Discussion in 'Movies, Entertainment & Various Music Genres' started by nyjohnyboy, Dec 6, 2006.
"You lost one..."
Now quiet down EA and crack a book open.
reparations cannot be given out by the government since the government never owned slaves.
reparations can only be given by private families, and private companies, who used to own slaves.
but hey, blacks have benefited from slavery more then white people so i say its a wash.
hmmm... what i mean is, black people in general, cuz obviously the slaves didnt benefit from slavery too much. i mean, they had jobs, shelter, food, etc but they werent free and freedom is worth more then that, and they would have been able to do that on their own PLUS be free without slavery.
but, their decendants benefitted greatly. i understand that alot of people say "but if whites hadn't invaded africa, it would be ok!". that's all fine and good but thats not how history went down.
now, the decendants of slaves, african-americans today - live at a standard hundreds of times better with more freedom, income, standard of living, longer lifespan, then the decendants of africans who weren't brought to america for slavery. namely, slavery brought blacks OUT of the conditions of africa.
if you consider black america as its own nation, it's wealth is in the top 7 of all countries. meaning, black americans enjoy a standard of living better then most of europe, most of asia, most of the americas, most of africa, etc. and, live in probably the top .5% of all humans in history.
that's why i say it's a wash.
whites, have also benefited from slavery too, but alot of that benefit was wiped out after the stock market crash in the early 1900s where our previous progress was basically set back to zero.
the people who benefited most from slavery were the slave owners and traders (who were mostly white), but from those of us alive today - blacks have benefited far more greatly in my eyes then whites.
do you agree or disagree? i'm not saying slavery was a good thing for anyone except those directly exploiting it, but the trickle down effects that are affecting those of us alive i think are tilted to the advantage of black people.
I completely disagree.
From what "conditions" in Africa did slavery "save" African Americans? The conditions that Europeans (the ones who stole them from their lands in the first place) set in place?
You do realize that, before the slaves were brought to N. America, the whites were literally starving and unable to survive in the (supposed) new world?
Have you considered the amount of abuse that black people suffered at the hands of white people before and after Emancipation?
Obviously, we cannot change what has passed, but it's not as if black people are being treated fairly now. It is still way better to be white than black in America.
Also, consider: is the "comfort" better than freedom? I know you do not state that explicitly, but that, I think, is your main point.
PS. Africans are immigrating to the States all the time. So, maybe, going through oppression for hundreds of years, to live in the US, was pointless anyway.
The idea that Blacks are beneficiaries of slavery is absurd altogether.
Slavery spearheaded the destruction of the Black home, the feminization of the Black male, put Blacks at an economic disadvantage and demonized the concept of unification.
Three things that still have effect in our communities today.
Again, I'm not fighting for the cause of reparations.
America couldn't possibly "fix" it.
Black slaves were sold to whites by black slaveowners... they weren't hijacked at gunpoint. The slavery in Africa wasn't near as brutal as it was in America, though. And it existed for centuries before Europeans ever came to Africa.
Another nugget of truth... the history of Africans in America didn't begin with slavery... it started with the Afro-Phoenicians who were perhaps the first explorers of the New World, along with the Asians... they created the "Native Americans." The intermingling of Natives, blacks, and whites created the Latinos.
The stock market crash didn't wipe out any benefits... a lot of the institutions were already in place and still managed to recover afterwards. By 1929, this country was already 4 centuries deep in "cotton money," do you think that a crash wiped all of that out in a matter of minutes? Wealthy people still managed... it was mainly the proletariat who got fucked.
Perhaps the biggest hindrance is the inferiority complex that still looms large over Black America... even wealthy Black Americans exhibit this complex.
True. : )
And you, of all people, would know that.
