as moral.
There wouldn't have been a war. The country would have dissovled into 2 or 3 loosely related countries that may or may have not survived as entities more than a few years. The founding fathers knew that and made some difficult decisions.fluff said:
Sure it wasn't seen as universally moral then. However, it was widely accepted. What is interesting that those that were loudest in dissent in not dealing with slavery were Christians.
No actually you're thinking of John Locke.BuddhaRoadkill said:
Edit: Someone beat me to it.