Or rather where that inferiority complex comes from...
yes. but i also know every ethnic group in the history of the world has been opressed, enslaved, and absused at some point - so i wont give special consideration to just one group.
i think today black people are treated fairly. obviously, certain sectors on the social strata dont have the advantages others do, but i dont think race is the factor behind that. i think its more of an economic thing.
i'm not saying blacks have it better then whites. no, i'm saying african americans have benefited more from slavery then whites.
i'm confused on this point. i said that "they had jobs, shelter, food, etc but they werent free and freedom is worth more then that, and they would have been able to do that on their own PLUS be free without slavery." slavery is a terrible form of opressing others, which is think is wrong. i don't think you can justify slavery today, and even back then. we're free, and its great to have choice, and i don't think there's an amount of money i'de give up all my freedom for.
leila, i respect your opinions. just understand i'm not arguing about the morality of slaverly, or the economic conditions it put african americans under post slavery which were generally worse then most whites, all i'm saying is the trickle down effects still lasting in 2007 seem to put african americans (that are slave decendants) in a more advantageous position than whites (who are decendants of whites living in slave times) without it.
i disagree. look at the average incomes, quality of life, and life expectancy of african americans versus african blacks.
maybe compared to american whites, but compared to the rest of the world - they're very wealthy. black america is a top 7 nation in gross income.
you say the stock market crash didn't wipe out cotton money in minutes... but it did. after the crash, only 1/3 of the country was employed. educated people were layed off. most of the country could afford their bills, previously comfortable people were homeless and eating out of soup kitchens.
the private wealth of the super rich was safe, but the average person who felt the trickle down effects of slavery as you said did "get fucked" and from then on had to start from scratch, without slavery to help them.
I would think that juxtaposing the average incomes, quality of life and life expectancy of African Americans versus Whites would be a more fitting comparison.
I'm wondering what the rest of the world has to do with this discussion?
1. why? my point was african americans benefitted from slavery by coming to this country versus their counterparts in africa who were never slaves in america. that's the whole reason for the comparison. you can see those who decended from slaves are far better off then those who decended from the blacks who weren't taken for slavery.
2. it puts everything in perspective. this "economic disavantage" is like saying oprah winfrey is poor based off bill gates' net worth.
Seeing as you're going to continue this ridiculous comparison...
Black people aren't far better off because they were slaves; it just so happens that Africans were further destroyed by European imperialism than African Americans were by the European slave trade. (Really, it's such a stupid point you're making). Furthermore, in no terms did African Americans benefit from being enslaved. I'm sorry Rich; I understand you are trying to be "polite" (although, I really do not think you can not be rude while posting such horrid comments); you are wrong. That is all.
I think we can all agree that Gates and Winfrey are anamalies.
It's not just "economic disadvantage," it's social marginalization as well as economic disadvantage.
hmmm ur right. the actual part about BEING a slave wasn't helpful, but the institution of slavery did help the slave decendants. it got them out of an area european imperialists would eventually destroy and then leave to warlords, a place those who weren't enslaved would be forced to live in (and suffer).
what is social marginilization?
by the way, this thread was about reparations. some say, give em, some say don't. my whole idea is, #1) any reparations cannot come from the US government, and #2) don't give them period because the benefits from slavery to the decendants pretty much wash (if not wash PLUS some) the disadvantages.
Wealth extracted from Black labor is but one side of the coin.
Structural disadvantages can be measured in many more ways than economics.
Social marginalization is one.
I'm not sure how the Government itself can be exonerated from having to take both corporate and civic responsibility. Seeing how the law itself was the platform that gave legs to oppression and widespread discrimination.
It's also rather dismissive to assert that Slavery was somehow only a crime of slave holders/traders and not of those who were simply complicit on the issue.
Blacks have had their culture stripped from there (where possible) and bastardized otherwise. This is why unification has been so difficult. There's simply not much left to unify us.
So, IR, the issue is much more complex than you make it out to be.
The government did and does own slaves... they're called prisoners.
Slavery was legalized by the Constitution. The government taxed the sales and profits. Many government agents owned slaves. The government is of the people.
So how can the government be free of responsibility for slavery?
simply because no slaves were us government property. they were property of individual us persons.
Separate names with a comma.